BTW, Today's http://Galacticast.com :
AppleTV version = 203 mb. iPod version = 98 mb. 3gp version = 17 mb. -- Bill C. BillCammack.com --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <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 > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > >
