José the Bronx Rican Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I can do HQ uploads, but the idea was to try for stereo without the overkill of HQ, but it only works for some; that's why I'm thinking it depends on users' playback settings (crapshoot, see?). Mono's fine for preview purposes, but since the HQ button does show up in embeds, I guess I'd better HQ it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sole Signal Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 For the "HD" button to appear, the video's resolution must be at least 480 pixels wide or 360 pixels tall. (Yours is 320x240) I hope the source video on your computer is at least that large, because I'd hate to redo all that. o.o Actually, to "watch in HD" you need 1280 x 720 or higher, unless they changed it from when I uploaded my last video like a week ago. http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/you_tube_hd_gary.html http://torley.com/optimized-sony-vegas-settings-for-vimeo-youtube-hd I'm not sure what it is to enable HQ, but for some reason I thought it was certainly above 480 x 360. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Mostly I'd just be doing things in like, bulk for the sake of trying to have as much heard out there as possible, as opposed to trying to say....recreate FLAC quality audio with it or whatever. Could dunno...do the normal quality thing, and a different higher quality thing for other purposes? Just throwing things out there so uh....don't flame me too badly for it. Oh, and I admit I might have gotten a bit confused as to whether it's HD or HQ, that's the main discussion or whether there's a giant difference, so if I happen to be a bit off with this, then I apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulinEther Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 For doing this shit en masse, ffmpeg or mencoder are the way to go... Virtualdub does allow for batch processing, but I'm not sure how well. Basically, you just need to make a like 10 minute long video in the correct format for youtube's high quality mode that you would like to appear on all songs. Then, set up a batch operation (using either of those programs, or a simple (Windows) frontend to ffmpeg like WinFF) to convert every oc remix into mp4 format AND copy the video stream into a brand new video file, into a container format Youtube supports, that is equal to the length of the mp3 file, not the video file. You'll have only one video for all songs, but this can be set up as a very simple batch operation to convert all 1500+ remixes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moguta Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Of course, it should be pointed out that encoding the actual video/mp3 combination with an actual clip as opposed to a still image is a much slower process since you could say, get anywhere from 3-5 with a still image done by the time a video clip one is done depending on the specs of your pc. They should only need to encode a video stream once, since the audio & the length will be the only differences between the files. Muxing (mixing existing audio and video streams into one file) is a lot shorter than re-encoding all the A/V data. I can do HQ uploads, but the idea was to try for stereo without the overkill of HQ, but it only works for some; that's why I'm thinking it depends on users' playback settings (crapshoot, see?). Mono's fine for preview purposes, but since the HQ button does show up in embeds, I guess I'd better HQ it. I wish you could influence the quality of the audio separately. But, the standard-quality YouTube video format is constrained specifically to 64Kbps mono audio. You only get stereo audio in the high-quality formats. Actually, to "watch in HD" you need 1280 x 720 or higher, unless they changed it from when I uploaded my last video like a week ago.http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/you_tube_hd_gary.html http://torley.com/optimized-sony-vegas-settings-for-vimeo-youtube-hd I'm not sure what it is to enable HQ, but for some reason I thought it was certainly above 480 x 360. Sorry for the confusion. YouTube no longer shows the text options "watch in HD" or "watch in high quality". At least, not in my locality. It's simply been replaced by a "HD" button on the player, that shows up whether the video is truly HD-capable or just "high-quality"-capable. That's why I specifically mentioned the HD button. And HQ is indeed 480x360 (or different aspect ratios that fit or exceed that box). Standard quality is a mere 320x240. Mostly I'd just be doing things in like, bulk for the sake of trying to have as much heard out there as possible, as opposed to trying to say....recreate FLAC quality audio with it or whatever. Could dunno...do the normal quality thing, and a different higher quality thing for other purposes? Just throwing things out there so uh....don't flame me too badly for it. Oh, and I admit I might have gotten a bit confused as to whether it's HD or HQ, that's the main discussion or whether there's a giant difference, so if I happen to be a bit off with this, then I apologize. It's really not that hard. HQ just means making a video at 480x360. Ideally, it would be encoded in an MP4 container with H.264 video and 128 AAC audio... but honestly, any video format will do. Also, I think you can just combine a remix's actual MP3 data into the video stream, without even re-encoding the audio. (I may be wrong on this, though, haven't tried myself.) For doing this shit en masse, ffmpeg or mencoder are the way to go...Virtualdub does allow for batch processing, but I'm not sure how well. Basically, you just need to make a like 10 minute long video in the correct format for youtube's high quality mode that you would like to appear on all songs. Then, set up a batch operation (using either of those programs, or a simple (Windows) frontend to ffmpeg like WinFF) to convert every oc remix into mp4 format AND copy the video stream into a brand new video file, into a container format Youtube supports, that is equal to the length of the mp3 file, not the video file. You'll have only one video for all songs, but this can be set up as a very simple batch operation to convert all 1500+ remixes. This man knows what he's talking about. That's just the sort of automation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 again, CUDA would help a LOT with something this big. does anyone know if nvidia's current tech allows for encoding automation? if so, anyone with a decent video card could do all 1500+ remixes about a hundred times quicker than someone working with a normal system (or even a quad...hell, even a 4x4 doesn't have squat on a 200-series card, let alone my 9800gtx+) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulinEther Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 again, CUDA would help a LOT with something this big. does anyone know if nvidia's current tech allows for encoding automation? if so, anyone with a decent video card could do all 1500+ remixes about a hundred times quicker than someone working with a normal system (or even a quad...hell, even a 4x4 doesn't have squat on a 200-series card, let alone my 9800gtx+) This would only be necessary if you're going to render a video file unique to each remix. Otherwise, you're better off creating the video in advance of converting the remixes to youtube video files, and copying the video from your pre-rendered video file into the new youtube video files. This is hard to describe with words. Coming soon: an illustration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Actually what I meant was saving the video file itself will take significantly longer with an actual video than a still image for obvious reasons regardless of whether audio quality is similar or not due to the sheer differences in frame amounts. Sorry if it came off suggesting something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulinEther Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Actually what I meant was saving the video file itself will take significantly longer with an actual video than a still image for obvious reasons regardless of whether audio quality is similar or not due to the sheer differences in frame amounts. Sorry if it came off suggesting something else. But you'll only need to create it once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Well, you'd still have to combine the video to the mp3 and make that into a file with every remix and then upload it, wouldn't you? Unless you can somehow edit the audio and everything on your Youtube videos by changing all the details and stuff, though something about that seems troublesome as well. But hey, I'm not going to act like an expert on all this, since I unfortunately, am not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulinEther Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Well, you'd still have to combine the video to the mp3 and make that into a file with every remix and then upload it, wouldn't you? Unless you can somehow edit the audio and everything on your Youtube videos by changing all the details and stuff, though something about that seems troublesome as well. But hey, I'm not going to act like an expert on all this, since I unfortunately, am not. A batch process will be able to automatically take an mp3 file for an ocremix, convert it to the proper youtube HQ format, and combine it with the placeholder video into a video file with the appropriate file name based off the ocremix. The only difficulties lie in uploading every single remix, and properly titling everything, etc. But that kind of thing would happen with almost any hosting service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Obviously this might sound a bit stupid but, the "batch process" thing is actually a term I haven't heard before, so I'm just wondering if it refers to some complicated process or something. Of course, I could just not be thinking on account of it being 12:25 AM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
José the Bronx Rican Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Virtualdub does allow for batch processing, but I'm not sure how well. Extremely well for this project, apparently: tried it, loved it. For about 1700 songs, I'd estimate the batch job at less than 80 minutes; set it, forget it. But I won't start unless I get the go-ahead from the mucky-mucks. More insight: The original footage was created to run well over ten minutes. I can go back as often as I need to add more text, effects, etc. if needed, and render to whatever resolution. The final footage is in XviD. I open in VirtualDub, then leave it on "Direct Stream Copy." Each ReMix can be imported as-is, and is also set to "Direct Stream Copy." That's why the final file takes maybe 2-3 seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Obviously this might sound a bit stupid but, the "batch process" thing is actually a term I haven't heard before, so I'm just wondering if it refers to some complicated process or something. Of course, I could just not be thinking on account of it being 12:25 AM. "Batch process" basically means running the process on multiple files in one go, rather than running it separately for each and every one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Ah, I get ya. Hm, can't help you there though since my pc's a 3 and a half year old laptop that has (in the past) overheated and shut itself off when I try to either save too long of a video file, too big of a video file, or too many. In other words, my pc's a piece of crap, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 The only difficulties lie in uploading every single remix, and properly titling everything, etc. But that kind of thing would happen with almost any hosting service. That could be automated as well. YouTube's API provides uploading functionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeky Stoner Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 First of all nice video Jose' that was a pretty neat vid to watch and listen too. But personally youtube seems like too much work too me. playlist.com seems to me to be able to update a lot quicker Also it gives you the artist name and song automatically so giving credit is rather easy and if i doesn't know it prompts you to type in the info if it can't find it itself. i have some playlists on my myspace with some OCReMixes on there too(I'll take em down if you guys are mad i didn't know any better at the time when i put those up there) (pm me about it) the youtube idea is neat(and pretty) but if you wanted to put up new tracks or just change anything in general you'd have to upload a whole new video(just seems like alot of work to me) as i said before setting up an outside hosting service would pretty much fix your bandwidth issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Youtube might be a lot of work but meh, I don't necessarily mind. I'll see how long it takes me to get Thieves of Fate and Chrono Symphonic up there and go from there on whether it's worth keeping up, I'm thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulinEther Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 That could be automated as well. YouTube's API provides uploading functionality. Ah, that's right. Somehow i forgot about that lol. In that case, ... this shouldn't be hard. And er i never really presented any arguments for youtube. ...ubiquity? (which entails: you can access it on your cell phone, many MIDs, almost all computers, etc.) How big is the video file that was created, btw? Streaming excess video might be counterproductive...? Just throwing that out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Don't know about what others have gotten, but I've done some, and they've generally been around 7 megs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajax Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 JW player will allow you to embed your own mp3's into the page, so you wouldn't have to upload anything to a third party service, also, JW player is free for non-commercial use (I'm assuming you guys are non commercial, though if for some reason you guys are commercial, their license is pretty cheap). Also, I haven't read all of the thread, so I have no idea if this has been suggested yet. EDIT: I just read DarkeSword's post on page one about wanting to upload things to a third party service for streaming... so scratch that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulinEther Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 EDIT: I just read DarkeSword's post on page one about wanting to upload things to a third party service for streaming... so scratch that. The way you emphasized.. that "to" ... is, er, interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
José the Bronx Rican Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 My video's been tweaked, using an orange logo, and the HQ uploads are apparently successful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JmYDD86h-0 Barring any other suggestions for the video, whenever Larry/Dave decide it's go time, I'm ready. The description and the one annotation should be enough of a template to work with. I'll talk about the embed code later. As for uploading, the "ocremix" channel is a no-brainer for it, but apart from giving me temporary access, how would it be handled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 For those that care, I went and put Thieves of Fate up on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE202E6158D529A3 It could just be my headphones but the sound quality sounds all right to me. Just throwing it out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sole Signal Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Video looks cool, Jose. I bet within time the number of youtube comments per song will outweigh the OCR review thread; maybe an annotation to direct listeners here to review (too)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.