4 ms·

Is there a compelling reason encoding needs to be done locally? The point of encoding is to reduce downstream bandwidth for the viewer, and upstream bandwidth

Is there a compelling reason encoding needs to be done locally? The point of encoding is to reduce downstream bandwidth for the viewer, and upstream bandwidth for the distribution network. The content creator only needs to upload it once.

halJordan 4mo ago
Well yes? The platforms only accept certain resolution/bitrates and also most of America isnt running 1gig up. They're running 5-30 mbps up. So yeah they need to encode it.
- thrownthatway 4mo ago
  > They're running 5-30 mbps up Do you not have 98% high speed 5G coverage?
  - ihattendorf 4mo ago
    Data caps make that hard. While everyone likes to claim unlimited data, I'm not aware of any providers that don't have a heavy data user clause where they'll deprioritize your data if you're a top ~5% data user (usually somewhere over ~1TB/month). You also will need _some_ sort of encoding locally before uploading, even if it's minimal, which could lead to issues when encoded again (although there are codecs available to minimize this).
  - Forgeties79 4mo ago
    Just over half the world’s smartphone users do (meaning almost half don’t), and certain countries/areas have way more coverage than others. And a massive number of people have limited data per month, which means it’s also a cost concern. Leaner delivery is not just ethical, but it also makes better business sense.
phkahler 4mo ago
If you don't encode locally as the video is created, you either need to store RAW frames which takes enormous amount of storage, or you use a different format and suffer quality loss by transcending.
- tverbeure 4mo ago
  > you use a different format and suffer quality loss by transcending. Compressing to AV1/h264/265 etc is really only done for the final version, but that doesn't mean that videos are stored in RAW format during editing, where it is very common to store frames locally in Apple ProRes, Avid DNxHD, or some other compressed format that's targeted towards professional editing. Contrary to AV1 or whatever similar format which offer compression ratios of 1000x and more, these formats have a compression ratio of around 10x. They are very simple, and the quality loss is low enough that it doesn't matter. They also tend to store images with 30 bits per pixel instead of the 24 bpp that's normally used for streaming.
  - Forgeties79 4mo ago
    You’re not wrong but I do think it’s worth clarifying that any professional production with a budget, even a modest one, is generally being shot with a raw codec -> edited/colored with proxies -> rendered with the original raw codec where they compress for the final cut. ProRes and the like are used for proxies or quick and dirty productions that are mostly shooting their look in camera because of a fast turnaround time. This is usually event work on a budget or something for social media.
IshKebab 4mo ago
Video calls & streaming.
- sysguest 4mo ago
  this for other cases, I can just wait more for my cpu/gpu/cloud to do the job
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
esposm03 4mo ago
Yes. An uncompressed 1080p, 60fps video with 24-bit color depth would need around 3Gbps to be streamed. And even if you don't need to stream it, that would still consume a sizeable portion of the write throughput of the fastest SSDs currently available; if you go up to 4K, you'd actually exceed that by a lot (not to mention, 1tb of storage would last for about 10 minutes of video).
- Ecco 4mo ago
  Using raw uncompressed bitrate is a bit disingenuous. How about comparing an older, widely supported codec like H.264 as a baseline?
  - overfeed 4mo ago
    > Using raw uncompressed bitrate is a bit disingenuous It is not disingenuous given the context. Gp was responding to ggp's hypothetical: >> Is there a compelling reason encoding needs to be done locally?
  - gblargg 4mo ago
    If you compressed it with H.264, it wouldn't make much sense to send it remotely to be encoded with a better codec.
    - Dylan16807 4mo ago
      Why not? If h.264 is the best you can do with minimal resources, you can give it 5x the final bitrate and send it to a specialized/beefy encoding system to become something better.
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  Who is regularly watching uncompressed videos outside of production environments? That’s got to be a very small population.
  - gblargg 4mo ago

halJordan 4mo ago

Well yes? The platforms only accept certain resolution/bitrates and also most of America isnt running 1gig up. They're running 5-30 mbps up. So yeah they need to encode it.

thrownthatway 4mo ago
> They're running 5-30 mbps up Do you not have 98% high speed 5G coverage?
- ihattendorf 4mo ago
  Data caps make that hard. While everyone likes to claim unlimited data, I'm not aware of any providers that don't have a heavy data user clause where they'll deprioritize your data if you're a top ~5% data user (usually somewhere over ~1TB/month). You also will need _some_ sort of encoding locally before uploading, even if it's minimal, which could lead to issues when encoded again (although there are codecs available to minimize this).
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  Just over half the world’s smartphone users do (meaning almost half don’t), and certain countries/areas have way more coverage than others. And a massive number of people have limited data per month, which means it’s also a cost concern. Leaner delivery is not just ethical, but it also makes better business sense.

phkahler 4mo ago

If you don't encode locally as the video is created, you either need to store RAW frames which takes enormous amount of storage, or you use a different format and suffer quality loss by transcending.

tverbeure 4mo ago
> you use a different format and suffer quality loss by transcending. Compressing to AV1/h264/265 etc is really only done for the final version, but that doesn't mean that videos are stored in RAW format during editing, where it is very common to store frames locally in Apple ProRes, Avid DNxHD, or some other compressed format that's targeted towards professional editing. Contrary to AV1 or whatever similar format which offer compression ratios of 1000x and more, these formats have a compression ratio of around 10x. They are very simple, and the quality loss is low enough that it doesn't matter. They also tend to store images with 30 bits per pixel instead of the 24 bpp that's normally used for streaming.
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  You’re not wrong but I do think it’s worth clarifying that any professional production with a budget, even a modest one, is generally being shot with a raw codec -> edited/colored with proxies -> rendered with the original raw codec where they compress for the final cut. ProRes and the like are used for proxies or quick and dirty productions that are mostly shooting their look in camera because of a fast turnaround time. This is usually event work on a budget or something for social media.

IshKebab 4mo ago

Video calls & streaming.

sysguest 4mo ago
this for other cases, I can just wait more for my cpu/gpu/cloud to do the job

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

esposm03 4mo ago

Yes. An uncompressed 1080p, 60fps video with 24-bit color depth would need around 3Gbps to be streamed. And even if you don't need to stream it, that would still consume a sizeable portion of the write throughput of the fastest SSDs currently available; if you go up to 4K, you'd actually exceed that by a lot (not to mention, 1tb of storage would last for about 10 minutes of video).

Ecco 4mo ago
Using raw uncompressed bitrate is a bit disingenuous. How about comparing an older, widely supported codec like H.264 as a baseline?
- overfeed 4mo ago
  > Using raw uncompressed bitrate is a bit disingenuous It is not disingenuous given the context. Gp was responding to ggp's hypothetical: >> Is there a compelling reason encoding needs to be done locally?
- gblargg 4mo ago
  If you compressed it with H.264, it wouldn't make much sense to send it remotely to be encoded with a better codec.
  - Dylan16807 4mo ago
    Why not? If h.264 is the best you can do with minimal resources, you can give it 5x the final bitrate and send it to a specialized/beefy encoding system to become something better.
Forgeties79 4mo ago
Who is regularly watching uncompressed videos outside of production environments? That’s got to be a very small population.
- gblargg 4mo ago