Downloading
 

I was wondering whether people don't mind downloading large files/videos from the web. If you don't mind downloading large files - what would the largest file size be?

I.e.

An 1 minute video compressed to MPEG, file size 20 mb

Do you mind a lower quality video which lasts longer, or a higher quality video which is shorter.

Hope this makes sense,

Ed Smith

I think one minute should be under 10mb. Let´s say between 7 and 10mb for clips that last a few minutes.

Cheers,

Ed...

For my preferences, I put a lot of effort into producing high image quality video. I will distribute nothing less and will not spend any time on low rez. Therefore, give me short, hi-rez, hi quality stuff over long, poor rez blather. This is a large issue with the development of internet streaming video. Until hi quality stuff can be streamed into every portal, video on the internet will be limited to flash type animations.

I always go for the best quality. I regurlay download files
in the area of 100 - 800 mb. But it might be wise to offer
different size to accomodate not so eager to download people.
As long as I can download it (instead of only streaming it)
and the quality is good I am happy!

Cleaner can produce three different files for different modem speeds (with one click)...plus generate the code for the web page.

Cheers guys for your import. I thought that people don't mind downloading good quality large file sized videos, its just I was trying to justify the space on my server to put some of the work I have done, including my showreel.

Next thing I am thinking about is Internet TV - now thats my dream, my own TV station broadcasting live to millions of people through out the world from my back yard, dream on...dream on...

Any way of doing Internet TV via a PC?

Cheers

Ed

Ed,

This is already possible.... through streaming media. Most
of the streaming software out there supports "live" broad
casting I believe. The problems you are facing though are:

1. quality : the slower your connection and the clients
(or the network it goes over) the more worse the
quality/resolution/fps becomes.

2. your bandwidth: to support multiple broadcasts you
need bandwidth. The more the better. This is going to
chance in the near future with the new IP standard IPv6.
This standard allows routers to distribute your signal
to multiple clients instead of yourself. The more bandwidth
you need the more you pay, simple. For much users you
even need more than one server.

An interesting thing might be to talk to a streaming server
company. They have more bandwidth and server than you
can ever afford (or want to for that matter). They can scale
to hundred or thousand of users if needed (and if they are
good). Ofcourse this costs money as well. As everyhing does
in this world.

I hope you could follow it all... Good luck!

Cheers Rob,

I was wondering if there was any software to create live internet broadcasts, like Live channel which is only available on Macs.

The only thing I have seen is a complete OB system made by Pinnacle called Stream genie (http://www.pinnaclesys.com/ProductPage.asp?Product_ID=26) - a portable studio in a box.

I'm looking for something which would allow me to have at least 3 live video feeds, with much of the features the Live Channel software has, but available on PC.

All the best,

Ed

Ed,

RealMedia has streaming server software. Microsoft and
QuickTime have this too. It is an application you install
which allows client to connect to your server and stream
from there. Ofcourse these packages cost money, but
perhaps you can find a demo or some other way to try
them.

Thanks Rob, I'll look into it.

Is there any direct URL's for those types of software?

Cheers,

Ed

Ed,

I found the following ones in a couple of minutes:

Real: http://www.realnetworks.com/products/media_delivery.html
Quicktime: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/ (mac only?)
Windows Media: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/distribute/hosting.asp

Thank you very much, those links have been most useful, and you have opened my eyes up to things which I had not realised I would need in order to create my dream.

Thanks again,

Ed

Your welcome!

For what it's worth, I have found that there are just too many different types of computer setups and far too many people on the planet that can achieve nothing better than dialup speeds. In most instances this is not because they don't want to spend the extra bucks each month for DSL (or equivalent), but because it is simply not available in their area. Is it fair to restrict downloading large files to people who just can't view them due to their connection? I don't think so.

I have found that people on broadband connections will rarely opt for the low rez download. Here is what I have started to offer for choices:

*QuickTime 320x240 30FPS IMA4 audio compression @ 44.1Khz

*QuickTime 320x240 15FPS IMA4 audio compression @ 44.1Khz

*QuickTime 160x120 15FPS IMA4 audio compression @ 44.1Khz

The top option is for people on broadband connections. The second option is for people on dialups who are patient. The third option is for people stuck with dialup. IMA4 is definitely the best sounding of all the various audio compressors availble for QuickTime.

But that didn't solve the problems, for lots of platforms can not play QuickTime. We have found MPEG looks pretty good, but not as good as QuickTime. For those people we offer:

*MPEG 320x240 30FPS

*MPEG 160x120 15FPS

Obviously the top one is for people who cannot play QuickTimes, but have a broadband connection. The latter is for people on dialup who can not play QuickTimes.

Then finally there is offered a full DV resolution file:

*DV QuickTime format 720x480 30FPS W/uncompressed audio

Of course these files are insanely large, but you would be very surprised at how many people DO download them! Non-linear home editing is a lot more commom than many people realize. :)

Bottom line, if you want your work seen, offer various options.

Do you have any numbers on which files and types get
downloaded how many times? It is interesting to see
what file type people actually prefer (besides DV).

Sorry, nothing definitive. I need to get that Wusage program running on the server again!

To answer your question though, the QT high rez download and small rez download are generally the most popular. MPEGs coming in after that, then the medium QT. Obviously DV was the least popular, but I do believe the last training video got a couple hundred downloads of the DV version.

People use what they have.
Most Mac users will use QT
Most people who have windows machines use windows media
and everybody uses Realplayer.

I think that what you use to stream should be decided by who do you think will view the video. When I stared the icanstream.tv web site. We decided that we wanted everyone who wanted to see somthing would be able too.

I created media in all 3 formats in both broadband and narrowband versions.
Thus creating 6 files for each video. Extra work and storage for sure but it got the highest number of viewers.

Broadband 320x240 15 fps
Narrowband 160x120 7.5fps

We kept the video to under 5 nimutes and max megabytes to 15megs for broadband
And about 2megabytes for the narrowband.

Adam

The thing I found out when doing online video is that some poeple
are still half way computer literate.

When showing video on the web you should first think about these poeple
and prioritise for there needs. One example would be to make sure
you have a variation of sizes for download and formats as well,,just as
Adam had said above. Quicktime for the Macs and MPG, AVI or WMV for the PC's. I dont recomend using RealPlayer formats, Most poeple dont have
Realplayer, even though it is free to get it, the site displays the product as if
it needed to be purchase for download, and makes it a point to descreetly
display the link to the FREE version. Plus most poeple still run a 56k, which in turn will result in lengthy download times for realplayer and intsallation
just to view a video clip.

Also i usually make my videos streamable not downloadable, a sign of the movies progress amediatly after clicking the link.

I make sure they appear in the same window as the link, in opposition to
pop-up windows. I do this becuase poeple are now instinctively closing out pop-up windows before they are even loaded due to web based advertisments and such.

Its always best to treat your web work as if you had monkeys for an audience.............. Then your users shouldnt run into major problems while navigating your site.

I must also throw in a bit on Real player. Besides the video and audio looking like CRAP, there are problems with the program itself. I have performed a few tests with a friend of mine and with a clean formatted drive and everything installed, the systems run perfectly. Once we add that infernal Real player to the computer, all sorts of odd glitches start occuring. Re-Ghosting the drive to "pre-Real player" state clears ALL of the problems every time.

I know there will be people who disagree and I'm not posting this to start any kind of argument, but my experience has shown that Real player has SOMETHING in it's programming that Windows does not like. As for me, I just don't like the quality of it and refuse to distribute anything I do in that format on the basis of quality alone.

I agree that Real is not acceptable in even its best quality. But Real isn't really my main issue. I hate all streaming video in general. It just looks waaaay too bad, even with broadband. No way would I ever submit anything I've created to such a horrible A/V treatment that is streaming video. At least with downloads everybody gets the same quality (depending on which version they choose, of course). If someone on a broadband connection downloads a 12 meg file, it will look exactly the same to the person on a 28.8 dial up who downloads that same 12 meg file. Streaming video is unreliable and does not always achieve consistant results.

QuickTime streaming can look very very good (especially with the
Sorenson codec), but, and this is a big but, only for users on the
fastest connections (300 kb/s +). I prefer download as well. I'd
rather download for 2 hours then watch a crappy version. But
this ofcourse, is just my 2 cents.

Realplayer is not a very good picture compared to QT, plus you are bombarded by realmedia e-mails.

But then you have to ask yourself why do the BBC use it to stream live news feeds over the net?

Just a thought,

Ed Smith

Real sucks, to be sure. The quality of the video can be good, but everyone I know who installs RealPlayer immediately regrets how intrusive it is. For developers, when you use Real you are putting someone else's ads on your site. If you want to white label Real not only can it cost a lot of money but it is a long, involved process.

Actually Real does *pay* large high profile sites to use its product for the extra brand recognition.

Contributing to the "Real" bash
 

As a consumer of web video (both stream and download), I can tell you that when I see the word "Real", I immediately leave the site, never to return. It took me months to clean all the crap out of my system that Real downloaded before I knew them for what they are.

As a future provider of web video (still deciding between stream and download), I will not provide a Realplayer version. I plan on starting with two versions of QT, one for dial-up and one for broadband users. If I see the need or get statistically significant requests for WM, I will add that, too.

I agree on Real, I don't check out real footage as well. Since a
year I haven't gotten it installed anymore. I prefer quicktime
as well, but I don't prefer streamed. There are a couple of
reasons:

1. I like to get the highest quality version, which is not always
possible when streaming (if my company line is very busy for
example). I download will take longer, but gets me this.

2. If it is any good, I like to keep it and see it again sometime.
Only possible when you can download

3. Download can be continued. Streaming might be, but is
more difficult

4. I might not want to watch it now. I only have a dialup
connection at home at the moment. I use my coprorate
leased line for the heavy stuff. Most of the time I want
to watch the downloads at home though.

So if you want to go down the streaming route, please include
downloadable versions as well. This should be very easy
with QuickTime since you are basically offering the same files
if I am not mistaken. I rarely watch any streaming stuff, I always
tend to download.

This, ofcourse, is just me.