Live data from Hacker News

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

slate.me

61–70 of 147 posts

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

#61
post #50
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re-encoding an mp3 doesn't do much Sure it does, typically. It’s no different from video in this way: ideally, all of the image features that would get thrown out were thrown out the first time, but the codec isn’t that smart. Most implementations of lossy compression algorithms don’t have stability under re-encoding as a goal. (A few do – some image editors are smart about passing through unchanged JPEG blocks, for…

Why hypothesize? Create a directory. Copy your favorite MP3 into it as both "source.mp3" and "orig.mp3". (orig.mp3 is just for convenient comparison later.) Then: for i in {1..100}; do lame source.mp3 dest.mp3; mv -f dest.mp3 source.mp3; done Then listen to the resulting "source.mp3" at the end. Send whatever params to lame you want in that command line, though the defaults strike me as pretty good for this test. BTW…

Kudos for actually checking, but of course this only proves it for lame with certain flags. There are several popular compressors and many many options. As someone mentioned, YouTube doesn’t say what it uses, but it may be possible to figure it out.

Learning how to do for loops in shell was a big Unix productivity breakthrough for me. I just wish the syntax were cleaner – silly things like quoting rules and not using $ on variables on the LHS keep tripping me up. I’m probably wasting my own time in the long run by not getting good with something like http://www.scsh.net/ .

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

#62
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but... One day for 1000 iterations means 86.4 seconds to upload to youtube, wait for encoding to finish, then download it. Youtube is slower than that. :-) Better give it a week. Maybe a month.

He could work on something else during that month. Automation!

Yes of course, but he can't take 364 days to learn to program.

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

#63
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't mistake patience and endurance for skill.

They're close enough for me.

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

#64
post #59
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

I don't really have much of a dog in this fight one way or the other (nor, for that matter, did I up- or down-vote either of you) - but I'm sort of getting a bit of a tickle in my irony bone from personally insulting someone repeatedly for having different priorities than you ("pathetically arrogant", "narcissistic", etc.), in an attempt to argue that they should be less judgmental.

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

#65

I'm sure Youtube loved getting spammed with a 1000 very similar videos

Probably not as much as they loved an interesting story about YouTube on prominent websites.

come on now, it's youtube, they're the second most used search engine in the world. They don't really need good press anymore

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

#66
post #59
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

while I dont particularly understand the parent comment about people looking down on modern artists for being inefficient, they certainly didnt say they did so themselves, and even if they did it would in no way excuse this vitriolic hate filled reply.

Since your account is brand new for this comment, you more than likely are aware this is the type of comment that gets an account banned, and hope that something is in place to handle this situation. But if you are genuinely new, then I dont think I am out of place to say comments like yours have absolutely no place here.

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

#67
post #64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I don't really have much of a dog in this fight one way or the other (nor, for that matter, did I up- or down-vote either of you) - but I'm sort of getting a bit of a tickle in my irony bone from personally insulting someone repeatedly for having different priorities than you ("pathetically arrogant", "narcissistic", etc.), in an attempt to argue that they should be less judgmental.

[deleted]

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

#68
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

while I dont particularly understand the parent comment about people looking down on modern artists for being inefficient, they certainly didnt say they did so themselves, and even if they did it would in no way excuse this vitriolic hate filled reply. Since your account is brand new for this comment, you more than likely are aware this is the type of comment that gets an account banned, and hope that something is in…

[deleted]

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

#69
post #53

Does this mean YouTube's compression settings don't target a specific bit-rate but instead aim to make it "no larger than X and at least y% smaller" than what was uploaded? I'm surprised it's not just a pass-through at a certain point (if nothing else, that'd save CPU cycles).

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1402382 Apparently it was himself who re-encoded the video, not youtube. Dont know where jemfinch got that info though.

And youtube serves content in different resolutions (SD vs HD) and formats (flash vs ipod). It's possible his choice of either of these had a negative effect on the quality. It's also possible it all happened during his on conversion on his local machine.

I wonder what results he would have gotten if he pulled the h264 copy down that is served to apple devices and uploaded it without modifying it.

Post reply on HN