Maybe a limit to uploading videos?

SarahtheBoring · Post by **SarahtheBoring** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:36 pm

What the hell videos are everyone getting? When I got the nominees for the last VCAs, the average was more like 70, and out of what I have on my drive right now (not counting MEPs), over half are over 50. People make them as large as the limit allows so that they can get teh ubar video quality. Limiting the upload size, not number, would probably be a more painless way to save on space - were it necessary, which at 500 days doesn't seem likely.

Of course, people would be screaming for blood, but none of these decisions are easy. It would take much less administrative time than judging every single video that came down the pike.

Brolly345 · Post by **Brolly345** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:41 pm

Alrighty then, so it'll take...

*does the math*

about 761 days at that average from nago to fill up kero. So it'll most likely be a couple of years before this one fills up. But maybe it will be a good idea to come up with a way to keep the servers from filling up so fast now. That way it won't be a problem when it does happen.

So I guess I'm not really making an ass of myself...

billy_wires · Post by **billy_wires** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:57 pm

Arigatomina wrote:Maybe in 2003 I saw a lot of 5-15 mb rm files, but most of the new vids I've seen in the last year (late 2004 into 2005) are either 50-60mb wmvs or 50-95mb xvid files.

And we can blame AD and ermac for this.

What about time limit, like, oh..I don't know... two weeks to upload? Unless I'm mistaken, there isn't one, right? We have a download restriction for local videos, why not an upload restriction?

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:29 pm

SarahtheBoring wrote:What the hell videos are everyone getting? When I got the nominees for the last VCAs, the average was more like 70, and out of what I have on my drive right now (not counting MEPs), over half are over 50. People make them as large as the limit allows so that they can get teh ubar video quality.

The way I see it:

- There are still plenty of small and/or poorly compressed videos on the Org, because there are still plenty of people who are new to this and/or don't bother with reading the how-to guides. (Oftentimes, the "New Vid on the Block" will be such a video.)

- But such videos don't get downloaded as much as the bigger 40-80 MB videos, because they're generally not as good and/or their creators are not as well known. And they rarely make it to the VCAs.

- (To put it another way: The creators who get the most DLs, whether owing to their popularity or to the quality of their videos, generally know a thing or two about quality and thus generally make bigger files.)

- So people forget they exist (at least, in such large quantities).

- And then they're surprised to hear that the average size is so relatively low.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:29 pm

billy_wires wrote:And we can blame AD and ermac for this.

We can? My average video size on the org is 40mb.

P.S. I just checked the average file size on kero - it's 36mb so I don't think the average encode is getting any bigger.

billy_wires · Post by **billy_wires** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:57 pm

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:
billy_wires wrote:And we can blame AD and ermac for this.
We can? My average video size on the org is 40mb.

P.S. I just checked the average file size on kero - it's 36mb so I don't think the average encode is getting any bigger.

I was thinking more so along the lines of the guides, and the instructions held in them...

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:52 pm

billy_wires wrote:
AbsoluteDestiny wrote:
billy_wires wrote:And we can blame AD and ermac for this.
We can? My average video size on the org is 40mb.

P.S. I just checked the average file size on kero - it's 36mb so I don't think the average encode is getting any bigger.
I was thinking more so along the lines of the guides, and the instructions held in them...

If the guides are correctly followed, and if you carefully filter and encode your video, your filesizes shouldn't be garangtuan. The problem is not the guides; it is lazy people.

If you're looking for a good, non-proprietary way to cut back on file size, stay up to date on filtering processes and keep up on x264 development...

billy_wires · Post by **billy_wires** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:33 pm

trythil wrote:If the guides are correctly followed, and if you carefully filter and encode your video, your filesizes shouldn't be garangtuan. The problem is not the guides; it is lazy people.

While that is true, the fact that the guides are there, coupled with laziness, allows for people to have the retarded LOLOL MINE LOOKS GREATE mentality after a bulky encode, and don't really work for compression at all. The point I was trying to make is that if they weren't there it'd still be shitty .0005Meg .rm encodes floating around. But even more pressing: it was a joke. I just didn't want an admin thinking I was egotistical with such a bloated accusation.

SarahtheBoring · Post by **SarahtheBoring** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:34 am

Scin, this is true, but... those people don't really count. Sorry. We all know this, let's be honest. That accounts for the numbers, but it doesn't correspond to anything real, or anything that can be worked with...

trythil, your "commoner" encode of your last video - for which I wouldn't have to get an entirely new computer, or whatever - was 73 MB. Great though it was and all, are you really the person to be preaching about small filesize? ;P And is there a compromise between 99 MB videos and having to get new computers / run Linux on a toaster / compile new codecs ourselves every 3 hours to stay on the bleeding edge / whatever?

this is straying off-topic, sorry. Anyway. My question about the bizarrely low average has been answered, although it's about "those people" that we don't like to think about.

[I can joke; I'm one of them. heh.]

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:47 am

trythil wrote:If the guides are correctly followed, and if you carefully filter and encode your video, your filesizes shouldn't be garangtuan. The problem is not the guides; it is lazy people.

No, it's not even lazy people. It's people wanting their video to look the best possible. It's not hard to add one more line to an avs script lowering the resolution or to lower the bitrate in vdub. All these editors on cable don't think download times. They think, "well I'm allowed 100 mb, so I should use it all." I'd say that some people view the 100 mb limit as a guide of sorts. Meaning that if your video isn't near 100 mb, maybe you did something wrong.

I'm on 56k, so I try not to end up with a video that's much more than 10 mb per minute. And my videos all look decent. Sure there are plenty of artifacts and a little pixellation, but they're still good quality. And I took no more than a few minutes writing the script.

I'm in favor of some sort of restriction, if for no other reason than to get people to really put some thought into compression.