I'm not debating *anything* with you. :) You have some kind of problem, and we're trying to find out how to solve it for you. Don't interpret my questions to you as being against what you're saying. I'm trying to understand it so I can give you an answer that helps you out.
So far, my original answer stands... multiple feeds. --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, it all depends on the speed of your internet connection, now doesn't it? That depends on your delivery. If you're delivering through iTunes or Democracy Player, the video's going to be downloaded before it starts playing, so bandwidth isn't an issue at all as far as playback experience. It's definitely an issue as far as how long someone has to wait before they can start playback. If you're using progressive download, it only has to load slower than your program plays back, but... like you said, that depends on your internet connection. The question becomes "who are you trying to cater to?" and "do you know what the bandwidth is of your viewers?". If you're trying to serve to people with dialup, obviously you need to use a different data rate than serving to people using cable modems. This is why I'm saying to use multiple feeds. You can cater to each set of viewers according to bandwidth requirements and offer everyone the best quality for the system they have available to them. > The fact is I _am_ concerned about file size, and the bandwidth consumption imposed on > viewers. And I also want to have control over the parameters of an exported file. Whereas > you don't see the issue. So there's really not much point in me debating this with you. You're telling me your issue now, which is why I asked you what your issue is. There's no debate going on here. The first thing you asked about had to do with AppleTV vs iPod. Obviously, AppleTV allows for much higher bandwidth usage than iPod. NOW, you're saying you're concerned about file size and imposition on viewers. That makes the obvious choice to serve as efficient a file as possible, taking AppleTV bandwidth limits completely off the table, as you need to use the lowest common denominator IF what you're concerned about is how long it takes for people to download the video. Since you want to use only one feed, you're going to have to serve your AppleTV video at 'inferior' bandwidth because you also need it to run on the iPod. On top of that, you want it to be as efficient on the iPod as possible. Your focus is on download speed and not quality of presentation. The two are opposites. The more data you push through per frame, the more detailed that frame is. Meanwhile, you're making your file size larger and increasing your download time. The LESS data you push per frame, the faster it downloads, and the smaller the file is... but the less detail there is per frame. Your only way around that is to encode at a lower FPS so that you retain quality at the expense of smooth, fluid motion, say, coming down from 30 fps or 29.97 to 15fps. That way, you could get twice as much data per frame because you're outputting half the number of total frames in the same amount of time. > In the end, I want to get our latest episode up, and I'm tired of racking my brains and > Google for a solution - so I might just go with the 120mb "Extorted for iPod" file and see > what the response is. > > Waz Good luck. Let us know what you decide. :) -- Bill C. http://BillCammack.com > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> wrote: > > > > 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" <elefantman@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
