Trying to convert AVI for Youtube

[Baffled2015]

Hi guys. I've been uploading some AVI files to Youtube, but about half of them won't process and play. I'm on PC and their icons are different than the ones that do process and play. I know there are different codecs, etc. but have no editing software to monkey with these and convert them. They were made for me by an editor. Any suggestions helpful... Thanks!

[LigH.de]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again; it uses an ffmpeg based system. So you should only upload video formats ffmpeg (or more specifically, libavcodec) can decode. And I mean the contained video stream here; AVI is merely a container, but might contain hundreds of different formats.

If you quote the MediaInfo analysis of videos which fail (best in a "CODE" bbCode clock), we can tell you if this format may be unsupported.

[TorBru]

Have you tries FFmpeg with FFqueue or Handbrake? You should create MP4's and use codec x264 for video and AAC for audio. You can se further info about encoding to youtube here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en If you follow these steps you video will not be reencoded by youtube and you get the quality you upload.

[TorBru]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again

Nope, I'm pretty shure this is not the case. Youtube probes the uploaded video and if it meets the specs for a youtube flick it will not be reencoded - it would be a waste of energy.

[Baffled2015]

Hmm. All I can say is, the same editor made all the AVI files for me, half process and play fine, the other half don't. When I upload the ones that won't play (they have slightly different AVI icon in file folder) Youtube takes about two days to process the video before giving up and saying "Video Failed to Process" or something like that.

Also, the ones that will process have a preview thumbnail for a file icon. The ones that won't have a generic AVI icon. The ones that will process play on my PC if I click on them, using Windows Media Player. The ones that won't process (which have the generic AVI icon instead of a preview of the video for a thumbnail), don't.

All the files were made years ago by an editor who is no longer in the state, I have no idea how to find him. He probably doesn't remember what the difference was in the files he created anyway, after all this time.

Looks like I will not be able to access these at all, which sucks.

[TorBru]

If youtube bails out on your videos they're problably corrupt. You might want to try and open them with VirtualDub because VDub can sometimes give a hint of what's wrong with your AVI's and every now and then the failures can even be corrected. Good luck!

[newpball]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again

Nope, I'm pretty shure this is not the case. Youtube probes the uploaded video and if it meets the specs for a youtube flick it will not be reencoded - it would be a waste of energy.

You are wrong.

[TorBru]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again

Nope, I'm pretty shure this is not the case. Youtube probes the uploaded video and if it meets the specs for a youtube flick it will not be reencoded - it would be a waste of energy.

You are wrong.

Who are? I've uploaded a MP4 video that met the specs to YT and downloaded it again with downloadhelper and the downloaded MP4 matched the uploaded one to the last bit. That would not be possible had it been reencoded

[newpball]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again

Nope, I'm pretty shure this is not the case. Youtube probes the uploaded video and if it meets the specs for a youtube flick it will not be reencoded - it would be a waste of energy.

You are wrong.

Who are? I've uploaded a MP4 video that met the specs to YT and downloaded it again with downloadhelper and the downloaded MP4 matched the uploaded one to the last bit. That would not be possible had it been reencoded

Sorry, I don't believe you!

[prijatelj.v]

Windows Live Movie Maker is best for beginners (with a few clicks)
I think there are online Youtube converter for such a "demanding" customers,bless you...

[manono]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again

Nope, I'm pretty shure this is not the case. Youtube probes the uploaded video and if it meets the specs for a youtube flick it will not be reencoded - it would be a waste of energy.

You are wrong.

Who are? I've uploaded a MP4 video that met the specs to YT and downloaded it again with downloadhelper and the downloaded MP4 matched the uploaded one to the last bit. That would not be possible had it been reencoded

Sorry, I don't believe you!

Me neither. Five years ago, maybe, but not now.

[LigH.de]

Remember, the thread starter wanted to upload AVIs. And AVIs are certainly not offered for downloads as a container. And even if the content would be compliant, I doubt that every downloader will have access to the originally uploaded video version. At least all lower resolutions will certainly be recoded, and if any uploaded video will be available as original, then probably only HD resolutions.

I still assume that YouTube will prefer to recompress every upload, already to ensure that e.g. no hidden malware, embedded inside a container, will be spread.
__

Back to the kernel of the topic:

Show us technical facts about the rejected videos.

[manono]

I still assume that YouTube will prefer to recompress every upload, already to ensure that e.g. no hidden malware, embedded inside a container, will be spread.

Bingo! That's the reason they gave when they decided no uploaded videos would be allowed without having been reencoded. At one time, if the videos were in the format they used (FLVs with certain characteristics?), it was possible to have a video be displayed without having been reencoded, but not for a long time now.

[TorBru]

I still assume that YouTube will prefer to recompress every upload, already to ensure that e.g. no hidden malware, embedded inside a container, will be spread.

Bingo! That's the reason they gave when they decided no uploaded videos would be allowed without having been reencoded. At one time, if the videos were in the format they used (FLVs with certain characteristics?), it was possible to have a video be displayed without having been reencoded, but not for a long time now.

I guess that youtube can do a malware and/or virus scan to avoid bad things in the uploads rather than reencoding for that same purpose. It is in fact a couple of years since I tried to upload and download, but then the vids where identical (the video was reencoded and scaled to other resolutions, though). I might try that again at some point in time - just to check

[LigH.de]

Malware scanners can only detect known malware.

At least remultiplexing, if not reencoding, will remove anything not related to the media content.

And furthermore, I doubt that many people will know exactly how to encode content so that a video hoster would accept it, especially if it is not documented in the least detail. Except for re-uploading downloaded content, people producing new content should assume reencoding and therefore focus on good quality per bitrate, which means a variable bitrate that will not be streamable easily with limited bandwidth.

Again, back to the kernel, we are waiting for a technical analysis of the rejected material.

[El Heggunte]

YouTube will reconvert any uploaded video again

it would be a waste of energy.

YouTube (read: Google) is highly mismanaged and misprogrammed.
You should not expect much reasonable behavior from them

I still assume that YouTube will prefer to recompress every upload, already to ensure that e.g. no hidden malware, embedded inside a container, will be spread.

Well, now I understand why Google's webcache often (if not always) first converts the pages of a PDF to images and then applies OCR on these

[End Of OT]

[Baffled2015]

Thanks guys, I tried the Windows Movie Maker thing overnight and it did do a conversion to MP4 of one of the AVI files. However, there is no picture, only audio. The screen is totally black. Youtube unfortunately doesn't say what the issue is, only "Failed to Process Video" after about 2 days of waiting after the upload.

[TorBru]

Well, now I understand why Google's webcache often (if not always) first converts the pages of a PDF to images and then applies OCR on these

LOL.. You must be havin a laugh?

Thanks guys, I tried the Windows Movie Maker thing overnight and it did do a conversion to MP4 of one of the AVI files. However, there is no picture, only audio. The screen is totally black. Youtube unfortunately doesn't say what the issue is, only "Failed to Process Video" after about 2 days of waiting after the upload.

Have you tried to open the bad AVI's with VirtualDub?

[Baffled2015]

Okay, I tried using Virtual Dub and this is the error I got:

[poisondeathray]

CFHD is cineform fourcc

You need to install gopro cineform studio to get the free codec

[LigH.de]

@ Baffled2015:

Was it hard for you to ignore the request for a MediaInfo analysis in answer #2?

[TorBru]

@ Baffled2015:

Was it hard for you to ignore the request for a MediaInfo analysis in answer #2?

VDub did the job nicely, though

[manono]

VDub did the job nicely, though

Yes, good work. He decided to answer your question with some real information, for a change, and the problem was able to be solved. However, had he answered LigH.de's request for the MediaInfo information to begin with, the problem would have been solved much earlier.

[TorBru]

Yes, good work. He decided to answer your question with some real information, for a change, and the problem was able to be solved. However, had he answered LigH.de's request for the MediaInfo information to begin with, the problem would have been solved much earlier.

What charge? MediaInfo would, AFAIK, not have been able to solve issues related to the AVI container or the index thereof, thus VDub was a legit suggestion. Cannot see the issue here

[LigH.de]

We may have known already early that ffmpeg would probably not be able to decode it. Thus neither YouTube.

[manono]

What charge? MediaInfo would, AFAIK, not have been able to solve issues related to the AVI container or the index thereof...

Of course it would have. MediaInfo would have named the Cineform Codec and as a result the suggestion would have been made immediately to install the Cineform Decoder. And, as LigH.de mentioned, it would have also been immediately obvious the reason the YouTube uploads wouldn't process - that Baffled2015 would have to convert them to a format YouTube accepts. That was the main question of this thread - why some of his uploads wouldn't complete processing.