I've heard in various places that YouTube has something called a "Java Uploader" that has no file size limit. Might you encoders be able to use this to get around the 15 minute time limit without needing a director's account?
I don't really know anything about all this, and I've never even uploaded a movie to YouTube, but I figured it might be possible this thing exists, is useful, and that you guys hadn't heard of it.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
It's the only uploader I use (All the others are too unreliable for 100mb+ movies).
Let me dispel two one myths, there is a filesize limit, 20 gigabytes a file, and there is still a 15 minute time limit whatsoever. Edit: Dang you post fast.
So unfortunately, I'm as uninteresting as ever.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Link to video
The video file I uploaded was 775 megabytes (For just 59 seconds!), and needed every single megabit per second in order to have decent quality.
But even at 1080p (Where the bitrate is almost purposely limited to 30 megabits by the YouTube transcoder, it's also worth nothing that this doesn't have Original mode due to the mode not existing at the time of upload), there is still major quality issues. So, yes, unfortunately, YouTube isn't perfect, but we try to squeeze as much out of it as we can.
The point? Uh... well... we like to feed YouTube extremely high quality videos. That, and to get HD videos for games such as Sonic 3 and Knuckles, you need to break 1 gigabytes per segment, or else YouTube simply won't have good enough quality material to transcode for Original mode.
It's worth noting that a TODO of mine is finding out the maximum bitrate of Original mode to find out what the max effective bitrate should be for HD encodes.
I thought youtube was meant to butcher movies to get them below X size, so how come it doesn't do that with your videos?
If you upload one gigabyte of footage and I watch it at 360p, how much of that gigabyte am I downloading?
It's worth noting that a TODO of mine is finding out the maximum bitrate of Original mode to find out what the max effective bitrate should be for HD encodes.
If we're going to adapt (probably downgrade) our bitrate to the maximum that YouTube can handle, why are we still encoding in 60 FPS instead of 30?
Patashu wrote:
If you upload one gigabyte of footage and I watch it at 360p, how much of that gigabyte am I downloading?
Depends on the original resolution. But, given x is the original vertical resolution, you're watching (360 / x) ^ 2 GB of the original gigabyte. Unless I'm gravely mistaking.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Scepheo wrote:
Flygon wrote:
It's worth noting that a TODO of mine is finding out the maximum bitrate of Original mode to find out what the max effective bitrate should be for HD encodes.
If we're going to adapt (probably downgrade) our bitrate to the maximum that YouTube can handle, why are we still encoding in 60 FPS instead of 30?
We probably won't downgrade the bitrate due to the fact that most HD movies we make are far below 30mbits, even at peak. Da Aztex! is simply a very unusual exception to the rule. The reason (Well, I, anyway) encode at 60fps is because I lack the computational resources to make a blended 30fps movie, and the bitrate would actually be significantly higher with blending, which makes it impossible for me to upload the movie due to being stuck on 384kbits upload ADSL, if you want to pay for a 896kbits upload connection, be my guest... it'd be great, hehehe.
That, and blending isn't appropriate for games that don't use flicker effects.
Unless I am misunderstanding something, just encoding at 30fps by decimating the frames would result in movies of the same quality we have now. At least, I understood YouTube reduces the fps by decimating. So, blending would actually increase the quality of the videos, as flicker effects would still be visible, instead of having sprites remain solid or disappear.
And how exactly would halving the fps increase the bitrate?
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Decimating the fps on site would reduce the bitrate (Something I actually need to get to doing, I admit), but blending, due to the inherent blur, will increase the bitrate because the imagery becomes a hellava lot more complex.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
creaothceann wrote:
Flygon wrote:
The reason (Well, I, anyway) encode at 60fps is because I lack the computational resources to make a blended 30fps movie
Encoding speed, or tools?
Encoding speed and Hard Drive space, actually.
Encoding on just 20 gigabytes isn't exactly the worlds simplest task. This is why I'm constantly saying that the other publishers seem to wildly overshadow me.
