Attaching a large (430 MB) video to e-mail

[Reading Bug]

Hi all,

I'm looking for the best way to make a 430 MB video file (MPEG-2) fit in an e-mail. I've done some research but can find nothing really comprehensive. I would love to get such a large file zipped somehow, but am up for suggestions as to conversion to another format (MP4, AVI, etc).

If conversion is the top choice, I'd want to aim for the best balance between quality and convenience/compatibility (for the recipient).

Thanks in advance!

[lordsmurf]

It can't be done. Most video files will exceed the standard 10-20MB attachment maximum allowed by most email servers, even if you squash the quality down to near-crap. I do get the occasional almost-unwatchable chain letter video, which I generally erase without watching.

You'd be looking at a 320x240 H.264 with very low bitrate. It would look lossy and lousy on most modern LCD screens. Even then, it really depends on the length of the video.

This site used to have an 8MB limit on attaching video clips, and it had to be upped to 16MB for even small samples. That 8MB cap just wasn't large enough for what was needed here. Site Staff can upload 32MB directly from the server (files must be FTP'd first), because of timeouts on the PHP/MySQL through the web interface at about 25MB.

I'd suggest using Dropbox instead of this email idea. It's a free service, and a person can download the video from a specific URL. It's no more "unsafe" than an unencrypted email. I use Dropbox regularly to sync PDFs to my iPad, or to share a file with a family member that doesn't quite understand FTP (yet).

[Reading Bug]

Drat.

I haven't heard of Dropbox, but I'll look into it. Thanks LS.

Yahoo recently announced an upgrade to their e-mail service, with one of the improvements being attachments up to 1 GB. I just got an e-mail from them today, however, saying the limit is going to be 100 MB (up from 25 MB) instead. I don't know what kind of issues they might have run into, but it hardly seems a worthwhile effort for what is still such a small volume (especially for 2011).

We should have been able to handle GBs years ago.

Thanks again, LS.

[kpmedia]

Well, not really. It would back up emails server quite a bit. Email was always intended for messages, and adding binary attachments was really a "hack" and slight misuse of the technology. File transfers were, and still are, supposed to go over the file transfer protocol (FTP), or a variation thereof. High speed access (10mbit+ speed cable/fiber -- not DSL) has allowed files to transfer over HTTP for a while now, but that's honestly misuse of that protocol, too. That was intended for web browser content, not file delivery.

Dropbox is one of those HTTP services. Free up to 2GB: http://www.dropbox.com

And it's not annoying like those other services typically used for underground shenanigans (Rapidshare, Mediafire, etc). Those sites are filled with ads, force you to run scripts/plugins, make you wait around for downloads, etc. I understand wanting to cash in one their service, but that's ridiculous, and there needs to be a less intrusive method. Dropbox is doing well with "less intrusive" right now -- and hopefully it will stay that way.

Using email for large file attachments is like using your car to pull a trailer. Yes, it probably can be done, but it's far from ideal. You're better off using the proper tool for the task, such as a truck.

[Reading Bug]

Oh, I understand. But ideally, considering how e-mail has evolved and how pertinent attachments are, it seems we should have more than just 25 measly MBs (especially with the evolution of cloud computing/storage). I imagine we'll be at GBs someday.

Dropbox does look promising. I'll be sure to check it out. Thanks guys!