Settings for 1280x720 h.264 video so SmugMug doesnt re-encode?

[frb]

Hi

I've had a look through this forum, and on the SmugMug help site (although I didn't look through every page of the 52 page thread in here!).

From what I've read - it seems that irrespective of the bitrate of a h.264 1280x720 movie, SmugMug will re-encode it.

What is the reasoning behind this? Couldn't SM say "if you upload a H.264 video thats less than 500MB and shorter than 5 minutes, with a bitrate of 3.2mbps, we wont re-encode it for high-def viewing, we'll just re-encode it for the web and medium def"?

Therefore, SM would be keeping the "original" high-def video and just encoding the lower def versions.

I see benefits for both SM and users

1. Quicker (as SM doesnt need to re-encode your video in 1280x720)
2. Originals stored, if they conform to the required standards.

Only downside I see is that you might get a lot of support requests from users saying (how come my video got re-encoded, I had it setup correctly... etc)

As a Vimeo user, I like the idea that I can encode a video and thats the same video that is available on the web. Obviously, Vimeo only shows med-def in streaming form, but Vimeo _does_ save the original and allow it to be downloaded.

SM has one up on Vimeo in that (as I understand it) it streams the full 1280x720. The downside is, it re-encodes it first (and this is bad, because, AFAIK, the more times you re-encode video, the more info you lose?)

[peestandingup]

What would be great is if Smugmug (or someone else) could develop a small "export to Smugmug HD" plugin for Mac (under the Quicktime export menu) & for Windows as well. Then you could just upload the file & have it be immediately available instead of getting re-encoded on Smugmug's end.

You're right. It's always best to not have your footage encoded multiple times so that it retains quality. If it would be possible to go straight from your footage to Smugmug & skip that extra encoding step, that would be best.

The problem as of now is that the footage would still have to be encoded at the smaller sizes since Smugmug makes multiple copies at different sizes to be played back on different monitors, slower machines, portable devices, etc. But at least the HD size could remain intact.

[darryl]

I too was surprised when low-res video that I carefully encoded to match SmugMug's specs ended up getting re-encoded. Seems like SmugMug could save themselves a little processing time (and money) on Amazon's server farm by doing a file check before crunching on the "full sized" rendition of videos.

[mcargill]

I also agree that the SmugMug re-encoding is problematic. I am experimenting using smug mug for video and need a set of specs to follow so I can sign off on compression and color quality locally before uploading for client review. Some imagery, though the uncompressed original quicktime is 1280x720, should only be presented online as 960x540 if the compression artifacts are too noticeable for clients to review. I am testing SmugMug to see if it can provide the same service for online video approvals/comments as is provided by some specialty sites I currently use.

Many Thanks
Marguerite

[ToxMox]

+1 ...would really like to have this ability.

[disci]

Yep, I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion as well. Many of us are already dealing with footage which has been compressed twice before it's uploaded. First, what's recorded in the camera is usually compressed (fortunately not as much), and then it's often compressed again, further, when edited. Then, SM compress it again, for the third time....:cry

What I also find frustrating is that if I have followed the SM bitrate recommendations (http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/How+to+convert+and+format+a+video+for+upload+to+Sm ugMug), my videos have much/many more compression artifacts after the SM processing, even though the new birtate is alost identical to what I uploaded. I'm really happy with so much of what SM does (and I'm genuinely grateful for Power users receiving access to full HD), but I feel that SM have a bit further to go (please) in the area of video compression 'artifacting'.

Regards

Des

[nigelbb]

The option offered by Vimeo is for users to be able to download the original video file. SmugMug however deletes the original file once it has been encoded.

[thhowl]

+1 for less compression - or a means to avoid re-encoding.

[Malte]

Absolutely, +1! :thumb

Malte

[stufur]

Yep, I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion as well. Many of us are already dealing with footage which has been compressed twice before it's uploaded. First, what's recorded in the camera is usually compressed (fortunately not as much), and then it's often compressed again, further, when edited. Then, SM compress it again, for the third time....:cry

What I also find frustrating is that if I have followed the SM bitrate recommendations (http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/How+to+convert+and+format+a+video+for+upload+to+Sm ugMug), my videos have much/many more compression artifacts after the SM processing, even though the new birtate is alost identical to what I uploaded. I'm really happy with so much of what SM does (and I'm genuinely grateful for Power users receiving access to full HD), but I feel that SM have a bit further to go (please) in the area of video compression 'artifacting'.

Regards

Des

I agree. I feel that footage I upload to Smugmug has too much "pixel" artifact (especially in scenes with fast movements). Both Youtube and Vime has far better quality (with lower bit rate). I have emailed support, showing them the same footage that have been uploaded to Youtube, Smugmug and Vimeo, but they don't seem to see the quality difference - or they don't care.

Really frustrating :(

[phototristan]

Hi,

We are definitely looking into this!

[photowinz]

Any update on this? My latest uploads are looking horribly pixelated!

[tijoseph]

I thought it was just me and maybe the way I export my movies. They look horrible on smugmug. What a shame considering smugmug is so great for photos

IS there a recommended file type, size, etc, for upload that maybe looks a bit better than average?

[kofa]

The problem is that SmugMug, in order to save CPU, seems to use single-pass, low quality encoding/transcoding.
In late July, I reported an issue to SmugMug, and we had a lengthy discussion. I was promised the issue would be looked at. I understand that more CPU costs more money, but currently Smugmug is way (yes, way!) behind free youtube or vimeo when it comes to video quality.
Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=las7YWZMl5A&hd=1
http://vimeo.com/13399696 (use password smugmug - not the same video, but similar circumstances)
And then...
http://photos.kovacs-telekes.org/Csalad/2010/Godi-strand-2010-07-13/12944806_kgFjk#940412933_dwVsf-M-LB

The other day (months after the original incident) I uploaded similar videos (kids having fun in the water) months later, with the same bad results.
Here are screen captures that demonstrate that reasonable quality may be reached at 3 Mbps, even using a single-pass encoding:
http://photos.kovacs-telekes.org/Other/smugmug-00003-mts-ticket-79235/

I hope SmugMug will one day find a way to improve video quality.

[SamirD]

They seem to be using FFMPEG for their encoding. I know there's switches for quality and multi-pass encoding, but the CPU utilization would definitely be higher, which in turn would slow down encoding even more than it is. :dunno

[kofa]

I think SmugMug should specify the expectations (codec, bitrate etc.), and let us upload the encoded versions, possibly for all supported viewing sizes. It'd be a good compromise; users who are happy with the current (low) quality would retain the simple procedure of uploading and letting SmugMug deal with encoding; those demanding the highest quality, on the other hand, could tweak encoder parameters and burn CPU cycles to their liking (people serious about video would have the required software, knowledge and powerful computers anyway).

[kofa]

I have added an entry at uservoice - please vote if you think it's reasonable:
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/1244055-allow-us-to-skip-your-video-re-encoding-procedure-?ref=title

[SamirD]

Sounds reasonable. I don't need this feature, but I've added a positive comment. :thumb

[Paula78]

I’ve just activated SmugVault on my account, but the SmugMug plugin still says SmugMug won’t accept CR2-files. Any plans for an update that will support SmugVault?:dunno