Missing feature in video production software - I'd pay $$ for it!

gary00XX's picture
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 04/20/2018 - 9:40am

Why doesn't video production software allow for framerates of less than 1 frame per second?

Maybe I just don't know where to look but seems like a great opportunity to make $$. Here's why: whenever someone wants to post audio to YouTube or Vimeo, they must first convert the .mp3 into a .mp4 or some other video format. So typically the audio producer will add a graphic (or album) cover to convert the .mp3 to an .mp4. But in doing so, the size of the file becomes 6 to 15x larger only because most convert at the standard 30 fps. And that's for a single, static frame! (And you can't use the .mp3 tagging feature to attach an album cover because YouTube and Vimeo don't support .mp3s.)

Moviemaker and other video software will allow all the way down to 1 fps but no less. WHY? This still inflates the file size tremendously meaning that content delivery streaming size is much larger and thus, buffering is much more likely.

Why doesn't anyone produce video production software that allows a .mp4 to be produced with 1 frame per minute, or better still, 1 frame per song or file? I produce sleep sessions for insomniacs that are 60 minutes long. Right now, putting a static graphic cover on a sleep session increases the file size from about 80 megs to about 350 megs, meaning that buffering is much more likely.

Why isn't this a great opportunity for someone to produce video production software like Moviemaker with a much wider framerate selection? What am I missing here?