Motor Video File Sizes?

MrMatteh · 6 Jan 2007 at 21:47

it doesnt need to be though

andi · 6 Jan 2007 at 21:49

Dangerous said:
Of course this will be bigger its better quailty than DVD.

Why is it? No need for it..

DRZ · 6 Jan 2007 at 22:00

Dangerous said:
Of course this will be bigger its better quailty than DVD.

Yeah, but DVD is 2 hours long - your clips are 8 minutes.

Even DVD resolution would be excessive for what this is really. The quality of whatever is IN the video is far more important than the actual technical quality of the video no matter what the platform.

Seriously, 20Mb absolute tops for an 8 minute video, 480px on the longest side would be more than adequate for most people really.

divine` · 6 Jan 2007 at 22:02

I think as a rule if it takes longer to download on a 1Mb connection than it does to watch it, you've probably gone overboard on quality.

edit - What you want to do - upload a massive 300MB HD version, and say a 50MB lower res and quality one. See which one gets more downloads

Lopéz · 6 Jan 2007 at 22:55

Dangerous said:
Of course this will be bigger its better quailty than DVD.

What's the point? I imagine it's a video of a load of blokes nobody knows gooning around watching a rally....... I don't know why that has to be in excess of DVD quality....

Malt_Vinegar · 6 Jan 2007 at 23:06

Lopéz said:
What's the point? I imagine it's a video of a load of blokes nobody knows gooning around watching a rally....... I don't know why that has to be in excess of DVD quality....

Exactly!! I cant say I have ever watched a DVD quality video and said "Well, that was just terrible quality, I should have downloaded the file which took 8 times longer to load"

Trifid · 7 Jan 2007 at 10:55

Dangerous, as before I will be happy to mirror it.

(I would like 1080p quality... But I can play it at that res.

)

Vertigo · 7 Jan 2007 at 11:14

DRZ said:
"Illegal" HD TV rips of 40 minute shows from the states come in at 350Mb and the quality is reputed to be excellent.

Err, no. The 350Mb files you speak of are not HD. They may be sourced from an HD feed but the resulting video is usually around the 624x352 mark. The genuine HD versions are far far larger.

Lopéz said:
What's the point? I imagine it's a video of a load of blokes nobody knows gooning around watching a rally....... I don't know why that has to be in excess of DVD quality....

It's mainly a video of rally cars hooning it around the stages and Sky seem to think that sport is a major beneficiary of HD coverage.

DRZ · 7 Jan 2007 at 11:20

Vertigo1 said:
Err, no. The 350Mb files you speak of are not HD. They may be sourced from an HD feed but the resulting video is usually around the 624x352 mark. The genuine HD versions are far far larger.

It's mainly a video of rally cars hooning it around the stages and Sky seem to think that sport is a major beneficiary of HD coverage.

I know what res they are usually in, I know they are not "true" HD but they are captured from a high def source and the quality is more than acceptable for viewing on a high resolution monitor. This is actual stuff that many millions of people want to watch rather than some "home video" (albeit HD home video) of a rally stage.

HD coverage of sport is ONLY to draw in the brainless types that would pay anything to watch thugs kick a ball about. Its all about the revenue.

Vertigo · 7 Jan 2007 at 11:43

So all HD is a complete waste of time then as the existing "standard" resolution is more than good enough?

Matt · 7 Jan 2007 at 12:03

I don't really care how big they are. I have broadband and it only takes a few mins even if it is 250mb

Lets just remember that a 40min TV show in 720p is 2.2gb, but the quality is amazing. 250mb for 10mins is fine really.

You released a video a few weeks ago that was 1080 and that played with no problems at all on my media pc (2400XP) so seriously, if some of you think you need a hugely powerful machine to run it then you're doing something wrong

Sirrel Squirrel · 7 Jan 2007 at 12:10

divine_madness said:
Fairly sure his cam records at full 1080 HD res

I don't think it does, think it's 1080i at 1440x1080, full hd is 1920x1080p but these cameras are very very expensive.

I normally compress everything I make to 576p at 3000kbps (h.264) and also make a wmv file at 640x480 compressed to 1000kbps, in both cases I have the audio at 128kbps or 192kbps, always deinterlace for computer stuff too!

Dangerous · 7 Jan 2007 at 12:40

Sirrel Squirrel said:
I don't think it does, think it's 1080i at 1440x1080, full hd is 1920x1080p but these cameras are very very expensive.

I normally compress everything I make to 576p at 3000kbps (h.264) and also make a wmv file at 640x480 compressed to 1000kbps, in both cases I have the audio at 128kbps or 192kbps, always deinterlace for computer stuff too!

I can assure you my camera was very expensive and it is capable of 1440x1080

HVR-Z1E if you want to know the camera

Anyways I'll do 2 versions 1080p and 720p

DRZ · 7 Jan 2007 at 12:40

Vertigo1 said:
So all HD is a complete waste of time then as the existing "standard" resolution is more than good enough?

No, HD for films and TV series and stuff is good. HD resolution home video of a rally stage = needless.

By all means put up a full res 250Mb-for-8-minutes clip, but for those who CBA downloading for longer than the clip itself or who see downloading a 250Mb file for 8 minutes of footage as silly, release a sensible sized divx clip at a sensible file size.

Its like my photography, for example. I post my pics at 800x600 because they can be enjoyed just fine at that resolution despite my camera pumping out an image over 3000px wide. The content matters more than the resolution its in. Surely thats just common sense?

Sirrel Squirrel · 7 Jan 2007 at 12:43

Yeah it does 1440x1080i, not progressive, which is normal for these sorts of cameras, full HD is 1920x1080p, which is the sort of cameras they used to film star wars and sin city, so very very expensive

Vertigo · 7 Jan 2007 at 13:30

DRZ said:
No, HD for films and TV series and stuff is good. HD resolution home video of a rally stage = needless.

In your opinion. What gives you the right to dictate what material warrants the HD treatment? Just as you might enjoy watching a film or television program in HD, others might enjoy watching Dave's rally footage in HD.

By all means put up a full res 250Mb-for-8-minutes clip, but for those who CBA downloading for longer than the clip itself or who see downloading a 250Mb file for 8 minutes of footage as silly, release a sensible sized divx clip at a sensible file size.

If he has the time, inclination and bandwidth to do this then that's great but he might only be able to put up a single file and is trying to determine what file size and quality will please the majority of people.

Its like my photography, for example. I post my pics at 800x600 because they can be enjoyed just fine at that resolution despite my camera pumping out an image over 3000px wide. The content matters more than the resolution its in. Surely thats just common sense?

Why 800x600? Why not 640x480 or 320x240? You have to strike a balance somewhere, which is what you've done by settling on 800x600. Maybe the full 1440x1080 resolution is excessive but then squeezing it right down to the 624x352 resolution of downloaded television programmes is pushing it too far IMO. Personally I love watching HD content as I find it brings far more "life" to the images, although I appreciate others don't feel the same way.

Lopéz · 7 Jan 2007 at 13:36

DRZ said:
No, HD for films and TV series and stuff is good. HD resolution home video of a rally stage = needless.

By all means put up a full res 250Mb-for-8-minutes clip, but for those who CBA downloading for longer than the clip itself or who see downloading a 250Mb file for 8 minutes of footage as silly, release a sensible sized divx clip at a sensible file size.

Its like my photography, for example. I post my pics at 800x600 because they can be enjoyed just fine at that resolution despite my camera pumping out an image over 3000px wide. The content matters more than the resolution its in. Surely thats just common sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. HD for films is a great thing, super duper quality blockbusters. But like Durz says, why do you need HD for a home movie of some rally cars that's going to be released to the general masses on the 'net?

Is the size and quality so big just to say "Lookie here, I bought a well expensive camcorder and it pumps out files bigger than the earth itself?" If so, then it's a bit pointless IMO.

Dangerous · 7 Jan 2007 at 13:40

Simple thing is if its too big then dont download it I know 1000s of other people will

divine` · 7 Jan 2007 at 13:44

I still reckon if you released one at half the res and half the quality and got the size to around 40 or 50MB most people would download that version over and above the huge HD versions.

Burned_Alive · 7 Jan 2007 at 13:46

As long as it actually is HD, the last video might have been HD resolution but the quality was awful.

Plus, we dont really need HD for 2 minutes of someone filming their computer screen playing top gear.