I have a decent amount of video footage that I’d like to share with friends and family. My first thought was Youtube, but this is all home videos that I really don’t want to share publicly.

A large portion of my video footage is 4k/60, so I’m ideally looking for a solution where I can send somebody a link, and it gives a “similar to Youtube” experience when they click on the link. And by “similar to Youtube,” I mean that the player automatically adjusts the video bitrate and resolution based on their internet speed. Trying to explain to extended family how to lower the bitrate if the video starts buffering isn’t really an option. It needs to “just work” as soon as the link is clicked; some of the individuals I’d like to share video with are very much not technically inclined.

I’d like to host it on my homelab, but my internet connection only has a 4Mbit upload, which is orders of magnitude lower than my video bitrate, so I’m assuming I would need to either use a 3rd-party video hosting service or set up a VPS with my hosting software of choice.

Any suggestions? I prefer open-source self-hosted software, but I’m willing to pay for convenience.

  • vividspecter@lemm.eeEnglish
    151·
    11 months ago

    Maybe Jellyfin, where I believe you can force a low bitrate for every remote client. It wouldn’t be “adjust to internet speed” but you could minimise buffering that way.

    • ferret@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      Note that for jellyfin (or any software) to reduce the bitrate it will have to transcode the video

      • vividspecter@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        Of course. Youtube and the like “pre-transcode” it so that would be one way for Jellyfin to better solve it, at the cost of a significant amount of disk space.

        • ferret@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          11 months ago

          You can get an intel arc a310 for ~$90 and it has absolutely insane transcode performance, so depending on how large your library is it might even end up cheaper than buying more storage to just live-transcode everything.

          • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            2·
            11 months ago

            Or if you have a 7th gen or newer Intel CPU with integrated graphics, those work great too. Support for 10 bit does require a later model CPU though.

    • corroded@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      I’m a big fan of Jellyfin. I run it at home with a dedicated Nvidia A2000 for hardware transcoding. It’s able to transcode multiple 4k streams with tonemapping faster than they can play.

      As much as I’d love to use Jellyfin, there are two major issues: My internet connection is so slow, that I’d be lucky to stream 720p at a low bitrate. I’d spend the money on a faster connection, but I live in an area that doesn’t even get cell phone service. My options are DSL and Starlink, and I have both; the DSL is just slow, and Starlink uplink speed isn’t much better, plus I have plenty of obstructions that make it somewhat unreliable. The second problem is that Jellyfin has too steep of a learning curve. Telling my relatives “oh, if it starts buffering, just lower the bitrate” isn’t an option. Not to mention, I’d have to run it on a VPS, and hosting a VPS with the resources required for this is way too expensive for me.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.instituteEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        and hosting a VPS with the resources required for this is way too expensive for me.

        If you’re ok with using VPS from bottom-tier providers, you can get them for 10x cheaper than the usual cloud providers (or more during holiday sales) on lowendtalk.com.