VideoHelp Forum


Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!


Try StreamFab Downloader and download streaming video from Youtube, Netflix, Amazon! Download free trial.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 66
FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 1969
Thread
  1. i cannot promise anything... but i will look at these request

    BHH
    HDConvertToX, AutoMen, AutoMKV Developer
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    In the last few days I've been seeing a lot of high quality videos on YouTube, encoded by YouTube itself. They've been making the switch one channel at a time, encoding new videos at 480x360 (~760kbps) with 44.1khz mono audio (96kbps), and reencoding past videos at 448x336.

    The switchover doesn't seem to have reached any of my own channels yet.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Triptonia
    Search Comp PM
    ricardo, it's better to change framerate in avisynth.

    Originally Posted by dtfinch
    They've been making the switch one channel at a time, encoding new videos at 480x360 (~760kbps) with 44.1khz mono audio (96kbps),
    examples?

    Originally Posted by dtfinch
    and reencoding past videos at 448x336.
    what good is that?
    it's counterproductive and impractical.
    also quite unlikely.


    tripp
    Quote Quote  
  4. If there's a difference in quality there, my eyes are worse than I thought.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    err.
    I get the lower quality videos when I log in with a different account.

    This must look pretty bad.

    Just click around the recent videos. I run across one every couple pages.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    This is what they served me:
    http://www.sendspace.com/file/qdgfy1
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Triptonia
    Search Comp PM
    ..confirmed that in YouTube's internal archive, all video is stored at the native resolution in which it was sent.
    ok...
    that kind of waste of space makes it feasible,
    but still impractical for a large portion of content.

    i don't know about this 'intelligent' streaming,
    my speed is low in any case
    but i did notice this new control bar to the playback window
    (new to me at least, i hardly watch youtube, so it could be 'older')
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMqY8LPSfhI


    i gave myspace a try and it's interesting
    encodes to vp6, keeps resolutions under 448x (i'd say)
    a nice playback window in which wide videos are treated with proper resizing.

    tripp
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    im still doing some tests, i encoded 4 clips:

    1 - flv 12fps - bitrate 345 - resolution 320x240

    2 - flv 18fps - bitrate 345 - resolution 320x240

    3 - flv 25fps - bitrate 345 - resolution 320x240

    4 - x264 25fps - bitrate 345 - resolution 320x240
    youtube doenst support h264, but adobe flash player plays it, http://blip.tv does accept it

    they all have the same final size(2.46m) except the x264 (2.89m) because the audio is 53k instead of the 48k

    Which one looks better to you? you can find the clips here: http://ricardosantos.com.pt/youtube/
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    east angola
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dtfinch
    In the last few days I've been seeing a lot of high quality videos on YouTube, encoded by YouTube itself. They've been making the switch one channel at a time, encoding new videos at 480x360 (~760kbps) with 44.1khz mono audio (96kbps), and reencoding past videos at 448x336.

    The switchover doesn't seem to have reached any of my own channels yet.
    If this is true and you're not a crazy guy, then this is ridiculous.

    Why don't they just upgrade their flash player to Flash8, and encode videos with the hugely more efficient VP6 codec. They probably wouldn't have to even increase the current bit rate to get that sort of resolution, and much better quality.

    Not meaning to be rude, but I think it's more likely you're a crazy guy than youtube sticking with the flash6 player/sorenson codec and just doubling the bitrate.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    east angola
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by kodaismahhussy
    So yeah, we have a problem. The duration length hack doesn't work anymore. Any other ideas? xD
    I don't know why youtube has deliberately disabled the ability to do this. It's not like this hack effected it's network in anyway. Just Because the video/audio bitrate was higher ddidn't mean youtube were sending more data at a higher speed.

    I bet some non technical idiot at youtube got all upset about this, and demanded the hack be fixed, without even realising it did nothing to impede the network in any way.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I noticed on the high quality videos it passes an extra argument to the player, "fmt_map". On the page I looked at it was "6/720000/7/0/0". The 2nd value is the bitrate requirement for that video. If your measured bandwidth is less, it'll show the old 320x240 version.

    I wrote this greasemonkey script (my first one) to lower the bitrate requirement if it's been set:
    Code:
    // ==UserScript==
    // @name           forcehq
    // @namespace      http://youtube.com/forcehq
    // @description    lowers the hi/low bitrate threshold to 10kbps. If no HQ version exists, you'll probably get a blank video.
    // @include        http://@youtube.com/watch*
    // ==/UserScript==
    
    var alreadyran=false;
    function forcehq() {
    	if(alreadyran) return; //Odd issue with Firefox 3 and greasemonkey
    	alreadyran=true;
    	if(unsafeWindow.swfArgs.fmt_map || unsafeWindow.document.location.href.indexOf("force")>=0) {
    		unsafeWindow.swfArgs.fmt_map="6/10000/7/0/0";
    		unsafeWindow.writeMoviePlayer("playerDiv");	
    	}
    }
    
    document.body.addEventListener('load', forcehq, true);
    It only resets fmt_map if it's already set, but you can force it by adding "&force" to the watch? url, but then if there is no HQ version on the server, you'll get a blank video. I've found instances where fmt_map wasn't set even though there was an HQ version, but it definitely won't be set if there isn't.

    I also checked how the video url differs between the low and high quality versions:
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    New Automen version available: "optimize video for youtube" option added

    Thanks a million Buzzqw

    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1097663#post1097663
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    The last 3 numbers in fmt_map is the required Flash version. I'm pretty sure H.264 is on the way, since they gave themselves enough room to specify 9.0.115 instead of just 8 or 9.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    My earlier guess that availability changed from user to user was way off.

    When browsing youtube with my main account, I'm using a Firefox 3 nightly. I use different browsers for my other accounts, and in those cases the fmt_map argument isn't set even if there's an HQ version. Either the difference is cookie related or they've turned it on just for certain browsers until they're done testing.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    If I delete my cookies, I still get high quality videos in Firefox 3.

    Edit: I also cleared my Flash local storage to see if that had any effect. This also cleared its bandwidth statistics, so I had to watch a video and let it finish downloading before it'd serve anything high quality again.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    those who are watching this topic might be interested in this:
    Youtube: high quality uploads with no 10min limit

    enjoy
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    east angola
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by frifox
    those who are watching this topic might be interested in this:
    Youtube: high quality uploads with no 10min limit

    enjoy
    It's like this forum is full of crazy people.

    Read the first message in this 11 page thread. That's what the bulk of this thread is about. And it doesn't work any more
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atropine
    It's like this forum is full of crazy people.

    Read the first message in this 11 page thread. That's what the bulk of this thread is about. And it doesn't work any more
    here is one of my uploads, 2hrs ago, works:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=SWhn82rrpgw
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    east angola
    Search Comp PM
    I do appolgise.

    You rock!
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member zoobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atropine
    It's like this forum is full of crazy people.
    more like copy clowns...no offense
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by frifox
    Originally Posted by atropine
    It's like this forum is full of crazy people.

    Read the first message in this 11 page thread. That's what the bulk of this thread is about. And it doesn't work any more
    here is one of my uploads, 2hrs ago, works:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=SWhn82rrpgw
    All I see is a picture with music.
    How difficult is to compress that?
    Show me real videos, people moving, etc.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    i used picture with music cuz it was the easiest video to make... but yesterday youtube busted thas hole as well. so no more hex tricks at all
    Quote Quote  
  23. Point is, I don't know if you've all noticed, but they can barely manage the bandwidth load as it is during peak-times (like right now). I also notice their clustering is getting bumpy and slow on updating dynamic pages, another sign of very high load on their servers.

    I really don't think they'll allow upping the 350 kbit/s limit anytime soon. They might change codec and FLV-player, but even if re-encoding of all content is required, do you realize what that means? They can never release their "/watch?v=" statics or embedded player until AFTER they've re-encoded their entire data-back-end. A new player on YT will not be backwards compatible (i.e. it can't play the old content as well). They can't change "a channel at a time", simply because of their global dependencies. The local versions all get their base-content from the main servers, as far as I can tell.

    Since YouTube's live playback storage must be around the Exa-bytes in total by now, it would take quite an amount of time and processing to change things at the video-base end.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    so, we can not upload high quality videos anymore at youtube. That suck!
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    east angola
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by bayme
    .

    I really don't think they'll allow upping the 350 kbit/s limit anytime soon. They might change codec and FLV-player, but even if re-encoding of all content is required, do you realize what that means? They can never release their "/watch?v=" statics or embedded player until AFTER they've re-encoded their entire data-back-end. A new player on YT will not be backwards compatible (i.e. it can't play the old content as well). .
    Interesting points you bring up. Ok how about this. They flick the switch and all new content is encoded with VP6 codec and played back with Flash8 player, while old content remains to be played back with Flash6 player. As old content is upgraded (possibly interpolation will be used to make it seem like higher resolution) to VP6, the default player for it then automatically changes to Flash8. Eventually everything will be Flash8 , VP6 codec.

    How does that sound as a possibility or will that not work for some reason?
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Two more flvs I downloaded from YouTube, to add to the last 4 I posted. I tried to go for popular and featured videos this time.

    http://www.sendspace.com/file/jbue6q

    Maybe I'm just really good at restoring low quality videos, or maybe all the authors uploaded their videos elsewhere at a higher resolution, like that old guy who looks like he could barely turn on a computer. Or maybe someone else who's using a Firefox 3 nightly can test to see if YouTube made that the deciding factor for testing.

    If you decompile player2.swf with flasm, you'll find the part that parses and checks the fmt_map parameter against your player version and measured bandwidth to determine which video to request between lines 11884 and 12211. If the line numbers are different when you try it (if they've since updated it), it'll be one of the two functions containing "fmt_map".
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    My user agent string is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b4pre) Gecko/2008020504 Minefield/3.0b4pre", in case that's all they're checking.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    east angola
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dtfinch
    Two more flvs I downloaded from YouTube, to add to the last 4 I posted. I tried to go for popular and featured videos this time.

    http://www.sendspace.com/file/jbue6q

    Maybe I'm just really good at restoring low quality videos, or maybe all the authors uploaded their videos elsewhere at a higher resolution, like that old guy who looks like he could barely turn on a computer. Or maybe someone else who's using a Firefox 3 nightly can test to see if YouTube made that the deciding factor for testing.

    .
    I installed firefox 3 just for you and I'm getting the videos at 320x240 as I would have expected to.

    But I don't like to doubt videohelp forum members would you please give me a direct link to one of the videos you say you view in high resoltuion. You gave this link as an example of a video you're viewing in bigh resolution/ high bitrate:-

    Tender Vibes - http://youtube.com/watch?v=wx-CZIoNPJY
    Well the direct server link for me is:
    http://74.125.15.102/get_video?video_id=wx-CZIoNPJY&origin=chi-v252.chi.youtube.com&si...=get_video.flv

    And that is a 320x240 normal youtube video, What is the direct link to the mysterious high resolution version of that video that you get?

    If you post that link, maybe we could all use that and see the high resolution version ourselves.(if you're not crazy)
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!