5 minute limit - is it really neccessary?

[Karel Bata]

Since there is already a 500MB limit to uploads, is it necessary to also have a 5 minute limit? There are plenty of shorts that run over to 5 minutes that would still be less than a 500MB upload.

I think a better approach to bandwidth usage limits would be a cap on weekly total file size, like Virb impose. Or at least scrap the 5 minutes.

[Andy]

Moved to SmugMug Video Support from Action!.

[Andy]

Since there is already a 500MB limit to uploads, is it necessary to also have a 5 minute limit? There are plenty of shorts that run over to 5 minutes that would still be less than a 500MB upload.

I think a better approach to bandwidth usage limits would be a cap on weekly total file size, like Virb impose. Or at least scrap the 5 minutes.
Power users have a 5 minute limit. Pro customers can upload 10minutes :thumb

Thanks for the request for longer times, we appreciate your input very, very much.

[nigelbb]

The 500MB limit vs. 5/10 minutes only makes sense if SmugMug is converting the video. I've been uploading some 1280x720 HD material which at the 3.2Mbps that is used for this resolution gives a final file size of less than 30MB per minute. So at HD that's 16+ minutes & for DVD quality it's probably 30 minutes.

[waygard33]

Power users have a 5 minute limit. Pro customers can upload 10minutes :thumb

Thanks for the request for longer times, we appreciate your input very, very much.

2.5 minutes for power users...:D

[MooseKiller]

2.5 minutes for power users...:D

Dern it... Thought something may have changed and it was now 5... 5 would really be nice.... I don't plan on shooting HD anytime soon.

Also, .3gp and email upload support would be nice too.

[frb]

The 500MB limit vs. 5/10 minutes only makes sense if SmugMug is converting the video. I've been uploading some 1280x720 HD material which at the 3.2Mbps that is used for this resolution gives a final file size of less than 30MB per minute. So at HD that's 16+ minutes & for DVD quality it's probably 30 minutes.

I agree - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=122586

[Baldy]

2.5 minutes for power users...:DWe silently changed to 5 minutes for power users and 10 minutes for pros. If you're seeing them get rejected beyond 2.5 minutes for power users, that's a bug.

For the size limits, we want to make it bigger but we have some hardware constraints with our upload servers we're working on.

[MooseKiller]

We silently changed to 5 minutes for power users and 10 minutes for pros. If you're seeing them get rejected beyond 2.5 minutes for power users, that's a bug.

For the size limits, we want to make it bigger but we have some hardware constraints with our upload servers we're working on.

Woo hoo!!! Thanks Baldy!!

[ontherivet]

I'm confused...what exactly is the time limit for power users?

Everything in this thread refers to 5 minutes (HD maybe?), while from Smugmug help:

Power and Pro users can add videos to their galleries:
Power Users (http://www.smugmug.com/price/power-users.mg) can upload DVD? quality video clips up to 10 minutes in length.
Pros (http://www.smugmug.com/pro/) can add stunning HD? video up to 10 minutes in length!
Can't wait to make your global directorial debut? Standard users can upgrade here (http://www.smugmug.com/homepage/settings.mg?settings=upgrade).
Gotcha: All videos have a file size limit of 512MB.


I tried to upload a 640x480 yesterday that was just shy of 10 minutes and about 100MB and nothing. I've uploaded smaller files previously with success. I'm a power user. Edit: I just checked my log and it does show the file as being too large (>300 seconds).

[darryl]

Yeah, this page says 10 minutes DVD-quality for Power Users.

http://smugmug.com/photos/photo-sharing-features/

That seems new. Puts them on par with Phanfare though, which is cool.

[Andy]

I'm confused...what exactly is the time limit for power users?

Everything in this thread refers to 5 minutes (HD maybe?), while from Smugmug help:

Power and Pro users can add videos to their galleries:
Power Users (http://www.smugmug.com/price/power-users.mg) can upload DVD? quality video clips up to 10 minutes in length.
Pros (http://www.smugmug.com/pro/) can add stunning HD? video up to 10 minutes in length!
Can't wait to make your global directorial debut? Standard users can upgrade here (http://www.smugmug.com/homepage/settings.mg?settings=upgrade).
Gotcha: All videos have a file size limit of 512MB.


I tried to upload a 640x480 yesterday that was just shy of 10 minutes and about 100MB and nothing. I've uploaded smaller files previously with success. I'm a power user. Edit: I just checked my log and it does show the file as being too large (>300 seconds).
Sorry, the help doco got ahead of the actual feature :D We're upping that limit this week, stay tuned.

[Karel Bata]

Hmm...

And I've got an 11 minute short film. YouTube for me then... :(:

[Andy]

Hmm...

And I've got an 11 minute short film. YouTube for me then... :(:
So, if we go from 5 to 10 then you want 11 :D

We'll stick with 10 for the time being, sorry we can't see that 11min short on SmugMug :(

[havanese]

For the size limits, we want to make it bigger but we have some hardware constraints with our upload servers we're working on.

Any updates on when the 512mb upload can be larger? As a Pro user who shoots in 1080i I always have to downgrade to 720 and edit to less than 4 mins to get under the limit.

We have a 10 min limit but realistic can you shoot a 1080i or 720p that's 10 minutes, but under the 512mb limit?

If someone has please provide a link and tell me what your settings were...

[Malte]

Any updates on when the 512mb upload can be larger? As a Pro user who shoots in 1080i I always have to downgrade to 720 and edit to less than 4 mins to get under the limit.

We have a 10 min limit but realistic can you shoot a 1080i or 720p that's 10 minutes, but under the 512mb limit?

If someone has please provide a link and tell me what your settings were...

I could be way off here but I've heard that 1080i is just an upscaled version of 720p, every other row and column being made up by the decoding chip. Anyway I guess my point is to ask why you prefer 1080i over 720p?

Malte

[nigelbb]

Any updates on when the 512mb upload can be larger? As a Pro user who shoots in 1080i I always have to downgrade to 720 and edit to less than 4 mins to get under the limit.

We have a 10 min limit but realistic can you shoot a 1080i or 720p that's 10 minutes, but under the 512mb limit?

If someone has please provide a link and tell me what your settings were...As a pro user you can upload Full HD 1080p video. SmugMug will produce all automatically the downscaled versions in your gallery.

If you are editing your videos the only thing that you need to care about is not hitting the 10 minute time limit. The file size that you upload is under your control. Specify the the average bit rate when rendering the final file out of your edit software or use MPEGStreamclip to compress the completed file further. Whatever bit rate file you upload will be compressed pretty hard. HiDef is 3.2Mbps while Full HD is 7.2Mbps.

Even if you upload videos that are already at the target bit rate SmugMug will still process them again. Personally I compress down to 10Mbps with MPEGStreamclip & then let SmugMug sort out the appropriate compression for different qualities. H.264 video quality can still be amazing even with heavy compression as this short clip shows http://www.barkersvideo.com/gallery/7631400_4c2WD#497160602_Z8vUb-XL-LB
This is a clip recorded on a Canon 5D MK II that has not been edited. I just uploaded the original 40+Mbps video file to SmugMug straight off the camera memory card

BTW I have an 18Mbps broadband connection & am lucky to view the Full HD version without any stuttering. A 7+Mbps video stream is pushing the limits of even a very fast network connection.

Cheers

Nigel

[nigelbb]

I could be way off here but I've heard that 1080i is just an upscaled version of 720p, every other row and column being made up by the decoding chip. Anyway I guess my point is to ask why you prefer 1080i over 720p?

MalteSorry but you are way off:-) That's not how it works at all. In truth there isn't much native 720p material to upscale in any case. BluRay is 1080p & HDTV is overwhelmingly 1080i with as I recall just one of the networks in the US on 720p.

Downscaling at the display end is far more common as while many/most/all? large screen TVs are now Full HD 1080p many of the smaller ones & many projectors are so-called 'HD Ready' at a gross pixel count of 1366x768 which is displayed as 1280x720p.

Cheers

Nigel

[havanese]

I could be way off here but I've heard that 1080i is just an upscaled version of 720p, every other row and column being made up by the decoding chip. Anyway I guess my point is to ask why you prefer 1080i over 720p?

Malte

I meant 1080p ... sorry about that. I shoot with the Canon HV20.

[nigelbb]

I meant 1080p ... sorry about that. I shoot with the Canon HV20.HDV the tape format that the Canon HV20 uses is actually 1440x1080i.

Cheers

Nigel

[havanese]

HDV the tape format that the Canon HV20 uses is actually 1440x1080i.

Cheers

Nigel

Yes your correct...sinus meds + early morning posting = I don't know what I am talking about...

Still the lastest video I tried to up load at 720 had to be very short to get it in under the 512mb limit.

That limit is what I wish would change.

[Karel Bata]

So, if we go from 5 to 10 then you want 11 :D

I never said I wanted 10. :D I think the sensible thing is a limit on the amount of data. I wouldn't put a 1080 or 720 video up anyway - most people have probs playing it. If I put the video up it would be 640x360 - A good size until fast broadband is common methinks. :thumb Like those in the link below

[Andy]

A good size until fast broadband is common methinks. :thumb Like those in the link below
It's not common now?

[nigelbb]

Yes your correct...sinus meds + early morning posting = I don't know what I am talking about...

Still the lastest video I tried to up load at 720 had to be very short to get it in under the 512mb limit.

That limit is what I wish would change.Perhaps you should cut back on the meds or at least re-read my previous post http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1081770&postcount=17

The 512MB limit is irrelevant. Take your 1280x720p video & compress it with MPEGStreamclip to the SmugMug target bit rate of 3.2Mbps. This will yield a file well below the 512MB limit & will also be quicker for you to upload.

Cheers

Nigel

[gbrookshaw]

Hi Andy,

Any idea when power users will get upgraded to 10 minutes? Is it still planned for this week?

Thanks

[peestandingup]

It's not common now?
You'd be surprised. Last count, only something like 45% of US households had broadband & like 55% still had dial-up. :huh

[darryl]

You'd be surprised. Last count, only something like 45% of US households had broadband & like 55% still had dial-up. :huh

I blame the people in the middle. America is so freaking big, it's hard to get fat pipes everywhere. :-}

[nigelbb]

You'd be surprised. Last count, only something like 45% of US households had broadband & like 55% still had dial-up. :huhThe US isn't the whole world. The figures elsewhere are much, much higher. The most recent figures that I could find for the UK show 65% of all households have Internet access. 56% of all households have broadband which means that dial-up accounts for only 9% of all households. So in total percentage terms it's over 85% broadband The UK is by no means the leader in broadband penetration in Europe & some countries in SE Asia have even higher rates (faster service too).

Cheers

Nigel

[gbrookshaw]

For info, it seems power users can now upload 10 minutes (I got the 300 seconds error last week but don't now) - it wasn't mentioned in latest release notes though.

[havanese]

I blame the people in the middle. America is so freaking big, it's hard to get fat pipes everywhere. :-}

I'm in the middle (Tennessee) and I have fiber to the premises in a town of 18,000 and yes I wear shoes to work and no I have never been to graceland.

[havanese]

Perhaps you should cut back on the meds or at least re-read my previous post http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1081770&postcount=17

The 512MB limit is irrelevant. Take your 1280x720p video & compress it with MPEGStreamclip to the SmugMug target bit rate of 3.2Mbps. This will yield a file well below the 512MB limit & will also be quicker for you to upload.

Cheers

Nigel

Most of the video i shoot is at least 7 to 10 minutes long. I shoot it at 1080i, which I would like to use to upload to Smug, but even if I can't and I upload it at 1280x720p a 7 to 10 min video at 3.2Mbps will still not be under the 512mb limit.

I did go back and read your post and watch the video which is crystal clear but the video was less than 1 minute could you have shot 9 minutes of that footage and uploaded it to Smug at 3.2Mbps?

9min = 540 seconds * 3.2 = 1728mb (Avg video size for me)
51 secs * 3.2 = 163.2mb (video you shot)

[peestandingup]

Most of the video i shoot is at least 7 to 10 minutes long. I shoot it at 1080i, which I would like to use to upload to Smug, but even if I can't and I upload it at 1280x720p a 7 to 10 min video at 3.2Mbps will still not be under the 512mb limit.
You have to be doing something wrong in your export settings. What program are you using to edit/export??

A 10 minute HDV or AVCHD 1080p video thats exported in H.264 in a MOV container at 3200 kbits/s at 1280x720 30fps should NOT be that high in MBs. Should be around 300MB, 400MBs tops. But no way you should be going over the MB limit with those settings.

[nigelbb]

Most of the video i shoot is at least 7 to 10 minutes long. I shoot it at 1080i, which I would like to use to upload to Smug, but even if I can't and I upload it at 1280x720p a 7 to 10 min video at 3.2Mbps will still not be under the 512mb limit.

I did go back and read your post and watch the video which is crystal clear but the video was less than 1 minute could you have shot 9 minutes of that footage and uploaded it to Smug at 3.2Mbps?

9min = 540 seconds * 3.2 = 1728mb (Avg video size for me)
51 secs * 3.2 = 163.2mb (video you shot)Randy, Your maths is flawed. We are talking about uploading files compressed to a bit rate of 3.2Mbps. Mbps is Mega bits per second not Mega bytes per second. 3.2Mbps is 0.4MBps.

This 1280x720p HD movie with a bit rate of just under 3.4Mbps is 2 minutes 59s long & just 72.3MB in size http://www.barkersvideo.com/photos/495734125_a2mNq-1280D.mp4

This 1920x1080p Full HD movie with a bit rate of 7.34Mbps is 50s long & 44MB in size so even a 9 minute video at this bit rate would still be under the 500MB limit http://www.barkersvideo.com/photos/497160602_Z8vUb-1920D.mp4

Just use MPEG Streamclip to compress your file down to the target bit rate using the H.264 CODEC & you will achieve the same results with your videos.

Cheers

Nigel

[havanese]

You have to be doing something wrong in your export settings. What program are you using to edit/export??


I use Adobe Pre Elements 7 ... maybe I am getting my settings wrong. I'll go home tonight and try and video with the settings at 3.2.

Thanks for everyone trying to get me to understand bitrates and file sizing, it's starting to make more sense now and if I can get Pre Elements to work with those settings I'll be happy.

I post again after I try it.

[Andy]

You'd be surprised. Last count, only something like 45% of US households had broadband & like 55% still had dial-up. :huh
Yeah but our visitors, and customers, are very much broadband oriented. Greater than 75%.

[det1rac]

I posted a similar item here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131545

10 Minutes is fine, but being at 512MB offers nothing beyond what YouTube, and Facebook have (to name a few) both of which have 1024MB file restrictions. Not to mention they are free alternatives.

I think the market will continue to push this up and smugmug should continue to align with the competitive landscape by bumping up the file size.

[Andy]

I posted a similar item here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131545

10 Minutes is fine, but being at 512MB offers nothing beyond what YouTube, and Facebook have (to name a few) both of which have 1024MB file restrictions. Not to mention they are free alternatives.

I think the market will continue to push this up and smugmug should continue to align with the competitive landscape by bumping up the file size.The limit is 600mb now, and neither of the two companies you mention has the quality that we have.

[havanese]

The limit is 600mb now, and neither of the two companies you mention has the quality that we have.

For me the bump to 600 really really helped. I just posted a 1080 video yesterday and I noticed the increase to 600 (also posted the same video to youtube and yes it does look better on SM)

[nigelbb]

As I think I noted in an earlier response the file size limit is absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the time limit.

Are those who want to upload files larger than 600MB incapable of using MPEG Streamclip to reduce the bit rate & hence file size of their videos to fit within the SmugMug limit?

[Malte]

As I think I noted in an earlier response the file size limit is absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the time limit.

Are those who want to upload files larger than 600MB incapable of using MPEG Streamclip to reduce the bit rate & hence file size of their videos to fit within the SmugMug limit?

Well, what matters is the viewing experience. If extending the time limit means lower bitrate or resolution, then no, time isn't all that matters. I think the guys at Smugmug are staggering these limits to evaluate how the feature is used, to make sure sure it works well whatever the time/size/bitrate/resolution limit is at any given time.

What if we were able to teach the Flash player to play files we select in sequence, sort of like a playlist in Youtube, except invisible to the viewer.

Malte

[docwalker]

Please remember that the limits are in place because of the processing. Larger/longer files cost more processor resources. As the technology improves, we will improve the limits. We want it, you want it, its just not something that can happen overnight. We have always taken the high quality over quantity road on both photos and videos. We want to be known as the best quality. There are other services that appear to be dedicated to mediocre and long videos. :puke

[nigelbb]

Well, what matters is the viewing experience. If extending the time limit means lower bitrate or resolution, then no, time isn't all that matters. I think the guys at Smugmug are staggering these limits to evaluate how the feature is used, to make sure sure it works well whatever the time/size/bitrate/resolution limit is at any given time.

What if we were able to teach the Flash player to play files we select in sequence, sort of like a playlist in Youtube, except invisible to the viewer.

MalteThis is how video hosting works at SmugMug. The original file that you upload is converted to files of various video resolutions, bit rates, resolution & thus picture qualities all in the H.264 CODEC. Your original video is then deleted. Full HD 1920x1080 video is compressed to about 7Mbps. 1280x720 HD video is compressed to about 3.2Mbps & all the other resolutions have appropriate lower bit rates.

So the size of the file that you upload is irrelevant because whatever size it is it will be compressed to a bit rate of 7Mbps, 3.2Mbps etc A 10 minute H.264 encoded file at a bit rate of 7Mbps will never be as large as 600MB. Whether the file is compressed by you or by SmugMug is your choice but it makes more sense to me to upload the smallest possible file that is consistent with the maximum bit rate that SmugMug supports as this will minimise the upload time.

[SamirD]

The limit is 600mb now, and neither of the two companies you mention has the quality that we have.:clap :clap I just shot two files this weekend that were 512+. Now I can upload them without chopping them up.

Quality>Quantity IMO. :D

[nigelbb]

:clap :clap I just shot two files this weekend that were 512+. Now I can upload them without chopping them up.

Quality>Quantity IMO. :DThere is no need to chop them up. If you had read what I wrote in the previous response you would understand why http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1119664&postcount=42 Just use MPEG Streamclip to reduce the file size & bit rate before uploading.

[SamirD]

There is no need to chop them up. If you had read what I wrote in the previous response you would understand why http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1119664&postcount=42 Just use MPEG Streamclip to reduce the file size & bit rate before uploading.This is possible, but takes time. Chopping the clip is a simple command line operation that can be done as fast as copying a file. The less my workflow demands of my time, the better.

[SamirD]

The limit is 600mb now, and neither of the two companies you mention has the quality that we have.After trying to upload two different videos that are 512+, I don't think the 600mb limit is working for me. :cry

[Kallel00]

Current 600 megs limit is probably what's preventing me from paying the pro subscription & instead using another web service to host my videos.

For everything else Smugmug is like the BWM of photo services, but for videos it's way too Mac oriented :(


The typical HD amateur will use Camcorders that either are HDV tapes, or AVCHD files. On a PC, 80% of the available "all-around" video editing software will only let you output as MPEG-2 if you want to retain the original quality of your files.

Direct output to properly encoded high-definition (that's another problem, since you often you can't even change the presets) h.264 mpeg-4 files requires you to use expensive software like Sony Vegas Pro or Adobe Premiere CS4.

Or, if you can't afford those, you have to start looking around for all the encoders like MPEG Streamclip, Super, MeGui, etc that often require lots of technical knowledge, or plain luck to be able to get the results you want. Personally, I can't even get MPEG Streamclip to work properly on my computer (Quicktime pro is garbage on a PC imo).

Lastly, and I'm prolly just nitpicking here, but multiple conversions never is optimal. AVCHD to MPEG-2 is almost lossless, but I'm really not sure about MPEG-2 to MP4 to Smugmug MP4 a second time around. It's like like ripping a CD to a MP3 audio clip, then having a web site re-encode that MP3 clip a second time.

So if I could simply upload my 10 minutes MPEG-2 1080i clip on Smugmug, I'd pitch in for the pro subscription without thinking about it twice. Be even better if there was some kind of "HD subscription" plan without the photography pro perks.

[havanese]

Lastly, and I'm prolly just nitpicking here, but multiple conversions never is optimal. AVCHD to MPEG-2 is almost lossless, but I'm really not sure about MPEG-2 to MP4 to Smugmug MP4 a second time around. It's like like ripping a CD to a MP3 audio clip, then having a web site re-encode that MP3 clip a second time.

So if I could simply upload my 10 minutes MPEG-2 1080i clip on Smugmug, I'd pitch in for the pro subscription without thinking about it twice. Be even better if there was some kind of "HD subscription" plan without the photography pro perks.

Strong arguments. Although as Andy said (and I agree) the video rendering at SM is better any of the video services I have tried.

[nigelbb]

The typical HD amateur will use Camcorders that either are HDV tapes, or AVCHD files. On a PC, 80% of the available "all-around" video editing software will only let you output as MPEG-2 if you want to retain the original quality of your files.This is incorrect according to this comprehensive review of the top 10 video editing packages. While all provide MPEG2 output (required for regular DVD creation) 8 out of 10 also provide MPEG4 output (required for BluRay creation). What video editor are you using?

TLastly, and I'm prolly just nitpicking here, but multiple conversions never is optimal. AVCHD to MPEG-2 is almost lossless, but I'm really not sure about MPEG-2 to MP4 to Smugmug MP4 a second time around.It makes little difference once the file is in H.264 MPEG4 format. I edit HDV & H.264 & output as H.264 at 10Mbps & then upload to SmugMug which produces a variety of video resolutions at different bit rates. The files that SmugMug creates are indistinguishable from those that I can output at those bit rates from the timeline of my editor e.g. if I create a 7.5Mbps 1920x1080 video it looks identical to the Full HD version that SmugMug creates.

So if I could simply upload my 10 minutes MPEG-2 1080i clip on Smugmug, I'd pitch in for the pro subscription without thinking about it twice.Is there another video service that even supports 1920x1080 video? Leaving that aside ten minutes of MPEG2 1080i video at good quality (25Mbps) will have a file size of around 2GB. How long will that take just to upload to SmugMug? Simply output from your editor in MPEG4 or if that is impossible use one the many simple converters. They really don't require lots of technical knowledge. Dunno what your problem with MPEGstreamclip is I just installed it on one of my old Windows machines along with the recommended QuickTime Alternative 1.81 & took a lowish quality 1 minute clip of 12.5Mbps 1920x1080i MPEG2 at 100MB which converted to a 5Mbps H.264 of around 50MB MPEG without a problem.