8 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
8 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

OK...26 minute video...is Amazon S3 gonna stream it perfectly?

by Nick Brighton
5 replies
What can I do to make sure my 26 minute video streams properly?

I know that it depends on people's computers/connections, but what will give me the best performance/chances of streaming smoothly without buffering etc?

What kind of compression do I need to render my video at?
Is Amazon S3 servers the best choice to host my videos?

Kind regards,

Nick
#amazon #gonna #minute #ok26 #perfectly #stream #videois
  • Profile picture of the author mpeters7
    Amazon S3 is the best in the sense that it's flexible and cheap, and won't just shut your site down if you get an explosion in traffic.

    You're good on any format, but compression is always an art between file size and image quality, which involves some trial and error.

    FLV is by far the most popular (think YouTube) because it gets really small (2 or 3 MB/s) for pretty great picture quality. This will help with your viewers load times and your hosting bill.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1970078].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nick Brighton
      Originally Posted by mpeters7 View Post

      Amazon S3 is the best in the sense that it's flexible and cheap, and won't just shut your site down if you get an explosion in traffic.

      You're good on any format, but compression is always an art between file size and image quality, which involves some trial and error.

      FLV is by far the most popular (think YouTube) because it gets really small (2 or 3 MB/s) for pretty great picture quality. This will help with your viewers load times and your hosting bill.
      Yeah, flash is probably what I'm going to use...thanks for the tip. It's crazy how small the file becomes when you encode into flash!

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1970186].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    Pure Flash video isn't the best option actually. H.264 is. FLV is just a wrapper for the actual video file. The best option would be something that's also supported on Apple devices... iPhone, iPad, etc.... because Flash is NOT.

    Think MP4 because it will be compatible with HTML 5 without re-rendering.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1970328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jesus Perez
      Michael, we're moving all our stuff over to MP4. But only because it's a smaller file size and saves the trouble of creating an MP4 and FLV file. Future compatibility would be nice...

      but...Firefox isn't jumping on the H.264 bandwagon due to future fees. I wonder how this plays out...

      Will Idealism be Firefox's Downfall?

      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      Pure Flash video isn't the best option actually. H.264 is. FLV is just a wrapper for the actual video file. The best option would be something that's also supported on Apple devices... iPhone, iPad, etc.... because Flash is NOT.

      Think MP4 because it will be compatible with HTML 5 without re-rendering.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1970470].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
        Originally Posted by BlueSquares View Post

        Michael, we're moving all our stuff over to MP4. But only because it's a smaller file size and saves the trouble of creating an MP4 and FLV file. Future compatibility would be nice...

        but...Firefox isn't jumping on the H.264 bandwagon due to future fees. I wonder how this plays out...

        Will Idealism be Firefox's Downfall?

        Until there's an open source codec standard that is widely adopted and used, you're going to be stuck paying someone licensing.

        What's the alternative, .OGG?

        I don't think that Mozilla can be quite so lofty when there are so many other good browser alternatives... Safari... Chrome...
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1970626].message }}

Trending Topics