• AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 years ago

    I frankly don’t see a way for federated video to happen unless uploads are severely limited or it’s paywalled. Even with YouTube’s wild compression, you’re looking at several gigs for a single 4k video.

    Honestly the fact that YouTube exists is a miracle. Video is still just monstrously large.

    • realaether@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      I hadn’t dealt with video in years (like 2008) and recently used my Canon R6 to record a few seconds of 4k footage.

      After getting over being annoyed at the camera stopping due to overheating after just 5 minutes, I was shocked to see a 7 second clip come to almost 700mb as a raw file.

      Indeed video will probably be the last kind of network to see federation. It could take some pretty generous acts of philanthropy along the way to make anything sustainable happen.

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah I did a music video in 4k on an A7s2 and the source files, for what ended up as a 4 minute video, were around 100GB.

        • 7Sea_Sailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          100 GB ? that’s cute. I work in a film production company for advertisements, where the recent trend has been for the crew to return after 3-5 days of shooting, with RAIDs filled with somewhere between 15 and 25 TB of raw data. no fun to store all this.

    • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I wonder when they’ll have to start deleting content to make space again. At some point, adding more and more servers probably won’t be feasible anymore.

      It really is just wild that a service like YouTube is as big as it is and just does its thing.

      • Shapillon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Currently data storage is dirt cheap because globalised mass production of electronics is a wild thing.

        As soon as we get past our current peak everything production at least on copper, rare metals, and petrol (there’s more, I’m just not knowledgeable enough) and we start to have to ration things a bit high res video streaming will be one of the first things to go.

        • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          And then comes the question, what will they delete first?

          Probably old and therefore maybe irrelevant content, but those old videos from over a decade ago are also mostly lower resolution and bitrate and won’t free up as much space.

          So once that’s exhausted, what goes next?

          Who will have the privilege to stay on the platform, and who won’t? Or in other words, who makes YouTube the most money?

          And once that has to be decided, content will be whatever YouTube wants it to be. Which I can’t imagine being a good thing.

          • Shapillon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            My guess would be deleting higher res versions of less watched videos and unwatched videos alltogether.

            Anyway archiving everything everyone does is - imho - a fool’s errand.

    • GTG3000@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Well, time to switch to watching Nebula?

      I can’t see how it will work for small-time creators though. Or for people who just want to show a video online.

      • Fangslash@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        thats what I thought too - until I actually signed up for Nebula. It took me a week to exhaust every creator I wanted to watch.

        No regrets because I do enjoy the content, but their catalogue is absolutely tiny compare to youtube.

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I love nebula too. They’re definitely what I imagine federated video would be though. Restricted uploads, and paid. Nothing wrong with that though, video is expensive.

        • GTG3000@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well, one question is how it’d be paid for. You can’t really have a federated payment provider, can you?

          So would you have to pay for each separate server somehow, gathering them up like streaming service subscriptions?

          • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Someone smarter than me will need to figure that out. I’m a lowly software engineer, not a computer scientist.

            • GTG3000@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Hey, doesn’t mean you can’t aspire to be a systems architect :D

              You know, make enough decisions that weren’t perfect in the long term and you’ll learn something! …totally not speaking from experience, no.

    • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I was actually thinking about what it would take to have a truly peer to peer video site. Have clients simultaneously consume, serve and transcode content. It would obviously be concentrated in the hands of big enthusiasts and small video companies, but presumably it would be similar to the fediverse where you can choose from many instances.