Behind the scenes I am testing upping the resolution from 640 pixels x 360 to 1280×720. The image has been the same size since 2015, when the last camera upgrade occurred. Prior to that, the image was a paltry 320×240, but I didn’t have digital equipment, and had metered satellite Internet as well.
At the same time, I am altering the frequency that still images are taken. The initial tests showed that the resulting twenty-four hour time lapse video was a little more than twice the size of current files. And that was when I had the video exporting at 10 fps, when it should have been set to 20. For those who don’t recall, the daily-light only video is currently exported at 10 fps.
Perhaps none of this matters to many people, but it may matter to some. Having had poor Internet prior to ECFiber coming to the area, I know that sacrifices have to be made; and I wouldn’t expect any of my less fortunate viewers — many of whom are my neighbors — to strain their bandwidth limits.
The main reason I am considering these changes, is that I have noticed that when I watch the videos on my television — which is how I usually consume YouTube — that the video quality is poor. Not something I notice on any of my other devices.
The initial test above weighed in at 111 MB, while the usual 640×360 version is about 48 MB. I am testing on the twenty-four hour version because the file size for the daylight-only version will vary depending on the time of year — longer videos in the summer, and shorter ones in the winter. So those will never get as large as the all-day version.
Another unknown is how YouTube will react to the larger file. Probably not at all, but as I am relying on moving files around, and using third party apps and services to manage the upload to YouTube, who knows. *shrug*
The second test a few days later resulted in a file that is only a few megabytes larger than the 640×360 version, and only 2:24. I am calling this test a success.
Now, how to transition to the new size without too much disruption.