What matters is mb per min.... what's the math with division involved? jen
On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:11 pm, Bill Cammack wrote: > BTW, Today's http://Galacticast.com : > > AppleTV version = 203 mb. > iPod version = 98 mb. > 3gp version = 17 mb. > > -- > Bill C. > BillCammack.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" > <BillCammack@> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Good call, Bill. That's right along the lines of what I was > thinking. > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Bill C. > > >> > BillCammack.com > > >> > > > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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/ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
