Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

slate.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 147 posts

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#31

Post by faboo »

kylemathews wrote: post #19
kurtosis wrote: post #16

I'm too lazy to look this up, but did the video get smaller or larger with the iteration number? This is more interesting to me than the look

Time: yes File size: yes Not sure why the time dropped.

I'm not a video expert, but I did write some software for muxing and demuxing for a company I worked for some time ago. The major problem I had was that video and audio are stored at different "frame rates" (almost in a literal sense). A frame of encoded audio is generally shorter (in seconds of playback) than a single video frame is displayed on screen for. So, if you were cutting and splicing video, you'd end having to decode the audio, break apart the first and last frame's worth of it, re-encode it, and then offset the timing of the audio from the video. This is very obnoxious to get perfect.

I've got no idea if that's what impacted this guy's video though, but I'm sure it's far from the only weird thing involved in video compression.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#32

Post by orlandu63 »

dangrossman wrote: post #3

Was the aspect of using YouTube's servers so critical to the artistic quality of this project that he couldn't just substitute a shell script that encodes the video 1000 times over? Would've taken a heck of a lot less time than the year he spent.

Yes it was. The guy wanted to encode the videos using Youtube's _unknown_ encoding process. Encoding using ffmpeg with its default settings isn't the same. (We can now extrapolate Youtube's encoding logic rather than make blind assumptions, which would be the case if the latter were done instead.)

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#33

Post by FlorinAndrei »

dangrossman wrote: post #3

Was the aspect of using YouTube's servers so critical to the artistic quality of this project that he couldn't just substitute a shell script that encodes the video 1000 times over? Would've taken a heck of a lot less time than the year he spent.

Because "YouTube" has a meaning for regular people, while "x264" doesn't.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#34

Post by FlorinAndrei »

orlandu63 wrote: post #32
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Was the aspect of using YouTube's servers so critical to the artistic quality of this project that he couldn't just substitute a shell script that encodes the video 1000 times over? Would've taken a heck of a lot less time than the year he spent.

Yes it was. The guy wanted to encode the videos using Youtube's _unknown_ encoding process. Encoding using ffmpeg with its default settings isn't the same. (We can now extrapolate Youtube's encoding logic rather than make blind assumptions, which would be the case if the latter were done instead.)

I'm pretty sure they use (perhaps a custom version of) x264 to encode video.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#35

Post by jemfinch »

jazzychad wrote: post #6
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Was the aspect of using YouTube's servers so critical to the artistic quality of this project that he couldn't just substitute a shell script that encodes the video 1000 times over? Would've taken a heck of a lot less time than the year he spent.

Perhaps, in addition to the artistic aspect of it, he wanted to educate people about what actually happens to video when it is sent to youtube. This is much more relatable than saying, "I wrote this shell script..." Also, having the log of all 1000 versions on youtube is interesting as well. The other thing about art is that time is usually not a large motivating factor...

The thing is, I'm not convinced that it's youtube's fault; apparently he converted it to mp4 on his own computer after the download from youtube, before re-uploading it. I wonder if he'd have had the same effect if he'd uploaded the same format he ripped from youtube.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#36

Post by kno »

jazzychad wrote: post #6
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Was the aspect of using YouTube's servers so critical to the artistic quality of this project that he couldn't just substitute a shell script that encodes the video 1000 times over? Would've taken a heck of a lot less time than the year he spent.

Perhaps, in addition to the artistic aspect of it, he wanted to educate people about what actually happens to video when it is sent to youtube. This is much more relatable than saying, "I wrote this shell script..." Also, having the log of all 1000 versions on youtube is interesting as well. The other thing about art is that time is usually not a large motivating factor...

There are clear reasons why not everyone is an artist, patience and endurance is are a huge part of it.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#37

Post by ars »

kno wrote: post #36
jazzychad wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, in addition to the artistic aspect of it, he wanted to educate people about what actually happens to video when it is sent to youtube. This is much more relatable than saying, "I wrote this shell script..." Also, having the log of all 1000 versions on youtube is interesting as well. The other thing about art is that time is usually not a large motivating factor...

There are clear reasons why not everyone is an artist, patience and endurance is are a huge part of it.

That's also the same reason many people look down on (modern) artists. The use patience to do something everyone else would do in a more efficient way.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#38

Post by ars »

kylemathews wrote: post #19
kurtosis wrote: post #16

I'm too lazy to look this up, but did the video get smaller or larger with the iteration number? This is more interesting to me than the look

Time: yes File size: yes Not sure why the time dropped.

He mentions this on the comments for the 1000th video, for some reason youtube would sometimes remove the last frame.

Also he had trouble with youtube adding a small offset to the audio, to the point that he had to start editing the videos to re-sync the audio.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#39

Post by dschobel »

patio11 wrote: post #17
eli wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the artistic process is just as important as the final product.

A lot of modern art is sold as a story, and for whatever reason the kind of folks who matter think that "did something by hand a thousand times" is a much better story than "wrote a Perl script." Art isn't the only thing that has stories, incidentally. Tomatoes have stories these days. (OK, the kind of tomatoes rich people eat have stories. Only poor people eat tomatoes that have no stories.)

That's one of the common criticisms of modern art, that it is largely about justification of the work.

After I went to Art Basel last year and happened on a display which was, quite literally, a few kilograms of nutella dumped on the floor, I was hard pressed to disagree...

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#40

Post by GFischer »

exit wrote: post #30
patio11 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of modern art is sold as a story, and for whatever reason the kind of folks who matter think that "did something by hand a thousand times" is a much better story than "wrote a Perl script." Art isn't the only thing that has stories, incidentally. Tomatoes have stories these days. (OK, the kind of tomatoes rich people eat have stories. Only poor people eat tomatoes that have no stories.)

i think products targeted at low income demographics are very much sold with a story. a kind of utilitarian "sensibleness" which facilitates contempt for more expensive products. why would advertisers neglect to exploit human psychology at all socioeconomic levels?

I believe you're right... a hugely successful ad for the Tang powdered drink in South America showed a spoilt rich kid asking his butler for Tang after they were stranded with no oranges in sight. (One of the messages I take from the ad was that the rich kid was missing on what the butler knew all along)
Post reply on HN