Best Way To Distribute Video Online? 227
CHAMELEON_D_H writes "For some time now, I've been working on a short, geek/nerd oriented animation. It's nearing completion, and I'm starting to look for a method to share it with anyone willing to spare a minute. There are dozens of video sharing and streaming sites out there, making my choice very difficult. Looking for the best possible video and audio quality, while still having vast OS and browser compatibility leaves me dumbfounded. Having a download link would be a great bonus. Youtube is the default and most common choice, but has mediocre video quality and resolution. DivX Web Player has astounding quality, but requires users to download DivX's plugin and forces me to find hosting or purchase more bandwidth, as they no longer serve videos via stage6.
Do Slashdotters have any experience with sharing or uploading videos? Problems you've encountered? What do your eyes say about different streaming video sites?"
why not both? (Score:5, Informative)
Vimeo (Score:5, Informative)
I mostly see things pop up on Vimeo when people don't want to post them on Youtube for quality reasons.
SimpleCDN (Score:5, Informative)
Flat fee per upload. Plus you get 15 credits just for registering.
http://simplecdn.com/ [simplecdn.com]
Their MirrorCDN option is also nice, depending on what you're doing. $.07/GB is less than half of what S3 charges for transfer rates.
imeem.com has pretty darn good video (Score:5, Informative)
Try the higher quality YouTube (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube has a "high quality" video upload option. I've watched a few - most of them are pretty good. Might be suitable for your purposes, and of course, universally accessible. Check it out:
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hlrm=en&answer=91450 [google.com]
Here's what I've seen done (Score:5, Informative)
Put the crappy version up on Youtube. It lets people see what you're about and whether they'd like to have a better version.
Now here's the trick: in the video description area, include a link to a torrent tracker with the higher quality version. Seed it yourself to get the ball rolling, watch it take off from there.
I've seen people who make game videos do that sort of thing, like when it's show-off clips or game music videos and the like.
The advantage of doing it this way is you increase the stumble-on factor by being on Youtube and people can see your video in seconds. Those who care enough to demand the higher-quality version will have the torrent link and be very happy. All around, win-win. Now aside from using a p2p app and thus directly supporting the terrorists, you're all set.
Self fulfilling prophecy? (Score:4, Informative)
I think this [noamr.info] is the video.
I know (or believe, rather) this wasn't your intention, but I am working on the coveted "Commander of the Obvious" award for most obvious solution.
Re:Try the higher quality YouTube (Score:1, Informative)
or just append &fmt=6 at the end of a youtube video (good for hotlinking) :)
you'll notice that the "watch in high quality" option will no longer be here
--
pieggi
Try your best to future-proof it (Score:5, Informative)
Youtube has ruined reputation of flash. (Score:4, Informative)
Please don't accuse me of a flash advocate, but it's really not their fault. Youtube encodes video at a lower quality to save bandwidth.
Flash actually support multiple codecs. h.264 is the standard used today for many video encoding needs. h.264 is sometimes used with youtube and flash, but to what extend I don't recall.
So really flash is like any other player. The best way to send video over the internet is to first encode it into h.264
Laugh in the face of melted servers (Score:2, Informative)
Spend a few bucks converting a high quality source to Flash Video format. THEN:
If you want to host it yourself, check out HaXeVideo [google.com]. Also, Red5 [osflash.org] is supposedly widely adopted.
If you're uncomfortable with open source, check out Wowza or FMS2 - both of these proprietary servers let 10 people watch your video at the same time, and come with plenty of examples. As long as your computer is connected to the internets & you know how to configure a router...
DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:5, Informative)
DivX is a CODEC (enCOder+DECoder) for the MPEG4 video format.
You can play DivX encoded videos with every MPEG4-compatible decoder.
Every other information is only deliberate disinformation by DivX Inc. to sell you their trash.
But why would you use such an outdated and non-free codec in the first place, when there are enough alternatives.
There are x264, XviD, Theora as video encoders,
Matroska and Ogg as containers,
Vorbis, MP3 and too many other formats and encoders to count for audio.
And nowadays eveybody who watches downloaded films has those on his disk anyway (except maybe for Theora and the Ogg DirectVideo demuxer).
Torrent. (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody brought his site to his knees, 90% of the people probably just watched the YouTube video and everyone could watch it.
If the link points to a torrent, the site is even more likely to be able to withstand lots of users downloading the video.
That's what torrent where designed to begin with (before the format became also popular on sites like pirate bay) : to enable content provider to distribute huge files without killing too much bandwidth.
All the poster has to do is to send some way or another (using a plain HTTP link, or sending burned CD-R through snail-mail) the file to a small amount of friends who could all seed the file initially and everything will be ok.
Here's some tips (Score:3, Informative)
For streaming on site:
1.
Convert your movie to MP4 with AAC sound and use some free, open source flash video player like http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player [jeroenwijering.com] for streaming.
2.
Use Vimeo. Very good quality.
3.
Offer Youtube clip and Vimeo and downloads on the same page.
Regarding bandwidth:
1. Offer the movie in 3-4 sizes
2. Use a torrent tracker (either on the server or something like PirateBay), it helps.
If you don't want to use bittorrent and he expects lots of simultaneous downloads, buy a dedicated server with a lot of bandwidth.
For example, FDCServers.net offers some servers with up to 15 TB (avg 50mbps) of download pretty much guaranteed, at about 150-170$.
Keep in mind though, if he wants quality bandwidth (not really needed in this case), 100 mbps link (33TB) usually goes for about 500$ a month.
Re:Torrent. (Score:3, Informative)
&fmt=18 (Score:3, Informative)
The secret to YouTube is adding &fmt=18 at the end of the URL.
My fiance just put up her first professional music video, and the quality is pretty good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op11TX0ELIg&fmt=18 [youtube.com]. The benefits of ease-of-distribution, in my opinion, far outweigh the loss in quality.
Plus, as you hit the high levels of quality, you shut out more and more people as the speed increases.
Re:DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:4, Informative)
DivX is not just a codec. DivX 4 through 6 do use the MPEG 4 Part II video spec (ASP) but what's important is that DivX defines additional constraints such as limiting the use of different bitstream features and data rates for CE device classes with varying capabilities to ensure a high quality playback experience on a very wide range of hardware. DivX Profiles (e.g. Mobile, Home Theater, 1080 HD) also constrain file format features and valid audio formats for the same reason.
This is why you can buy $50 devices that are certified to play all your DivX files smoothly so long as you've encoded them to the correct profile. Can you walk into a store and easily identify something on the shelf that you're absolutely certain will play any other combination of formats? I bet most people can't.
But why would you use such an outdated and non-free codec in the first place, when there are enough alternatives.
DivX Codec was just updated last month.
There are x264, XviD, Theora as video encoders,
Matroska and Ogg as containers,
Vorbis, MP3 and too many other formats and encoders to count for audio.
x264 is a good codec, but good luck finding a low-cost DVD player that supports it. Xvid is a comparable video codec to DivX and provides compatible output options - i.e. leveraging the support DivX has built in low-cost CE devices. Theora has no CE support that I am aware of, and I don't think CE support of Ogg is either extensive or thoroughly tested by anyone. Vorbis as an audio format is only recently being supported even in PMP devices (sure, you can find a handful here and there).
If the only thing that's important to you is playback on your desktop then sure, do whatever you like. I like creating my media so that I can pass it to friends without worry, watch it on my TV with my $50 TV player or connected device, transfer it to my phone, etc.
Every other information is only deliberate disinformation by DivX Inc. to sell you their trash.
One of the greatest values of DivX is that an interoperable and largely open platform that has been created to bridge the gap from your desktop to the world of consumer electronics. Name any other high efficiency video format openly accessible to the general consumer that almost any software can export to that works on thousands of low cost devices from hundreds of manufacturers. Infact, name some other companies dedicated to making platforms that are so open and accessible who have actually been fairly successful in doing so?
Where is the love? :)
Re:DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:5, Informative)
XVid is basically the same as Divx so that is fine, but the rest are weird non standard junk not supported in very much. That's something you reencode to avi as fast as possible if you can't get it in avi to start with.
Non standard junk? x264 is an encoder for h264, which happens to be the standard format for high quality video.
Matroska is the best generic container format (replacing the flawed avi) as well as open standard and open source based. It does suffer somewhat from not being the industry (as in big business) standard, but on merits it is the best on the market, and with the increasing use to distribute high definition content in the scene, improved hardware support is very likely.
The mpeg container format (.mp4 - can't remember its real name right now) is industry supported which means that it is implemented in more hardware, but compared to Matroska it is less flexible. Still, when using h264, I won't blaim any business for going with that format, even though I prefer to use Matroska for all my encoding.
As for Ogg and Theora, they are far less common. Ogg is pretty much dead in the water. Matroska simply won over it at the start, and ogg has never been able to recover from that. Theora is nice in that it isn't patent encumbered, which is a plus for businesses that need to think about licenses, but to be honest it will have a hard time replacing h264 or its older sibling mpeg4 (divx,xvid). The usage for theora lies in specialized software playback such as games, where the playback engine is included and license fees can be troublesome.
Re:DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:4, Informative)
Besides (AFAIK) SD DivX content cannot be progressive
Quite the opposite! Most of it is progressive. Both progressive and interlace (top or bottom field first) is supported. However, progressive is recommended because it requires a much lower data rate for the same quality.
interlaced is not good for desktops (and deinterlacers suck). Therefore if you want HD or desktops then H.264 can be a better choice.
Interlace indeed is not great for desktops, but the DivX Decoder for DirectShow can ask the renderer to de-interlace. On most modern graphics cards you'll get nice 50/60fps bob, which looks really fluid. H.264 is troublesome, especially for 1080HD, because decode requirements for 1080HD H.264 are much, much higher than for 1080ASP, upon which DivX is based. This is because the format itself is more complex (smaller blocks, longer references, CABAC) and due to mandatory in-loop deblock, whereas post-processing in ASP can be adapted based on real-time playback performance.
Not to mention that there is huge amount of devices capable of H.264 (iPod, etc.)
What is "etc."? ;) AFAIK there is iPod, PSP (with some quirks), and there is Blu-Ray, and that's it. Additionally, there are multiple H.264 levels and multiple H.264 profiles and you can't just move content between devices without targeting them appropriate. iPod, for example only supports Baseline profile [apple.com]. High profile decoders (i.e. Blu-Ray) are not required to support all of the features present in baseline profiles.
However, DivX is already working on an H.264 solution designed for interoperability. Check it out [divx.com] ;)
Re:DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:5, Informative)
Matroska is the best generic container format (replacing the flawed avi) as well as open standard and open source based.
Matroska is nice, but AVI is not "flawed". Lots of people dislike AVI and can't explain why, only that they have heard others also saying that it is "flawed". AVI has supported a wide range of compressors including DivX and Xvid for many years successfully. AVI is certainly not best suited to H.264 but given that AVI, introduced in 1992, stems from IFF, first introduced by Electronic Arts in 1985, you can hardly call that a flaw. The main technical challenge that AVI writers have to deal with is correctly writing VBR audio streams - an issue that has already been addressed for many, many years.
Maybe you can explain why you think AVI is "flawed"?
Re:DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:3, Informative)
Compatibility. Next to nothing uses Theora and Vorbis, and Matroska and Ogg are very obscure container formats that require codec packs to be installed AND only work on a handful of platforms. For example, Matroska only works properly on Windows.
Well this sucks. I ripped my entire Simpsons DVD collection, encoded it using x264, and put each episode in a Matroska file using GNU/Linux. And all this time I've just been hallucinating while I was watching them! On my MacBook... My Nokia N800... I'd better run out and get a copy of Windows so I can install a CODEC pack that allows me to watch all these videos in the MKV container--maybe the VLC player? That's a CODEC pack, right? Thank you so much for exposing my apparent Mplayer-induced delusional episodes.
Re:DivX is NO FORMAT! (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps "flawed" is not the best word to describe the AVI container format, however it is definitely outdated and no longer the ideal format for modern video/audio. Matroska is without a doubt superior to AVI, with its only flaw being that it is not yet supported by much of the "industry".
AVI has had many shortcomings that have since been overcome by extensions, such as the 2gb file limit (solved by OpenDML). Most importantly for today however, AVI does not natively support the newer HD video/audio codecs and/or their features. A few of them can be made to work through hacks, but this breaks compatibility.
Matroska, on the other hand, is a truely universal format which natively supports virtually any video/audio codec. It was designed specifically to be easily extensible and future-proof. Plus, it has support for chapters, subtitles, and menus (although as far as I know, there aren't yet any tools which allow the creation of mkv menus). Also, unlike AVI, Matroska can contain an unlimited number of audio, video, and subtitle tracks inside a single file. I've been using Matroska as a container for my files for years.