<p>60mb is already a ridiculously small size for a minute of footage. If you go even below that, your video will quickly look like one of those made with unregistered hypercam 3.0 back in 2009 youtube-era. Please don't. Hard-drives nowadays are incredibly cheap and I recommend just buying an external or internal one. You can get 1tb for about 50$. You could fit 16666 minutes of footage on there, which is over 277 hours. That sounds fair for 50 bucks. Please don't go below your bitrate, it's already barely intermediate.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-15T15:04:04.987Z
Not sure if my question was understood properly , 60mb for a 1 minute video ~14400 mb (14Gb) for a 4 hour recording.Compressing a 14Gb video takes a hell of a lot of time (also disk space ).If the rendered output from the webcam was a managable (small) size it would be such a time saver!
srt111
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-17T08:02:12.397Z
14Gb does not take a hell lot of time to compress. Using ffmpeg to half the size of a 13.89 GB file I had, it took me about 4 minutes compressing it. Given that this filesize would equal 4 hours worth of recording in your time, I think this is very manageable. If you try to compress your file into an even smaller bitrate or resolution, you will suffer great loss in quality. But if you still want to do so instead of buying a very cheap hard-drive, try using handbrake of ffmpeg or the adobe media encoder. Using it, you can compress many files in a queue which should safe some time.
Florian Claaßen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-13T08:26:01.527Z
2019-06-13T08:26:01.527Z
Florian Claaßen
<p>The length of the video file is going to depend on resolution and amount of visual changes multiplied by time.  Many codecs support a type of static (minimal change) encoding, sometimes referred to as "desktop capture" as it's ideal for capturing a computer desktop because very little changes.  If you want small file sizes you don't include video of yourself, but if you do, make it very small, like only a postage stamp or two in the corner and better yet even turn it on &amp; off as needed.</p>

<p>If you look at various desktop tutorials it's common to see a 45min video only be like 75MB because the desktop changes so little that the video file doesn't need to store a lot of information.  Also record/export your audio in mono, stereo is a waste of information for talking.  It won't make much of a difference but it will make a tiny one.</p>

<p>As far as I know Mpeg4 doesn't offer anything optimized for desktop capture, you might want to look into a different capturing codec.  I know .WMV had explicit support for it but that's not a very popular format these days.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-15T15:09:47.247Z
Yeah , you make some very good points, but mp4 is a well known standard supported by most other softwares and on social media .It even exceeds .mov in that regard .Will definitely experiment with the size of the screen and audio .
srt111
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-01T20:33:33.617Z
Yes it's a popular motion format, perfect for motion, it's abysmal (no exaggeration) for desktop capture, in fact it can't do it at all unless you want massive files.  This is why pros have used niche formats or stuck with WMV years later their popularity waning.
TravisO
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-13T18:56:06.420Z
2019-06-13T18:56:06.420Z
TravisO
<p>On exporting a captured video via Logitech c920 webcam , the size of a 1 minute clip is approximately 60Mb .Note that this is only a webcam capture and doesn't include a screen capture.I was planning a 4hr shoot ,but with such large render size,it would be very difficult. </p>

<p>Render format -mp4 
Render settings - 30fps(Priority- FrameRate)<br>
Openh264(Cisco)<br>
Video-Hd1280x720 (7400kbps)<br>
Audio-Stereo-48Mhz (194Kbps)<br>
White balance-60%<br>
Image adjustment -Turned Off<br>
Antiflicker -60Hz</p>

<p>Is their any way to get a render with a reduced size ,without affecting the current quality and without using a postprocessing external compression software</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-14T02:59:11.423Z
720p video rendered with H.264 can look quite good with as low as 2 Mbit/s rate.
Rusty Core
<render>
Video render size too large(Logitech c920)
srt111
# Video render size too large(Logitech c920)

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-10)

On exporting a captured video via Logitech c920 webcam , the size of a 1 minute clip is approximately 60Mb .Note that this is only a webcam capture and doesn't include a screen capture.I was planning a 4hr shoot ,but with such large render size,it would be very difficult.

Render format -mp4
Render settings - 30fps(Priority- FrameRate)  
Openh264(Cisco)  
Video-Hd1280x720 (7400kbps)  
Audio-Stereo-48Mhz (194Kbps)  
White balance-60%  
Image adjustment -Turned Off  
Antiflicker -60Hz

Is their any way to get a render with a reduced size ,without affecting the current quality and without using a postprocessing external compression software

**Tags:** render

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 720p video rendered with H.264 can look quite good with as low as 2 Mbit/s rate.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-06-13. Score: 1

60mb is already a ridiculously small size for a minute of footage. If you go even below that, your video will quickly look like one of those made with unregistered hypercam 3.0 back in 2009 youtube-era. Please don't. Hard-drives nowadays are incredibly cheap and I recommend just buying an external or internal one. You can get 1tb for about 50$. You could fit 16666 minutes of footage on there, which is over 277 hours. That sounds fair for 50 bucks. Please don't go below your bitrate, it's already barely intermediate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Not sure if my question was understood properly , 60mb for a 1 minute video ~14400 mb (14Gb) for a 4 hour recording.Compressing a 14Gb video takes a hell of a lot of time (also disk space ).If the rendered output from the webcam was a managable (small) size it would be such a time saver!  
> **username_2**: 14Gb does not take a hell lot of time to compress. Using ffmpeg to half the size of a 13.89 GB file I had, it took me about 4 minutes compressing it. Given that this filesize would equal 4 hours worth of recording in your time, I think this is very manageable. If you try to compress your file into an even smaller bitrate or resolution, you will suffer great loss in quality. But if you still want to do so instead of buying a very cheap hard-drive, try using handbrake of ffmpeg or the adobe media encoder. Using it, you can compress many files in a queue which should safe some time.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-06-13. Score: 0

The length of the video file is going to depend on resolution and amount of visual changes multiplied by time. Many codecs support a type of static (minimal change) encoding, sometimes referred to as "desktop capture" as it's ideal for capturing a computer desktop because very little changes. If you want small file sizes you don't include video of yourself, but if you do, make it very small, like only a postage stamp or two in the corner and better yet even turn it on & off as needed.

If you look at various desktop tutorials it's common to see a 45min video only be like 75MB because the desktop changes so little that the video file doesn't need to store a lot of information. Also record/export your audio in mono, stereo is a waste of information for talking. It won't make much of a difference but it will make a tiny one.

As far as I know Mpeg4 doesn't offer anything optimized for desktop capture, you might want to look into a different capturing codec. I know .WMV had explicit support for it but that's not a very popular format these days.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Yeah , you make some very good points, but mp4 is a well known standard supported by most other softwares and on social media .It even exceeds .mov in that regard .Will definitely experiment with the size of the screen and audio .  
> **username_3**: Yes it's a popular motion format, perfect for motion, it's abysmal (no exaggeration) for desktop capture, in fact it can't do it at all unless you want massive files.  This is why pros have used niche formats or stuck with WMV years later their popularity waning.  

---

