Lemme get this out of the way first, I don't want any hate towards @Timeworks , I do not think he had any ill or misleading intentions when making his video, and I am a big fan of his content. However, I think a mistake was made in his video
Also I am very bad at explaining things so sorry if this is hard to understand
tl;dr my video is 0.283s, his is 0.3s, not 0.26s. This is due to rounding up and the way he measured length
This video is exported as a 17 frame long 60fps video.
Also let me make this clear when I wrote this description I didn’t see his video from the day before where he talked about his vid, i know some stuff I write after this were already addressed so sorry about that.
I saw Timeworks newest "shortest video" video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsIRoA99bBY) where he says in the thumbnail the video is 26% of a second, and when I clicked on it I watched it like 20 times. Seems to check out. and then I wanted to watch it frame by frame to see how many frames there were (in my ignorance I didn't read the description), so i paused the video at the first frame and clicked the . button (btw pressing "," turns the video one frame back, and "." turns the video one frame forward) and I noticed something very odd. When I pressed the period button, the video progress bar went to one third completion. It was at this point where I read the description and saw that it was 8 frames. If the video was 8 frames long, then pressing the . button at the start of the video once would put the video progress to 1/8 of the way to completion. I then did the math of what the frame rate would be if the video was 8 frames long and 26% of a second. 30.769 fps, which is close enough to 30fps which is probably what was intended. However, upon right clicking the video player and clicking stats for nerds, I saw "1920x1080@10". What this means is that his video was 1920 pixels in the horizontal direction, 1080 in the vertical direction, and running at 10 frames per second. Again, counting the frames in his video it is 3 frames (though you will only see 2 because youtubes video player when going frame by frame is glitched, and will prevent you from going to the last 0.1 seconds of the video). 3 x (1 second/10fps) = .3 seconds. This is not .26 seconds like he claims, but this is not his fault at all. This became immediately obvious to me as a computer rounding error.
You see, if he edited this video with 8 frames and his timeline was at 30fps, then the length of the video as perceived by him editing it is indeed .26 seconds like he says (technically .2666666666666s but whatever). However, if he exported the video at 10fps then the video wouldn't be .2666 seconds anymore. As far as I'm aware, you cannot have a fractional frame, so with 0.1seconds per frame with 10 frames per second, his video would either have to be .2 seconds or .3 seconds. And .2666 is closer to .3 so his video became 0.3 seconds long. 3 frames x 0.1 seconds per frame.
I then decided to find the actual minimum length that a youtube video can be. I converted my 60fps video of me clapping and shouting balls to 300fps in premiere pro, meaning that moving forward 5 frames in the timeline would make the video appear to progress one frame. I then cut it down to 90 frames (0.3 seconds), exported, and uploaded the video to youtube. The video processed fine. I then tried 80 frames (.266666 seconds) and the video processing was abandoned when trying to upload to youtube, which means it is under the minimum video length threshold. I then did 89 frames, 88, and worked my way down frame by frame until youtube wouldn't process it anymore, which was at 84 frames, so the limit was 85 frames. 85/300= .28333333 seconds, which is coincidentally right in between the lengths of an 8 frame 30fps video and a 9 frame 30fps video.so this video is the minimum. .283333 seconds.
As a final test, I took that 80 frame 300fps video that wouldn't upload, brought it down to 10fps using handbrake, and uploaded that. It uploaded and processed perfectly.
I then exported a 76 frame version of the 300fps video, encoded it to 10fps, and then uploaded that to youtube. It worked perfectly, which could be considered a .25333 second video, shorter than what timeworks had.
According to how he measured his videos by the time perceived in the timeline of his video editor, the minimum video length possible would be 0.25 seconds assuming an infinite frame rate in the video editor and encoding it to the nice even number of 10fps. However, using fractional frame rates, the shortest video able to be uploaded to youtube as perceived in the timeline would be a .14166666... second video encoded to a single frame video at 3.52941176 frames per second.
If you are watching this video at 30fps its shown as 9 frames because you can't have fractional frame rates, making the video the same length as timeworks when viewed at 30fps.
0 Comments