Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Encoding for the Web With Matrox MXO2 Mini with MAX Option?
- I can say after being in all 48 continental United States in the last two years that this country that is just more than rural areas that have poor service. There still major cell phone carriers that don't have towers in major cities - try to get an ATT signal in Denver or San Francisco. All of Wyoming, most of New Mexico, Texas, South Eastern Cali, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, half of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa are all covered by satelite providers which is roughly half the speed of slow DSL.
Though, don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking people who have the technical knowledge, it's required, but I am saying for the purposes of doing YouTube, cable television pilots, or even television itself I have never had anyone comment on the quality or raise the issue. The most common request I get from execs is, "Can you send me a smaller file?"
I carry my reel on a small HD camera, and that is just a shot of my editing desktop - handheld.
HD is a standard that is being pushed by the technology companies, not the industry, with most actors not really wanting to do HD pieces because it makes them look older, all the lines, wrinkles, details. I know that I am 35 and i have to be on camera and I NEVER do it in full HD lol
All of this being said, I will be delivering two movies this year and having a rendering expert would be nice. It's a whole different beast to render a full movie than a 5 minute video blog.
From: Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Encoding for the Web With Matrox MXO2 Mini with MAX Option?
> As far as i am concerned it is YouTube and the bandwidth does not exist yet - our infrastructure - to support people viewing HD videos. Being on the road and in motels i have never even been able to get to finish a download of a video.We used to have these debates often as early as 2004 when we were
> I'm not saying sacrifice quality, but you have to consider your audience and their bandwidth allocations.
> Next thing you know you spend 5 hours rendering something so have peolpe click on 240p when they have satellite internet in most rural parts of the country - which of you have traveled is like 80% of the country.
> So my response was to just not give a shit about it. I used to adamant about doing everything in 1080p but then I doubled my P2 storage when I reduced it, and to this day no one has ever noticed.
> Just throwing out an alternate view on being over-technical
posting 320x240. All files under 5mb. Adrian Miles was the loudest
advocate for the smallest files since Australians and others are
charged by the megabyte. He called it "bandwidth pollution"!
Great thing about Youtube is that they downcovert for you. So upload
your highest resolution, and they'll convert smaller sizes. Plus its
always good to have high res masters for the future.
The US certainly has a bandwidth issue in rural areas. But if you take
the past seven years as an example, I think things will just get
faster. I had satellite internet until they installed DSL about three
years ago. If broadband providers don't keep expanding capacity, then
this leads to bigger issues than just watching HD videos.
917 371 6790
540 860 0673
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]