? ¿ ? ¿ ? Streaming Video Questions - Optimum Settings for Surfers ? ¿ ? ¿ ?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

A few questions for content publishers, site reviewers, and surfers (and everyone in between).

As improvements are made in computers and monitors, and modem bandwidth increases, what are the average surfer's current streaming video requirements? (Note: Streaming video, not downloadable video)

What settings (res + data rate) are you currently using/do you prefer for streaming videos online?

What settings (res + data rate) do you think will be the standard in a year from now?



For example, here is what I am contemplating to use for streaming video editing during the next year:

Hi: h.264 mp4 1920x1280 5Mbps (1080p)

Mid: h.264 mp4 1280x720 2.5Mbps (720p)

Lo: h.264 mp4 720x480 1.5Mbps (720p)

Mobile: h.264 mp4 360x240 768kbps (360p)

A related question: Is it more advantageous to offer different streaming rates selectable by the surfer, or to rely upon Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (where the host detects the client bitrate and supplies the optimal corresponding stream)? Pros/Cons?

All input is appreciated...

ADG

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

As usual, more questions than answers...

Is anyone doing adaptive bitrate streaming for mobile? What resolutions are you using? What about bitrates?

480x320 (3g), 960x640 (4g), 1024x768 (iPad) are some options.

Do iPad users generally watch resized vids intended for home monitors/notebooks, or are some publishers in adult catering specifically to iPad users? (I'm a MacHead but I haven't used or played with the iPad much yet, and I have not received any Member feedback on this).

Don't be shy...

ADG

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[Ron Bennett]

Mid: h.264 mp4 1280x720 2.5Mbps (720p) ... this is very good resolution and yet within the bandwidth capability of most high-speed internet users. Going above that is pushing it.

Also, consider that many video cards will have trouble above that - and furthermore, 1280 is about as high of horizontal resolution as most screens go.

Lo: h.264 mp4 720x480 1.5Mbps (480p) ... DVD quality - and good enough for many people. Heck, if the lighting and encoding is done well, many will think it's even higher res than it really is.

With all that said, encode the videos at all the rates you mentioned and also use adaptive streaming - make it automatic by default, but give users the ability to over-ride and manually select a resolution (default / recommend "Lo" 720x480p for users who feel the need to manually select)...

Hulu does it right - they will auto-detect, but also allow users to over-ride, especially important for many people with good bandwidth, but older video cards. CBS media player only does auto-detect with no override and hence playback suffers for many. YouTube's method of overriding one's selection is even worse; there's work-arounds, but still it's bad implementation.

In short, do both - auto-detect with manual override that's "remembered" - don't make the user keep having to fiddle around with it.

Ron

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Mid: h.264 mp4 1280x720 2.5Mbps (720p) ... this is very good resolution and yet within the bandwidth capability of most high-speed internet users. Going above that is pushing it.

Also, consider that many video cards will have trouble above that - and furthermore, 1280 is about as high of horizontal resolution as most screens go.

Lo: h.264 mp4 720x480 1.5Mbps (480p) ... DVD quality - and good enough for many people. Heck, if the lighting and encoding is done well, many will think it's even higher res than it really is.

With all that said, encode the videos at all the rates you mentioned and also use adaptive streaming - make it automatic by default, but give users the ability to over-ride and manually select a resolution (default / recommend "Lo" 720x480p for users who feel the need to manually select)...

Hulu does it right - they will auto-detect, but also allow users to over-ride, especially important for many people with good bandwidth, but older video cards. CBS media player only does auto-detect with no override and hence playback suffers for many. YouTube's method of overriding one's selection is even worse; there's work-arounds, but still it's bad implementation.

In short, do both - auto-detect with manual override that's "remembered" - don't make the user keep having to fiddle around with it.

Ron

Thanks for the input!

The reasons I am thinking to set the bit rate so high is to appeal to the person that can afford the faster connection, and also in anticipation of the next bump in speed on the consumer end (I don't want to have to re-encode everything again in a year).

The quality for people with slower connections should still be pretty damn good on most monitors, even at fullscreen.

Anyone else care to share?

ADG

[AdultEUhost]

we use flowplayer a lot, it has a plugin called bwcheck which can automatically select the best bitrate for that user. In addition you can also let the visitor them change/choose the bitrate.

We did this as well when we streamed the GFY Awards Party at the last Webmaster Access here on GFY

[AdultEUhost]

here is the link btw http://flowplayer.org/plugins/streaming/bwcheck.html

[Robbie]

ADG...do NOT encode h264 at 5 megs. You will have tons of surfers complaining.

It has nothing to do with internet speed.

Here is why you don't need to encode them past 1.5 MBS:

First off H264 is DESIGNED to give incredible quality at low bit rate.
When I first started doing streaming video I did a ton of research. And I saw guys who had vids encoded at 500 kbs that were stunning.

I never have gotten THAT good at tweaking the encoding settings.

But where you want to be is around 1.5 MBS (1,500 kbs)

And here is why...when you are streaming a vid, the load is on the end user (viewers) computer.
I didn't realize that at first.

And I got all smarty-pants about it and decided that I was going to encode my streaming vids at 2.5 MBS
They looked GREAT! And I had no problem streaming them on my work computer!

So I went in and re-encoded all of the members area to 2.5
Then I left home to go to one of the shows (I think it was Phoenix Forum a couple of years ago)

I got to the hotel and opened up my laptop and checked email.

Suddenly I've got dozens of members writing me raising hell and saying that the vids were "stuttering" and buffering, etc.

So I went there on my laptop...and YES they were.

You see, my work computer is a monster (mega cpu and ram for video work) and it had no problems streaming those vids. But a "normal" computer? No way.

I had to write emails for the next 3 days from the show asking my members for patience as I couldn't do anything about it until I got home.

I re-encoded every vid to a variable 1.5 to 1.7 bit rate when I got back home. Problem solved.

Then I did a little more research and found out that "no" the average computer can't handle an h264 stream much bigger than that (with anti-virus running and background tasks etc.)

So do NOT try to stream .h264 at that high of a bit rate. Trust me on this. Or at least go ahead and encode one at 5 MBS. Then set it up as a test stream and go to several different "normal" powered computers and try to watch it.

It won't matter how fast your internet connection is...the stream will use up all the remaining computer resources on the user end (as you know most PC's are using up tons of resources when they aren't even doing anything).

[glowlite]

Build your sites to render for whatever Walmart has on sale. Code your vids to the current low-level YouTube standards. Adult web masters consistently fail by assuming everybody on planet Earth has hardware and internet connectivity like their's.

Seriously , throw a bigger net and you'll consistently catch more fish.

[Ron Bennett]

Robbie have you tried adaptive streaming?

That's what most all the mainstream sites, along with many adult, use ... imho, the OP is on the right path - encode videos at multiple bit rates and use adaptive streaming.

If your point is perhaps the OP should default playback to 720x480p (and/or be very conservative with setting up adaptive streaming), I agree 100% ... best to assume the user's computer is slow / old, loaded full of crapware, etc and serve content accordingly.

However, from my understanding, the OP wants to encode videos now and not deal with it doing again for a couple of years - to only encode at 1.5 Mbits isn't going to cut it - video cards and playback software have greatly improved, even on very low end machines, and continues to as many people have come to expect HD quality video capability.

Ron

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Robbie have you tried adaptive streaming?

That's what most all the mainstream sites, along with many adult, use ... imho, the OP is on the right path - encode videos at multiple bit rates and use adaptive streaming.

If your point is perhaps the OP should default playback to 720x480p (and/or be very conservative with setting up adaptive streaming), I agree 100% ... best to assume the user's computer is slow / old, loaded full of crapware, etc and serve content accordingly.

However, from my understanding, the OP wants to encode videos now and not deal with it doing again for a couple of years - to only encode at 1.5 Mbits isn't going to cut it - video cards and playback software have greatly improved, even on very low end machines, and continues to as many people have come to expect HD quality video capability.

Ron

It's not the video cards or anything else except CPU.
And .h264 is a compression that is designed to be a lot lower than people were used to encoding .wmv's and even flv's

There really isn't any visual need to encode a .h264 .mp4 that has it's settings tweaked in carefully to anything above 1.5 (most do 1.2)

Matter of fact it was on HULU back a couple of years ago that I saw those 500kbs .h264 .mp4's that looked beautiful.

Anyway...my laptop isn't a "low end" machine. It's a dual core and has 4 gigs of ram. But with antivirus running on it, a browser running, and the million other little windows background tasks running...just encoding my vids at 2.5 was enough to make it stutter.

I've been doing streaming for the members area since 2008. And I guess I've probably tried every bit rate and vid tweaking combo known to man. lol But in the end...you don't need to encode .h24 vids very high to achieve a nice looking vid. And your end users are not going to be able to stream them that high anyway.

So I never had to bother with adaptive streaming. The vids looks great. Members are happy.
And if enough folks end up with quad core 64 bit OS machines with 16 gigs of ram in the future...I'll definitely crank it up. But the difference in quality is really negligible because of the nature of the .h264 compression.

But I had to learn that the hard way. lol
I was old school and couldn't believe that a 1.5 mbs .h264 could look better than a 5 mbs .wmv
But it does.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by glowlite

Build your sites to render for whatever Walmart has on sale. Code your vids to the current low-level YouTube standards. Adult web masters consistently fail by assuming everybody on planet Earth has hardware and internet connectivity like their's.

Seriously , throw a bigger net and you'll consistently catch more fish.

I understand, as that is kind of what I did when I first started years ago. I was offering small videos (240x160, then 320x240, then 640x480, etc). Now I am faced with having to go back and recapture and re-encode hundreds of hours of older video (while keeping up with editing the newly shot video).

My plan is to offer multiple speeds to capture the current lowest denominator (Low) you speak of, as well as the current upper end customer (Medium), and hopefully to anticipate what the next big leap will be so that I don't have to re-encode everything again in a year (High). By using Adaptive Bitrate Streaming, it will hopefully make it so that the customer doesn't have to choose the speed, and the content will be delivered for a good end-user experience.

I started archiving captured video of my newer video content over the past several years, so at least I won't have to repeat that step again.

Originally Posted by Robbie

ADG...do NOT encode h264 at 5 megs. You will have tons of surfers complaining.

It has nothing to do with internet speed.

Here is why you don't need to encode them past 1.5 MBS:

First off H264 is DESIGNED to give incredible quality at low bit rate.
When I first started doing streaming video I did a ton of research. And I saw guys who had vids encoded at 500 kbs that were stunning.

I never have gotten THAT good at tweaking the encoding settings.

But where you want to be is around 1.5 MBS (1,500 kbs)

And here is why...when you are streaming a vid, the load is on the end user (viewers) computer.
I didn't realize that at first.

And I got all smarty-pants about it and decided that I was going to encode my streaming vids at 2.5 MBS
They looked GREAT! And I had no problem streaming them on my work computer!

So I went in and re-encoded all of the members area to 2.5
Then I left home to go to one of the shows (I think it was Phoenix Forum a couple of years ago)

I got to the hotel and opened up my laptop and checked email.

Suddenly I've got dozens of members writing me raising hell and saying that the vids were "stuttering" and buffering, etc.

So I went there on my laptop...and YES they were.

You see, my work computer is a monster (mega cpu and ram for video work) and it had no problems streaming those vids. But a "normal" computer? No way.

I had to write emails for the next 3 days from the show asking my members for patience as I couldn't do anything about it until I got home.

I re-encoded every vid to a variable 1.5 to 1.7 bit rate when I got back home. Problem solved.

Then I did a little more research and found out that "no" the average computer can't handle an h264 stream much bigger than that (with anti-virus running and background tasks etc.)

So do NOT try to stream .h264 at that high of a bit rate. Trust me on this. Or at least go ahead and encode one at 5 MBS. Then set it up as a test stream and go to several different "normal" powered computers and try to watch it.

It won't matter how fast your internet connection is...the stream will use up all the remaining computer resources on the user end (as you know most PC's are using up tons of resources when they aren't even doing anything).

Good advice as usual, thanks!

My reason for going for a high end that exceeds most current users needs is that since I have to re-encode old video anyway, I want to try and get slightly ahead so that when the public starts demanding higher speed/res I can deliver it, while I then am keeping my newest content moving along again at a higher level than most will be able to benefit from.

Part of my rationale is that the people that invest more into higher end systems and bandwidth, might have more disposable income to spend on a web site, and they want sites that can take advantage of their set-up.

I do agree that initially, I should try it out as a sample. Since I run most of my batch encodes while I am sleeping, I figured adding one more high end encode wouldn't adversely impact me too much.

Something else driving me, is that there has been a lot of discussion about what HD (High-Def) is, since much of what is passed off as HD is really SD (either SD video converted to HD, or video that is not truly HD). I also noted in a recent Review Site posting that their ratings were skewed towards sites offering as high as 8Mbps videos.

One final issue, is that while most streaming video until now has put the load on the end-users computer, however my understanding is that the Wowza streaming server that I am switching to keeps the load on the server side, so that the end-user is only seeing a "hint" of the video, which also allows the end-user to click anywhere on the video and not have to wait for it to before it starts playing again.

I'll be checking into this more next week, so any input in the meantime is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

ADG

[Robbie]

ADG...for me, "HD" is me shooting it in HD

As for streaming it...I make the resolution fit the CSS on my page. So I output them a 900 x 506

Last thing I want is to have the player not fit the page or the screen.

Now in a few years...I may have some trouble when everybody runs a 30 inch monitor like I do and wants a full 1920 x 1080 resolution

But hell..that's gonna require me to redesign the whole site anyway (page width, size of player, graphics, everything) So re-encoding all the vids won't be that big a deal. Heck, it'll be the easiest thing to do.

BUT...all the vids I have that were shot in SD for the first couple of years? Nothing I can do about that. They are forever 720 x 480

I have no idea what I or anybody else is gonna be able to do about the older vids like that. They already look kinda pathetic next to my "HD" vids of 900 x 506

And when I watch raw vid footage on my monitor at full 1920 x 1080...they look like nothing! lol

But anyway..."HD" is what you want it to be when you are streaming. You want it to fit your site and look good within that context. If I streamed these at 1920 x 1080 it wouldn't look as good on the site (and for many members it would look horrible on their non-widescreen monitors because it would be way too big.

Just do what looks good for the layout of your pages. For me it's 900x506 (but of course the person watching can always go full screen...and mine blow up just fine on my 1920 x 1080 p 30 inch widescreen monitor)

As for how to advertise "HD" to potential customers? I just tell the truth: "SHOT in glorious HD"

I shot it in full 1080p
I display it to fit my layout.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

One final issue, is that while most streaming video until now has put the load on the end-users computer, however my understanding is that the Wowza streaming server that I am switching to keeps the load on the server side, so that the end-user is only seeing a "hint" of the video, which also allows the end-user to click anywhere on the video and not have to wait for it to before it starts playing again.

My Adobe Flash Media Server has always streamed in a way that you can click anywhere in the video and instantly stream from there. So that's nothing new.

But I've never heard any of the stuff about Wowza supposedly putting the load on your server instead of the end user.
If it did that...you would shut down your server pretty quick when you get a few hundred people streaming vids simultaneously.

As far as I know...streaming video (and especially encrypted vid like I do) puts the main load on the viewer. You wouldn't want the load on your server. Because then people would REALLY have troubles trying to watch the stream as the server cpu maxes out.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Robbie

My Adobe Flash Media Server has always streamed in a way that you can click anywhere in the video and instantly stream from there. So that's nothing new.

But I've never heard any of the stuff about Wowza supposedly putting the load on your server instead of the end user.
If it did that...you would shut down your server pretty quick when you get a few hundred people streaming vids simultaneously.

As far as I know...streaming video (and especially encrypted vid like I do) puts the main load on the viewer. You wouldn't want the load on your server. Because then people would REALLY have troubles trying to watch the stream as the server cpu maxes out.

I'll get back to you with what I learn Monday. Already preparing my e-mail for the techs.

Originally Posted by Robbie

ADG...for me, "HD" is me shooting it in HD

As for streaming it...I make the resolution fit the CSS on my page. So I output them a 900 x 506

Last thing I want is to have the player not fit the page or the screen.

Now in a few years...I may have some trouble when everybody runs a 30 inch monitor like I do and wants a full 1920 x 1080 resolution

But hell..that's gonna require me to redesign the whole site anyway (page width, size of player, graphics, everything) So re-encoding all the vids won't be that big a deal. Heck, it'll be the easiest thing to do.

BUT...all the vids I have that were shot in SD for the first couple of years? Nothing I can do about that. They are forever 720 x 480

I have no idea what I or anybody else is gonna be able to do about the older vids like that. They already look kinda pathetic next to my "HD" vids of 900 x 506

And when I watch raw vid footage on my monitor at full 1920 x 1080...they look like nothing! lol

But anyway..."HD" is what you want it to be when you are streaming. You want it to fit your site and look good within that context. If I streamed these at 1920 x 1080 it wouldn't look as good on the site (and for many members it would look horrible on their non-widescreen monitors because it would be way too big.

Just do what looks good for the layout of your pages. For me it's 900x506 (but of course the person watching can always go full screen...and mine blow up just fine on my 1920 x 1080 p 30 inch widescreen monitor)

As for how to advertise "HD" to potential customers? I just tell the truth: "SHOT in glorious HD"

I shot it in full 1080p
I display it to fit my layout.

I see you switched to a tube style design for your tour. How is that working compared to the old style?

BTW, I got a kick out of the ObamaCare vid.

Now THAT's a sample video!!!

ADG

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

I see you switched to a tube style design for your tour. How is that working compared to the old style?

I changed to a tube tour back in 2008, you should stop by a little more often. lol
I changed the graphics a couple of months ago...maybe that's what you're really noticing.

Anyway, the tube style tour is/was a great success.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I changed to a tube tour back in 2008, you should stop by a little more often. lol
I changed the graphics a couple of months ago...maybe that's what you're really noticing.

Anyway, the tube style tour is/was a great success.

I don't get out that often, and it's not my niche...

Your site looks better than I remembered it, plus it even gave me a few ideas.

I have a few questions that I'll e-mail you about later...

ADG

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Your site looks better than I remembered it

Zuzanna Designs did the new graphics for me. She did a great job!

[DWB]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

I also noted in a recent Review Site posting that their ratings were skewed towards sites offering as high as 8Mbps videos.

With respect to the review sites, they are pretty clueless when it comes to stuff like that. To agree with what Robbie said, I've also seen AMAZING quality videos at 500kbs or less that is better than any video any review site would regard as top quality at a higher bit rate.

I don't have it on this machine, but shoot me an email and I'll send you a link to a blog who is an expert encoder. I think he works for Adobe. He gives lectures around the world on encoding technology. He is making 200kbs HD videos that are better than the highest quality, highest bit rate porn video you have ever seen online. It's insane. I can't replicate it, much of what he is doing is waaaaay over my head, but it can be done, that is my point, and to agree once again with Robbie that h.264 was meant to be compressed and used as a smaller file size.

With that said, Ron has some solid advice as well with the adaptive streaming and using the middle to lower sized encodes, as does glowlite with encoding for the lowest common denominator (that is what I do). But by all means, run one out of the highest quality for yourself and archive it for down the road. I just think you'll have problems streaming them so large. Download... no problem, but the stream is probably going to studder unless they have a somewhat powerful machine, as Robbie mentioned.