How do you shrink the megabit size of homemade videos?

[Iliketacos]

If you want to host videos, this might be a good plan: https://www.plex.tv

Some more information (and perhaps information about alternatives to Plex): https://web.dev/media/

About video compression, what RodneyYouPlonker said.

Have to second the PLEX route. Not only canyou share family videos, but you can share any other media you have.

[Moe]

Plex isn't a hosting service. It is great for sharing from your own personal library with known individuals, but not for serving to the general public.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

I've been working on some video footage that I shot.  The finished edit is about an hour long and there are no special effects.  Just a handful of cuts.

The problem is that the video is 6 gig using H.265 at 1080p

Ladyanne3:

I wouldn't waste your time with H.265 at 1080p.  Like I said in my previous posts, you're better to stick to H.264 as it's easier to compress and encode video.  If you can find some settings that work for you then that's great but you'll have more problems with H.265.  Like I said earlier on in this thread, there's hardly any point in using H.265 because the amount of difference that you will achieve is very minimal in data size and not really worth the bother.  Also you will find that especially when compressing video that is quite lengthy in duration that you will waste lots of time trying to process it.  Expect it to take roughly 3 times longer by using H.265 compared to H.264 which will take only a fraction of the time.

H.264 is so much easier to work with, you get a result that takes much less time and it's better if you're not used to compressing techniques.  You can follow the herd if you want like on TPB but that's not good advice to give you as those methods are poor.  The key thing is to only use H.265 for 4K resolutions of video, not 2K.  H.265 was brought out much later on after the creation of High Definition and was designed for using to process 4K content only.

[Ladyanne3]

I've been working on some video footage that I shot.  The finished edit is about an hour long and there are no special effects.  Just a handful of cuts.

The problem is that the video is 6 gig using H.265 at 1080p

Ladyanne3:

I wouldn't waste your time with H.265 at 1080p.  Like I said in my previous posts, you're better to stick to H.264 as it's easier to compress and encode video.  If you can find some settings that work for you then that's great but you'll have more problems with H.265.  Like I said earlier on in this thread, there's hardly any point in using H.265 because the amount of difference that you will achieve is very minimal in data size and not really worth the bother.  Also you will find that especially when compressing video that is quite lengthy in duration that you will waste lots of time trying to process it.  Expect it to take roughly 3 times longer by using H.265 compared to H.264 which will take only a fraction of the time.

H.264 is so much easier to work with, you get a result that takes much less time and it's better if you're not used to compressing techniques.  You can follow the herd if you want like on TPB but that's not good advice to give you as those methods are poor.  The key thing is to only use H.265 for 4K resolutions of video, not 2K.  H.265 was brought out much later on after the creation of High Definition and was designed for using to process 4K content only.

I'm not interested in following the herd so I'm not going to use H.265.   It also severely overloads my computers.

I know that I'm brain damaged but I'm always trying new things to be independent and pay my bills.
I'm trying to produce a fictional video series about some mentally handicapped people on a boat.
Kind of like the TV show Friends but we're all mentally messed up and live on boats.

So I'm trying to figure out how to make the videos as small as can be but they still need to be watchable 1080p.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

Well also to add further a lot of it has to do with the camera you are using.  I know that Sony are very good, they have been for a long time.  A proper camera and not just a mobile phone, I know that Mobile phones are better than they used to be now but if you've got an actual real video camera I'm sure it would work much better and give a good result.  It very much has a lot to do with the way your camera records things like for example you might be using a 29.970 fps frame rate which, if your camera works on that, will be more like an interlaced recording as compared to what you said 1080p (p = progressive).  I'm sure that you would get a Interlaced (1080i) result from using a 29.970 camera.  When Blu Rays are made you find that a lot of the concert more type of releases like pop or rock concerts are most typically done in 1080i where as movies are done in 1080p because it uses progressive framing as the cameras that are used for movie making as usually hired by various people and can cost a fortune.  I believe that movie crews will hire the equipment and pay so much per day and often they spend massive amounts of time in the studio doing all the post production work.  I hear that Sony Vegas is a very good program to use maybe you can get that from TPB and download a version.

Usually when I rip a movie in most cases it's a frame rate of 23.976 about 98% of the time shot on very expensive movie cameras like what Hollywood studio productions use.  Remember that more home video kind of cameras that people use when on holiday are mostly 29.970 fps which is more your Interlaced kind of quality, again these are more your concert kind of recordings I usually find or television recorded productions tend to have that kind of frame rate.  Just whatever you do don't change the frame rate when applying compression as that will make it look very bad.  Keep the frame rate the same as what your camera captures.  Apply as much compression as you feel necessary and with a bit of study you can hopefully work out some good settings that will work for your project.  Just write it all down and have some experiments and put it on paper.  You can believe me all this stuff takes a fair bit of effort but when you find the kind of quality that you want to work with you'll know when you render and play it back on the computer.  I hope you've got a fairly decent machine to do this on, you're right though spending hours processing video is not worth it as you tend to waste lots of time and electricity especially these days with bills getting so high due to the problems with Russia.

I hope you can do well anyway, if you need any further help I can try and help you, I will leave you with it for now.  These things can take time so good luck and hopefully you get a nice result soon that you are happy with the more you work on things the better it will be and if this makes you feel happier then that's all that matters.  If you think about when Hollywood work on projects they spend a huge amount of money and time and lots of people doing different jobs.  The amount of work that goes in is quite a lot.  Maybe try at least 3 different levels of compression and compare them side by side, a high level, a medium level and lower level and see how the size matches up and each one see after you've thrown some of the data away how does it look to you?

[stts2]

I use Pinnacle studio I got from here on Piratebay. I can do anything I want with a video. I have a ton of concert footage. I been Using Pinnacle to pick out the perfect 18 second snippet, then picking out the highest resolution to compile 900k MOV files. Thats the biggest video that can be sent as text. And the quality is pretty good on a small phone when you stick to 18 seconds. More time means the resolution has to be even lower. But you got to learn how video editing software works. They all work kinda sorta the same but youtube videos are a must to get started. I play with it all the time so I learned video editing long ago.