|Host a video without Youtube|
| 11:17 am on Mar 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I want to put a video on a low traffic website, available for the public , and the people on the video have agreed, but dont want it done via Youtube. I can understand why.
Are there any reasonably priced paid Youtube alternatives that do not put any 3rd party branding when the video is embedded and limit indexing by SE's ?
| 1:40 pm on Mar 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
why not host the video on the website.
that would give you full control of branding.
| 8:43 am on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Host doesnt have streaming media, its gets very expensive for more than 3 or 4 concurrent dowloads.
Interestingly, someone advised publishing it via Ted Talks for more professional branding, it fits well as its interviews on a sensitive subject area. But in the Ted Instructions it says to upload videos to the Ted channel on Youtube!
| 12:25 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Host doesnt have streaming media |
You don't need streaming media if it is not a live broadcast.
Standard webhosting works with many different video formats, though in some cases you may need to add a MIME-type to the server configuration.
Flash is the most popular option, with Mp4 a good fallback for iDevices etc.
| 1:22 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|You don't need streaming media if it is not a live broadcast. |
My (limited) understanding of this is that if you don't serve it as a stream, users will have to download the whole thing before they get to view it. That's why content delivery networks often allow you to choose between static and streaming media.
So have you looked into serving the video on your website, using a pay-for-usage CDN like CloudFront?
Also, note that you can set any video uploaded to YouTube to private, so that only people with the link can view it. More info here: [support.google.com...]
| 5:33 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|My (limited) understanding of this is that if you don't serve it as a stream, users will have to download the whole thing before they get to view it |
No, that is certainly not the case.
A couple of seconds of buffering is all that is required for "progressive download" over a standard broadband connection, and you watch while the rest downloads.
| 6:28 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Here's what I read over at Amazon CloudFront: [aws.amazon.com...]
|Streaming has several potential benefits for you and your end users. Streaming can provide more flexibility in playback: with streaming, itís easy to pause, rewind, and fast-forward a media file to whatever spot is needed, without needing to worry about how much of the file has already been downloaded to the browser. You can also configure your streaming distributions to use dynamic bit-rate streaming. When enabled, this feature lets you store multiple copies of the same video, each encoded at different quality levels. Your distribution will then automatically adjust the quality of your video based on the speed of the end userís internet connection. |
Streaming also can give you more control over your content, as no file remains on the end-userís computer when they finish watching a video. Additionally, streaming can save you money, as it only delivers portions of a media file that the end-users actually watch. In contrast, with traditional downloads, frequently the whole media file will be downloaded by the end-users, even if they only watch a portion of the file.
You're right in saying that it's not necessary to download the whole file before playback can begin, I misremembered or misinterpreted that from the above text.
| 9:44 pm on Apr 1, 2012 (gmt 0)|
robzilla - thanks for this Ill check out CloudFront. A private youtube wont work as they want public access.
Samizdata - straeming video from the current host is not an option,although converting to flash may work, thanks