Forum Archive Home -> Advanced Video Conversion -> Preparing Video for YouTube
| Preparing Video for YouTube | ||||||||||||||||||||
| markannab posted 2007 Jul 21 01:28 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I'm missing something. YouTube says to prepare videos as follows:
30fps 320 x 240 MPEG-4 VideoStudio only allows MPEG-2 or MPEG-1. Other than that, I'm doing what they say. Yet a 3:45 minute video is about 88Mb - way too big for YouTube. Can anyone help me out here? Thanks, Mark. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Bjs posted 2007 Jul 21 01:54 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/guides/dvd/upload-video-to-YouTube.htm
Upon first run it will open ie , and show site listing ability to purchase updated product ... ignore that , it only happens one time . And away you go . | ||||||||||||||||||||
| manono posted 2007 Jul 21 02:03 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Thanks for the link, Bjs. I have a some questions about it.
First, have you used it yourself? Second, if your video is already in YouTube format (FLV, 320x240, and whatever the audio is supposed to be), is this YouTube Uploader still going to reencode it? Third, I understand that whatever format you upload to YouTube, that it will still be reencoded. So, are the YouTube people going to reencode it yet again? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| hech54 posted 2007 Jul 21 02:15 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I personally encode to .FLV BEFORE I upload to YouTube....with FLV Encoder. I have a set method but I don't have a set bitrate, formula, etc etc because I don't think there is a best method....personally. The end results once the video goes live on YouTube are just too hit or miss. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| markannab posted 2007 Jul 21 04:51 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Thanks for your replies and the link. I found what I believe to be a good freeware encoder which reduced my 88Mb MPEG to less than 10Mb FLV. It's called Riva FLV Encoder 2.0. I re-uploaded a previous file and the quality is significantly better. I've probably seen better on YouTube, but the footage was taken in a dull room.
Ignore the content, just a mate & I having a bit of fun, but here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NI__p-6WigE | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Bjs posted 2007 Jul 21 05:21 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| manono , yes , I used it , otherwise I would not have mentioned it .
Ie , I download it ... my pc gose nutts ... its my prob to sort out ... and not recommend it ever . Seems to do the job . ---- Ok , I see ... do you mean if its already in correct format , will the tool do one of two things . A: Reconvert B: Just upload the sod Its B , when I selected a flv (created using another program) . Oh you mean I have to go get an account ... dont you ... lol Finished : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMlnkI-sZPI ... in a few moments , just a small pre clip warning of whats to come . ---- I read the question and went on a search , and also came across videoraxbox360converter , just out of curiosity ... now that I have one of those fang dangle things ... and yes , I have been recording gears of wars to my pc . But I get killed way to soon ... lol Now that is all set , I'll have to do some xbox360 caps ... PS : At the end it gives the file link and the info you stick into your own web page ... nice and easy . ==== As for markannab's report on Riva FLV Encoder , I reported an issue with winnt 2000 pro , where it seemed to lockup and do nothing when it came to encoding a while back ... still not sorted | ||||||||||||||||||||
| manono posted 2007 Jul 21 07:02 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Hehe, no, you had it right the first time. I wasn't asking about accounts, but if this YouTube Uploader will reencode an FLV before sending it along to YouTube. You said no, which answers that question. I'm still curious as to whether or not the YouTube people will reencode it after they get their grubby paws on it. They do, don't they? I just hate for those people to mess up something I encoded nicely. I have yet to see a decent video at that place. I mean, 320x240 is pretty low, but I can create much nicer looking 320x240 videos than I've seen on that site. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Bjs posted 2007 Jul 21 07:30 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Well , if thats what they do in there spare time , then there's not going to be much one can do about it .
But have a look at this : http://www.mariposahd.tv/critique_of_youtube_upload_process It'll give some better idea's . Or go to something like divxshare like I initially done : http://www.divshare.com/download/1321842-8da | ||||||||||||||||||||
| markannab posted 2007 Jul 21 16:12 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Using Riva FLV Encoder, I created a video that was clean & crisp for a 320 x 240. Default setting was a bitrate of 360, so I left it at that. The file size was around 9Mb. But once uploaded, it had deteriorated dramatically.
As a test, I re-did it the same, only with a higher resolution (480 x something). I froze both videos at the same point & tabbed back & forth. The higher resolution one had deteriorated far more. A microphone cable on the floor was visible on the 320 but almost gone on the 480. What I don't understand is that occasionally, there's a video on YouTube that is very clear. How do THEY do it? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Jul 21 16:23 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| You shouldn't have converted it to flv before uploading it to youtube. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| hech54 posted 2007 Jul 21 16:30 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Like I said before....there is no set formula for good or great looking youtube vids. I have 110 videos on YouTube....none of them are spectacular...and I've found no tried and true method to making good or great vids. There is even a video on youtube on how to make good looking vids....with Windows Media Encoder...I tried it and it looked no better than my other 109 vids. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| manono posted 2007 Jul 21 21:07 | ||||||||||||||||||||
What's the secret then, Soopafresh? Make a higher-rez good quality XviD and let them reencode it? The better the initial quality, the better the finished FLV? There's a thread about this somewhere around here, isn't there? Maybe I had better go track it down. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| LITEONDVD posted 2007 Jul 21 22:25 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I thought the size was 100mb for youtube? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Jul 21 23:39 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hello everyone.
I've been trying my hand at this YouTube crave n all. After a little over an hour, I was finally able to create an account, and then upload my very first vhelp sample flv clips, hehe :lol: There's a lot theories about the Bitrate and Re-encoding of (source) video's to FLV video onto YouTube, and I'd like to take a crack at determining if this is true or not. read on.. Now, I was not sure of a few things, so I took it upon myself to upload a short video clip in an effort to validate for myself weather it is true that YouTube re-encodes the uploaded video's. YouTube Video: 
Video Source: Laserdisc Movie/Film: Blade Runner Capture Card: Winfast TV2000XP Expert Source Video: XviD Video: FLV format Length: 13 seconds Description: After capturing the laserdisc, I encoded it to XviD. I performed this step some weeks ago. I just happen to have it laying around on my HDD. I then took it to use as an example demo for encoding to FLV format, using a bitrate setting of 1000, and then uploaded to YouTube, to my youtube account I just opened, today. XviD-- was encoded with the RivaFLVencoder tool, to FLV format, with 1000 bitrate setting. The original source was YUY2 -> MPEG-2 based, and then XviD. Later, converted to FLV, and finally, uploaded to YouTube FLV format. Is it re-encoded or not, that is the question going around here. Comments: On my AMD XP 1800+ computer, the FLV video (blade runner youtube demo) seems to play a little studdery. The player that I'm using is the one that came with the RivaFLVencoder tool. Maybe this is the cause of the studder. However, on my upgraded XP Home computer, the video plays, smoothly. As far as quality goes, for FLV and uploaded to youtube, I'm surpised to see that it is (still kept) in good quality for the format and size. I haven't quite determined if it did in fact re-encoded it. I have to analize the youtube video and my actual FLV video still on my HDD. The problem with this route is that AVIsynth (the only tool via directshowsource()) failed to open FLV files. So, I can't analize either of *any* flv files until I can figure out how to open them inside AVIsynth. If anyone of you cridicting flv youtube videos want to cridict this one, feel free to do so. It was my first, so be nice to me :) Q: can I D/L my own uploaded youtube video's (so that I can analze them) ?? -vhelp 4360 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Pinstripes23 posted 2007 Jul 21 23:58 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Yea use keepvid.com to download the youtube vids. To open in avisynth I use directshowsource. FFDshow to decode. And you need flvsplitter to be copied into your system32 directory and installed.
I've done some analyzing of youtube vids and here is a thread of what I came up with: http://forum.videohelp.com/topic332210.html#1727426 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Jul 22 00:08 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| :lol: haha.. I was just reading it, now.
I'm still confused about extracting mine-own videos from youtube, and avisynth. Can you explain how to setup avisynth, please. Tanx! -vhelp 4361 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Jul 22 00:10 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| manono said
What's the secret then, Soopafresh? Make a higher-rez good quality XviD and let them reencode it? The better the initial quality, the better the finished FLV? There's a thread about this somewhere around here, isn't there? Maybe I had better go track it down. What is the secret indeed...I can think of a few things worth testing: 1) Add grain to the pre-encoded AVI to make the flv encoder allocate more bitrate. Avisynth plugins Addgrain, BergfilterCollection, and Blockbuster can do this. 2) Pre-Downmix the audio to normalized mono wav. They're going to do it anyway before making it a 64k mp3, you might as well be in control of the sound. I think a lot of the sync problems on youtube are due to the source files having vbr mp3. 3) Smoothen only the dark areas of the picture. The theory here is that youtube's crappy flv encoder will allocate more bitrate to the lighter, more detailed parts of the image - the part to which the human eye is more sensitive . Kind of the opposite of idea #1. The VirtualDub plugin ShadowSmoother can do this. 4) Make the pre-encoded AVI mod16 in dimension. That'll give the flv encoder no excuse based on the block size to create macroblocks. 5) Add motion blur to the moving scenes ? This might be interesting. After all, it's almost always movement that starts the macro blocks going. 6) Make the source file 480x352, XVID or DIVX at as high quality as you can go. Remember to add the size of the mono WAV or cbr mp3 file you'll be muxing into the equation. Anyway, these are all un-tested. I'll bet the only thing that matters is bit rate. I'm going to look around for youtube vids that are especially good or bad looking. There must be characteristics that make them good or bad looking. Maybe we can post some more examples: Bad (technical problems) Here's what looks like HDV 16x9 letterboxed, but they didn't deinterlace it before handing it off to youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLcho1Ho6b4 Very Good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDgd3jLU6Us Here's an analysis of a file with many macroblocks. Note the mod2 dimensions 
And here's a file with almost no video uglies and mod16 dimensions  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Pinstripes23 posted 2007 Jul 22 01:36 | ||||||||||||||||||||
For the downloading.....you copy the url of the youtube vid and paste it to keepvid.com. Then you can download it. For avisynth, you need ffdshow to decode. The flvsplitter I have is an old one and the initial instructions I followed said to put it into the system32 folder. Edit: Sorry not through command prompt(had a few too much last nite). You go to start --> run then type in
click OK. Then through directshowsource you can open flv files. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Pinstripes23 posted 2007 Jul 22 02:14 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Youtube does recommend to submit a video with a 320x240 resolution. Resizing shouldn't be a problem as any resizer(even youtube's) shouldn't do anything to the source video's initial resolution as long as it is 320x240. It is when re-encoding is the problem. Resizing is taken out of the equation at this point. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Jul 22 15:43 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| It has been an interesting weekend.. with FLV video and youTube, etc. Anyway.
I spent most of today trying to get flv and avisynth to work, and finally got it going and I can now analize the videos. I also spend most of the this afternoon debugging the flv videos I would encode with the RivaFLVencoder tool. It would not work under WIN98, and it would hang. This caused me tons of frustrations. Anyway. later on, I found a way to encode to FLV format through ffmpeg. For those curious, I use the following cmd-line param script: --> ffmpeg.exe -i d:\sitc.huffy.v1.avi -ar 22050 -ab 64 -f flv -s 320x240 -r 29.970 -b 1000k -y sitc.v1.flv For what its worth mentioning here, debugging cmd-line param scripts can be a tedius chore. I wish there was an easier way, and in fact, I'm working on just a thing -- for another topic, perhaps. Anyways. The above should work fine for most endoing to FLV videos through ffmpeg inside a dos console box (window) using a .bat script. Save the above using notepad as flv.bat or call it what you want. Then open a dos (console) window and type in: --> d:\flv.bat ..which will run the ffmpeg conversion to an flv video. 
About the "flv.bat" script-- it is as basic as can be. I don't know if it can be any optimized than it already (seemingly) is. Maybe there is a way to tune it up some. But working with param scripts is a chore. Between repetitive manuvering around the destop and opening Players (WMP or Riva or vdub via avisynth plugin) and various Editors (vdub) during debugging is a lot of work. I hope to fix that in the distant future. About the param values-- Briefly, here is what they intail: -i ---- is the Input file source ie, an Huffy or Lagarith video -ar -- is the Audio sample rate ie, 11050, 22050, 44144, and 48000 -ab -- is the Audio Bitrate ie, 64Kbits, 128Kbits, 384Kbtis, etc. -f ---- is the Force Format ie, force it to FLV or MPEG, DivX etc. -s ---- is the Resolution setup ie, 320x240, 352x480, 640x480, 720x480 etc. -r ---- is the Frame Rate or fps of the finished video, ie 24, 25, 29.970 etc. -y ---- is the overwrite to overwrite the [y/n] and just writes the source out -b ---- is the Bitrate you want to set the flv video to ie, 360k, 1000k etc. About the flv encodes-- I have noticed that even when you set the fps [-r] to 29.970 fps, when you open the finished encoded flv inside vdub via AVIsynth plugin and script, or open through outher flv player who feature an info option, the report seems to always point to 25 fps. I don't know if this is a bug or some of ther param that is missing in the encoding setup. 
Analizing FLV video through directshow-- can be easily done with the proper D/L files and installations. AVIsynth is the prefered method of choice. The script goe's like this, typed in notepad and saved as flv.avs, and then imported into your video editor, below. x = "d:\sitc.v1.flv" DirectShowSource( x ) If you video does not open in your editor, it might be on account of the audio. You can turn off audio using the revised .bat script, below: x = "d:\sitc.v1.flv" DirectShowSource( x, audio=no ) From here, you should be able to now analize your videos, should you choose to do so. That's about it, for the moment. From the Video Worksation of, -vhelp 4364 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Jul 22 16:39 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| soopafresh
what are you using to analyze? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Jul 23 00:49 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp -
http://fsinapsi.altervista.org/code/avinaptic/avinaptic-20070410-full.zip -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expounding on vhelp's great idea, here's a batch file which will process a folder of, AVIs, MPGs, WMVs, and MOV files, converting them all to Youtube quality .flv files for previewing. At least you'll know what to expect before the hassle of uploading and disappointment.... Needs a recent copy of Mencoder Right Click to download youtube_emulate.cmd Example of Output - norway.flv | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Jul 23 17:47 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evening everyone.
I'm having some trouble with the flvplayer v1.3.3 tool. It does not want to work inside WIN98 at all. It keeps crashing withthe following message (below), maybe you know something ?? (!) The \windows\temp\RARSFX0\FLVPLAYER.EXE file appears to be corrupt. Reinstall the file, and then try again. But, the file is fine. Just as a test, I re-copied it to my other computer (XP Home) and in another folder, and this same file plays perfectly fine. It seems that every time I run flvplayer.exe, it creates a temporary directory (with the three files, below) and then deletes them after the error message is removed. The \TEMP\ folder (above) has the following files: 1 - [NSIS].nsi -------- 1kb ------ 4/3/07 2 - flvplayer.exe ------ 1,454kb -- 2/17/06 3 - flvplayer_102.ico -- 25kb ----- 4/3/07 I really like this player because its pretty compact and features: 1x and 2x size, and includes the info options so that I can get a quick glance at *any* files specs. (I'd use a cmd-line tool to retreave audio/video info but I don't know of any that are around or do this -- I like cmd-line stuff, cause you can add them into specialized tools of your design) Anyway, I like using the player above because you can simply drag a file into it and it will play immediately. It's not fancy or resource-hungry, so I basically use this in my everyday flv 'ing around, unless something better comes along. On the other hand, and fwiw, in one of my ffmpeg .bat scripts, I include the ffplay (a cmd-line player.. opens a GUI window to play your video -- pretty bare bones and tiny, and just about right for the job -- debugging flv encodes and stuff right away after encodes) -vhelp 4365 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| zoobie posted 2007 Jul 23 22:03 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| How about 320x240 @ the max 100mb?
That woman's face looks kinda long up there ^ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Jul 23 22:48 | ||||||||||||||||||||
if I had DSL or higher, I would be doing a log of uplading, I guess. But on my dial-up, no way. I have to be very selective at this point in time, until I can find something for $15 bucks in DSL. Anyway. That face is Sarah Jessica Parker, from the tv show, SaTc. on ch CW, usually on at 11:00pm, every night. 
** I was experimenting on cropping technique for improving flv quality -- every ** little bit counts.. (720 / 2) = 360 - 320 = (40/2) = crop 20/20 Lf/Rt gives a ** sharper picture, imo. I was messing around with encoding the opening theme portions and a few cuts from captures of nice scenary that I was trying to select for my next upload to youTube. Anyway. She was talking to her friend, Maranda, at the park, and.. If you are refering to the youTube demo pic further up above, it is from youtube's default 2x or 1/2x enlargement. The size seem to be actually 447 x 337 px. But you can click the 2nd button from the farther right side, again to get the orig 320 x 240, and click again, back to 447 x 337 px. -vhelp 4367 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| dcsos posted 2007 Jul 23 22:49 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I use MPEG-1 with good results
usually 352x240 with 3 million bits works for me http://www.youtube.com/dcortex check it out these are my videos | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Jul 23 23:09 | ||||||||||||||||||||
I thought you can only use FLV video format. Your video looks the usual size of youTube videos. Unless, you ment that you encode your videos to mpeg1 @ 3000kbts and then let youtube do the rest ! Obviously, I'm still a newbie to youtube.. but, its actually been quite interesting. And I've been comming up with all sorts of ideas for throwing videos on my page. All I need now, is a faster connection, otherwise I won't be uploading much, if any. Oh yea.., question.. how do you stop a youtbue page from d/l 'ing when you don't want it to continue anymore -- without resorting to closing the page ?? -vhelp 4368 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| dcsos posted 2007 Jul 23 23:40 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| how do you stop a youtbue page from d/l 'ing when you
don't want it to continue anymore? PAUSE? Yeah I let em re-encode.. I see yours look very sharp, but , like you say my reencodes don't suffer | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Jul 23 23:49 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ** I was experimenting on cropping technique for improving flv quality -- every
** little bit counts.. (720 / 2) = 360 - 320 = (40/2) = crop 20/20 Lf/Rt gives a ** sharper picture, imo. Good stuff, Vhelp Oh yea.., question.. how do you stop a youtbue page from d/l 'ing when you don't want it to continue anymore -- without resorting to closing the page ?? I don't think there is a way without closing the tab | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Jul 25 22:39 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Here's a brilliant app. Make sure you change the settings to XVID for the best quality.
Http://www.vdownloader.es | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Jul 26 23:13 | ||||||||||||||||||||
still don't know why i've taken an interest in this...
I think so. Working with a better source is always key. As for high rez, I'm starting to lean to resizing before uploading, but i've not looked into it yet. I don't really deal with youtube, or the likes, at all. What about google video though? A friend of mine views videos on the net and assures me google is better.
Yes. Anything and everything. All re-encoded. Don't pre-encode to flv. Soopafresh, I don't know about mod16, but looking at the two files you analyzed, the keyframe info pops out. The crap vid has too many keyframes. A low bitrate with too many keyframes is certain to provide bad quality. where did you get the file from? Anyway too few keyframes can also be crap. like this I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1BBSkmgGgU Not sure how influenceable scene change threshold and keyframe interval settings might be and how dependent on the video's characteristics, but I'll probably try a few things. I don't like the idea of uploading with pcm audio. seems wasteful. cuts into your upload mb limit, increases upload time. i think cbr mp3 would be good enough. also your mencoder command for previewing has the bitrate set too high, could dissapoint, i've not seen a youtube flv (not that i've seen many) with a bitrate over 265 if someone has, show me.
there's been mention of cropping. of course cropping will increase quality! reducing effective image area does that. 16:9 vids will also look better, essentially being 320x180 having a full screen 4:3 320x240 flv is more challenging this looked good to me: florida beaches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcQCNOtEvII i think most 16:9 vids will look good. the one soopafresh posted also has good keyframe density, although bitrate could be a few tiny bits higher. what interests me though is it's running time. How do you get past the 10 min upload limit? privileged account? I thought maybe increase framerate and have the youtube converter assume ~30 fps. doesn't work. you get frames chopped to get back to the framerate. worth mentioning here that the youtube converter doesn't change your source framerate when it's 23.976. i'm sure the same applies to 25fps, haven't actually tried yet though. it'd be interesting to see when framerate conversion occurs and when not.
got links to the good and the bad?
it's not a bug. many programs can't detect flv framerate. there are many cases where directshowsource can't detect framerate, when not it defaults to output 25fps. You have to force the framerate with fps like so:
So I tried uploading using a fairly good quality xvid avi. i tried soopafresh's suggestions. it all looked good to me. i'd say i like adding grain and shadow smoothing. motion blur i don't like. here are links to them, not all are comparable, messed with aspect ratios. xvid original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1EuKfW3KMc xvid grain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs8fkcq3q4M xvid grain smooth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrK_hBhKZew xvid grain smooth blur http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyyaGTdx0cM flv pre-encode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSBH4MBT9Q h.264 grain smooth, 4/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKmhvonqrhs
probably how much can you do with 320x240 at 250kbps expectations gl | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Jul 26 23:57 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Wow! Fantastic study, 45tripp. So much info there. I'm going to have to read through it several times. No question, the flv-flv re-encode visibly suffers, and the h264 - flv transcode was disappointing. I suspect that has to do with built in deblocking in the playback codec - visibly absent from the equation during the transcode. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SatStorm posted 2007 Jul 27 04:31 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I use to have an account to youtube.
They re-encode everything. So, the option is to feed them "clever". I had the best results by using xvid @ 320x240 @ 600kb/s and that profile with the many keyframes per second (I don't remember which one). Also, I had to smooth - to an extreme point - my source. That means heavy filtering: 2dcleaner, dynamic noise reduction, msu smart deblocking. Temporal Smoother also creates good results. Yes, it looks crap on you PC, but for youtube is the perfect source. I don't use youtube anymore. And just for the story, Google Video was a far better service, even in beta form. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Aug 02 00:34 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hi guys. Its a bit late for, but I had a bit of trouble with youtube cutting
my uploads so many times. Anyway. I made another attempt to upload another video to youtube. I had to cut it pretty short, to 10 seconds. Well i'm in testing and debugging stages, so I'm not there yet with the quality aspects. 
Video Source: tipicle noisy analog cabletv Movie/Film: Duce Bigalow Capture Card: Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600 @ 30Mbits capture Source Video: huffy Video: FLV format (youtube re-encoded) Length: 10 seconds Description: Well, this was a capture that I made back in June/2007 of Duce Bigalow. The edited-for-tv version was a clean Telecine -- ivtc ready. I didn't bother with the ideas mentioned earlier about cropping, etc. I thought that in the end, the more video, the better. So.. This time, I preprocessed the video to a Huffy codec format, and processed the video to 320 x 240 with an IVTC function to bring back the 24p film frame rate, though I did mess around with a few Resize and De-Interlacing ideas and incorp- orated'em into this clip. Then, I proceeded to encode the video to FLV through ffmpeg, using the tipicle setup mentioned in one of my prev posts. Comments: In terms of quality, I'm not sure how I want to score it. I thought that the video could have been better, but I did not put much effort into this area. I just wanted to test an other video, done with other equipments and processes, and just threw it up as soon as I could. But, for a quick throw-up, it isn' so bad. I also had to keep the video length short, on account of youtubes rules for uploading video -- 10 minutes or 100mb, whichever comes first. Dial-up does not leave much room for either -- aprox 1.2mb boarderlines the disconnet by youtube. So, I comprimise at this point. I have a few more ideas to try. And I will try them as more time and energy become available to me. -vhelp 4374 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 08 19:50 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah i'm now sold on resizing before uploading. I hadn't noticed but my first upload, of xvid/avi as is, got resized by youtube to 320x239. mod1 and extracting that with flvextract gives distorted colours, and you can't work with mod1 in avisynth. You can open in vdub though. also had youtube resize to 320x242. I've not noticed quality degradation (flv playback) but along with other reasons, resizing before uploading is best.
My first AVC upload was a 100Mb upload. It wasn't downsized though. Still, have a look at the link in my post if you like. also below i'll link to an xvid 320x240 3000 kbps upload.
still got the specific settings? i'd try it out.
I'd say I get what you're saying but I still prefer h264 over Xvid. the clip was a 100Mb upload, and I may be a bit attached to it, but in following tests i still side with AVC. there's more to image quality than blocks.
I was pretty sure that 20-30fps would go untouched. i wondered about <20fps. It seems 0-30fps goes untouched. >30fps gets chopped back to ~30. As an aside, when encoding to flv, blank frames are often dropped. More so with xvid than h264. With xvid and 1 bframe just a few are dropped, like with h264, and from the end mostly. Without b frames and with 2 bframes, there's a significant drop in blank frames. the dropped blank frames is why output flv framerate mostly doesn't match input framrate. for what it's worth.
I don't know about the service, but as for the actual flv encode, youtube is better. about ~10kbps extra bitrate, i noticed. worth noting though that you can upload >30fps and it's not touched.
that's either the ugliest girl i've ever seen, the ugliest lighting, or your colours are off. Anyway I worked with another sample to test a few things. I selected the 300 trailer, cause I thought it was challenging enough and I couldn't really find anything else. (cropped 16:9 to 4:3, increased difficulty) after seeing the trailer so many times, I think i'll have to get around to actually seeing the film. I had a look at filtering again. But I've gone against it. I generally am against. Adding grain doesn't really increase encoded bitrate. Maybe you'll get an increase of ~2kbps. I did an encode with a lot of grain, and it looked like crap. Btw i meant to say in my last post that i used addgrain, and started with addgrainc(7,0,0,0,-1). Which I felt was too much. i moved down to addgrainc(5,0,0,0,-1) which i think is ok. And I started using shadowsmoother with 7,1,3. Which I thought was too much again and went down to 5,1,2 with the first clip. For 300 I actually used 6,1,3. The effect is ok. but with a nice clean source i prefer not to use them. I also tried smoothing. the example is pretty heavy. I don't like it. And i tried temporal smoothing. I used xvid and x264 for encoding. after a bit of testing i got to these core settings: resize (crop) to 320x240. use constant quant, 2-3 for xvid, 20-21 for x264. (i used const. quant to make testing easier, and do single passes but 500-600kbps is the target area, ,reasonably high, good filesizes) set max consecutive bframes to 1 for xvid and 2 for x264. set max keyframe interval to 60 (that's what worked best for me) encode audio to 128kbps cbr mp3 (leaving 192 ac3 as is, was also convenient) My preference is not to filter at all with a clean source. And i do think it's a matter of preference. The effects are mostly minimal, unless you start butchering. What can have a significant effect is changing framerate. Effectively increasing bitrate, by either extending duration, or dropping frames. My preference is for extending. smoother motion, better picture quality, but you mess with audio tempo and rhythm (and have the extra job of audio processing). Dropping frames can be jerky, but audio is intact. I dropped the framerate of 300 from 23.976 to 20 as a test. extending messes with the characteristic beat the trailer score has. dropping messes with the fluidity of the slow-mo. 24fps->20fps is a big enough drop of course. They are better than the other encodes though. And that was the point. So my thoughts are to leave filtering aside. Encode to h264 with the core settings. And reduce the framerate if need be. Crop the image and reduce effective image area if necessary. Samples Xvid plain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMiQk5DDNM8 h264 plain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Q0ogGUpZ8 h264 grain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hNDrane4XY h264 grain shadowsmooth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqujKx2Qqvg h264 smoothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt5fdctgY7Y h264 temporal smoothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7oIE5mh3M Xvid 3000kbps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNW4sXh1kFk h264 20fps extended http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUsHkGCG56c h264 20fps framedrop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRa8xJMS054 Xvid 20fps framedrop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtLrTZdBYgE
I think so.
I think so. gl | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SatStorm posted 2007 Aug 09 10:22 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| @vhelp: I know this girl! You nasty boy, what you are watching.... Does your father know? :-P | ||||||||||||||||||||
| tgilberg posted 2007 Aug 11 18:35 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hello Newbie here,
I just found this forum but have been on the dvxuser forum and many others trying to tackle this Youtube video setting obstacle We teach guitar lessons online I just got a panasonic DVX100b the quality looks good in the video editor I use, it is Imovie I know that is low end my question before I go out and plunk down some money for final cut is do I need it? We do not do many special effect just guitar lessons In this youtube clip I taped a little intro with the panasonic dvx 100b (scene setting 30fps progressive in the camera) and the quality is lousy as you can see I had to drop the res to make the whole vid fit under 100mb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6PYb-dEXMI The interesting thing is the second part of the movie was shot with a $300 panasonic gs-300 and it looks clearer in some spots???? I have tried multiple compression setting h.264 mpeg 4, changed the image size not much change I see the stuff you guys did with 300 and it is awesome Just trying to find the most econimical way to boost the vid quality on youtube We produced a DVD this week with IDVD and Imovie we burned the DVD and the footage looks great panasonic dvx100b so it seems to me to be the compression settings Any ideas? Thanks Tim | ||||||||||||||||||||
| KCAir posted 2007 Aug 12 18:41 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| This is too confusing for me...
KCAir | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Aug 12 19:27 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hi Tim and KCAir -
To put it bluntly, just about anything that gets converted by Youtube is going to end up looking pretty bad. They don't allocate enough bitrate when they convert your video to Flash. Any flat backgrounds (like the walls in the guitar video) will display the artifacts in full glory. Any fast movement will create block noise (where it looks like a bunch of squares). Watch any of those Zipline video links and you'll see what happens during fast movement. So no, Tim - using a different editing program won't make a hill of beans difference :( The solution? Host your stuff on a better provider link - like Google Video. They allocate more bitrate to the video and the image looks much better. Or do both - put a crap version on Youtube and provide a link to the much better looking version you've hosted on Google or Guba.com (which has very nice looking flv encodes) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 13 20:22 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Ok, I was wrong. I got a tip from a youtuber, that if you upload flv with a total audiovisual bitrate under 340Kbps, youtube doesn't touch it. And it's true. So at first I got my hopes up, and immediately thought vp6, the finest video on youtube was to come. I was soon to be disappointed as it gets re-encoded. But it was interesting enough that i tried a high bitrate vp6 instead of h264: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IlzHD7HFZA i liked it a lot actually. These went through unconverted. flv maxed out the bitrate limit: mencoder flv. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SC3VY_IkC8 ffmpeg flv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWpK_U1uiAY libavcodec flv encoding doesn't excite me much. i'd say the youtube converter does a better job at the same bitrates. Anyway if anyone would like to try and squeeze all the quality they can into a 340kbps flv, or provide hints, i'll be watching. Soopafresh? There was also the info that flv at 256x192 wasn't upsized. So i tried uploading at diff resolutions and found that you can basically upload at any 4:3 resolution under 320x240, in any format, and the video won't be resized. doesn't interest me much. maybe 312x234 could be useful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGSL3sKWRe0 too bad there's not a 16:9 resolution that's left untouched.
the point is that there is only so much you can do. starting with a good source is much of it. that i started with a good enough source and avoided any butchery is why it looks ok i think. The biggest impact you could have on the quality I'd say is behind the camera. Change directorial style. Like the intro. too wide, and the backdrop should be pitch black. At least i think so. You can always upload clean source samples, so others might try.
I've not seen that. In fact i see youtube as better. (flv encoding)
Jesus it's slow! Extremely frustrating to get a clip up. counter intuitive, painful. you can upload massive clips though... I liked this which was reasonably sized, liked the content really: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000083584 mine: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000084355 gl | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Aug 13 22:08 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Wow, the Guba clip looked really good. A bit stretched on the A/R, but otherwise very few artifacts. Not the fastest host in the world, though.
That's really interesting about the 340k flv encode - friggin bit rate is still gonna get us, especially because we're limited to flv1. Still, at least we can give it a try with our own encoding recipies. Yeah, of course I'll try some Avisynth feeds and will post the results in a bit. Bummer that VP6 couldn't slip through. I've been working on an adaptation from Sh0dan's VP6 encoding toolkit which creates phenomenal VP6 encoded flv files - as long as the hosting server doesn't re-encode them. :lol: Here's a few semi interesting flash sites http://www.flashvideofaq.com/ http://www.flashsupport.com/bonus/codec_comparison/ Just shows you how much better VP6 is | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 14 21:41 | ||||||||||||||||||||
700kbps... it should. nothing wrong with the a/r. i uploaded the same source i uploaded for my "321" youtube video, to see what would happen. bloody slow yes. I'm not interested in testing much. they'll need to pick up and upgrade their services. from my upload though my estimation is that they encode with ffmpeg and use flvtool2 like a method , i think, lordsmurf linked to recently. I'd say resolution is probably left untouched and that the encode happens with a constant quant.
i suppose there are good enough reasons it doesn't. consider working with flv1 an extra challenge :)
I know :) nice links. this is layed out nicely: http://www.3dinfografica.com/CICE_The_Art_of_Encoding_Flash_Video.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||
| goyomora posted 2007 Aug 14 21:59 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I figured out how to get High Quality Videos for Upload to YouTube, converting your videos into the Flash Video Format (FLV) using the Total Video Converter 3.10 and some special settings explained in my tutorial.
Long version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLVA91WkCfI Short Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08NI4cy4zik NOTICE: videos converted to FLV format with another programs(Adobe Premier, VirtualDub, Riva Encoder, Sorenson Squeeze), will be and degraded by YouTube Servers, in the same way like other formats. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Aug 14 23:44 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hey, thanks goyomora
An additional one I thought was interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8G7pDSkx00 45tripp - Would you mind uploading this to YouTube and seeing if it looks OK? This is based on the settings of the "howto" video below. a_test_file.flv This guy claims that pre-encoding to VP6 FLV actually provides a cleaner and less artifact laden image than Divx or WMV source files, hence the file I posted above. Dunno if it's the case, but his vids look pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTGk2myk7a8 Finally, there's a buzz about that Youtube is moving to the h264 format, at the very least with Apple TV subscribers. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 15 17:03 | ||||||||||||||||||||
excuse the proclamation, but i've tested the shit out of this youtube stuff, and quite frankly every indication is that your method is bullcrap. smacks of advertising to me. I've had a look at some of your youtube uploads and see no evidencce of your method effectively working. i'd like to be wrong. just show me the evidence. i tried tvc, and all the encodes were rejected by youtube, claiming the "length of video is too long" (actual duration: under 2 mins) seekability broken, mediainfo reports 0.00 fps. i tried an flv 640x480 encode with ffmpeg too. what happened was what i'd expected. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7XNw8wSPTM if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a resolution higher than 320x240, let me know. if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a total audiovisual bitrate exceeding 350kbps, let me know.
Sure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7MEakCQXjA but you must have missed this:
i already had it covered http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vym2sLskSA was my effort to pass vp6 under the radar, and the above link my high bitrate vp6 feed to youtube for re-conversion. I prefer it to h264, and if one was to upload something and let youtube encode, I'd probably recommend a high bitrate 320x240 vp6 clip. i'm still eager though to see what kind of quality one can squeeze out of an flv1 clip at ~290kbps (+ 48kbps mono mp3 audio for that) gl | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Aug 15 21:04 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hello everyone.
Sorry for the long post, but I had lots of things to say and wanted to get them down as much as possible before I forget. I don't have any *new* videos to share, yet. Dial-up is painfully slow, and with youtubes rules, can be very ware n tare on me. Anyway. Below, are some of my experiences and thoughts on this interesting subject. My adivice (based on personal trials) is to encode to FLV and then let YouTube transcode it to its prefered specs. I realize that I did not note this in my very first youtube upload, from the first page of this topic article, here: --> http://forum.videohelp.com/topic333660.html#1731532 ..where I felt the video was transcoded fairly nicely beyond my expectations, for a first video try. I'm not saying that the video came out in great quality, at least not now, but I was surprised (after not following youtube's recommenations) when I used FLV format instead of the suggested XivD/DivX, and using the same FLV encoding setup I left on that page, above. And that was my only regret, not mentioning it, first. Also, it has been my opinion that youtube transcode (you say, potatoe, and I say, Potato) the flv (maybe those with certain constraints -- low bitrate, etc) videos, but with a better method than usual. I don't know. I'm speculating at this point. And, for the time being, I'm going to continue pre-preping videos for upoad to youtube in the FLV format. It is also my opinion (for the time being, until a sweet-spot can be found) that all videos should be uploaded with the highest bitrate available, assuming from a codec such as FLV, XviD or DivX -- not to forget the youtube rules and limits.. ie, 100 MB or 10 minutes before cut off, and you loose everything if you get cut off, as I have, many of times, and even given up and went to bed. Some other things of thought to share .. It has come to my belief, based on several examples, that "grain" is not such a good idea, after all. This is good mainly for MPEG1/2 and XviD/DivX videos, but not FLV. A-- With FLV, the format thirsts for consistant (smooth graidients, and similar blocks of 4x4 or 8x8 images) of pixels. And the more unique the blocks of pix, the greater the artifacts of pixelation. B-- with FLV, "color" has an imortant part in this area, in terms of quality. The format of flv seems to be (yuv) YV12 color space. And, because of the nature of everyone's unique computer setup and video sources (w/out going into great detail, here) the color range of their videos can be either 0-255 or 16-235 or some other number. The 0-255 seems to be the most tipicle setup, and is the setup that might give the most problems, on account of the color range conversion, assuming that this is applied to the final FLV video in the first place. But, the user might have incorporated this already in his/her video during pre-prep. And depending on this point, some color (or detail) will be clipped. This too, will result in video artifacts, though mainly in the darker areas such as blends and lettering and gradients, etc. Frame Rates-- For youtube videos, I have seen where video looks to be choppy. I guess this is where users have chopped (reduced) fps to obtain more quality. Some times, this is good, and others, not. But, it can't hurt to try. I guess it would depend on your source video and other factors. Well, for this source medium, I would say that it is ok to reduce it if you can do so strategicly with a good method. Since the video are ultimately going to be rather poor (low level) to begin with, may as well do what ever you gotta do to go for broke. I think for youtubing around, it is acceptable :) I have found that (as was mentioned in prev comments from others) the "cleaner" one's video, the better the results will be. But I think that a partial key element here is the video's pre-prep stage -- what is applied to the video in terms of NR and Consistancy for the video to -pass- through youtubes transcoding for max quality, if video to upload is in FLV format. In one aspect, all videos for potential upload to youtube must be progressive. So, one of the first things that must be looked into, is the de-interlace method. Now, I realize that these videos are 240 pix in height, and that is effectively, a de-interlace, but I think it is wise to go further, and push for a better method of downsizing a video but (assuming from a higher res) with a optimum algo for both de-interlace (if pure interlace) or IVTC (if clean Telecine 29.970->23.976 or 24) and then downsizing to x 240 pix res. The algos for these two steps are important and criticle to the success in final video quality. The other aspect is the obvious one.. NR (noise reduction) application and technique. You do not want to go too off in this area. Its easy to do that. And I've seen many videos in my search/quest in this endeavor of better quality youtube videos. For instance, applying a temporal/spacial type filter to one's source video (pre-preping) can leave poor artifacts. They may lead to smaller files and slightely better youtube transcoding, but leave these nasty looking trailing artifacts. I mean, the object is to produce "clean" video that is as less PiXeLaTiOn evident as can be. And this is a hard thing to accomplish with the many users pareparing (if they even do that) and uploading their daily videos. Most users are not even aware of the issues. They are simply blind mise following others simple methods of throwing videos onto youtube. That is why we see so much poor videos to begin with, because most users are not doing anything to the video, other than taking a video (who is prob 720x480 pix) and resizing it to 320 x 240 pix, and then finally uploading it. And, the only time when you might see a decent looking youtube video is when the user is aware of the facts above and has (or is) done something about it :) That's how I see, so far. So far, and from my own experience, a basic receipe might go like this: A0 -- apply a mastered NR application to the video from its orig highest form B0 -- determine if source is pure Interlace or Film and then either: B1 -- based on video type, apply a mastered DE-INTERLACE or IVTC ** -- 24p fps produces slightely better picture qlty, but 30p clean video (above) can, too C0 -- so far, better to encode video to 320 x 240, 22050 au, mp3, 56k, mono, FLV format D0 -- encode to highest bitrate FLV format will allow E0 -- and, upload it to youtube -vhelp 4379 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 16 08:17 | ||||||||||||||||||||
My youtuber, BeforeMonday, has uploaded an flv with a resolution of 1280x720 at 3fps, 340kbps. http://youtube.com/watch?v=o7G0sxIk7AQ the 350kbps limit still holds true. which is why the framerate had to be dropped to almost zero :) very cool. opens up testing possibilities but I don't think it goes much towards the ultimate goal of getting the best possible quality. I still believe in trying to get a top quality 320x240 flv at 340kbps (audiovisual), that's left untouched by youtube. Increase in quality, saves a second encode, allows some customization and reduces your upload times drastically.
I think youtube encoding is good too. i'd like to replicate or better the method, so that I have a 290kbps video pass untouched instead of a 260kbps one like you get when youtube re-encodes. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Aug 16 20:05 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evening all.
I think that an over-looked fact is the FLV encoder. I mean. We have knowledge in the things of MPEG and you all know how (in terms of quality) it all boils down to the [s:a8d52bb147]best[/s:a8d52bb147] feature-rich MPEG Encoder. I would guess that this should apply to FLV, too. My point regarding this note (above) with MPEG is in respect to FLV and *our* flv encoder we are using. I would like to think that it is safe to say (and assume) that I am refereing to our usual ffmpeg (mencoder ? as well) freeware tools. And, I've been using the ffmpeg, myself, in my attempts at this endeavor. I have several diff ffmpeg versions. I recall on one where the quality is *higher* but also larger in filesize. Step downwards to a lower version, and the encoded flv spec is lesser, in terms of quality. So, I guess what I'm saying here is, perhaps we should consider working on the flv encoder aspect of ffmpeg to fune-tune or tweak it to produce better quality at the assumed low bitrate of 260k or whatever it is, and try passing that spec to youtube without any further flaugging. I myself do not know what lies beneath the hood of an flv encoder, but it would be interesting to see just what goes into the processing of an source video -to- flv format video, mechanically speaking, of course. -vhelp 4383 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Aug 16 20:46 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| If I recall, Youtube uses Mencoder to create Flv1 video.
The great free VP6 encoder for VFW is VP6.4.2.rar (Google for it). Use the Heightened Sharpness Profile only for greatest compatibility. It is magnitudes better than Flv1. And make sure you have a recent version of the Adobe Flash player installed. I wrote a script to convert AVIs to Vp6 encoded flvs. Needs Avisynth. flv_vp6_encoder.zip Most of the work was done by Sh0dan at Doom9 - compiling ffmpeg to mux the Vp6 video and Mp3 audio into an Flv container. Lemme know if anyone needs instructions. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Aug 16 21:02 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| @ Soopafresh
I just got a noticiation of this topics update. anyway. Can this be used in a command line front-end ?? ..I have a work-in-progress multi encoder tool that uses any command line tool available, and I'd wouldn't mind squeezing this one in if it is. I haven't D/L'ed it, yet.. but will in a minute. Thanks for the news of this tool, btw :lol: -vhelp 4384 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| vhelp posted 2007 Aug 16 21:19 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Ok. I thought it was something else completely different.. its still ffmpeg.
But, this version does not compile my flv.bat file that I've been using in most of my flv encodes :x fwiw, in the ver I've been using, its takes a vdub[.vdr] -> avisynth[.avs] -> ffmpeg with no problems. So I wonder what changed in the vp6 version :roll: EDIT: ok. I've got some reading to do, first. (see flv_encode_4x3.bat file for hint) :x -vhelp 4385 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2007 Aug 16 22:45 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| You need the VP6 VFW codecs installed, per the google search. The enclosed build of ffmpeg only does the Mp3 encoding and the final muxing to flv -
1) AVS2AVI transcodes the AVI to VP6 AVI. First, the batch file will prompt you for the codec to use - Choose the Heightened Sharpness one. 
The only part you MUST set in the codec settings is "1 Pass Best Quality". The rest you can config to your own liking. 
2) Once the video is transcoded, ffmpeg takes the AVS file and converts the audio to mp3, finally muxing the VP6 AVI and the MP3 into an flv, such as this - zzz.flv | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 17 16:40 | ||||||||||||||||||||
if video is re-encoded so is audio. no need to provide in flv format if you plan to have it re-converted. no need to bother messing much with audio. keep it at 192 ac3 if you have it like that, or anything of a reasonable size.
where'd you get that info from?
Nice. I prefer using mencoder. Do you know of a service that takes vp6 uploads and leaves them untouched?
I must have fallen asleep during testing at some point because i really did miss this. BeforeMonday, has uploaded another flv with a 'whatever' resolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5yxdK81Eg It seems you can upload any resolution under the sun as long as you keep below the bitrate limit to avoid a youtube re-encode. It doesn't do that much good though. You can do 16:9 but it's automatically displayed (streched) in 4:3, unless you click the restore button to get original resolution displayed. my 16:9 320x180 try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bim_K3ayXB4 and 384x288 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmZRhC1maEw As for material that'll be re-encoded by youtube, youtube maintains original resolution if you provide any 4:3 resolution under 320x240, anything else gets resized to 320x240.
I believe i have a definitive answer on the actual limit: If your flv (flv1) opened in mediainfo has a total bitrate below 350 kbps it will not be re-encoded. If it touches 350k, kiss it goodbye. I used ffmpeg to push that limit, sacrificing audio a bit. the following should be the finest i've uploaded: Edit: [replaced] ffmpeg flv1 320x240, video 309kbps, audio 32kbps, slowed down 10% 22fps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxGxX-tc4dQ ffmpeg flv1 320x240, video 308kbps, audio 32kbps, framedrop 20% 20fps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffp6YHCvLYo [kept up because of insane hits.] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO5_qwWpysU (120 hits, wtf? :) ) Edit: What i finally used [was crap and i then used Swain's command]:
resizing and framerate changes in avisynth. I hope someone can do better. edit: but i think it's now very close to as good as it gets. gl | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Squash posted 2007 Aug 17 19:31 | ||||||||||||||||||||
If you haven't already seen it, here's an interesting article speculating on the origins of Youtube's encoding backend: http://multimedia.cx/eggs/poking-at-youtube/ It's written by a guy who contributed code to some of ffmpeg's libraries. He noticed bugs peculiar to both Youtube and ffmpeg/mencoder. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 17 22:38 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| no i hadn't,
ty | ||||||||||||||||||||
| goyomora posted 2007 Aug 19 23:59 | ||||||||||||||||||||
OK, sorry but I don't excuse your proclamation, because is totally unfunded. First of all, this is not a scam, I'm just a guy(with knowledge on Graphic Rendering and some experience of digitalvideo) who spent almost 2 months testing ALL video codecs, and encoding tecniques that I know, and uploading almost 300 times the same video, converted with dozens of diferents programs searching for Hi-Fi for youtube, just for me because I want to share videos (mostly are private) with my family in the US (I'm from Mexico). At that time (2006), YouTube was the only way, know I'm using Stage6. However, recently I decide to release this alternative encoding. The main reason of use specific TVC is because that program has a propietary-internal engine, that creates flv's (H.263/Sorenson) files that skips Resize and reencode from YT servers. Actually, YT in his early years didn't support flv. Actually this flv looks like garbage in sites like google video, only works on YT. Even though I find one way to avoid/skip YouTubes Re-encoding (quality degrade), its not perfect, and yeah this method is a little tricky... no-moron-proof, like you, know... hehe.
Second, you need to check your eyes, maybe a new pair of glasses. I don’t think I need to prove anything to you, but the following videos base my argument, for the others viewers of this forum, let they decide. My videos: EXAMPLE 1: Canon HV20 Outdoor Sample Footage v2 from crobs808 Original video from crobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeD1VWNWdOo High Quality Encoded short version of 55 sec -just for testing- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4FWh9SdYvA -------------------------------------------- EXAMPLE 2: Templo San Pedro & San Pablo (2:15 min) Normal Quality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG9NzJR1EJk HIGH Quality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpOzt4Ey4PU -------------------------------------------- EXAMPLE 3: Loba (10 sec) Normal Version WMV9 codec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2V-TdcMqc High Quality Version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfSCY22H0cQ -------------------------------------------- EXAMPLE 4: The Dark Knight Set on Fire - Chicago Original Video from kgeisler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te0efJdNOMI High Quality Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZyEvo9-tyc NOW the following videos are from other people, mostly from this forum www.hv20.com where I posted this method for the first time and they have tested. All these videos were encoded with this method. (check the time is incorrect). pascalbrown videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoRJYBOn8no google example: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1491349270921475882&hl=en iotatau videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLa9YGl1wn4 SenorKaffee videos, sadly he set vb very high = more time incorrectly = more heavy stream (takes to load) YouTube HD Upload Trick - 960x576@6000kbit/s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_HgzguhTKk *IIxDylanxII Stranglehold: Get Down With the Sickness (HD) His video has a 320x240 frame size so in default view not look so great, push the [[]] button to see the real frame size. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kvubxycw14 *fpaldks11 my favorite korean commercial # 8 HD quality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbex74Vvs7w *those are people from youtube One unique characteristic of this method is that the time is displayed incorrectly PE: a 10sec video YouTube takes like a 33sec. If you increase the videobitrate to much (up to 2000) or your video is long than 2mins, will be rejected. For more long video you need lower the videobitrate to 768 for 3min and 512 for 4min. I don't care about YouTube, Total Video Converter creators, I do care to share my short clips with my close friends and familiy, with highest quality. Actually for on-demand video share service, I prefer REVER and Livevideo , "ordinary" DivX or XVid or AVC/H.264 encoded videos, looks way better than YT. I do not proclaim that it is the best way to encode for YouTube, Is the WAY to get High-Fidelity or High Quality videos, taking advantage from Bandwidth (exchanging Video Time Lenght from YouTube for Highest Video Bitrate and SKIP/AVOID YouTube Servers reencode, lowering the original quality), again has a little limitations 4min videos because 4min for youtube will be 10min reaching his limit. Obvious, if I figured out this tweak-encode-method is because I tested a lot of formats, codecs, and video applications, and by consequence, I know other methods to encode for YouTube, with very nice quality and sharp image, using freeware, more practice without time mismesuare and quick load, actually I using those for my longest videos (private content). =P. So, mister 45tripp you need to learn some etiquette and talk with based arguments, and evidence.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Squash posted 2007 Aug 20 01:53 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| @goyomora:
That's an interesting hack. I just downloaded the "Dark Knight" clip above from Youtube. According to GSpot 2.70, it's 640x480, video bitrate of 2097 kbps, and stereo mp3 at 320 kb/s. Never seen anything like it from Youtube. Congratulations. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 45tripp posted 2007 Aug 20 08:22 | ||||||||||||||||||||
You could and should have posted a link to a working example in the your first post.
i certainly was
|