[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday, 9 April 2020 21:43:50 BST Michael Everitt wrote: > On 09/04/20 21:33, Pentiddy wrote: > > Thanks Simon, > > > > I actually had not searched on the web... find it all a bit much to take > > it all in so was asking if anyone had any helpful suggestions... > > Yes, I mind Ads. Almost all the free services will put adverts either in the videos or around them, which is fair enough at the price. I have Flickr for personal photos, they also do video, wonder if you might have a photo service or similar that does the same you already pay for? > > The Videos are teaching Aikido exercises, so not pornography... > > The videos are likely to be around 2-5minutes long. > > They can be mux'd to any format, but guessing mp4 is likely to be the > > 'best' I have just uploaded the first to YouTube because it needed to be > > done, but I'm happy to look at others- I have no loyalty in that respect, > > only my students will be viewing the videos... > > It did take nearly 1.5hrs to upload a 4minute video (260Mb). Maybe I can > > reduce the size/quality a little as its not porn! If it does it whilst you sleep, probably easiest to let the service get on with it unless you are pressed for time or bandwidth. If you do have to re-encode for size you can think about it in terms of the peak bandwidth they have when watching, I'd suggest at least 2Mbps. You can likely get quite good video quality for Aikido at that sort of bandwidth, unless there are a lot of people moving in shot, or a lot of scrolling camera work in 4K. Most people can get much more than 2Mbps, and those that can't are use to the buffering, and it won't be for too long. > I think you may find that YouTube re-encodes on the fly to whatever it's > native format is - so your original file size may not matter. > Not 100% on this, but have heard similar. Almost everyone will re-encode video you upload. Unless you are some sort of video editing genius this is probably for the best, people like YouTube put a lot of work into encoding, and codecs which can be scrolled forward and backward, with keying frames regularly spaced, whilst taking up minimal disk space, and bandwidth, but delivered in all the sizes they need from smart Watch to 8K cinema. I've worked with trying to host me own video before, and seen what getting good across multiple browsers that "just works" (and "works well") requires, and frankly it isn't worth the effort unless you are a professional video hosting service. Ironic because it was once the bandwidth costs that stops us doing this, not the complexity, and now we have a video tag in HTML it is the complexity not the bandwidth costs. Although then we were happy we had video working at all, and now everyone expects it to look like Blu Ray at 4K with no buffering and CD quality sound, starting instantly, or they move on. Biggest problem I've seen from re-encoding is sound quality. You obviously lose video quality and they compress it to save storage, and possibly lose some when sending it down to you depending on bandwidth, but the big video services are good at that, and video codecs are good at degrading gracefully. Had various issues with sound quality at Facebook, but not so much recently (may have been bugs sampling particular audio formats). Just upload the biggest cleanest best quality video and let the hardware take the strain as much as possible would be my general advice, you can waste a lot of time being clever, which is probably better spent worrying about content, quality of sound recording, marketing etc. My professional sound guy friend said pretty much the same, you can do all sorts of things in the sound room, but you can't recover things that never got caught by the microphone, and getting good clean recording saves a lot of time later. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG https://mailman.dcglug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq