On 3/30/2024 5:10 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

>>>> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my baby that
>>>> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.
>>>>
>>>> I expect a loss of quality just as it would be if I had used Irfanview to
>>>> shrink a 30MB image to ~3MB (cropping, resizing, quality, compression).
>>>>
>>>> What free tool can I use every once in a while on Windows that is designed
>>>> to really shrink a video final size using whatever methods are appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking it might crop the video or remove every other frame or change
>>>> the compression or remove the audio channel (which I don't need), or what?
>>>
>>> Handbrake.
>>
>> An acquired taste.
>
> And a very good one. It works. It's free. It's well supported. It's
> cross platform. Can run it with the GUI or with a command line (at
> least on Mac and Linux) which I do invoking it from my own programs.

The most common shrink for home movies to be emailed would be lossless
cutting, which is available on all the major platforms, including Apple.
https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/releases

For Windows, there's also the Easiest Media Splitter video editor tool.
https://easiestsoft.com/win/a-free-media-splitter/

While you can trim videos on the Microsoft Windows "Photos" app
https://www.lifewire.com/trim-video-in-windows-10-5113295

Microsoft promotes Clipchamp but it's a "free" subscription, I think.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/clipchamp
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/how-to-split-or-cut-video-and-audio-clips-fe2d10f0-1ebc-4b8b-858e-4f9442356425

But you can use the free VLC app to trim videos if that's all you need.
https://www.flexclip.com/learn/trim-video-windows-10.html

There are other methods, but most aren't free for full functionality.
https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/how-to-trim-video-on-windows/
Which lists these
https://bgrem.ai/illustration-drawing/?via=sth-best-ai-powered-video-photo-editing-tool
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9nsf023x0mqs?hl=en-us&gl=us
https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/create-films-with-a-video-editor-94e651f8-a5be-ae03-3c50-e49f013d47f6
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9wzdncrfjbh4?hl=en-us&gl=US
https://online-video-cutter.com/
https://ezgif.com/

On 3/30/2024 11:47 AM, Jan K. wrote:

> So I still don't know which binary to get from the guyan site, where I
> would agree with you that I don't want separate DLLs if I don't have to.

latest release version: 6.1.1

2023-12-31 ffmpeg-release-essentials.7z 25 MB .ver .sha256
ffmpeg-release-essentials.zip 83 MB .ver .sha256

ffmpeg-release-full.7z .ver .sha256 <===
ffmpeg-release-full-shared.7z .ver .sha256

Click the .sha256 link:

b13de924f9e752d2ba5a54c40ec0b595bb4ebab677a184308d7a819dcfa58be1

Run a sha256 over the download:

https://www.gyan.dev/ffmpeg/builds/packages/ffmpeg-6.1.1-full_build.7z

Name: ffmpeg-6.1.1-full_build.7z
Size: 50,475,147 bytes (48 MiB)
SHA256: B13DE924F9E752D2BA5A54C40EC0B595BB4EBAB677A184308D7A819DCFA58BE1

There are what look like three static files in the bin\ .

The git ones are nightly compiles. The "release" one should be stable.
Occasionally, when a Dev follows along with the FFMPEG project, some
of the Windows DLLs are "broken" on the Nightly (Linux is more likely
to work than Windows). Consequently I only select a Nightly, if it has
something pretty whizzy in it. For ordinary use, a Release one is plenty good.
It should only enter Release, if the DLLs are OK (whether dynamic or static).

Paul

W Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:55:11 -0400, Larry Wolff napisal:

> The most common shrink for home movies to be emailed would be lossless
> cutting, which is available on all the major platforms, including Apple.
> https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/releases
>
> For Windows, there's also the Easiest Media Splitter video editor tool.
> https://easiestsoft.com/win/a-free-media-splitter/

Those two looked the most promising in that they're legitimate freeware
on all the platforms, whether they be mac or linux or windows.
https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/blob/master/README.md

1. I installed Lossless Cut on Windows using the portable zip archive.
https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/releases
https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/releases/tag/v3.59.1
https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/releases/download/v3.59.1/LosslessCut-win-x64.7z
Name: LosslessCut-win-x64.7z
Size: 103806200 bytes (98 MiB)
SHA256: 54663DE6F81BDA72AC3FCD8C01BCE3DA751AD91D9E1EAB75500335ADBB6723F0
2. I loaded the video & pressed "Keep audio" which turned to "Discard audio".
3. Pressing the "lefthand pointingfinger icon" seems to run the command
"Start current segment at current time"
While pressing the "righthand pointingfinger icon" seems to run
"End current segment at current time"
That creates a "segment number 1" in the "Segments to export" panel.
4. Pressing the blue "Export" button at the bottom right brought up options.
5. Pressing "Export" again saved the snipped video to the original folder.

It was a completely different result with the Easiest Media Splitter.

1. First I installed the Easiest Free Media Splitter (Ver 19.12.9)
https://easiestsoft.com/win/a-free-media-splitter/
Name: setup-easiest-media-splitter.exe
Size: 14818942 bytes (14 MiB)
SHA256: 245B06AF2761861656E294C83C12B73B466FD815437D1397152B7AEF74A870C4
2. Then I renamed a ~60-second video the way the help says.
copy 20240325_original.mp4 6-clips-20240325_original.mp4
Where the "6-clips-" part supposedly breaks the file into 6 even clips.
3. I dragged the "6-clips-" prefixed file onto the media splitter window.
4. The weird thing is there's no feedback at all, so I tried it a
few times before I realized it works silently to create a directory
".\output-6-clips-20240325_original"
5. That program is easy, but it's limited (apparently) to dividing the
original video into whatever number of equal parts you designate.

Overall, the LosslessCut program seems to be the better of the two
because you can better choose which section(s) you wish to keep & cut.

W Fri, 29 Mar 2024 23:03:53 -0400, Newyana2 napisal:

>| I think the approach I may take moving forward might be
>| 1. Use Avidemux to trim the beginning and the end off (if possible).
>| 2. Use ffmpeg to compress to the latest H265 codec (if possible).
>| 3. If more is needed, then change the 1080p to 720p or 480p with
> HandBrake.
>|
>| Does that sound like a decent plan for a typical home video shrink?
>
> Avidemux can do #3. I don't know whether ffmpeg
> can perform better compression. At this point you
> know more than I do. :)

I tried so many things, most of which worked, that it's all a blur.
I think this may be a decent approach summarizing all the help I got.

1. Load the video into Losslesscut (or Avidemux) to trim as needed.
2. Convert with ffmpeg (or Avidemux or Handbrake) to H.265 compression.
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libx265 -crf 28 output_1.mp4
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf "scale=trunc(iw/4)*2:trunc(ih/4)*2" -c:v libx265 -crf 28 output_2.mp4
3. Convert 1080p to 720p/480p with Handbrake (or ShutterEncoder)

W Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:57:31 -0500, Frankie napisal:

>> 3. However, that description implies that the previous "shared" mystery
>> is apparently that the shared build "shares" developement files,
>> which of course I don't need.
>> (So now I know which of the github builds to get - i.e., non shared.)
>
> Your interpretation may be wrong because the non shared binaries are larger
> than the shared, so whatever is shared, makes it a lot smaller download.

Good catch. My interpretation was wrong for the reason you said.
Thank you.

Since the github ffmpeg worked, I gave up on trying to understand the gyan
web page, although I see Paul has figured it out for the rest of us.

It's a good thing too because ffmpeg seems to be able to do everything
anyway, so I might use a process in the future kind of like these steps.

1. Load the video into Losslesscut (or Avidemux) to trim as needed
(or at least decide timepoints to trim to using ffmpeg commands).
2. Convert with ffmpeg (or Avidemux or Handbrake) to H.265 compression.
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libx265 -crf 28 output_1.mp4
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf "scale=trunc(iw/4)*2:trunc(ih/4)*2" -c:v libx265 -crf 28 output_2.mp4
3. Convert 1080p to 720p/480p with Handbrake (or ffmpeg or ShutterEncoder)

I probably could trim with ffmpeg so all I'd really need to do is look at
the video and figure out the start and stop points to trim with ffmpeg.
https://shotstack.io/learn/use-ffmpeg-to-trim-video/
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss 00:05:10 -to 00:15:30 -c:v copy -c:a copy output2.mp4

The above command uses '-to' to specify an exact time to cut to from the
starting position. The cut video will be from '00:05:10 to 00:15:30',
resulting in a 10 minutes and 20 seconds video.

If you specify a time '-to' that is longer than the input video, e.g. '-to
00:35:00' when the input video is 20 minutes long, the cut video will end
where the input video ends. If you specify a '-to' that is smaller than
'-ss', then the command won't run.

You'll get the following error:
Error: -to value smaller than -ss; aborting.

Note that if you specify '-ss' before '-i', '-to' will have the same effect
as '-t', i.e. it will act as a duration.

Then I need to convert the 1080p to either 720p or 480p with ffmpeg.
https://superuser.com/questions/714804/converting-video-from-1080p-to-720p-with-smallest-quality-loss-using-ffmpeg

Recommended width and height for videos with 16:9 aspect ratios:
Best Choice: 2nd Best: 3rd Best:
Multiples of 16 Multiples of 8 Multiples of 4
1920 x 1080 1792 x 1008 1856 x 1044
1280 x 720 1152 x 648 1216 x 684
1024 x 576 896 x 504 1088 x 612
768 x 432 640 x 360 960 x 540
512 x 288 384 x 216 832 x 468
256 x 144 128 x 72 704 x 396
576 x 324
448 x 252
320 x 180
192 x 108

Given that, this is the command they recommend to convert to 780p:
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf scale=w=1280:h=720:force_original_aspect_ratio=decrease:force_divisible_by=2 -sws_flags lanczos output3.mp4

On Mar 31, 2024, Jan K. wrote
(in article <uub25e$q3o$1$koziolja@news.chmurka.net>):

> W Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:57:31 -0500, Frankie napisal:
>
> > > 3. However, that description implies that the previous "shared" mystery
> > > is apparently that the shared build "shares" developement files,
> > > which of course I don't need.
> > > (So now I know which of the github builds to get - i.e., non shared.)
> >
> > Your interpretation may be wrong because the non shared binaries are larger
> > than the shared, so whatever is shared, makes it a lot smaller download.
>
> Good catch. My interpretation was wrong for the reason you said.
> Thank you.
>
> Since the github ffmpeg worked, I gave up on trying to understand the gyan
> web page, although I see Paul has figured it out for the rest of us.
>
> It's a good thing too because ffmpeg seems to be able to do everything
> anyway, so I might use a process in the future kind of like these steps.
>
> 1. Load the video into Losslesscut (or Avidemux) to trim as needed
> (or at least decide timepoints to trim to using ffmpeg commands).
> 2. Convert with ffmpeg (or Avidemux or Handbrake) to H.265 compression.
> ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libx265 -crf 28 output_1.mp4
> ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf "scale=trunc(iw/4)*2:trunc(ih/4)*2" -c:v libx265 -crf
> 28 output_2.mp4
> 3. Convert 1080p to 720p/480p with Handbrake (or ffmpeg or ShutterEncoder)
>
> I probably could trim with ffmpeg so all I'd really need to do is look at
> the video and figure out the start and stop points to trim with ffmpeg.
> https://shotstack.io/learn/use-ffmpeg-to-trim-video/
> ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss 00:05:10 -to 00:15:30 -c:v copy -c:a copy output2.mp4
>
> The above command uses '-to' to specify an exact time to cut to from the
> starting position. The cut video will be from '00:05:10 to 00:15:30',
> resulting in a 10 minutes and 20 seconds video.
>
> If you specify a time '-to' that is longer than the input video, e.g. '-to
> 00:35:00' when the input video is 20 minutes long, the cut video will end
> where the input video ends. If you specify a '-to' that is smaller than
> '-ss', then the command won't run.
>
> You'll get the following error:
> Error: -to value smaller than -ss; aborting.
>
> Note that if you specify '-ss' before '-i', '-to' will have the same effect
> as '-t', i.e. it will act as a duration.
>
> Then I need to convert the 1080p to either 720p or 480p with ffmpeg.
> https://superuser.com/questions/714804/converting-video-from-1080p-to-720p-wit
> h-smallest-quality-loss-using-ffmpeg
>
> Recommended width and height for videos with 16:9 aspect ratios:
> Best Choice: 2nd Best: 3rd Best:
> Multiples of 16 Multiples of 8 Multiples of 4
> 1920 x 1080 1792 x 1008 1856 x 1044
> 1280 x 720 1152 x 648 1216 x 684
> 1024 x 576 896 x 504 1088 x 612
> 768 x 432 640 x 360 960 x 540
> 512 x 288 384 x 216 832 x 468
> 256 x 144 128 x 72 704 x 396
> 576 x 324
> 448 x 252
> 320 x 180
> 192 x 108
>
> Given that, this is the command they recommend to convert to 780p:
> ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf
> scale=w=1280:h=720:force_original_aspect_ratio=decrease:force_divisible_by=2
> -sws_flags lanczos output3.mp4

I have to know. Are you Arlen’s sister? Daughter? Are you really just Arlen
with a new persona and gender? It’s too hard to believe that there could be
two people on this earth with the same level of obsession with freeware.

W Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:28:22 +0200, Herbert Kleebauer napisal:

> > 1. Load the video into Losslesscut (or Avidemux) to trim as needed
> > (or at least decide timepoints to trim to using ffmpeg commands).
> > 2. Convert with ffmpeg (or Avidemux or Handbrake) to H.265 compression.
> > ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libx265 -crf 28 output_1.mp4
> > ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf "scale=trunc(iw/4)*2:trunc(ih/4)*2" -c:v libx265 -crf 28 output_2.mp4
> > 3. Convert 1080p to 720p/480p with Handbrake (or ffmpeg or ShutterEncoder)
>
> But you should do this all in one ffmpeg command because
> every decoding and encoding means a quality loss and also
> consumes unnecessary computing time.

That's good advice, which I hadn't thought of, but I agree with you.

Particularly because my use model is just about this simple.
a. I take videos on my phone that are far too big to send by email
b. I only need to snip them to about 10 seconds in length & shrink them
c. All I want is for the size & quality to be good enough to email

Keeping your advice in mind, I thought of writing a simple batch script.
i. When run, the batch script asks "What is your input file name?"
ii. Then it asks "What time period do you wish to trim?"
iii. And lastly, it asks "How much shrinking do you want to do?"

Rather than start from scratch, I googled for an existing batch script
where I'm not the first person to want to string ffmpeg commands.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66419497/windows-cmd-batch-script-ffmpeg
@Echo Off
SetLocal EnableExtensions
Set "CMD=ffmpeg.exe -c:v ffv1 -level 3 -g 1 -coder 1 -context 1 -pix_fmt +"
Set "CMD=%CMD% -slices 24 -slicecrc 1 -report -c:a pcm_s24le"

For /R "input_folder" %%G In (*.mov *.mp4) Do (
Echo %%G
%CMD% -y "output_folder\%%~nG.mkv" -i "%%G"
If Not ErrorLevel 1 Del /A /F "%%G"
)

Luckily, that search also found this fantastic ffmpeg GUI site which
allows me to paste in my commands into a GUI that remembers them.
<https://corz.org/> "Find a cute FFmpeg command online?
Or get something finally working exactly the way you want?
Save it to a button and it's there whenever you need it."

Apparently "Corz ffe" is "An FFMPEG front-end for Windows" which
can create a button for each and every ffmpeg command you like most.
<https://corz.org/windows/software/ffe/>

1. I downloaded ffe v2.5.4.5 for Windows from the Corz web site.
https://corz.org/windows/software/ffe/#section-Download
https://corz.org/engine?section=windows&download=ffe%20v2.5.4.5.zip
Name: ffe v2.5.4.5.zip
Size: 811715 bytes (792 KiB)
SHA256: 285470471CB699EA7AD62297CD46C3AF7DB3F151274B074EED7B99E0FEA09C0D

2. I already had ffmpeg from the typical Windows binary locations.
https://github.com/BtbN/FFmpeg-Builds/releases
https://www.gyan.dev/ffmpeg/builds/

3. You can drop ffe.exe into the same folder as ffmpeg.exe for instant use.
(I chose to keep them in separate places as ffe will ask you
where your FFmpeg binary is if it's not in the same folder.)

4. Launch ffe.exe and up pops the4 "ffe Ffmpeg front end" GUI.
The GUI seems extremely powerful where it will take me a while to
figure out how to add the following commands as a single command.

I don't know how to make the "button" that Corz ffe advertises I can make,
but when I figure it out, I'll want to string these three commands with it.

A. Trim the video to the most desired section (about 10 seconds).
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss 00:05:10 -to 00:15:30 -c:v copy -c:a copy output1.mp4
B. Convert to H.265 compression.
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libx265 -crf 28 output2.mp4
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf "scale=trunc(iw/4)*2:trunc(ih/4)*2" -c:v libx265 -crf 28 output3.mp4
C. Convert 1080p to 720p/480p if further size reduction is still needed.
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf scale=w=1280:h=720:force_original_aspect_ratio=decrease:force_divisible_by=2 -sws_flags lanczos output4.mp4

Jan K. wrote:
> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my baby that
> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.
>
> I expect a loss of quality just as it would be if I had used Irfanview to
> shrink a 30MB image to ~3MB (cropping, resizing, quality, compression).
>
> What free tool can I use every once in a while on Windows that is designed
> to really shrink a video final size using whatever methods are appropriate?
>
> I'm thinking it might crop the video or remove every other frame or change
> the compression or remove the audio channel (which I don't need), or what?

If the video is not something that you're concerned about privacy-wise
and if it's in the .mp4 format, then you can do this here quite easily:

https://www.xconvert.com/compress-mp4

In fact, if you go here:

https://www.xconvert.com/

you might be able to convert other formats.

--
John C.

On 2024-03-31 08:53, Jan K. wrote:
> W Fri, 29 Mar 2024 23:03:53 -0400, Newyana2 napisal:
>
>> | I think the approach I may take moving forward might be
>> | 1. Use Avidemux to trim the beginning and the end off (if possible).
>> | 2. Use ffmpeg to compress to the latest H265 codec (if possible).
>> | 3. If more is needed, then change the 1080p to 720p or 480p with
>> HandBrake.
>> |
>> | Does that sound like a decent plan for a typical home video shrink?
>>
>>   Avidemux can do #3. I don't know whether ffmpeg
>> can perform better compression. At this point you
>> know more than I do. :)
>
> I tried so many things, most of which worked, that it's all a blur.
> I think this may be a decent approach summarizing all the help I got.
>
> 1. Load the video into Losslesscut (or Avidemux) to trim as needed.
> 2. Convert with ffmpeg (or Avidemux or Handbrake) to H.265 compression.
>   ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libx265 -crf 28 output_1.mp4
>   ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf "scale=trunc(iw/4)*2:trunc(ih/4)*2" -c:v
> libx265 -crf 28 output_2.mp4

You can do that in a single step with ffmpeg.

> 3. Convert 1080p to 720p/480p with Handbrake (or ShutterEncoder)

I think you can do this also in the previous step on a single ffmpeg pass.

You just have to find the correct incantation.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[RE: Shutter Encoder]

> 6. When it made a loud sound and said "Process completed", I saw this.
>   03/29/2024  12:19 PM 12,613,296 20240325_raw.mp4
>   03/30/2024  07:24 PM  2,999,566 20240325_shutterencoder.mp4
> 03/30/2024  08:01 PM 77,304,748 20240325_H.265_1MB.mp4
>
> Obviously I goofed but that's OK as experimenting will probably uncover,
> over time, why setting it to 1MB exploded it to 77MB! :-)

You didn't set the output to a compressed codec such as H.264.mp4. Your
output codec was RAW, which is uncompressed.

"Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
>
> Given that, this is the command they recommend to convert to 780p:
> ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf
> scale=w=1280:h=
720:force_original_aspect_ratio=decrease:force_divisible_
> by=2 -sws_flags lanczos output3.mp4

If you don't need the audio you can add the flag -an just before the
output file and it will strip out the audio channel.

Some people have mentioned reducing the frame rate to reduce size
but in fact this is rarely effective, because video codecs normally
just store the differences between successive frames; so if you
halve the framerate e.g. from 30fps to 15fps you end up with twice
as big a difference between each frame, which doubles the space each
one takes up, so the final video is about the same size but more
jerky.

A similar argument is sometimes made regarding reducing the video
resolution: since compression is lossy, you could just leave the
picture size unchanged and instead lower the bitrate to the desired
level, the codec will then throw away as much detail as it has to in
order to achieve that bitrate, effectively reducing the resolution
for you but in a more intelligent manner than if you do it manually.
This won't work in the most extreme cases of size reduction but is
generally fine if you just need to halve the bitrate.

On 31/03/2024 16:04, Bill W wrote:
> I have to know. Are you Arlen’s sister? Daughter? Are you really just Arlen
> with a new persona and gender?

The same question occurred to me! :-D

But, there again, how do we know that Arlen was Arlen? I reckon that
it’s been Jessica Fletcher all the time. Dreadful creature: wherever she
goes, somebody gets murdered ... .

D.

On 4/1/2024 3:53 PM, Gordon Freeman wrote:
> "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given that, this is the command they recommend to convert to 780p:
>> ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf
>> scale=w=1280:h=
> 720:force_original_aspect_ratio=decrease:force_divisible_
>> by=2 -sws_flags lanczos output3.mp4
>
> If you don't need the audio you can add the flag -an just before the
> output file and it will strip out the audio channel.
>
> Some people have mentioned reducing the frame rate to reduce size
> but in fact this is rarely effective, because video codecs normally
> just store the differences between successive frames; so if you
> halve the framerate e.g. from 30fps to 15fps you end up with twice
> as big a difference between each frame, which doubles the space each
> one takes up, so the final video is about the same size but more
> jerky.
>
> A similar argument is sometimes made regarding reducing the video
> resolution: since compression is lossy, you could just leave the
> picture size unchanged and instead lower the bitrate to the desired
> level, the codec will then throw away as much detail as it has to in
> order to achieve that bitrate, effectively reducing the resolution
> for you but in a more intelligent manner than if you do it manually.
> This won't work in the most extreme cases of size reduction but is
> generally fine if you just need to halve the bitrate.
>

You can change the "gait" of the video, by changing
the issuance of i:p:b. Normally, on 30FPS video, the gait
seems to be 15 frames before a "reference image" is
emitted. On 24FPS video, there are 12 frames per group of pictures.
Both of these intervals is half a second (why? who knows).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression_picture_types

"The order in which the I, P and B frames are arranged is called the Group of pictures. "

Now, you *could* define a video, where every frame was
a key or reference frame, which would bloat the video
tremendously. A google will mention "All-I" video as
somehow virtuous.

To save space on a scene which is not changing, but you're
shooting video, the group of pictures goes as high as 600.
This means there is a key frame, followed by 599 incremental
frames.

It's possible to use the ffprobe command, and dump a video
as a series of "packets". And the packets have sizes, and if
you plot up the sizes on GNUPlot or in Excel or Libreoffice Calc,
you can see the "gait" as bumps in the graph. The I ones,
being bigger than a P or a B. You can evaluate what a scheme
is achieving this way (warning - the output file could be
too big for notepad, and the output may be intended in the
example, to be post-processed by a script). So if you wanted
to study what effect changing from 30FPS to 15FPS has, this
is a good way to do it. The audio stream and the video stream,
use separate packets (each with size information).

C:\FFMPEG\bin\ffprobe -show_packets -show_data F:\high.mp4 > D:\Temp\high_ffprobe_out.txt

A video with a frame length of 600, is going to be mighty annoying,
so no, we don't normally do that. Or we'll get comments from
the viewing audience about it.

Video types (as concepts, I don't know how you control this):

I # The all-I video is little better than MJPEG video compression
I-B # Using only bidirectional interframe, makes seek work better, or even, play backwards
I-P-B # A mixture of these, is how Youtube would deliver it.

Some video doesn't even scroll back properly. An AVI can become confused,
if the video is over 4GB and you scroll it backwards. The standard for
extending AVI was poorly written, and the end result was AVI handling
in various pieces of software, did not mate with how others were doing it.

Paul

David Catterall writes:

> But, there again, how do we know that Arlen was Arlen?

Arlen said he/she went by a different nym every January 1st for privacy
reasons and Arlen never hid from intelligent people since his stated goal
was to hide from robotic aggregators (which have only gotten more powerful
over time).

There were always the moronic trolls like BillW who claimed everyone was
Arlen but those morons never understood he posted the same images of his
unique home screens and vehicles and homes in all his posts.

He wasn't hiding from them (even though trolls like BillW exclaimed with
glee that he found the easter egg that a retarded blind person couldn't
miss because Arlen never hid who he was).

Retarded trolls like BillW masturbated over Arlen's posts, finding the
easter eggs that were left in the open for these retards, in that Arlen was
never hidden where these retarded trolls like BillW claim that they 'found'
Arlen - who was never hidden from anyone who owned an IQ above about 30.

And yes, I am Arlen. Everyone is Arlen to all retards like BillW is who
stalk Arlen and Snit and Dustin and Dave Cook and all the others who don't
hide from them even though the retards can't tell the difference.

In fact, the retard BillW is going to masturbate right now that he was
mentioned in this post a half dozen times - which is all the trolls want.

On 30/03/2024 5:40 am, Jan K. wrote:
> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my baby that
> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.

Why not on a cloud service (such as DropBox and many others) ? The
people that you give access to will see irt in all its glory.

Yes they can also download it, as with a crappy emailed version, and
share it with the world. So no difference there ....

And congrats on your baby ;- )

geoff

On 02/04/2024 22:49, geoff wrote:
> On 30/03/2024 5:40 am, Jan K. wrote:
>> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my baby
>> that
>> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.
>
> Why not on a cloud service (such as DropBox and many others) ? The
> people that you give access to will see irt in all its glory.
>
> Yes they can also download it, as with a crappy emailed version, and
> share it with the world. So no difference there ....
>
>
> And congrats on your baby ;- )
>
> geoff

You are very kind, 'geoff'! :-)

Jan could also upload her video to YouTube and send a link to her
friends and family. That is easy to do nowadays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsu01TR7Ofk

On 3/04/2024 11:30 am, David Brooks wrote:
> On 02/04/2024 22:49, geoff wrote:
>> On 30/03/2024 5:40 am, Jan K. wrote:
>>> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my
>>> baby that
>>> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.
>>
>> Why not on a cloud service (such as DropBox and many others) ? The
>> people that you give access to will see irt in all its glory.
>>
>> Yes they can also download it, as with a crappy emailed version, and
>> share it with the world. So no difference there ....
>>
>>
>> And congrats on your baby ;- )
>>
>> geoff
>
>
> You are very kind, 'geoff'! :-)
>
> Jan could also upload her video to YouTube and send a link to her
> friends and family. That is easy to do nowadays.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsu01TR7Ofk

Didn't realise one could do 'private' posts in YouTube, but just checked
and you can.

geoff

On 03/04/2024 05:26, geoff wrote:
> On 3/04/2024 11:30 am, David Brooks wrote:
>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, geoff wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2024 5:40 am, Jan K. wrote:
>>>> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my
>>>> baby that
>>>> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.
>>>
>>> Why not on a cloud service (such as DropBox and many others) ? The
>>> people that you give access to will see irt in all its glory.
>>>
>>> Yes they can also download it, as with a crappy emailed version, and
>>> share it with the world. So no difference there ....
>>>
>>>
>>> And congrats on your baby ;- )
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>>
>> You are very kind, 'geoff'! :-)
>>
>> Jan could also upload her video to YouTube and send a link to her
>> friends and family. That is easy to do nowadays.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsu01TR7Ofk
>
> Didn't realise one could do 'private' posts in YouTube, but just checked
> and you can.
>
> geoff

Indeed! 🙂

David Brooks <applefanboy@btinternet.com> wrote at 07:41 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On 03/04/2024 05:26, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/04/2024 11:30 am, David Brooks wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2024 5:40 am, Jan K. wrote:
>>>>> I don't want to put it on the cloud but I have a 30MB video of my
>>>>> baby that
>>>>> I want to email to people who may be on any platform so I need it ~3MB.
>>>>
>>>> Why not on a cloud service (such as DropBox and many others) ? The
>>>> people that you give access to will see irt in all its glory.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they can also download it, as with a crappy emailed version, and
>>>> share it with the world. So no difference there ....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And congrats on your baby ;- )
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>>
>>> You are very kind, 'geoff'! :-)
>>>
>>> Jan could also upload her video to YouTube and send a link to her
>>> friends and family. That is easy to do nowadays.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsu01TR7Ofk
>>
>> Didn't realise one could do 'private' posts in YouTube, but just checked
>> and you can.
>>
>> geoff
>
> Indeed! 🙂

Im suprised they still support it, considering how hard they push the
"reach the world" stuff.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom