Amazon Elastic Transcoder VS Coconut

Alternatively, if your Internet connection can handle it, you could upload your videos to a cloud service that processes them for you. For example, Amazon's AWS has a transcoding service called Elastic, which charges 3 cents per minute of video (half of that if it's lower than 720p). Might be worth the reduced time and effort for business use. Source: 11 months ago

If you're looking for an AWS specific solution, check out Amazon Elastic Transcoder. I think it'll do what you want with a pipeline and you can do it serverless. Source: over 1 year ago

If you use https://aws.amazon.com/elastictranscoder/ then you don’t need a computer, it’s a managed service, get your files to s3 somehow and thats it. There are some other services from other providers that can do the same too, I strongly encourage to look into that, unless you have specific encoding specs that you can’t do somewhere. Source: almost 2 years ago

However compressing on the server is the better option in case you want to generate gifs, thumbnails, and different sizes and formats of the video. A lot of big video streaming companies will use something like Amazons media convert. Source: over 2 years ago

This is how I'd do it, but instead of using EC2 for step 5 I'd look into Elastic Transcoder. Source: over 2 years ago

I did the math, just to transcode 24/7 footage down to smaller files with coconut.co on one camera would be $648, with AWS elastic transcoding, that would be nearly double. Source: over 1 year ago