The lowest static image video size possible


estceashzed2 wrote on 5/12/2019, 3:52 AM

At this point in time, no. Although my internet is slow as a snail, it still gets the job done.

3POINT wrote on 5/12/2019, 5:26 AM

Experimentation is a great thing. It is where new ideas are born. From hobbyists.

However, we are constantly beset by the way things have been, how they have evolved, and ultimately how deliverable and playable the result is to the mainstream majority of consumers. That is the job of a producer.

Occasionally, a brilliant creative type comes along, who doesn't have much use for convention, protocol, or standards; especially those that may seem to inhibit the creative process. Hobbyists need to be taught to hold the reins back a bit, should they ever wish to share their masterpiece, rather than be a master of their own art, not to be viewed by others.

Case in point: mp4/h264 at conventional resolutions, frame rates, and AAC audio format is for all purposes universally deliverable, whether for streaming, home viewing, bluray production, whatever.

3fps with mp3 audio is not universally deliverable, although "some" players, media servers, or streaming services "may" accept it. It's simply a crapshoot, with accessibility being the uninvited dinner guest.

After you're very wise and arrogant introduction, I must admit that my hobbyist 1080p1 masterpiece rendered 25 times faster, with a filesize slightly larger than the original musicfile, just plays fine in my WMP and also on my UHDTV....yes I'm no Producer like you, but just an AV specialist...who tries to help here with simple solutions...

Musicvid wrote on 5/12/2019, 8:15 AM

Please PM me.

Eagle Six wrote on 5/12/2019, 10:17 AM

Hi guys! What's the best rendering option/config I can choose in order to have the lowest video size possible (acceptable youtube format) with a 720p image and decent audio (192kbps) ? I don't plan on using any effects, my goal is to make a minimalist video file using one image and an audio track. I would highly appreciate your help. By the way, I'm using Vegas Pro 14.0.

@estceashzed I don't think you will get 192kbps audio, rather 128 kb/s/44.1 kHz from Youtube processing.

NOTE: Youtube turns 1 fps into 6 fps when processed.

System Specs......
Corsair Obsidian Series 450D ATX Mid Tower
Asus X99-A II LGA 2011-v3, Intel X99 SATA 6 Gb/s USB 3.1/3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
Intel Core i7-6800K 15M Broadwell-E, 6 core 3.4 GHz LGA 2011-v3 (overclocked 20%)
64GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200
Corsair Hydro Series H110i GTX 280mm Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
MSI Radeon R9 390 DirectX 12 8GB Video Card
Corsair RMx Series RM750X 740W 80 Plus Gold power pack
Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 boot drive
Corsair Neutron XT 2.5 480GB SATA III SSD - video work drive
Western Digitial 1TB 7200 RPM SATA - video work drive
Western Digital Black 6TB 7200 RPM SATA 6Bb/s 128MB Cache 3.5 data drive

Bluray Disc burner drive
2x 1080p monitors
Microsoft Window 10 Pro
DaVinci Resolve Studio 16 pb2

john_dennis wrote on 5/12/2019, 10:53 AM

I did some renders with Happy Otter Scripts and tried various settings. Even though I'm prone to use the zero latency option which produces all p frames, (as does AMD VCE), it did nothing to reduce file size over the use of I, P, and B frames as in Wayne's default Simple settings.

The results:

Musicvid wrote on 5/12/2019, 11:02 AM

Yes, youtube processing of audio is horrible. I routinely use 192kbps stereo for my own home use, so that's what I upload, knowing there won't be a streaming advantage.