Flash player settings from Encore export

20 replies [Last post]
Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Adobe Encore CS5 can export as a flash file (flashdvd.swf) along with:
Authoredcontent.xml
index.html
Theme.xml

When index.html is opened to view content, it autoplays.
I would like to change it to await user pressing start.

I think I need something on the lines of:

though attempts so far are unsuccesful.
Any ideas?

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

autoplay=false should be a parameter defined in the .swf file not in the .html

I don't use encore so can't tell you how to do it there. I import the .flv into an .fla file in flash, define the parameters there and then export the .swf if that's any help.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thank-you Chris.

I have Flash CS5 as part of package, though I haven't found it intuitive.

As need is small I haven't been tempted to delve into this pro/deep tool.

Bumbling my way through Flash, I have imported the flv, selected a player with transport controls and exported the swf, but no transport controls seen on output.

If I publish instead, I get transport controls, but reduced size player and no video content.

Encore does have option of using template, which could conceivably incorporate player settings (perhaps even this could be done as a dynamic link from flash), but I suspect this template is nothing more than a pretty b/g image with no tweakable code.

Flash help is mainly for help filling in gaps of product knowledge rather than starting afresh.
(I'm starting to read the F1/Help 'Getting started')
Are there any online tutorials you can reccomend to teach me the structure of flash components?

Michael.Bradshaw
Offline
Joined: Aug 1 2005

Hi Dave, I have no clue about flash at all but have used encore to export entire dvds to flash when i need someone to preview something online quickly.

A suggested workaround would be to make a simple html page with a link that directs to encore's index file which then plays as normal.

Or make your first play in your encore project a looping or static menu with a single button that will link to the main menu of your project, thus launching the rest of the project.

I imagine either would work but doing it all in encore might make it a little easier and neater than html.

M.

ps. i never get to use the word thus.

EVGA sr-2/ 2x x5850 win7 x64. Editing in Ppro CS5 Shooting on Sony Z7, nex-VG10

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thank-you Michael.
The 2 examples are functional workarounds, good lateral thinking, though it personally annoys me as a user/web browser when I have to go through pointless navigational steps (e.g. splash screens) and these days the more clicks it takes a user to get to destination, the more chance they wil click away to some other webpage.

I'm therefore not keen on either, but thinking about the situation with 1 link page with several links (each with 1 autoplay video), I'd be happy with it.

I believe the code should be serving the user though, not vice-versa, so I'll keep trying for a more elegant solution.;)

Michael.Bradshaw
Offline
Joined: Aug 1 2005

no problem, sorry I'm not more help. I'm out of my depth with flash. I have it as part of the suite but don't even think I've opened it.

EVGA sr-2/ 2x x5850 win7 x64. Editing in Ppro CS5 Shooting on Sony Z7, nex-VG10

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
Michael.Bradshaw wrote:
no problem, sorry I'm not more help. I'm out of my depth with flash. I have it as part of the suite but don't even think I've opened it.

Maybe this is the push we both need. It's a shame to have a pro tool and not use it - especially when we would benefit from it on occasion.

Maybe we should take a look at youtube for examples of benefits it can bring to our respective workflows.

I used to be in IT and have since acquired html and a few other web based skills, but have to be careful not to be jack of all trades and master of none. :rolleyes:

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

Dave you have a PM

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
Michael.Bradshaw wrote:

Or make your first play in your encore project a looping or static menu with a single button that will link to the main menu of your project, thus launching the rest of the project.

I've since concluded your menu approach will be better - though I will likely use several menu buttons to 'jump' etc.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

In testing flv versus f4v, my understanding is that f4v quality is similar, but can also optionally handle metadata/text etc.

In using encore to generate each file type I find the f4v produces a file around 3.5 times bigger. That's same project/source, with same output size and same duration.

In tests with p.pro CS5, f4v produces a file around 2.25 times bigger.

All using CBR.

Anyone care to comment why?

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

flv and f4v are the container formats, it's likely that flv is using the vp6 codec and the f4v mpeg4 h.264.

Did you not get the long pm reply I send?

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
ChrisH wrote:
flv and f4v are the container formats, it's likely that flv is using the vp6 codec and the f4v mpeg4 h.264.

Did you not get the long pm reply I send?

Hi Chris.
Yes thank-you, rec'd your PM of 15/2/11 and replied same day?

I acknowledge the 2 different formats use different codecs, but given that 'f4v' is the later version, I would expect it to be as efficient or better than 'fla' at compressing file size, other things equal.

My test showed that rather than being same/smaller, the 'f4v' option produces a file several times bigger than 'fla'.

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

Hi Dave
Ok my reply to your pm seems to have got lost on it's virtual way.

This was it...

"I'm guessing you want to put some of your video pieces onto your website, and I think from what you are saying is that you would like to put several onto a single page, and disable autoplay so they don't all start at once.

Please correct me if I have this wrong.

By far the easiest way to put your videos onto your site is to upload them to youtube, vimeo etc and use the embed code they provide to place them into your pages. There are also lots of reasons why you might not want to do this, copyright issues for a start. However it does solve some of the encoding, embeding issues if you are happy to use a third party to host them.

If you don't wish to sell your soul to mephisto and you want to do it yourself, that's great but it's a bit of a learning curve, and there are some complications around the use of different codecs and container formats.

As I understand encore is really a dvd authoring tool and encodes in mpeg2, which is not really suitable for web streaming. It may now have the ability to encode in mpeg4 but even if it does it doesn't seem to be giving you the control you need.

I would use the Flash Video Encoder in the CS5 package to make your .flv or .f4v files using either h.264 or vp6 codec, both are excellent. Or use handbrake. They will allow you to make them the size you want.

You then upload these files to your web space and create an .swf file that provides the control skin and reference container that you embed to point the browser at the video. You export the .swf file from a flash project file, that's the .fla I keep talking about.

You are right the size of the swf embed is odd because it needs space for the control skin.

Before you go further, you might wish to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Video
http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html
http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/

Don't panic though, I can set one up for you once you have a video encoded the way you wish and uploaded to your webspace.

all the best
Chris"

so the answer to the flv versus f4v question may be in the limited control you have in the software you are using.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
ChrisH wrote:
Hi Dave
Ok my reply to your pm seems to have got lost on it's virtual way.
...

As I understand encore is really a dvd authoring tool and encodes in mpeg2, which is not really suitable for web streaming. It may now have the ability to encode in mpeg4 but even if it does it doesn't seem to be giving you the control you need.

Hi Chris.
I received that and replied to it, but I now see the reply has gone from my sent box.

I don't wish to use use 3rd party tools for copyright/control reasons.
Encore CS5, goes beyond DVD/Blu ray to output to flash, using either fla or f4v format.

>so the answer to the flv versus f4v question may be in the limited control you have in the software you are using.
There are quite a few controls to amend size/quality/bit rate other codec settings as for any encoding, but I'm trying to compare like for like, so avoiding changing other items for fair comparison.

Using P.pro for similar flash export the f4v variant is only about 2.25 times bigger, but still significantly more, contrary to expectation.

In your experience how does f4v match up to fla, for same image size and bit rate?
Am I right to expect f4v to same/better than fla for same file size?

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

Hi Dave
I understand what you are trying to do but I think you are going to struggle to get a simple answer. You are comparing different codecs through the CS5 GUI so you're not getting absolute control on how they are being configured. Also they are different codecs and don't handle the footage in the same way.

If you want to do a comparision I would start with a direct comparison between containers using the same codec .f4v which will use the h.264 codec and a quicktime .h264 (main profile if you are given a choice). So long as they use the same profile you may be able to see any difference with the different software GUI.

or if you are able in CS5 to define the codec for two .flv files set up the same but one using vp6 and one using h.264 . The .flv container will support either.

Edit..
h.264 main profile is not really intended as a streaming profile the extended profile is. On2 VP6 may be more efficient with lower bit rates. You may need to explore h.264 extended profile encoding..

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Doing more tests on P.Pro CS5 which has more control, the presets used for starting point have bit rates stated and tie with video and audio bit rates, for both f4v(h264) and flv (on2 vp6).

'Fla' exports at expected file size, but 'f4v' (768*432 @ 900kbps, 16 second source, 25 fps) comes out at 3697kb.
(3697/16* 8) = 1848 kbps, twice the pre-defined data rate.

The '900' kbps preset is comprised of:
video 850 + audio 48 kbps, =898 kbps, so ties in with preset label.

I understand f4v accommodates metadata, but I haven't included any metadata to my knowledge and having a file twice what it should be is self defeating its prime purpose!

To me, this isn't subtle differences in codecs, it's P.pro and Encore producing results which have no resemblance to the parameters.

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

I don't have p.pro CS5, so can't see the options you have with the GUI to export the f4v files. However, my thoughts are:

1. Even though you are using CBR is there a buffer/ quality setting which you can set to allow the CBR freedom to make better quality output from difficult footage.. fast action etc?

2. Some of the new encoders ( for example handbrake) are moving towards quality rather than data rate settings to define the outcome, is there a flexibility / quailty setting that's hidden away on the f4v advanced options?

3. Can you run a test and compress the file using quicktime with the same settings to make an h.264 .m4v file. It's all the same mpeg4 standard so really the m4v and f4v should be giving you the same output size? A test like this would be a help us to understand what's causing this.

4. Can you split the file into 2 x 8 second sections and encode using p.pro f4v and see if they differ?

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thank-you for your persistance Chris.

On P.Pro the presets are based on format, frame size, aspect rate, frame rate and data rate.
Upon making choice as starting point, can change to vbr, change bit rate, key frame interval etc and others, but all of these are a balancing ac,t but the bit-rate should be as set and produce exactly that, regardless of other parameters.

Some tolerance is expected, but file size 2 to 3.5 times larger ain't right.

In the normal course I would be happy to do tests (and have done already) to get the balance of quality/frame size etc right for needs, but as no one has said that f4v works correctly for them, (from p.pro/encore) I don't wish to spend time working for adobe, so I'll report it to them as a bug.

I haven't had any comment from anyone that f4v is better than flv (metadata search aside), so that also reduces incentive to find a workable f4v solution.

Test note:
CS2 does not have F4V option (has FLV)
CS4 on 16 second test (video bit rate .9, audio .128) total bit rate 1.028.
Output file 2090kb = 1.021 megabits per sec, so spot on.

Conclusion - bug is CS5 only.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
Conclusion on how f4v may encode files oversized

To recap on the problem:

P.pro and encore were encoding f4v files (not flv) much bigger than the preset settings or selected bit rate should produce. I have proven where and when it does this and a workaround.

QED - I have found what is wrong - tracks which have 'toggle output' set to 'off' - blind video tracks and muted audio tracks are being included somehow in the process.

My test sequence comprised of 5 avi files 'stacked', with only the top track set with visibility on and it linked audio set 'on'.

I switched to a different sample clip 13 secs long - in case my 16 sec sample was dodgy.

With this 13 sec sample and 4 underlying blind/muted tracks it produced f4v 768 432 900kbps files of around 1541kb (=930kbps) so correct.

I unlinked the video/audio components of the blind/muted underlying tracks and deleted 1 component at a time, either just the video or just audio and found each made a reduction to final file size. For example 1 video component (without its audo) deleted made about 300kb less.

So the encoder is wrongly grabbing disabled tracks, but when it does it's only adding 20% to file size - not doubling.

Imbedding the sequence to be exported within another sequence from which to do the export does not get round this bug, so:
My conclusion is:

When exporting to F4V, only use a flat file source, if it is linked or imbedded elsewhere, then those linked assets must be flat files.

Returning to encore, my timeline is the p.pro time line dynamically linked.

Rerunning the encore build with the p.pro blind/muted tracks deleted produces a much smaller file -and comparing flv versus f4v, f4v is 7% larger on my preset test, but quality is noticably better. But flv versus f4v on quality/functionality is another debate - my thread is about the encoder not producing results as per its parameters.

ChrisH
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2004

Thanks for letting us know what you found out. Fascinating stuff, you could have been a detective.

I guess what you have revealed is how these advanced container formats are structured. They seem to be getting to be more like VOB files are for DVD's in there ability to contain multiple video and audio files as well as structural, timing and meta data. The reason the F4V did it and not the flv was this advance in functionality, so maybe not a bug at all.

Some interesting detail about ISO Base Media File Format here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format

With regard to quality yes the h.264 contained in the f4v is going to be better than the VP6 in the flv container, especially with HD footage. The advantage of the vp6 is one of simplicity, it's less processor hungry for older computers, and it is still excellent. However, if you are prepared to spend time with some of the better x264 based encoders you can get outstanding results from the h.264 codec or maybe look at WebM HTML 5 and VP8. Remember too that your flash video won't work with iphones and ipads..

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
ChrisH wrote:
The reason the F4V did it and not the flv was this advance in functionality, so maybe not a bug at all.
...
Remember too that your flash video won't work with iphones and ipads..

Thank-you Chris.

I was aware of the f4v container possibilities, so checking source had no settings that may trigger metadata/transcript etc was one of the first things I did - along with checking the output in Adobe Bridge - where I could see it only had only the normal basics recorded as metadata.
...so maybe not a bug at all.
I asked myself the same question - with hind-sight.
1)To include blind/muted tracks goes against what every NLE vendors NLE does, and any 'feature' added is not documented. In googling this issue, it amused me that on 2 occasions I came to my own post :rolleyes:
2) If the blind/muted track was included in the f4v file (akin to DVD subtitles), it would double file size, not increase by 15-20% per track.

So, I'm in no doubt myself it's a bug.

I did wonder why no one else has spotted it, but concluded that most people would just take the output without checking the bitrate.

I wasn't aware of the iphone/ipad shortcoming, so thank-you for that. I don't get involved in web design as much as I used to. With multiple browsers/interfaces means its not effective to keep up to date with a sparsely used skill.