Doing what YouTube does but hosting your own videos.. how?

[C.P]

Ok so I recorded a 2 min gameplay ps3 video in TS format. Using Sony Vegas Pro I converted it to mp4 at 200mb. I uploaded it onto YouTube. First time using YouTube by the way. Took almost an hour to finish uploading the video and than for YouTube to process the video for streaming and play on the net.

When all said and done I pasted the embedded code onto my page. The YouTube video plays very good and offers in 360,480,720p viewing in the size that I have customize the embedded code to play the video at. Works good. I like the quality of the 720p playing is 500 width viewing.

The only thing that errks me a little is that the movie is running off of YouTube and YouTube is hosting it with it's logo and player playing the video.

I rather have my own server hosting the video and using my own possible web player playing the video just like the YouTube embedded code.

Is it possible to do that and if so how? I like the fact that the YouTube player offers 720p viewing at small size and its the reason why I'm using YouTube but if I can do it on my own it would be better.

The only thing is the original file is 200mb at 1280x720 size so I'm not sure what YouTube did to make it very web viewing friendly to run on their player.

[Baldrick]

Yes, it's possible. You basically just need a flash player like the free www.flowplayer.org and a host. Then you just put the mp4(it must be h264 video and aac audio) on the server with the flowplayer flash code in a html page.

Check http://www.webhostingtalk.com/ for web hosting deals.

And remember that you need lots of bandwitdh if you expect several thousand views and if you host huge hd video.

[C.P]

thanks for the reply. I'll look into it. I'm not worry about bandwidth as I got lots since I have my own server. And I doubt I get thousands of views too. lol

[C.P]

hmm that flowplayer.org is mess up or something I can't seem to access it.

Is anyone having trouble reading this:

http://flowplayer.org/documentation/installation/index.html

Its coming up mumble jumble to me.

[aedipuss]

no. it's fine here using firefox v3.6.3

[C.P]

yeah just found out this thing works okay on firefox but IE 8 has all kinds of problem running it.

[Supreme2k]

thanks for the reply. I'll look into it. I'm not worry about bandwidth as I got lots since I have my own server. And I doubt I get thousands of views too. lol

Server and bandwidth are two ENTIRELY different things. The server is only where you store/serve the files. Unless you own an ISP, you very well will be concerned with bandwidth. If you are serving from your own server from home from a general internet setup, you will be limited on upload bandwidth. Many ISPs limit the upload to about 1/10th the download, so it is probably not enough for streaming. Since it took you almost an hour to upload to youtube, that may be the case. I've done over 200MB to youtube in under ten minutes.

I don't really see the problem with Youtube, even with your reasoning. Free hosting, virtually unlimited bandwidth, tons of features (annotations, CC, etc.) You can't go wrong with YT or a similar site, like Vimeo (unless it's porn or something like that).

[Supreme2k]

yeah just found out this thing works okay on firefox but IE 8 has all kinds of problem running it.

I'm having no problems with IE8.

[C.P]

I don't really see the problem with Youtube, even with your reasoning. Free hosting, virtually unlimited bandwidth, tons of features (annotations, CC, etc.) You can't go wrong with YT or a similar site, like Vimeo (unless it's porn or something like that).

No what you say is true which is why I'll stick to Youtube unless I can get the flowplayer working on IE8 for me. It's just that Youtube is good for fanbase site and not professional looking ones, imo. You don't really see the professional one linking to Youtube or something like that. They host their own so visitors stay on their site and not go to Youtube. That's the thing about Youtube that irks me a little is that you can't get rid of the Youtube logo on the video and the linking to Youtube site. I'm just seeing if there's an alternative to Youtube.

The example that flowplayer provides work on IE but everytime I use that code outside of the example page or on my own webpage is doesn't work on IE8. The player would load up the video doesn't load or run when I use the code outside of the example page.

[edDV]

I don't really see the problem with Youtube, even with your reasoning. Free hosting, virtually unlimited bandwidth, tons of features (annotations, CC, etc.) You can't go wrong with YT or a similar site, like Vimeo (unless it's porn or something like that).

No what you say is true which is why I'll stick to Youtube unless I can get the flowplayer working on IE8 for me. It's just that Youtube is good for fanbase site and not professional looking ones, imo. You don't really see the professional one linking to Youtube or something like that. They host their own so visitors stay on their site and not go to Youtube. That's the thing about Youtube that irks me a little is that you can't get rid of the Youtube logo on the video and the linking to Youtube site. I'm just seeing if there's an alternative to Youtube.

The example that flowplayer provides work on IE but everytime I use that code outside of the example page or on my own webpage is doesn't work on IE8. The player would load up the video doesn't load or run when I use the code outside of the example page.

Describe your internet connection. Upload bandwidth in particular.

[Supreme2k]

It's just that Youtube is good for fanbase site and not professional looking ones, imo. You don't really see the professional one linking to Youtube or something like that.

On the contrary, many big studios and companies host on Youtube, such as Warner, Sony, and Kodak, just to name a few.

I understand the need to have a more personal, select look to you broadcasts, but YT is far from just amateur hour.

[fitch.j]

If you want a much more customisable way of hosting your videos look at Vimeo ( http://vimeo.com/ )and in particular their PLUS option which is superb value for money. They can be shown without any links back to vimeo, and any acknowledgement that it is vimeo hosting them. on the front page of this schools website is an example: http://www.harris-school.co.uk/
It may do as you want to get your 'more professional' look without having to worry about bandwidth and limits like that.

[lordsmurf]

It's just that Youtube is good for fanbase site and not professional looking ones, imo. You don't really see the professional one linking to Youtube or something like that.

On the contrary, many big studios and companies host on Youtube, such as Warner, Sony, and Kodak, just to name a few.
I understand the need to have a more personal, select look to you broadcasts, but YT is far from just amateur hour.

The primary reason is Youtube can steal your traffic.

If you agree with this, awesome, you understand the web theory around this issue.
If you disagree, I unfortunately don't have time to explain it to you.

Warner, Sony, et al don't have to worry about this, but non-F500 companies will.

[Supreme2k]

If traffic is all that you are worried about, then that is that.

Youtube will not necessarily "steal" your traffic if you embed. Neither I nor my clients have to pay for the bandwidth consumed by the videos we show, and the traffic hasn't gotten any lower. Even if your content is only viewed from Youtube itself, you still get the exposure. I guess you'd be surprised at how much work I got from posting a few review/how-to videos there (both writing and film jobs) from companies who have said "I saw your video on Youtube...".

[porfitron]

Have you checked out the DivX Plus Web Player? You can host a DivX/AVI or DivX Plus/MKV file on your server and users view it through a browser plug-in that allows multiple tracks of surround sound audio, softsubs, and you even have the option to let them download it so they can play it on DivX certified devices (like the PS3).

Documentation and examples are here:
Web Developer Guide - http://developer.divx.com/docs/DivX_Web_Player/
Code Generator - http://labs.divx.com/WebPlayerCodeGenerator
Labs page with working example - http://labs.divx.com/node/14711

[laurentje]

Other possibility: hosting the mp4-files on
- BLIP.TV
- Archive.net
- Dailymotion
Using JWPlayer embed on html-pages hosting at your provider
Examples: see http://home.euphonynet.be/roland_marianne/index.htm
(Click on one of the options in the left column)

[webvideopro]

One thing I didn't see mentioned is that all YouTube is doing is reencoding your 200mb video to a much smaller version. You can do the same thing using Handbrake or other video encoder and exporting out to H.264/AAC at 720p around 3Mbps data rate.

Regarding the playback size of 500px wide, it is a total waste of bandwidth to view a 1280x720 file at 500x? size.

[handyguy]

But if you put a video on the web & link to it directly it should open & play in your browser just fine without any other software.

[laurentje]

200MB for 2 minutes streaming in flash-player? Is this possible? I should limit to 1200 kbps (kilobits-per-second).