File size is always an issue. Especially so if you think a 10 min. 120 megabyte file ain't no thing.
With a 1.5 megabit connection the download will take 10:40 - ASSUMING you can use all your available bandwidth for the download (not going to happen). More realistically you will get downloads in the 80-90 kilobytes/second range (which is what I'm usually getting from video services). In that case the download will take 23 minutes (230% of the video duration). From blip.tv I rarely get more than 50 kilobyte/sec (and my connection is a 1.5 mbps cable connection. Very common here). Then the download is a 41 minute download (ie. it takes 4 times as long to download as it takes to watch). To avoid the click-wait problem you will have to encode at a decent bitrate. 50 kb/s (700kpbs) is a good target. That would make your 10 minute video be 30 megabytes. A much more realistic scenario if you don't want your viewers to wait for your video to download. - Andreas Den 24.04.2007 kl. 00:23 skrev Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Why exactly is it that you're worried about file size? > > If you're talking about a 120mb file, and it's a 10-minute episode, > it's NOT going to take 10 minutes to download the 120 megs, so there's > no significant loss in the viewer's quality of experience. > > Are you concerned that the file won't play until it's downloaded? > What's the negative issue for the viewer if your files are that size > for that program length? > > -- > Bill C. > BillCammack.com > > > --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Guys guys guys, >> >> Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on >> your viewers? >> >> Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example? >> >> Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've >> been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or >> anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3. >> >> I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and >> takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity" >> issue it won't iPod. >> >> There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as >> changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the >> parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro. >> >> Waz >> >> >> >> >> >> --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> >> wrote: >> > >> > Good call, Bill. That's right along the lines of what I was thinking. >> > >> > -- >> > Bill C. >> > BillCammack.com >> > >> > --- In [email protected], "Bill Shackelford" >> > <bshackelford@> wrote: >> > > >> > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I >> > just use iPod .m4v >> > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video that >> > anyone can watch. >> > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would >> > be .mp4 video that >> > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to PSP... but .mp4 >> > videos kinda suck to >> > > playback over the web in my opinion. >> > > >> > > My feed: >> > > >> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod >> > > >> > > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my site >> > and the enclosures are >> > > the .m4v files. >> > > >> > > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been >> > looking at those. >> > > >> > > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to the feed >> > > > that works for you. http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has >> about 6 >> > > > feeds. >> > > > >> > > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being > playable on >> > > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the >> reasons you >> > > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator. I haven't >> > > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the > data >> > > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd >> make a >> > > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure it also >> > > > runs on AppleTV. You might lose some resolution that way, but >> if you >> > > > insist on having only one feed, that's the only way I can see it >> > > > working. Again, assuming there IS a LCD that you can encode to. >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Bill C. >> > > > BillCammack.com >> > > > >> > > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <steve@> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess the assumption would be that your viewers would >> subscribe to >> > > > > one feed or the other, depending on which hardware they owned. >> > > > > >> > > > > Its not ideal but it may be ideal for some viewers, depending >> on how >> > > > > fussy they are about getting the best possible qualiy on their >> > device. >> > > > > >> > > > > Unfortunately these issues are unlikely to vanish. Because for >> > all my >> > > > > evangelising about mpeg4 and h24 standards, this is unlikely >> to boil >> > > > > down to one common subset of h264 just so long as theres so much >> > > > > variation in decoding power between devices. Battery life is > a big >> > > > > issue for mobile devices and high-def TV's arent very > forgiving of >> > > > > low-quality/low res footage, so it may get worse. If > high-def web >> > > > > video wasnt so absurdly huge in comparison to what we're >> mostly used >> > > > > to, there would probably be even more confusion and conflicting >> > > > > pressures already. >> > > > > >> > > > > The jump from 320x240 t 640x480 is quite significant, I know > Apple >> > > > > mailed people advising everyone to change, but theres certainly >> > merit >> > > > > in considering still offering a 320x240 version at this > time. You >> > > > > could for example keep the ipod feed at 320x240 and offer the >> > 640x480 >> > > > > version specifically for apple TV. Because Im not sure how >> many ipod >> > > > > people use the TV out, and they might hate the increased > filesizze >> > > > > more than they appreciate the higher res they may never get to >> see. >> > > > > >> > > > > Cheers >> > > > > >> > > > > Steve Elbows >> > > > > >> > > > > --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" <elefantman@> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Bill, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Can't see how that would work, because Apple TV syncs with >> > iTunes on >> > > > > > your computer, which means your iPoddable feed. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > You could have a separate feed but this would effectively be a >> > > > > > separate podcast - and would you expect your viewers to >> > subscribe to >> > > > > both? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Waz >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" >> > <BillCammack@> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Work-around #4 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1) Export for AppleTV >> > > > > > > 2) Export for iPod >> > > > > > > 3) Two different feeds >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Bill C. >> > > > > > > http://BillCammack.com >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" >> <elefantman@> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Stupid bloody Apple, why do they DO things like this???? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Folks, this is a tough one, and yes, I've read through the >> > > > > > > Casey-initiated thread. Good start >> > > > > > > > but sadly optimistic. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The question is, how do we pump out vids that are 640x480 >> > and have >> > > > > > > the "baseline low- >> > > > > > > > complexity" profile, thus being both iPod and (presumably) >> > > > Apple TV >> > > > > > > compatible? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Baseline can be selected when exporting with your own >> > > > settings, but >> > > > > > > the "low-complexity" >> > > > > > > > sub-option cannot. According to Apple's developer spec, >> > > > > > > low-complexity has been defined >> > > > > > > > by Apple for the iPod, and it seems to be restricted to >> > the Export >> > > > > > > for iPod option, which >> > > > > > > > cannot be configured. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > When exporting an iPod video, QuickTime chooses >> automatically >> > > > > > > whether to use "baseline" >> > > > > > > > or "baseline low-complexity" - in a nutshell, anything >> > upwards of >> > > > > > > 320x240 gets low- >> > > > > > > > complexity. Gory details here: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Three possible workarounds. I am not in front of QTPro > right >> > > > now so >> > > > > > > will try later: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1) Use the Export for iPod option with the source vid >> sized at >> > > > > > > 640x480 - this will goad >> > > > > > > > QTPro into using low-complexity - and then find some way >> > of saving >> > > > > > > the resulting video >> > > > > > > > _again_ with a chopped-down bitrate, perhaps by doing a >> > "Save as >> > > > > > > ..." but without re- >> > > > > > > > encoding. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2) Do it the other way round - export at the bitrate etc. >> > that you >> > > > > > > want, then run it through >> > > > > > > > the iPod export. The developer spec suggests QT iPod >> exporter >> > > > using >> > > > > > > a 640x480 source >> > > > > > > > file will pick its own bitrate according to a complex >> formula >> > > > ("DR = >> > > > > > > { (nMC * 8 ) / 3 } - 100" >> > > > > > > > I kid you not, check out the developer link above) between >> > 700 and >> > > > > > > 1500kbps. But maybe >> > > > > > > > if the source file is already lower, it won't jump up the >> > bitrate >> > > > > > > too shockingly. The MC in >> > > > > > > > the equation stands for "macroblock" and if the number of >> > > > these can >> > > > > > > be reduced in the >> > > > > > > > source file (how? Dunno) then, doing the maths, you are >> headed >> > > > for a >> > > > > > > smaller result. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 3) Resize your source video to 640x480, whack it through >> > > > Export for >> > > > > > > iPod and hope the >> > > > > > > > filesize is not too bloated. As in the formula above, this >> > should >> > > > > > > produce something >> > > > > > > > between 700kbps and 1500kbps, although Apple doesn't say >> > > > whether the >> > > > > > > audio is >> > > > > > > > included in that bitrate (AAARGH!). >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully >> crafted >> > > > > > > 640x480 recipe with >> > > > > > > > meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that >> > delivered a >> > > > > > > file of 5MB/minute that >> > > > > > > > looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable > doesn't >> > > > work on >> > > > > > > the iPod. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove > their TV >> > > > box ... >> > > > > > > and all of the above still >> > > > > > > > leaves the question unanswered: will the aforementioned >> oblong >> > > > > > > suppository PLAY H.264 >> > > > > > > > BASELINE LOW-COMPLEXITY??? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Anyone got one of these boxes? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > That's all for now. I know none of the above is tested > but I >> > > > thought >> > > > > > > I'd post now while my >> > > > > > > > blood is up, and to give others the chance to look for a >> > solution. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Waz from Crash Test Kitchen >> > > > > > > > http://www.crashtestkitchen.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
