I want to point out a common misconception about uploading large files to the org. I'm most grateful for them to host the files but in their assumption, large files can only be justified by long runtime lies a mistake. The assumption, all videos use the same Framerate. A video with twice the framerate will in some cases double the filesize to a video with lower fps.
In my talks to moderators about uploading a fast paced action video with lots of cgi to the org they told me that 135 mb is too big for a 220 seconds 720p 48fps Avatar Music Video (10600 frames)? Based on the Japanese BluRay footage i already compressed that video very high and JCD and mirkosp were really giving me a lot of help in the process but i won't go higher than crf 22 (they suggested crf 21 which was ofc bigger) - it just doesn't look like it should. And i wont get those 35 mb out of it if i don't go to crf 25 or 26.
My point is: Filesize shouldn't be measured by the runtime but by the frames and resolution. By frames my Avatar Music Video would be 7,5 min long when encoded to 24 fps. I'm highly disappointed of the org at this moment. Maybe a general statement saying "high framerates are bullshit - don't try editing like that - we don't care either" would be awesome. in that case i wouldn't need the 50 extra hours for it to make editing and rotoscoping look perfect.
I want a large file request solution that acknowledges "frames equal filesize", not "runtime equals filesize"? And maybe a rule "if you only upload 2 videos a year to the org we won't bith that much about 35 extra mb - if you upload 2 videos each week you are already getting enough from us"? By that i could at least upload my video to the org and get quick comments. Or how about quick comments for the direct/indirect download. I want the org feedback. That's why i am here.











