Streaming from animemusicvideos.org

[BasharOfTheAges]

We still billing this as an opt-in thing?

[Corran]

We still billing this as an opt-in thing?

It will be an opt-out thing.

[BasharOfTheAges]

We still billing this as an opt-in thing?

It will be an opt-out thing.

Ok - just making sure we could still opt out.

[LittleAtari]

Its coming soon. And the quality is better than boochsack.

While I'm sure that you guys have researched and tested the streaming videos that you plan to have, I just wanted to clear something up. Boochsack quality is not bad. The quality problems most AMV makers get when uploading their stuff to tube is caused by uploading the wrong type of file. Boochsack asks for the least compressed file when uploading, but we tend to upload h264 MP4s and Xvid AVIs two-passed or quantizer 4 or however people deal with xvid AVIs. My point is upload the least compressed file and you get nearly perfect results. PPforya (Org name DaikashiSan) and I have re-encoded AMVs to be Xvid with quantizer set to 1 and uploaded them to the tube. Here's what we got:


Tube link: http://tinyurl.com/dg9c78


Tube link: http://tinyurl.com/dyup9j

The point of this post really is to make sure what you guys are comparing the quality to. From what I can tell, the average AMV uploaded here and the Tube is Xvid AVI, h264 mp4, and wmv. Obviously I don't know what method you guys are going to be using when converting videos for streaming, but I figured that it doesn't hurt to say the following: Obviously, you guys dont expect us to upload two separate files (one for download and one for you guys to convert for streaming). It'd be very convenient if, unlike the Tube, it didn't matter what kind of file we uploaded for optimum quality (restricted by the video's original quality of course). I'm hoping that the method of conversion involves some sort of process in which quality is consistent without having to worry about streaming larger files to preserve quality. As you can see in the method that PPForya and I used, the videos went through possibly three conversions: One or more by the original maker, one by us via VdubMod + Avisynth to get the large Xvid files, and then finally through the Tube for streaming. Whether you guys want to use a similar method is up to you. It's just something to consider when you guys are developing the streaming video.

Also, someone correct if I'm wrong, but if streaming is only going to be for donators, I don't see how it's going to make that much of an effect on the Org's traffic. Considering that most newcomers are not donators, they'll look at the free options they have on the net such as the Tube and kh-vids.net and probably just go to those. With WMG's break away from the Tube, we've gotten a lot more new people coming in and uploading their videos. If we want them to stay, we have to be able to offer them more.

[godix]

Boochsack quality is not bad. ... My point is upload the least compressed file and you get nearly perfect results.

I was curious so I took a look at one of your links. From what I can tell tube quality really is that bad and if you think that is 'nearly perfect' then you're damn near blind. Or, perhaps, that really is representative of your videos quality in which case you just plain fucked up somewhere. I mean come on, I'm not one of the quality snobs running around but that looks like shit. Their HQ option has the video quality I'd expect out of a video made in 2001 or 2002 before h264 or even xvid became common. The non-HQ version looks only slightly better a low bitrate mpeg from the 90's.

[godix]

Case in point:


I choose the scenes for both videos by just randomly clicking on the timeline somewhere. Either Yuna has no facial features or the encode that is a decade old actually has more details than the HQ tube video.

[LittleAtari]

Alright so I decided to take some snap shots comparing the original video with Tube's HQ feature on. The Tube video is on the left and the original is on the right (screen shot from Vdub):


looks like Yuna didnt have many facial features in the original.



Okay, so I guess I spend too much time on the Tube so that videos that look like this have become passable to me =|. I could try this with a newer higher quality video, but looking at the second screen shot, I dont see much of a point. So I hear we're getting streaming better than boochsack?

Sidenote to on godix's comment about my perception of quality: I'm glad it hasn't been completely tarnished

[Corran]

Its coming soon. And the quality is better than boochsack.

While I'm sure that you guys have researched and tested the streaming videos that you plan to have, I just wanted to clear something up. Boochsack quality is not bad.

I think Derobert was basing his opinion on YTs non-HD streams.

For Sayde's video did you resize it prior to uploading to youtube? The original is 720x480 without any aspect ratio flags.

The biggest issue I have with the videos you linked is that the HD streams are 27.34MB and 34.42MB respectively.

I encoded the same videos using the current settings and the encodes were 12.93MB and 13.28MB.

For reference this is what the encodes look like.


Filesize: 12.93MB
Examples removed now


Filesize: 13.28MB
Examples removed for now

As you can see they are not as good as youtube's HD quality but they are significantly better than the SD versions. (even though filesize is almost the same as SD versions) Our goal in this in not to have the best, most awesome video streaming quality on the block... It is for preview purposes and if you like the video then you can download the original quality local file.

Also, someone correct if I'm wrong, but if streaming is only going to be for donators, I don't see how it's going to make that much of an effect on the Org's traffic. Considering that most newcomers are not donators, they'll look at the free options they have on the net such as the Tube and kh-vids.net and probably just go to those. With WMG's break away from the Tube, we've gotten a lot more new people coming in and uploading their videos. If we want them to stay, we have to be able to offer them more.

It isn't 100% donator only, there will be non-donator perks... maybe not enough to draw users away from youtube but hopefully the perks encourage users to donate to get the full feature set.

[godix]

Okay, so I guess I spend too much time on the Tube so that videos that look like this have become passable to me =|. I could try this with a newer higher quality video, but looking at the second screen shot, I dont see much of a point. So I hear we're getting streaming better than boochsack?

Alright, apparently randomly clicking somewhere near the start where the tube video had already loaded produced a below standard source image for my example. The second image you did is much better quality than the example I got. I'm not saying this quality isn't 'passable' either, if I still keep and watch videos encoded in 1999 then obvious video quality ain't my primary concern. I was just arguing the tube isn't 'nearly perfect results' as a glance at even your second image will prove.

Which I suppose is rather academic, unless I'm totally off base the org is approaching steaming as kinda like a sample. If you want the full quality video you download it rather than bookmark (or save) the streaming copy. As opposed to the tube where noticeable quality loss is the best you can possibly get.

[LittleAtari]

Its coming soon. And the quality is better than boochsack.

While I'm sure that you guys have researched and tested the streaming videos that you plan to have, I just wanted to clear something up. Boochsack quality is not bad.

I think Derobert was basing his opinion on YTs non-HD streams.

I'm not sure if HD here is a typo, but YT has an HD option that is separate from the HQ option:
Running Man on YT HD: http://tinyurl.com/d42mtr
Running Man on YT HQ: http://tinyurl.com/dhrpno

I honestly don't expect the Org to try to stream HD, since there isnt much of a point because we have downloads.

For Sayde's video did you resize it prior to uploading to <a href="http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/v ... ochsack</a>? The original is 720x480 without any aspect ratio flags.

I used the one that he has on indirect link, so I did not resize it. I know that Reflections was resized and had some scripting done on it.

The biggest issue I have with the videos you linked is that the HD streams are 27.34MB and 34.42MB respectively.

I encoded the same videos using the current settings and the encodes were 12.93MB and 13.28MB.

For reference this is what the encodes look like.
[Corran: Videos removed from quote.]

As you can see they are not as good as <a href="http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/v ... sack</a>'s HD quality but they are significantly better than the SD versions. (even though filesize is almost the same as SD versions) Our goal in this in not to have the best, most awesome video streaming quality on the block... It is for preview purposes and if you like the video then you can download the original quality local file.

Org stream:


YT SD:


YT HQ:


Original:


To be accurate, I would have to upload the same file that you used. Is it the one from local? So far though, it seems that it YT's SD is better. I don't know what software you're using, neither am I well versed in streaming video, but I wonder if using the same method of re-encoding the files before giving them to stream to convert would produce better results. As for file sizes, I have no idea how to check a streaming video's size.

It isn't 100% donator only, there will be non-donator perks... maybe not enough to draw users away from <a href="http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/v ... ochsack</a> but hopefully the perks encourage users to donate to get the full feature set.

I see. I'll just have to wait and see how it goes then.

Alright, apparently randomly clicking somewhere near the start where the tube video had already loaded produced a below standard source image for my example. The second image you did is much better quality than the example I got. I'm not saying this quality isn't 'passable' either, if I still keep and watch videos encoded in 1999 then obvious video quality ain't my primary concern. I was just arguing the tube isn't 'nearly perfect results' as a glance at even your second image will prove.

Which I suppose is rather academic, unless I'm totally off base the org is approaching steaming as kinda like a sample. If you want the full quality video you download it rather than bookmark (or save) the streaming copy. As opposed to the tube where noticeable quality loss is the best you can possibly get.

I understand. Comparing the screenshots, it's not 'nearly perfect' as I had claimed. Since the Org is offering a download along side the streaming video, I guess it does work out okay, but it doesn't seem to be better than SD, but to be sure, I need to upload the same file as Corran).