undefined | Better HN

0 pointsramses04mo ago0 comments

It's an X*N*N problem: n_videos, bitrates, formats.

Assuming each video in its largest bitrate is... 2gb for example, and assuming S3 is $0.025/gb, that's a nickle per month or let's say $0.50/yr for that video.

Next up is reduced bitrates, assume you go from 2gb to 1gb and finally 500mb. Round up and you're at $1/video.

Now duplicate it to AV1 and MP4, and multiply that by English, French, and Spanish (oh, and let's say Japanese and Chinese too for good measure).

So a single 2gb video goes from $1/yr to $10/yr, and you're not doing "the dumb simple thing" for subtitles which would basically 4x your cost over "commodity subtitling services".

Or "simplify, simplify simplify", you reduce costs (cha-ching!), and become compatible for syndication or redistribution (cha-ching!)

... and they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!

0 comments

charcircuit4mo ago

S3 is >100x more expensive than hosting it yourself. You shouldn't argue about things being expensive using cloud prices.

pohuing4mo ago

Except ASS streams really aren't that big and don't have to be stored with each encode. They can just be in a separate file. And this is how cr used to serve them. Before they used hardware drm you could just download all of the separate sub tracks.

You don't need to multiply anything here, except the number of sub streams. One is ass, the other the primitive standards Netflix and other surges use.

ramses0OP4mo ago

Someone else was saying they maintained burn-in subs for devices that didn't handle ASS renderers. Even without accounting for the burn-in versions, using non-standard subs still bumps them off of commodity subtitling services and limits distribution/syndication.

Edit: and to the peer comment regarding S3 vs self host: regardless of 10x cloud cost, it's still 10x volume. Where 1TB local would do, now you need 10TB (10x the cost).

pohuing4mo ago

The labor of ass to ttml is there yeah. But the the factors are n_videos * languages * 2 Formats. And considering these are pretty compressible text(34MB->4MB for a completely bonkers sub track that includes animations, animated fonts and otherwise transformed text). I can't imagine that hosting costs cost more than their analysis.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsramses04mo ago0 comments

It's an X*N*N problem: n_videos, bitrates, formats.

Assuming each video in its largest bitrate is... 2gb for example, and assuming S3 is $0.025/gb, that's a nickle per month or let's say $0.50/yr for that video.

Next up is reduced bitrates, assume you go from 2gb to 1gb and finally 500mb. Round up and you're at $1/video.

Now duplicate it to AV1 and MP4, and multiply that by English, French, and Spanish (oh, and let's say Japanese and Chinese too for good measure).

So a single 2gb video goes from $1/yr to $10/yr, and you're not doing "the dumb simple thing" for subtitles which would basically 4x your cost over "commodity subtitling services".

Or "simplify, simplify simplify", you reduce costs (cha-ching!), and become compatible for syndication or redistribution (cha-ching!)

... and they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!

0 comments

charcircuit4mo ago

S3 is >100x more expensive than hosting it yourself. You shouldn't argue about things being expensive using cloud prices.

pohuing4mo ago

You don't need to multiply anything here, except the number of sub streams. One is ass, the other the primitive standards Netflix and other surges use.

ramses0OP4mo ago

Edit: and to the peer comment regarding S3 vs self host: regardless of 10x cloud cost, it's still 10x volume. Where 1TB local would do, now you need 10TB (10x the cost).

pohuing4mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse