VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've searched high and low on Google for some articles or discussions about video frame size and bitrate considerations for selling downloadable (not streaming) videos. With 6+ mbps internet connections widely available, are file sizes not a worry anymore? Should full 1920x1080 HD be scaled down to 1280x720 which is still plenty big for normal computer monitors? Has anyone written on this subject? I know there's loads and loads of discussion about streaming video, but that's not my goal here..
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Rule#1: with video, there will ALWAYS be worries about file sizes.

    Rule#2: Filesize = Bitrate * Running time.
    Extrapolate this out - filesize = DL xfer rate * Download time.
    To use in your scenario, you already know (?) the xfer rate (6mbps), and you need to decide what is the limit for a reasonable amount of download time. Once you know that, you know the filesize, and you already know what the running time is, so that will give you the target bitrate. Then you decide which to trade off with that bitrate: quality or resolution (assuming an efficient codec like h.264).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  3. With 6+ mbps internet connections widely available,...
    depending on where you live, see:
    - http://chartsbin.com/view/2484 (based on Pando Networks 'Global Internet Speed Study' from Sep 2011)
    - http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ (based on Akamais 'State of the Internet' report from Q3 2011)
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    With 6+ mbps internet connections widely available, are file sizes not a worry anymore?
    Those are usually burst, not sustained rates. At your end, the upload sustained rate will probably be less than 1 mbps so the user will only see 1 mbps or a fraction of that if multiple users are downloading.

    Your cable company can sell you business plans with greater upload speeds but expect to pay much more.

    The cheapest way to go is upload to a 3rd party service like Youtube, Vimeo, UStream or iTunes.
    Last edited by edDV; 31st Mar 2012 at 04:50.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    I was thinking the OP would have already pre-uploaded to a "storefront" site, so that the question was more about acceptable waiting while downloading...

    I agree with Selur, most NoAm or EU would probably AVERAGE 1-2mbps sustained.

    Scottt
    Quote Quote  
  6. I just thought about: "What bit-rate would I accept as a minimum bit-rate if I were to buy a h.264 file online?"
    (assuming: a. I'm interested in the content and b. I does not use any 'funny' copyright protection)

    Since I would want some quality content, I probably would say:
    for SD content: 1.5MBit/s (video bit-rate)
    for 1280x720: 5MBit/s (video bit-rate)
    for 1920x1080: 8MBit/s (video bit-rate)
    at a first glance some folks would say that these bit-rates are higher than needed and that one can produce really good videos with half of that, but than one has to think about:
    1. I'm paying for the content
    and
    2. I don't have any control over how the content was created/compressed/filtered and I probably can first download a i.e. 5min sample of a hard to compress scene of the content to be sure the quality is as I hope,..

    Cu Selur
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    I'm with you on that...
    Quote Quote  
  8. It is a difficult choice really, some folks can just be focused too much for the resolution of downloaded video, it has to be said before download so it might influence number of downloads itself. They want to see full HD stickers all over.

    But you can create 960x540 video with 4000kbps, you can send it to fullHD screen and customer will be drooling anyway ...With this size there is no blockiness, artefacts, which are necessarily introduced with much higher resolutions an lower bitrates you talk about here.

    This is valid for home videos, or semipro production, semipro camcorders. I hope OP doesn't mean ripping or some sort of this activity ...
    After personal experiences I think it is always better to encode a bit lower resolution for more effective result, but as I said, ..., marketing is a bi***
    Quote Quote  
  9. With this size there is no blockiness, artefacts, which are necessarily introduced with much higher resolutions an lower bitrates you talk about here.
    Sorry, but in my point of view that is just a way to say:
    "Sorry, I don't know how to do a decent filtering job, or I'm really in a hurry and need some quick&dirty fix!"
    Especially for stuff like " home videos, or semipro production, semipro camcorders" a decent filtering job can save you a lot of bandwidth, lowering the resolution to quarter HD just seems like a thing I would accept from someone who doesn't know much about video editing and stuff, but especially if I have to pay for it, this seems just wrong.

    A = 1920x1080 = 2073600
    B = 1280x720 = 921600 (A*4/9)
    C = 960x540 = 518400 (A/4)
    C is like a 'cheap man's way to deinterlacing', so may be a good idea if you need to go for gpu based encoding, due to speed issues. (youtube&co like stuff)

    -> in general I agree, that lowering the resolution and therefore smoothing the content is a thing most people with can live with.
    Why? Because they do not have the equipment to see the difference, but looking in the future even tablets are getting higher resolutions so throwing away the resolution this way seems like the wrong move.
    It might be okay for 'throw-away-content', like some downloaded stuff, but for private stuff (which has some lasting value and that will be edited&stuff in the future) or stuff I pay for, lowering the resolution should really be one of the last resorts and not, like it sounds to me when I read you comment, like a 'no-brainer' first approach.

    Cu Selur

    Ps.: Sorry, for the rambling.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    Sorry, for the rambling.
    no problem, this topic asks for it. I can see people boasting how they can encode videos , supposedly top with quality result , that they have "special way" how to do it, and then they post some terrible example. They prefer sharpness over blockiness. Keep higher resolution for some sake. I am not talking about YouTube where video is butchered again but as OP perhaps means - encoding to final step.

    Filtering is a must I agree, bitrate can be half as oppose to without filter in some cases. I'm glad you mentioned filtering, because original question is so general, there is a lot of variables (style of shooting, content, lighting, fps,shutter speed, encoded fps, filtering).

    Home videos or for the matter all videos should be backed up with original size, possibly with no compression at all, or projects should be kept together in one place with original clips.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I didn't realize all these replies were here, I need to catch up it seems,, thanks I will read everything over =)
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    What do you guys mean by filtering exactly? I'm not using GPU encoding, just CPU from Sony Vegas, to I guess MP4 format..
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    IIRC, Filtering was used generally here to designate preparatory operations that would be required to make the intended video more "compressable".

    This would include:
    1. High freqency filtering (removing finest detail, usually through blurring)
    2. Averaging of multiple passes (to remove randome noise)
    3. Median filtering (to make flat areas more consistent: more consitent=repeatable code=greater compression)
    4. Optimize the dynamic range, but with Noise Reduction
    5. More complicated things like spatio-temporal filtering (motion/shake control, etc)
    6. Many, many more...

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Damn....is all of that necessary?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sdsumike619 View Post
    Damn....is all of that necessary?
    Depends on how much you want to compress and your quality tolerance.

    From an engineering viewpoint, greater quality is retained by optimizing resolution and bit rate (e.g. 960x540).

    From a marketing viewpoint, customers value "1080p" or "720p" as a first impression of quality so that forces efforts into filtering to achieve reasonable quality at lower bit rates.
    Last edited by edDV; 12th Apr 2012 at 14:04.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    What kind of program would you use for the filtering, and is that done before or after the encoding, or simultaneously?
    Quote Quote  
  17. No.

    There are mainly four ways to go for filtering:
    1. don't do it at all if you don't have to (in case your input is interlaced make sure your target format also supports interlaced encoding, otherwise you need to deinterlace)
    2. do some minimal filtering that won't harm the source but boost compression (some soft deblocking, denoising and deinterlacing if need be)
    3. do it proper look at your source, do decent motion compensation based, denoise, degrain, adjust colors, etc. depending on what you do some people call it restoration
    4. do it in a wrong (i.e. always call a deinterlacer independent of the fact if the source needs it or not, deinterlace by lowering the resolution vertically by mutliples of 2, smooth even if it's not needed, always do color corrections,...)

    Most people who understand the basics normally stick with 2. and tend to go for 3. if the source needs all the love it can get.
    A lot of people who thing they know what they are doing but basically don't understand a thing, always aim for 3. but end with 4.

    Cu Selur
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!