15000 Kbits/sec overkill?
 

I noticed my scores have lowered in my latest reviews for quality, and seems they are only based on Kbits/sec so all my updates from 2012 on are now 1080P 15000 Kbits/sec which equals around 100 megs per/minute

overkill, what do you think?

Reviewers hit me up on ICQ please.

ICQ# 643559132

Building a new tour, that will have a page featuring our best reviews.

still no bonus sites when joining, but added many things including 2 webcam shows per week.

your streaming it the bit rate needs to be less than the average bandwidths/speed of your surfer. If your doing a 15Mb or so your surfer is going to need a 15Mbps or faster internet connection and not be doing _anything_ else or else your videos are going to buffer.

waaaay overkill...

1080p with H264 should be cool at max. 6000-8000 kbit/s - unless it's an outdoor scene in the forest

we have 8 different file formats. the 15000 wmv is for downloading. but they do have the option to stream if they wanted. It seems anything under 8K is considered poor quality to review site standards....


I agree, but seems others want more. This is going to eat my server space up....

Ed,

There is some good advice here but you're setting yourself up for delivery problems without very precise choices on your bit rates and other delivery details. Please simply engage the support team here for specific advice on improving quality and choosing the right bit rate (etc)!

Cheers

Brad

if someone wants more than that, then he's an idiot :winkwink:

you will only (if at all) notice a difference in very fast moving scenes or (like i mentioned earlier) in outdoor scenes with very rich detailed backgrounds

variable bitrates instead of constant bitrates can also help solving those issues without increasing the average bitrate too much

One thing that really pisses me off about review sites is they only look at the numbers instead of the quality.

Not everyone encodes equally and some people are able to get much lower bit rates with better quality than those with higher bit rates, but they get poor review numbers because the bit rate isn't high. IMHO it shows just how clueless many reviewers really are to use such a method instead of looking at the actual video quality.

But to answer your question, you are WAY over killing it. But you have a choice, you can make better videos to make your members stream and download them faster or you can stroke the cocks of the review sites and possibly upset your members with insanely huge files.

Go read this guys blog. This guy is an encoding God. Look at what he can do with MP4 and check out some of his settings. It will blow your mind. You'll have better videos because of him, but the review sites will give you a lower score. Maybe tweak out your streams and offer 1 download video per scene that will allow for a good review score.

Read this guys blog like it's the bible: http://sonnati.wordpress.com (Thank me later)

It definitely sounds like talking to the reviewers about quality makes sense here because in my opinion a site where I have to wait forever for a huge download is not a quality site. A quality site, to me, has decent video that downloads fast, meaning roughly 1200-2400 kbps or so.

and if i may add: everything over 2000 kbit/s for streaming is useless

Trying to appease the review sites is a waste of time.
The score means very little...

Agreed.

Yep.

Bingo.

We raised this issue with Rabbit Reviews a while back.

We pointed out all the other factors that effect quality that they ignore.

Camera, lighting, framing, good microphone and recorder. etc etc...

They ignore these points and one wonders why. Is it because they are nerds and can only see bit rates, navigation and up dates, but can't see originality, creativity and value for money?

But look at the websites that get scores of 97%, and how awful they are, and one comes to the conclusion that it is a fix.

The same big sites get the big scores on most review sites. They make them offers they can't refuse.

your stuff was encoded at a bitrate that made it look ugly - no matter how the lighting or anything else was :2 cents:

I'll take everyones advice, I really didn't like the idea of 15000 Kbs/sec Thank you all :)

good thing I didn't re-encode past my 2012 vids.

Thanks dwb I'll be sure and study all of that. And I think I'll go with MaDaltons suggestion on 8000

Thing I don't understand is how it doesn't matter if the content of a solo site is topless tease only or full hardcore. you would think one would be worth more than the other....

BTW another halfway relevant point re bitrates, it depends on how much camera movement there is. Moving the camera is the same as moving everything in the scene, back ground and all, so a hand held camera with lots of movement will need a higher bitrate than one with a steady camera for the same quality.

or encode multiple bitrates and activate the bw monitor in jwplayer - that way, the correct bitrate for the end-user's bandwidth is constantly actively chosen.

eg encode @
350kbs
700kbs
1500kbs

that way, even the poor fart on a 512k connection still gets a constant, not buffering stream (the 350kbs one) and if a guy on 2Mbs gets the 1500kbs video and suddenly his bandwidth crashes to 500kbs for 10 seconds, the player simply swaps in gracefully the 300kbs video until his bandwidth returns - no stuttering, just smooth streaming.

imo, that is worth more points than HD video.... for those that can stream HD get HD, for those that can't they get the stream appropriate for them.

eg see here: http://bw.borkedcoder.com/

That sounds really cool, but we use elivated X as our members area cms. it has it's own player for streaming built in. Not sure what features are in it. the video that streams is 3000 kbs. if that is to much, they can choose a lower setting.

No idea if Elivated X has something like that but if they don't you should get in contact with them, would be a great feature!

Ah yes, this is spot on. :2 cents:

A solo girl being filmed by the pool with slower cam movements will be able to be encoded at a much lower bit rate than that of a hardcore sex scene with lots of movement.

Other things you can do as well since you are shooting solo girls. Shoot with a depth of field so the background is blurry. This will also help with encoding and you can crush it down even more. The less detail you need an a video the lower you can go with your bit rate.

I'm going to take a guess you either have JW Player or Flowplayer in there. If so, either can be adjusted to detect a users BW and load the correct video for them.

Nothing to do with the bitrate, that all us.

youtube recommends 8Mb/s for 1920x1080. i just encoded an MP4 using those settings and a 70 minute video was a little over 4GB so i'm going to drop it down to 6Mb/s. i stream a 640x360 at 2Mb/s and it looks/plays great.

I'm still playing with different settings, but am leaning twords 8000 Kbits/sec

what kind of file sizes are you producing? do you get any complaints from members about the size?

MPEG 19200x1080; 6000k & 640x360 1500K
Flash 800x450; 3000k & 640x360 1500K
MP4 1920x1080; 6000k & 640x360 1500K
Windows 1920x1080; 8000k & 640x360 1500K

Never heard a thing from members about file sizes or quality.

i dropped flash and now stream mp4. it looks a lot better. i was offering:

MP4 1920x1080 @ 4Mb/s
MP4 640x360 @ 2Mb/s
WMV 1920x1080 @ 4Mb/s
WMV 640x360 @ 2Mb/s

MP4 looks much better than WMV and i even considered dropping WMV. i'm going to poll my member first.

So this is the bitrate and the size of a DVD.

The Internet is nearly ready to support normal definition TV.

In another 10 years we should think about HD.
Interesting to know how many computers can play 8Mbps files at full 25 fps.

i was surprised by their specs also. that's a really high bit rate for streaming. i got one complaint today about the 8Mb/s video i posted yesterday so that's not too bad.

i think 4-6Mb/s for 1920x1080 looks good.