I need someone who has deep knowledge of formats and video formats to explain something to me. It helps if you know the process behind downloading videos from reddit or facebook and then sending them on whatsapp.
My problem is that sometimes when I download a video from reddit and try to sent it to my friend on whatsapp the video in whatsapp wont be recognized and doesnt has a "preview" and also keeps a unique name or the name of the original title where I downloaded it.
like seen here: https://gyazo.com/e514c5520670d3ef157ae91c11dc369d
I try different websites to download videos easily, mainly the ones that pop up on google search first and it workst 90% of the time like a charm.
But sometimes the video gets named "DASH_720_X.mp4" and then it looks like this in whatsapp:
I want to understand it why and how can I prevent it beforehand.
I got no problem to start up a command prompt and convert the video with ffmpeg, it's just I need to understand first what's causing it. Is it the wrong video codec whatsapp is not supporting, is it the container thats different than the other videos!?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
This question is hard to answer without specific examples. There are many container formats out there. And each container may contain different combinations of content formats. Not all of them are equally supported by all kinds of browsers. Just one example: AVC (H.264) in MP4 is pretty common, HEVC (H.265) in MP4 less, WebM (VP8/9 in an MKV subset) is different again. Then there may be variants which are streaming-friendly, whereas the opposite may fail to display anything if the download is incomplete.
Providing links of examples would be useful, or at least MediaInfo reports of such downloads.
This is just one example of a video that Whatsapp doesnt support and I had to fiddle around with ffmpeg but no matter what container or codec I chose, whatsapp didnt recognize the video.
I tried Mpeg 4 with MP4, or H264 with AVI and some more. I should have written it down to be 100% which combination I took but it was annoying that none would succeed.
Why not just send "your friend" the link to the original video rather than tying up the web and helping to create the need of yet more electricity guzzling server farms? Problem solved. Think of all the extra time you'd have to do something more fun and/or worthwhile. And, of course, people wouldn't think that you were just some parasite leeching off somebody else's hard work and talent . . .
It doesn't have to be a snowman ... eeh, online converter. Of course you can use a local application too. Recommended attributes are:
- Container = MP4
- Video codec = AVC (H.264)
- Audio codec = AAC
But it appears to be important that the whole result is not bigger than 16 MB. So you may prefer a 2-pass encoding where the video stream only is limited to e.g. 15 MB.
I didn't give any personal advice, I just asked a question. The fact that you went all rude and defensive, and didn't answer my question kinda says it all.
Have a good weekend.
Sorry, LigH.de and Shepherd81. I seem to be in a bit of a plssy mood today. Have a good weekend, both of you.
Since you stress out how important it is for you to not use unnecessary bandwidth or additional storage (which is kinda silly in 2019 but ok and especially for me since I worked for Netapp several years you would have saved a lot of time and electricity yourself by staying on topic and not bringing in, what I think was, a patronizing attitude.
I reckon you don't see it that way but just see it as how you were received here and take it as an input you might consider in your future posts to prevent unnecessary misunderstandings.
Have a nice weekend.
Well, I wasn't in a plssy mood this morning until I read your uber-patronising post just now. I think, if it's OK with you, Mr Just-joined-the-forum-in-Dec'19, that I'll disregard your advice on forum etiquette until you've been here at least 15 minutes! I think I'll also point out that one other post from LigH.de is hardly a rising up of the good folk here to deliver a resounding slap on the wrists for my behaviour, is it?
As you've got my gander up, I'll ask the question again, why not just post a link? IIRC this forum is against piracy, warez and copyright infringement, and as you clearly don't own the videos you're trying to download and re-upload somewhere else, I don't think it's a rude question. (One I notice you still haven't actually answered yet.)
Oh, and if you think the minuscule amount of electricity and storage space needed for a couple of posts on-line is even vaguely comparable to the amount of electricity and storage space needed to re-encode and store even a small video file then I can only assume that either you weren't very good at your job at Netapp(?) or you weren't working on the technical side of things?
Purely from honest curiosity, I too would appreciate an answer to the question "why not just link to the video?"
There seems to have been a sudden spate of topics along these lines in several video-related discussion forums recently, and it really is baffling to me why people now want to go to the time and trouble of re-encoding and re-uploading already-posted videos they can easily just link to. I don't use social media at all, never was drawn in, but I understand its appeal to others. What I don't understand is the sudden interest in hashing around with existing videos for re-post instead of linking: it seems counterintuitive.
Isn't whatsapp is more of an "alternative texting" platform than social media anyway, with tight constraints on embedded video? So if you could provide a hint as to why there's a sudden trend of people wanting to re-code and embed existing videos instead of linking to them, Shepherd81, it would help me feel less out-of-the-loop. Thanks!