Comment by corndoge
2 months ago
> Would it change the equation, meaningfully, if you didn't offer any transcoding on the server and required users to run any transcoding they needed on their own hardware?
I think the user experience would be quite poor, enough that nobody would use the instance. As an example a 4k video will transcoded at least 2 times, to 1080p and 720p, and depending on server config often several more times. Each transcode job takes a long time, even with substantial hwaccel on a desktop.
Very high bitrate video is quite common now since most phones, action cameras etc are capable of 4k30 and often 4k60.
> Do you think a general user couldn't handle the workload (mobile processing, battery, etc), or would that be fairly reasonable for a modern device and only onerous.
If I had to guess, I would expect it be a poor experience. Say I take a 5 minute video, that's probably around 3-5gb. I upload it, then need to wait - in the foreground - for this video to be transcoded and then uploaded to object storage 3 times on a phone chip. People won't do it.
I do like the idea of offloading transcode to users. I wonder if it might be suited for something like https://rendernetwork.com/ where users exchange idle compute to a transcode pool for upload & storage rights, and still get to fire-and-forget uploads?
Right on. Thanks for the consideration!
I really appreciate you walking through that; it's an eye-opener! It seems like you not only deal with a considerable amount of five-minute-or-greater videos, but much higher quality than I was expecting, too.
I also like the idea of user-transcoding because, honestly, I think it's better for everyone? I would love if every place I uploaded video or audio content offered an option to "include lower-quality variants" or something. Broadly, it's my product; I should have the final say on (and take responsibility for) the end result. And for high-quality stuff, the people who make it tend to have systems equipped to do that better anyway. So they could probably get faster transcoding times by using their own systems rather than letting the server do it. Seems like a win-win, even outside of the obvious benefits of "make a whole lot of computers do only the work they each need done, instead of making a few computers do the work that everyone needs done". With the only slight downside of the "average user" having some extra options that they don't understand which cause them to use it wrong and then everyone hates your product. Yay, app development.
I think offering client side transcode as an option, with server side transcode available for those who don't want to do it client side, is compelling. I would probably do it, as I have a powerful home system that can transcode much faster than my cloud host (I do use the remote transcoding feature in Peertube though).