(no title)
tfe | 5 years ago
This manifests as buffering on slower connections, where YouTube or Vimeo would just downgrade the user to a lower bitrate transparently (or nearly transparently).
An end user today will expect that behavior and have very little tolerance for buffering if their connection is unable to smoothly play the one bitrate the creator published (no matter how fast the CDN is).
Edit: I’m aware that it’s possible to do adaptive bitrate streaming outside of using Vimeo or YouTube (as several commenters have explained below) however this isn’t what TFA describes and I think it’s important to note this deficiency in the author’s described approach to serving their own video.
guu|5 years ago
[0]: https://github.com/vincentbernat/video2hls
[1]: https://ryanparman.com/posts/2018/serving-bandwidth-friendly...
news_to_me|5 years ago
My solution was pretty janky, but it's an interesting problem space to explore.
poxrud|5 years ago
guptaneil|5 years ago
[0]: https://blog.metamorphium.com/2020/07/20/diy-video-streaming...
simlevesque|5 years ago
martin-adams|5 years ago
BunnyCDN which the author is recommending does support the HLS protocol. What isn't stated is if there's any specific steps to achieve that.
You're right though, the author didn't factor this as a requirement to their needs.
mikeryan|5 years ago
command_tab|5 years ago
lucideer|5 years ago
Which is... a bit shocking. From the title of the article, I assumed the content would be related to hosting video. HLS was the first thing that came to mind and I assumed it'd be mentioned up top. I clicked to see if it listed any HTTP-related considerations I wasn't aware of in addition to HLS.
Turns out it's just an advertisement for a (very non-video-specific) CDN service, with some lines tacked on at the end telling you to use Handbrake (oddly, the cli, rather tham ffmpeg???)
unethical_ban|5 years ago
And it spawned a great discussion about self-hosting.
strunz|5 years ago
poxrud|5 years ago
vbezhenar|5 years ago
simias|5 years ago
Youtube is pretty decent for that, you can either let it figure out what format to use, or force the resolution. That's a good compromise IMO.
ryandrake|5 years ago
nicoburns|5 years ago
kvz|5 years ago
0xbkt|5 years ago
Already__Taken|5 years ago
I've turned off too many 720p-only talks because it's unreadable.
cxr|5 years ago
This may be generally true, but for any screencast (including the author's use cases), automatically downgrading to a lower quality video based on connection speed is a bug, not a feature.
gingerlime|5 years ago
tfe|5 years ago
emilfihlman|5 years ago
As a user, I _never_ want to watch shit quality content and _MUCH_ prefer buffering to it.
Multicomp|5 years ago
Back in the day, you could open a tab, hit pause, go back to whatever you are reading, and by the time you finish that article and maybe grab a cup of coffee, the video is fully loaded and you can watch at your leisure.
These days, all the websites are so smart that they realise that you are not on the tab and load nothing so even though the page is been open for 20-minutes, you still have the lovely privilege of sitting there staring at the throbber every so often, thanks to your work insisting on full VPN tunnelling.
vrotaru|5 years ago
Highly (or highishly) technical people ready to pay for video courses. One can infer from that a they have a good enough connection.
Is not like everybody should be Facebook, and have his video content available for all devices and bit rates.
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
smart_jackal|5 years ago
fomine3|5 years ago
account42|5 years ago
The average end user maybe. Not all endusers - for most videos I would rather wait than get a lower quality.
trianglem|5 years ago
Alternatively, is there a way to encrypt something, such that you can apply a transform to the encrypted data to downsample it without knowing the contents of the file?