Agreed. 

  

-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Quirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:44:55 
To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] client-side transcoding/uploading

Ok.
 
 My original request for server-side transcoding still stands though. I
 think it would be very valuable for the indpendent publisher to have a
 service that could transcode to a number of formats:
 wmv
 3gp
 flv
 
 My laptop can handle transcoding, sure, but it takes a lot of time and
 energy, and while it sits around transcoding for 3 hours every day, Premiere
 and Photoshop run slower.
 
 I still say that I would pay for a transcoding service.
 
 AQ
 
 On 11/5/06, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: <mailto:sulleleven%40gmail.com> com> 
wrote:
 >
 > This is the latest example of client-side transcoder/uploader:
 >
 > http://www.on2.: <http://www.on2.com/developer/on2publisher/> 
 > com/developer/on2publisher/
 >
 > brightcove is using it.
 >
 > like i said earlier in this thread and for a long time, this approach is
 > smarter and will become more commonly adopted... though many do and have
 > disagreed. brightcove seems to think it makes sense.
 >
 > eventually, you'll see these tools equipped with more codec support. and
 > podesk.com has been doing this since like late 2004.
 >
 > server-side transcoding will still serve a purpose, but it will be used
 > less for free social video hosting projects. in fact, let's see if/when
 > youtube switches. blip, what do you think about this?
 >
 > sull
 >
 > On 10/7/06, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
 > <mailto:shirson%40taconic.net> net<shirson%40taconic.net>>
 > wrote:
 > >
 > > --- In videoblogging@: <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> 
 > > yahoogroups.com 
 > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
 > > "Rick Rey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > >
 > > > I agree that transcoding is server intensive and costly in that
 > > > respect. But frankly, as an end user this isn't my concern. And these
 > > > costs will shrink over time. Yes there are a number of free
 > > > transcoding options available -- I know because I use many of them
 > > > myself. However, I would rather push this part of my workflow onto a
 > > > 3rd party platform and save myself the time of transcoding and
 > > > uploading multiple files. This would save me hours per week, and if it
 > > > worked well (and allowed me some say in the quality, bitrate, etc) I
 > > > would pay for it.
 > > >
 > > There are a couple of things I don't undersand about server
 > > transcoding. I may be a special case because I have Flash 8 files that
 > > are encoded at 30 fps at the best quality I can make. (I cannot chop
 > > frames because I have a website about deals gaited horseback riding.
 > > It may be the narrowest-niche blog on the web, but anything less than
 > > the original framerate makes the horses look like sewing machines.
 > > http://www.hestakau: <http://www.hestakaup.com> p.com) So I have some 
 > > large files.
 > >
 > > I edit in Final Cut Pro and export a QT reference movie at full
 > > settings. I then compress that in FlixPro for a bitrate of 512 KBS. I
 > > have full control of all the settings. If it is a short clip I output
 > > a SWF file. Longish, I make an FLV and a separate SWF player.
 > >
 > > I then FTP these files to my media host server. The short files are
 > > around 10 megs or so, but it is not unusual for me to have a 70 meg
 > > FLV file. I am not near the computer where I do this work right now,
 > > to give exact figures, but the original QT (not a referene movie) that
 > > would be sent for comression would have to be HUGE! A 25 minute
 > > uncompressed, independent QT file... several gigs!
 > >
 > > I also have all my original files and copies of the Flash files on a
 > > local hard drive in case I need to change hosts, re-edit, etc.
 > >
 > > With my own encoding on FlixPro, I can go for an optimum streaming
 > > experience with no buffering although sometimes the video stutters
 > > depending on traffic.
 > >
 > > It would seem to me that one would have to do an awfully long ftp
 > > session to send an independent QT file to a server for encoding. And
 > > then, if you want control over how it would work on a website, such as
 > > a popup, you would want to get the encoded file back.
 > >
 > > Am I missing something here?
 > >
 > > Server transcoding would require an enormous amount of ftp work, would
 > > not give you the parameter control of your own encoder and then you
 > > would often not have the files on your own host (depending on the
 > > sevice).
 > >
 > > Stan Hirson
 > > http://www.hestakau: <http://www.hestakaup.com> p.com
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 > --
 > Sull
 > http://vlogdir.: <http://vlogdir.com> com (a project)
 > http://SpreadTheMed: <http://SpreadTheMedia.org> ia.org (my blog)
 > http://interdigitat: <http://interdigitate.com> e.com (otherly)
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 > 
 >
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 
   

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to