Member Avatar for DanielGardner

I hope I posted this in the right location. Please move it if I haven't.
Mostly what I need is you all's advice as to whether I'm going about hosting a&v files the best way.

My father has his own domain name and online space. Recently, we have thought of hosting audio and video files (of church conferences and sermons) on his website. I have videotaped the pastos, edited the footage, and now I want to make sure I render the media in the appropriate format.

Video situation:
Currently, most accesses to our website are most likely from visitors with dial-up internet. Therefore, I rendered the video, using Pinnacle Studio, in RealPlayer format, size 160 x 120, and with a target audience of Dialup modem. The result is an hour and 6 minute video file of 16.5 mb.
I am new to the whole experience of hsoting videos and such, so if you all have any advice on the way I am going about things, let me know. Also, if you know of a better format for my video that would benefit my dial-up visitors.

Audio situation:
So I also want to make available the audio files of those videos in a separate download, since I thought that n audio would download faster. At first, I thought I'd render them in .RM format as well; however, whereas Pinnacle Studio does have the ability to render the footage as soley an .RM audio file, the size of the result is much like the size of the video file. For example, a rendered audio file is 16.2 while the video file is 16.5. Of course, this little difference in size defeats my purpose of hosting the audio in the first place.
So I turned to WavePad, opened the .rm file, and saved it as an mp3. Of course, with a bitrate of 128, the resulting mp3 was huge, so I decreased it to a bitrate of 16, and now I'm getting a 5mb file, which is great.

Do you all know of a better way of getting small mp3 (or even .rm audio) files? (For the record, I use the free version of RealPlayer, version 10, and encourage my online visitors to download the same.)

Advice of any kind is appreciated. Thanks for reading!

  • 4 Contributors
  • 7 Replies
  • 283 Views
  • 5 Months Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by DanielGardner

Dani AI

Generated

A short, practical update based on what described and the suggestions from and : avoid depending on legacy plugin formats long‑term. Adobe stopped supporting and actively blocking Flash/Flash‑based players, so building a workflow around SWF/FLV is fragile and insecure today — move to HTML5‑friendly formats instead. ()

For audio (sermons): make an audio‑only file first and optimize for speech. Modern practice is to deliver MP3 for maximum compatibility but consider AAC or Opus when possible because they give the same intelligibility at lower bitrates. Encode mono, 44.1 kHz (or 24 kHz for very tight size limits) and pick a bitrate in the Apple/industry recommended ranges for spoken word (e.g., ~64 kb/s mono is a very good balance; lower bitrates can be used if you test for clarity). Opus achieves good speech quality at far lower bitrates if clients can play it. (podcasters.apple.com)

For video aimed at very slow connections, prioritize short clips or split long sessions into chapters (users can download only what they need). Use an MP4 container with an efficient codec (H.264 as the universal baseline; WebM/AV1 for modern browsers where you can offer a second source). Keep resolution small, reduce frame rate (10–15 fps is fine for talk), and target a low video bitrate — the combination of those changes will shrink files dramatically while keeping speech readable. Serve with HTML5 <video> for progressive download, or use simple HLS/DASH if you later need adaptive streaming. (developer.mozilla.org)

Workflow/tools: use a reliable transcoder like FFmpeg for batch jobs — extract audio, normalize levels, transcode to target codec/bitrate, and optionally create short segments. Host audio files directly (or use a podcast host/YouTube to offload bandwidth) and embed them with the native <audio>/<video> elements so visitors don’t need extra players. Test final files on the slowest connection you expect before publishing. (ffmpeg.org)

Recommended Answers

All 7 Replies

Member Avatar for DanceInstructor

Personally I'm not a fan of real media. I would use (cringes) windows audio and windows video formats, mostly because people won't have to download anything new to watch or listen.

Member Avatar for DanielGardner

Thanks DanceInstructor for the input. Here in Brasil (where I'm currently living) RealPlayer is more of a household name in terms of online video, and I was under the impression that RM files are smaller, so thats why I choose RP in the first place. I'm such a noob it hurts, so I appreciate your input.

I'm not a fan of RealPlayer either, so I took your suggestion and rendered a 3min, 7sec video clip for 56 kbps in WMV mode, as well as rendered it in rm for dialup. The end result is the WMV file at 840kb and the RM file at 800kb. Theres a real difference in the quality though of the WMV clip: the audio sounds "sandy" (rough) and the pitch is deeper then the actual voice.
So it appears my Pinnacle Studio editng software works more kindly with the .RM files then the WMV ones.

Thanks again for the comment.

Member Avatar for DanceInstructor

I didn't say windows was better! Have you thought about splitting the files into 2 or 3 parts?

Member Avatar for >shadow<

quality is always a must have and dnaceinstucter i must agree that realmedia is no good when it comes to music or video...

Member Avatar for rus

I would STRONGLY suggest moving to Flash for your video & audio needs. You can edit your videos in your current software, then use Flash to encode and deliver your video.

Plus, with the ability to do "progressive download" your video will start playing almost immediatly instead of taking forever to start.

If you don't have Flash you can get an inexpensive alternative that you can author Flash projects and video with called Swish. You can see it at:

http://www.swishzone.com/

I used it to create some down and dirty streaming video (instead of using Quicktime and WM). Follow my link in my signature to view.

Member Avatar for DanielGardner

Friends, thanks so much for helping this noob.

I am now looking into flash for my needs, and wow. I should have known about this much sooner. It throws RM and WM out the window.

I do have a question regarding flash. What I have experimented is using Riva encoder (link) to make .flv files and then using the free Flash Video Player (link) when displaying the video on a webpage. This gives pause/play abilitity to the streaming video.

However, for my small video needs, we purchased the video converter AVS Video Tools () and it gives me the ability to convert my WMV and RM to .swf. However, even after a lot of Google searches, I still can't find how I'm expected to show these swf videos in a player online (one that gives me the same pause/play abilities).

This is the first time I've ever worked with flash. (btw, I don't have Flash program itself.) Am I wrong in expecting .swf to be very similiar to .flv? How am I to display these swf videos?

If someone could point out where I may be wrong (i.e. wack me along side the head) I'd appreciate it!

Thank you!

Member Avatar for DanielGardner

Okay, just a little update. Thanks to some links here on DaniWeb and other articles, I've been able to search Google more intelligently, and sort of understand the difference between .swf and .flv.

In short:
FLV=Use streaming way to play, allow embed cue points
SWF=Needs to load all movie data into memory to play

Seeing this difference I would most def feel inclined to use the flv format.

However, I am still wondering if there is a video player style way to display swf's. Otherwise, I'll have to use my Riva encoder to convert to flv, instead of using my AVS converter to convert to swf.

Does anyone see a benefit in using a swf? Thanks!

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.