Flashcomguru.com: Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite stops encoding after 50 files/day or 1500 files/month

Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite stops encoding after 50 files/day or 1500 files/month

Posted At : September 8, 2006 10:35 AM | Posted By : Stefan Richter | Related Categories: Tools

Oh I love conspiracies... and this sounds like one which firmly targets us, the customers.
InterLake, an advertising partner of mine, uses Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite and a VP6 Plugin license to encode video into Flash format (flv) using the watch folder functionality and manual encoding. As a Flash Streaming provider they encode quite a number of files for testing and live use on a PC in their office running Squeeze.

At the end of August they received the following error message:
"The monthly encoding limit of 1500 and daily encoding limit of 50 have been reached". This limit is not mentioned anywhere in the License Agreement, on the Sorenson website or the knowledge base. However InterLake believes (I think rightly so) that they purchased a license that does not have any encoding limits.

Of course they enquired with Sorenson but they did so far not answer their questions. What they did get was a question in return from a Sorenson Channel Sales Manager:
"Please explain your business model and let me know what you are doing. Why are you encoding this many files per day?"
Further enquiries to Sorenson to explain this license restriction and where they alert customers to this restriction were not answered.

Time for Sorenson to step forward I think. I'm no lawyer but if this limit isn't mentioned anywhere in the license agreement then I don't see any rights for imposing it. Heck, this would be a bit like Flash 8 Basic saying to you: "Sorry, but you've written 200 lines of Actionscript code today, if you want to write any more then please explain your business model to us or upgrade to Flash 8 Pro".

While I personally think that this limitation is ridiculous and probably unenforcable it should be in the public domain as it may affect your purchasing decisions. I invite Sorenson to comment on this issue and I am happy to publish their unedited reply.

Comments ( 42 ) |

Email This |

del.icio.us | 6592 Views

Comments

[Add Comment]

That's ridiculous ... "Please explain your business model" - "Business model my *ss!" That's what I would have answered.

# Posted By Matthias | 9/8/06 11:49 AM

I was building a site whose showing the music videos and commercials my client produced. I encouraged them to buy licenses for Squeeze 3 (this was just after Macromedia had released the FLV format), so that they could then manage their own content.

The material looked great, but there was just one problem: the software didn't embed any metadata, so no time elapsed, no progress bar, etc, etc.

I was perplexed: there was a free, open-source metadata injector that could do so retrospectively, so how come

# Posted By Oliver Turner | 9/8/06 1:27 PM

their expensive software didn't, and more to the point, how could they market the product as the premier compression suite for FLV without mention of the fact? It was a pretty glaring omission, but nowhere did they even say they'd support it in a future version - which might have implied that it didn't currently.

I called up in a bit of a fury and talked to a lovely chap who arranged for delivery of Squeeze 4 for free on the grounds that he too had suggested that letting customers find out only after purchase was stupidly short-term-ist but had been flattened by Marketing.

Net result: I'm posting story about how shifty Sorenson's marketing department are, in response to another one, in a place read by the people they're meant to be marketing to. Good work chaps.

# Posted By Oliver Turner | 9/8/06 1:30 PM

"...Why are you encoding this many files per day?"

What does that have to do with it? It's part of my business, that's why! jackasses.

# Posted By johnny5 | 9/8/06 2:01 PM

Listen they are merely trying to deliver the right kind of product to the right kind of customer to improve those types of customers' exeperience. You should expect that any tool you use has the right to impose limitations, monitor your usage, gather system information such as IP addresses, hard-disk capacity, processor speed, monitor resolution, and username, usage intervals, etc. AND software should activate and de-activate at the whim of the producers. Imagine a hammer manufacturer trying to remain profitable if they produced carpenter hammers designed to hammer an unspecified number of nails for an unspecified length of time. That just doesn't make sense. That is why when you buy a hammer, or a socket wrench, or any other kind of tool or product, you MUST agree to pay a subscription and specify exactly how you will use that tool so the payments can be tailored to your demand. And like any tool, those will become disabled once you quit paying or if you exceed the number of usages allowed. This is how a hammer manufacturer can afford to pay the hammer making employees so much money. Good lord, you idiots don't understand basic business!

# Posted By aardvark | 9/8/06 2:27 PM

I gather a weeny tiny bit of sarcasm in that last post... But please don't call us idiots.

# Posted By Stefan | 9/8/06 2:35 PM

Yes, just a tiny bit. That is the tone I've gotten from company representives and support personnel when I've tried to get assistance with similar problems. That I'm an idiot. Not so many months ago, I nearly lost an argument with Macromedia/Adobe support when I encountered Flash's "de-activation" limit. That isn't a typo, yes you can only uninstall Flash MX 2004 so many times before you must call and explain yourself. I hate explaining my usage. I also hate when applications like Multidmedia Zinc call home upon startup and shutdown, so they can monitor how long you use their software. I also hate Windows transmitting information about my system to Microsoft. All of these businesses's employees have developed the idea that they have the right to do this and we are idiots for not understanding their rights to do these sorts of things.

# Posted By aardvark | 9/8/06 2:51 PM

I've never bought a hammer with a subscription :)))

# Posted By Sven | 9/8/06 2:52 PM

Exactly. It doesn't make sense to buy a hammer that requires activation either. Especially if there is no gaurantee that the company responsible for activating the hammer will be available to activate it next time you need to use it. I've had several problems with activated software over the past few years, the last was with WS-FTP. And so, when the option is available, even if the product is inferior, I choose to purchase a tool that does not require activation. Our company produces software that has a long life. Some of our products are still in use that are 10+ years old, and we still get calls to tweak and customize those applications. Imagine if tools were no longer supported, the company sold-out, or just refused to re-activate such old tools. We wouldn't be able to hammer those nails and make our money.

# Posted By aardvark | 9/8/06 3:02 PM

On a similar note, but this case deals with On2. When you purchase On2 products (Flix 8.5 Pro, Flix 8 Plugin for Mac etc.) for download, they limit you to one install. That's great if nothing goes wrong. But when we just upgraded to Final Cut Pro 5.1 on our Mac which was running the Flix Plug In, the upgrade suddenly killed the same plugin which was previously working fine with Compressor (supposed to run on Compressor and Final Cut and some others).
Sorry, you're screwed. No reinstall, no support. No nothing. I've been knocking on On2's door for a month and no real help from them. I did manage to get one of their lawyers on the phone who said he'd pass the message on to the guys who were supposed to be handling the issue. This whole thing, Sorenson, On2, even Adobe to some degree (FMS licensing) stinks. Our company has wasted far too many hours dealing with this kind of corporate nonsense. Which, frankly, is based on greed.

# Posted By asai | 9/8/06 4:22 PM

Let me remind them: experience matters :-)

What I do know is that On2 suffered badly from piracy (who didn't). So they take a kind of hardware fingerprint of your system and tie it to the serial number. In order to install the app again you need to uninstall it first.
I feel for you though as I can see how this system can turn into a nightmare if the install only half succeeds and you maybe can't uninstall successfully...

# Posted By Stefan | 9/8/06 4:34 PM

Thanks Stefan, for allowing me to unload. Experience does matter...there's nothing wrong with reciprocation (monetary or otherwise) for one's efforts, and when a thief tries to take that away it's, well, definitely uncool. We're all stuck in a system that doesn't really work, but we try to make the best of what we've got to work with.

# Posted By asai | 9/8/06 4:40 PM

I'd like to see some proof that these limitations, activations, and other shifty tactics actually increase profits. People that steal software will never buy it.

# Posted By aardvark | 9/8/06 7:41 PM

Im sensitive to the concerns expressed, and wanted to clear up any misunderstandings we have unfortunately helped create by not communicating our product changes to our customers.

The encoding limits we place on Sorenson Squeeze are by no means a conspiracy targeting customers. The simple reality is that the Squeeze product is licensed for desktop use, not for enterprise-level applications such as one might find at a video sharing site, for example, where systems will encode thousands of videos per day. For that level of volume, we need to charge a price more in line with enterprise server software rather than desktop software.

This restriction is in part a result of the third-party technology that is part of Squeeze. The licenses we have with our partners do no permit us to provide enterprise-level encoding capability at desktop pricing.

Our encoding limits are not imposed if a user is interacting with Squeeze through the UI (a true desktop application), but are imposed if the tool is being driven through the watch folder or command line interfaces.

We are currently finalizing our pricing model for high volume encoding. However, the fact that our pricing is not yet communicated to our customer base is a significant error on our part, and I agree that it's not fair for us to impose this limit.

So for the time being, I invite any of you who have been impacted by this limit to contact our support group (801.313.8150, or support@sorensonmedia.com) so we can work out an arrangement that allows you to use Sorenson Squeeze as needed until we properly post and implement our new pricing information for high volume users.

I look forward to hearing from any of you who wish to speak with us, so we can understand your usage characteristics, and how we can best meet your needs.

Sincerely,

Matt Cupal
President & COO
Sorenson Media

# Posted By Matt Cupal | 9/8/06 11:51 PM

This is unbelievable. We test it with our sorenson software and we got the same results/problems in our TV-Studio. We will not use this software more or buy software from this company. Thanks for posting this!

Dirk Heuser

# Posted By Dirk Heuser | 9/9/06 10:02 PM

I re-read the message the software displayed, then re-read Matt's response again, thought about it, and decided I had nothing better to do than comment again.
I'm only guessing here, but if that message was not a result of Sorenson software calling home and alerting Sorenson of the number of files encoded, then it must have been programmed into the released application. If that is true then Sorenson programmers coded that message after being instructed by their manager. If that is true, their manager was informed by Matt and/or whomever else that was aware of the limiting licensing agreements. The point is that it isn't a result "product changes" as much as convenient "marketing oversite". Another common business practice these days. We're all used to this, no?
Anyhow, otherwise Matt's response to this issue is well worded, politically-correct, and common. It sounds like if any current customers have a problem with it, a new deal can be negotiated to resolve the problem. So don't jump ship so fast Dirk.

# Posted By aardvark | 9/10/06 3:29 AM

More Sorenson Lies:

We ask our lawyer and he says if you use this kind of software in your company
for an encoding job ( for your customer ) you dont have the rights for commerical
mp3 encoding!!!

Here is the original license agreement from sorenson !!!

Note: The MPEG Layer 3 audio encoding technology is licensed by Fraunhofer IIS
and Thompson Multimedia. Supply of this product only conveys a license for private,
non-commercial use and does not convey a license nor imply any right to use this
product in any commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) real time broadcasting
(terrestrial, satellite, cable, and/or any other media), broadcasting / streaming via
Internet, intranets, and/or other networks or in other electronic content distribution
systems, such as pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications. An independent license
for such use is required. For details, please visit http://www.mp3licensing.com.
Supply of this product does not convey a license under the relevant intellectual
property of Thomson multimedia and/or Fraunhofer Gesellschaft nor imply any
right to use this product in any finished end user or ready-to-use final product.
An independent license for such is required. For details, please visit
http://www.mp3licensing.com.

Beware for buying sorenson stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beware for buying sorenson stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beware for buying sorenson stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beware for buying sorenson stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards
Jonas Engfield, Netherland

# Posted By Jonas Engfield | 9/11/06 12:11 AM

I have recalled my previous comment, I'll need to have to look closer at this mp3 licensing...

# Posted By Stefan | 9/11/06 8:22 AM

Thank you Sorensen by responding to this thread. You are, however, hiding (again) behind some bogus arguments and clearly showing, that the customer is not the top priority in your company. Sooner or later you will notice that this is not the way to move your company forward.

# Posted By Stefan | 9/11/06 12:34 PM

>Posted By Dirk Heuser / Posted At 9/9/06 10:02 PM
>"This is unbelievable. We test it with our sorenson software and we got the same results/problems in our TV-Studio. We will not use this software more or buy software from this company. Thanks for posting this!"

Give me a break! The COO of their company takes the time to first explain the reason for doing this. "The simple reality is that the Squeeze product is licensed for desktop use, not for enterprise-level applications such as one might find at a video sharing site, for example, where systems will encode thousands of videos per day. For that level of volume, we need to charge a price more in line with enterprise server software rather than desktop software.

This restriction is in part a result of the third-party technology that is part of Squeeze. The licenses we have with our partners do no permit us to provide enterprise-level encoding capability at desktop pricing."

Then he admits that they made a mistake in implementation and would be willing to take care of any customer dealing with this issue until they have released that solution.

In response you slam them and say you will never buy there products again. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Not! You want to buy a desktop PC application for a TV Studio where thousands to millions of dollars are spent and made but you wouldn't be willing to pay a little more for a prospective Commercial license of a product that can truly support what you are doing.

>Posted By Jonas Engfield / Posted At 9/11/06 12:11 AM
>We ask our lawyer and he says if you use this kind of software in your company
for an encoding job ( for your customer ) you dont have the rights for commerical
mp3 encoding!!!

Maybe you should do a little more research. That isn't Sorenson's license. That is Fraunhofer's license. It is applicable to all and any application with MP3. So, I guess you should be saying. Beware for buying MP3 stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absurd!

# Posted By Wendell | 9/11/06 6:06 PM

Having nothing to do specifically with Sorenson or Fraunhofer, I'm really getting sick of the purpose based pricing game the software industry is playing with us.

If you buy a car, do you pay more for it if you intend to use it as a taxi? No. If you buy dinner plates, do you pay more for them if you plan to use them in a restaurant? No. If you buy a PC or Mac for business purposes, do you pay more for it than you would for personal use? No.

Funny... if you buy FMS, Flash, Illustrator, or most of the other Abobe products for commercial purposes, you still pay the same as if you bought it for personal use. At least there's a little justice there.

I'm all for people making a good return on their investment in developing software, but I consider separate commercial pricing to be a bit of a bully tactic on the part of the software manufacturers. It's fine for them to name their price for their product, but they seem to want a piece of our action as well, and that's simply a load of crap if you ask me.

Many software manufacturers really need to spend a little more time thinking about customer loyalty in general. If you're going to be a good con man, you have to remember that you can't milk your mark too hard if you want to milk them again in the future. If you piss of your customer base by demanding more than you should for your product (or start playing "let's make a deal" games), you'll find that your customer base will begin to deteriorate as soon as there is a viable alternative to your product... and the open source community is pretty good at making that happen.

# Posted By Jay Charles | 9/11/06 7:37 PM

I agree, in part, with you Wendell. But, I also would like to point out that I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars with my hammer and not once has the hammer manufacturer demanded more than what they initially demanded for the hammer. The hammer manufacturer knew damn well that a skilled carpenter would utilize that model of the hammer more productively than an unskilled worker. I'm sorry, but I view tools as tools, whether they are soft or hard. On the other hand, as a software developer, I've built software that has sold for millions, and been canned immediately after completing production on that software. The software continues to sale in the tens of millions now. Wouldn't it be great if software developers were paid like actors? Alas, we are not, and like many I love the work enough that it doesn't matter so much as I can support my family. So, a tool is a tool is a tool. I'd say the right thing to do is to split the tool into two tools or more. Just like a nail gun is for a different type of production than a hammer. Then the distinction doesn't confuse buyers like Dirk. Still that creates another problem, because buyers like myself look at the two products and say "one is overpriced and one hasn't the right features" :P So... what does that mean? Listen or loose.

# Posted By aardvark | 9/11/06 7:38 PM

I'd just like to point out that this comment made
by Stefan / Posted At 9/11/06 12:34 PM

"Thank you Sorensen by responding to this thread. You are, however, hiding (again) behind some bogus arguments and clearly showing, that the customer is not the top priority in your company. Sooner or later you will notice that this is not the way to move your company forward."

was another Stefan and not myself. Just to avoid confusion.

# Posted By Stefan | 9/11/06 9:24 PM

and just one more thing: all the arguments about enterprise verus desktop tools aside, I think 50 files per day is a limit that even desktop users may encounter. It sounds low to me.

# Posted By Stefan | 9/11/06 9:26 PM

Stefan,

I looked at the limitations as well and the user is only limited to 50 a day for the remainder of the month that they hit 1500 encodes in. I do A LOT of encoding and I haven't hit that limit in a months time. I do 50 or more once in a while but not every day. If I hit the limitation I probably would hit that number somewhere around the end of the month and then it would be a clean slate again when the new month started. I agree that fifty encodes in a day might be possible but to maintain that for thirty days? That's a lot of encoding! That doesn't sound like a standard desktop user to me. It sounds like an encoding business. Where can I submit my resume for a pro compressionist? :-)

# Posted By Wendell | 9/11/06 9:42 PM

I wanted to test... I have my other machine render out videos for the past two days and I finally have 53 videos rendered out in one day(0:00 to 24:00)...

Interestingly, I did not get such message...

Does this mean that this problem does not exist any more???
Oh, I think I have bought the Squeeze and VP6 around May or June of 2006 if it matters...

Ciao...

CyanBlue

# Posted By CyanBlue | 9/15/06 12:12 AM

From what people wrote above, my understanding is that if the 50 per day limit only kicks in after you encode 1500 videos in a month.

# Posted By jay charles | 9/15/06 3:12 AM

About two weeks have passed since I alerted Stefan to the Problem we enountered with Squeeze and he promptly posted it here. Matt Cupal, President of Sorenson posted a reply here which didn't help us at all. We also still didn't get any responses to out E-Mails that we sent directly to Sorenson. So we're still without a solution! What we're really angry about is that we bought a license and that we're not able to use it within the license agreement that Sorenson gives to the customers. That's simply a case of knowingly hiding limitations of the software from the customer! I have nothing against different licenses for commercial and private use, but Sorenson has not made any differentiation for Sorenson Compression Suite, so we expect to use the product as it is advertised and that's without a file limitation. After all, Sorenson markets the tool on its own websites as follows: "Squeeze also integrates seamlessly with leading video production applications and finished work distribution options". That's exactly what we do with it! So we're still waiting for Sorenson to come up with a solution so that we can use the license we paid for with all the features that were advertised and included in the license agreement. Currently Sroenson is doing nothing else than not keeping to their license agreements and advertising. That's neither fair nor legal. If Sorenson reads this: John Diel has my EMail address and promise dme to come up with a solution. I'm awaiting it!

# Posted By Sven | 9/20/06 2:45 PM

Hm... I am no lawyer but I can smell some legal action happening pretty soon...

CyanBlue

# Posted By CyanBlue | 9/21/06 12:24 AM

Well, Uncle Rico's take on all of this is that you are all abusing a desktop application and offering services with products under $500 bucks. I see a violation there; it's like a penalty in football. If coach would have put me in for the last play of the game I could have won state back in 82.

# Posted By uncle.rico.82 | 9/26/06 11:54 PM

if you picked up tin cans in a shopping cart, you could have paid for quite a few licenses by now. conspiracies normally involve magic bullets, the CIA or george w. bush. if you know anything about software agreements, you have no rights and it does not have to work. my sorenson works great, provides awesome encoding and the numbers are astronomical as far as limits per day-of couse i use it as a regular product in my editing suite.

dont get your marble sacks in a bunch over this.

peace

# Posted By euro trailer trashy | 9/27/06 12:58 AM

Stefan, Sven, are you guys in the adult industry? Cause I can't imagine anyone else needing to do that much encoding. It would definitely explain your hot tempers and thrifty sensibilities. My 2...if you really wanna do more than 1500, perhaps you should check into Telestream, Digital Rapids or Sonic Solutions for your encoding needs. Because the old saying rings true, you get what you pay for...nothing against Sorenson, it's a great solution for under $500 but come on now, lets keep it real. So, instead of beating up on the little guys, why don't you take another looksy in those pockets and see if you can anti up enough bling to play with the big boys.

# Posted By margeschott | 9/27/06 1:33 AM

Some of you seem to be missing the point. Apparently, my previous analogy was not very good. Imagine this one. You purchase a new car from Ben's Autos and happily drive away. With this car, you are finally able to achieve your life-long goal and become a pizza delivery person. After you deliver a few hundred pizzas the dealer comes to your home and knocks the tires off of your car, saying you've driven too many miles. (He knows this because he installed a GPS to monitor your usage. ;) ) So, you pull the EULA from the glove compartment, skim through the hogwash legalese, and find no restrictions on your usage. The dealer, Mr. Dover, says, "The car is intended for non-commercial use, but we'll let you carry-on until we can negotiate a better deal based on your usage."

# Posted By aardvark | 9/27/06 4:58 AM

aardvark got it spot on, it's the principle that counts here. I don't hit the encoding limit myself and I agree that Squeeze is a great product for the money (and no, I am not working in the adult industry but thanks for the inspiration). So really I shouldn't be concerned, right? Wrong.
The problem is that I now know that Sorenson is monitoring my usage (no bug surprise here, I guess I can live with that) and are apparently changing the contract agreement *after* I have bought the product and that's what gets me. All I'd ask for is that any limitations of the software are made clear BEFORE purchase, not after. Sorenenson does a poor job of that to put it mildly. Who's to say there aren't other limits waiting to be discovered?
Euro trailer trashy, margeschott and others appear to see no problem here and that's fine. I disagree and find this kind of arrangement appauling.
Let me clarify again: I can live with the actual issue that is the encoding limit but I don't like the principle of making one-sided changes to a contract after purchase.

# Posted By Stefan | 9/27/06 8:21 AM

In my work we create a bunch of tiny clips (30 to 60 seconds), and for each one we re-encode in many bitrates and formats. We would breeze through the 50 encodes/day limit in just 10 short clips! So far, we've just been using the desktop interface. However the fact that we can't use watch-folder or CLI encoding with this product is a matter of some concern. We're going to research alternatives to Sorenson Squeeze, at least until we have some comfort that "enterprise pricing" doesn't involve onerous new costs or terms.

I would venture to say that most users of Sorenson are using it for commercial production of some sort, but for "small business" style work. Matt Cupal, you are correct that you have every right to charge differently for "enterprise level encoding". However you might consider that this is not a traditional established software market. As online video comes into its own as an industry, a plethora of new uses and users will emerge. Tightening your licensing noose may cut off the air supply for many of the higher volume yet still-small video applications that will emerge. The pie will remain smaller than it ought to -- until one of your competitors steps up to offer a more reasonable licensing regime.

You have an excellent product, and we're willing to pay reasonably for its use. Please consider the bigger picture as you set your high-volume-user pricing.

# Posted By Sorenson User | 11/27/06 8:11 PM

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned - a quick read suggests it hasn't. The 50/day 1500/month combo only applies to the Watch folder function. You can still put in files manually for encode, which I guess is a bit more effort but isn't so bad. Running this for a uni we might have 50 short clips perhaps demoing some medical practice. It has been suggested by a colleague that this limit would help to prevent upstart YouTubes.

# Posted By Will Moindrot | 12/13/06 9:47 AM

we encode around 24 to 30 vids a day using the watchfolder, sometimes there are errors so some need to be redone. still, we do not come close to 1500. we are well under 1000 per month, and still we get an error every three to five days saying we have exceeded the limit. My ugly solution has been to advence the current date of our encoding machine by about a month, and the message goes away on restart of Squeeze. My computer thinks it is almost 2008, but we keep on encoding on...

# Posted By Dave | 1/8/07 5:34 AM

You can find a Sorenson press release concerning this issue at http://www.sorensonmedia.com/news/read_full.php?pa...

("New Licensing Models Respond to Demand for Large-Scale High-Volume Encoding and Compression Solutions")

# Posted By Flo | 1/14/07 11:29 AM

I just got squeeze 4.5 and this is in the terms


   I.    You or your customers or 3rd party users may not utilize the Software or its ?Command Line? functionality to create or enable or otherwise facilitate a web based or internet based self-service business, examples of which would include but not be limited to: customers or other 3rd party users (a) uploading audio and/or video data files and having them automatically compressed by the Software, (b) transcoding of audio and/or video data files using the Software or (c) self publishing audio and/or video data files using the Software.

   J.    You or your customers or 3rd party users may not exceed the monthly encoding limit enforced by the Software. For the base Sorenson Squeeze license this limit is 1500 files encoded per month. Versions of the Software with higher encoding limits are available from SMI.

all i gotta say...thats gay...

# Posted By darwinkid | 1/26/07 1:42 PM

Command Line functionality...? Interesting. Anyone got any details on that? :-)

# Posted By Stefan | 1/26/07 1:47 PM

I prefer to render frame by frame in the Flash timeline. I couldn't fathom 50 renders/day - I'm lucky to render 30 minutes of footage in 8 hours. :)

On a serious note, I wonder if the 50/1500 limit is built-in or monitored?

Question for aardvark, or any other software developer, >> is it built into the app OR monitored /communicating w/ Sorenson Corporate?

# Posted By jagsinc | 1/28/07 2:50 AM

I totally agree with most user comments pertaining to this topic. And, I also agree with the fact that Squeeze can sometimes "hang" while using "Watch Folder" or CLI encoding. I think that the limitation logic is fairly immature, since the application doesn't enumerate upon a "successful encode", instead it enumerates on an "encode attempt", which means that if the encode fails, my grand total gets increased by one anyway. Not fair!

Here are some responses to comments outlined above:

jagsinc: If you read through all the comments, you'll see that it's a software based limitation. You can specifically tell that by reading Dave's comment. Dave changes the local system clock and advances it by month in order to circumvent the encoding limitation.

aardwark: I totally agree with you; It's the principle, and these terms & conditions should be made clear to the perspective buyer prior to purchase. Your analogies are hilarious, love the hammer one.

margeschott: Your comment just pushed a button with me. Just b\c someone has a high daily encode count doesn't mean that they are in the adult industry. Your comment was totally unwarranted, stereotypical and uncalled for. I will follow your example and make some assumptions about you.

I deduct that you're a middle aged woman who loves to jump to conclusions based on her own limited experience. And you probably live in Massachusetts?

Did you like that? Right, I didn't think so. Please think before you write.

# Posted By Bora | 7/30/07 10:07 PM

[Add Comment]