@Wasily mate sorry I missed half your questions. Sometimes my eyes miss chatter I want to read (hint tag @NasserAlazzawiTV and it puts more of an alert on my screen if I see it in time)
The resolution settings I was trying out were:
- 1920 × 1080p @ 40fps
- Downscaled to a better streaming resolution (than the previous 720p):
- 1536 × 864
- @ 5300kbps bitrate plus 320kbps Audio
This maintains the 16:9 ratio for viewers watching on wide screen TVs but means I can keep a lower bitrate and not throw more people off.
My friend streams in 1080p @ 30fps - which I can totally do - yet I swear that he gets fewer listeners because he’s sending 6mbps. People who are going to have problems usually do at above 4500kbps as we saw for Phil last night.
My friend has never done it differently so he wouldn’t know if lower resolutions would retain more of an audience. His streams are better than mine by far IMO and I feel like he needs to do some testing by lowering it. I feel like he deserves more listeners than he retains which is between 50 and 80 from what I’ve seen with a 6 month head start on me.
All cameras were set to 1080p during the last few streams.
Meanwhile I have the encoding laptop connected via ethernet to a separate iMac who’s sole job is to record the original source at 1080p. I separate the machines to avoid putting too much stress on the laptop - if the streaming machine crashes we all die a brutal streaming death.
My next stream will most likely be same 1536 × 864 but reducing 40fps to 30fps keeping the total bitrate below 4500kbps aiming at keeping all viewers in (unless they really have connection issues).
I didn’t realise that less FPS might actually crispen the picture as it’s not doubling up the data for the same shot just to make the scenery that moves more fluid.
God knows why I find this interesting, I’m like one of those tinkering people (Chavs) who can’t stop tweaking their motor (Nova)…
