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 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47
Thread
  1. Member Knightmessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've posted about this before but what I want to know this time is if there is an easy download of a program that lets you optimize video files for youtube. I only have Vegas version 4 so it's not the most up to date.

    I need something similar to Compressor on a Mac (I have Windows) that can de-interlace, undo the stretch (720x480 -> 640x480) and basically make the file a lot smaller. Upscaling to 720p would be a nice feature since I've been told many times here that enables more bitrate from youtube but it's not absolutely necessary.

    Is there a basic easy to use software I could download to do this?
    Quote Quote  
  2. VidCoder/Handbrake.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member Knightmessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Finally got a chance to play around with Vid coder. By previewing video, windows media player will not show the video for H.264 even after I downloaded FFDshow which I believe is a codec to play all these encodes in basic players like WMP.
    It sounds fine but without picture, I have no idea how the video turns out.

    When I preview the encode using the MPEG-4 video codec setting, I can see the video preview in Windows Media Player but it looks very choppy and jittery, like it's missing a bunch of frames. I've selected "keep framerate" and then tried 29.97 (which the NTSC video is). The 29.97 setting seems to help but it still doesn't look as smooth and fluid as the actual avi file.

    It also freezes and windows shuts it down whenever I try to preview a 2 pass encode, fyi.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Depends on what your definition of "optimize" is

    When people say "optimize for youtube", that usually includes higher quality deinterlacing, stabilization, specific denoising , levels corrections, high quality upscaling without aliasing, among other things. No "easy to use" program will offer all of these. There is going to be some trade offs involved here



    For your current problems, the reason it doesn't seem smooth is you're probably starting from DV-AVI source, which is 59.94 fields per second. WMP automatically bob deinterlaces this to 59.94 FRAMES per second. 29.97 FRAMES per second is half the frames, so it looks choppy. Sites like youtube only support up to 30FPS, so you have no options unless you use another host that doesn't re-encode

    For playback , you probably don't have a directshow mp4 splitter installed, like haali media splitter. Also, your computer specs might be too old to handle AVC, even SD
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member Knightmessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    It is a DV capture rendered into an AVI file. So is double frame rate in WMP just a preview thing or do I need to do something so that it doesn't take out half the frames of the actual file?

    I went ahead and rendered one of my shortest videos with H.264. Unlike the preview, I could play this rendered file just fine in WMP and it looks smoothed out and glossier yet the video noise appears to be more noticable. The fuzzy look is probably due to deinterlacing but I'm not sure if I like that trade off. I've uploaded it to youtube as a test file. Seems ok but I did get a message after uploading that the video audio may be out of sync.
    http://youtu.be/JZ8ZB3sgsb8

    here's the actual upload for comparison which was just straight from the AVI file. I did add the 4:3 stretch code to make it display 640 instead of 720x 480.
    http://youtu.be/JZk2rtcgrhw
    Last edited by Knightmessenger; 8th Nov 2011 at 17:39.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by Knightmessenger View Post
    So is double frame rate in WMP just a preview thing or do I need to do something so that it doesn't take out half the frames of the actual file?
    The double frame rate is normal for interlaced video ; that's how interlaced video should look. If you play directly from your camera and hook it up to the TV it will look like that. Each field is unique and becomes a frame when it's bob deinterlaced. So you're watching 59.94 FRAMES per second , but each field isn't a "real" frame - it's more like a half frame. It only contains part of the information of a true frame, that's why you get "jaggies" and deinterlacing artifacts

    The quality in WMP playback isn't the best, because it's meant for realtime playback and needs to be fast. It will noticably be smoother. Slower deinterlacing algorithms (e.g. in avisynth) attempt to interpolate the missing information, and quality is better

    This is a very old bob deinterlacing comparison, and slowed down, but it gets the point across. You can right click to save, and play in a media player
    https://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p1934885/stockholma_0-520_q3_yadif_mvbobmod_t...mca4_tdtmm.avi

    Single rate deinterlacing means you throw out 1/2 the information. ie. You only keep 1/2 the fields and these become frames , so 59.94 fields/s becomes 29.97 frames/s

    Double rate deinterlacing or bobbing means you keep all the temporal information. Essentially each field becomes a frame so 59.94 fields/s becomes 59.94 frames/s

    If your final goal is youtube, you have no choice between single or double rate. Even if you upload a 59.94p video, youtube will throw out 1/2 of the frames. But in that example you could smooth it the motion subjectively by using a software stabilizer, so even at 29.97 it will look more pleasant. Stabilizing also means fewer differences between frames , so this means better quality per frame at a given bitrate - that's why it's one of the items listed in the list above in my earlier post. For shooting , if you had used a steadicam , stabilization rig, or tripod, you wouldn't need (or as much) software stabilization. Software stabilization has list of pros and cons as well - it's not all fun and games


    yet the video noise appears to be more noticable. The fuzzy look is probably due to deinterlacing but I'm not sure if I like that trade off
    Part of it is due to poor deinteracing, but your original video I suspect had noise as well. Things like shakiness, deinterlacing artifacts , noise, consume more bitrate, so the final quality will be lower. Youtube bitrate is wasted on trying to preserve the noise , artifacts instead of improving image quality. So in order to combat those things, you need to optimize the video before uploading to youtube (by optimize, I mean that list of things in the earlier post)


    PS: nice Boba Fett costume!
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 8th Nov 2011 at 18:08.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Knightmessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I understand what interlaced video is. Is there a way with Vid Coder to combine both fields into 1 frame and thus half the video isn't discarded by youtube? What did you think of the differences in the two video samples?

    I don't have a stedicam but I have found simply having the camera attached to a small tripod without the legs stretched out helps as a counterweight and has roughly the same effect.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by Knightmessenger View Post
    Is there a way with Vid Coder to combine both fields into 1 frame and thus half the video isn't discarded by youtube?
    I don't use vidcoder, but this technique is called blend deinterlacing, you usually don't want to do that. Arguably it's the worst type of deinterlacing because everything is blurry as hell and looks double image or "ghosting" (a 50-50 mix of adjacent fields).

    What did you think of the differences in the two video samples?
    I didn't have a good look, I just briefly looked at the 1st one. I'll have a closer look if you want

    I don't have a stedicam but I have found simply having the camera attached to a small tripod without the legs stretched out helps as a counterweight and has roughly the same effect.
    The more things you can improve it while shooting, the fewer things you have to do in post. Not only less processing time and hoops to jump through, but it will be higher quality in the end. Better lighting too will improve your image.
    Quote Quote  
  9. aBigMeanie aedipuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    666th portal
    Search Comp PM
    if your source is interlaced use the decomb default filter in vidcoder, as it uses yadif in slower mode on only interlaced artifacts. the same result can be had with deinterlace in slower mode but it will affect all frames interlaced or not, so make sure your source is interlaced before using it.
    --
    "a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Knightmessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    are there any other settings that are best for youtube uploading? I'm particularly unsure about the Quality setting under the video tab. Target size, avg bitrate and constant quality, I think I understand what all those mean but I'm not sure which will do best or what settings I should give.
    Like is 70097 bitrate and 256 mb target size more data than youtube will ultimately use and therefore a lower setting might have the upload not get as much discarded?
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Knightmessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I went ahead and posted the latest video I had ready after encoding it. Very disappointed in the final output as it stutters like crazy. I understand the video noise and shakiness of the camera don't help but to have it so jerky and not maintain the fluid motion it had originally makes it all for naught.

    http://youtu.be/32qQVvtkt0s

    Everything else about the video is good. The picture isn't darkened for no good reason, the picture looks fairly sharp for such a highly compressed file, there aren't jaggies and there is not a lot of blockyness.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by Knightmessenger View Post
    but I did get a message after uploading that the video audio may be out of sync.
    Originally Posted by YouTube
    The video you uploaded may have audio/video sync issues. Please refer to this article for advice on how to correct this issue should it arise.
    Ignore that message unless... It is to do with QuickTime MOV/MP4 files.
    Strangely, that particular message only appears on the new upload page for YouTube.
    See here for more details:
    http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=1297408

    That YouTube message did my head in when I saw it first time until I read the above link.
    So I went back to the previous uploader: http://upload.youtube.com/my_videos_upload?forceui=3
    Last edited by mike20021969; 9th Nov 2011 at 06:58.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by Knightmessenger View Post
    I went ahead and posted the latest video I had ready after encoding it. Very disappointed in the final output as it stutters like crazy. I understand the video noise and shakiness of the camera don't help but to have it so jerky and not maintain the fluid motion it had originally makes it all for naught.

    http://youtu.be/32qQVvtkt0s

    Everything else about the video is good. The picture isn't darkened for no good reason, the picture looks fairly sharp for such a highly compressed file, there aren't jaggies and there is not a lot of blockyness.

    The biggest problem with this video is stabilization (rather the lack of). 30p can look fine on youtube. Search for "deshaker comparison videos" on youtube. Stabilizing while shooting is better, but you can often improve it in post
    Quote Quote  
  14. Knightmessenger, sorry to be off-topic, but how did you upload a nearly 17 minute video to YouTube? Are you allowed to upload videos of any length? Do you have some sort of special account? 15 minutes (really 16 minutes) is the usual maximum allowed length for us mere mortals. And, of course, as pdr says, the problems caused by an interlaced 29.97fps video being reduced to progressive 29.97fps are dwarfed by the lack of a steady picture to begin with. That thing looks nasty and all that shaking drastically reduces the overall quality because all that unnecessary camera movement takes many bits to encode, bits that would otherwise have been used in the rest of the video.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Knightmessenger, sorry to be off-topic, but how did you upload a nearly 17 minute video to YouTube? Are you allowed to upload videos of any length? Do you have some sort of special account? 15 minutes (really 16 minutes) is the usual maximum allowed length for us mere mortals.
    Apparently you just enter your cell phone #

    http://www.techkamal.com/how-to-increase-youtube-video-time-length-limit-to-infinity/#axzz1dFAQ8KQB
    Quote Quote  
  16. Oh, thanks. I didn't know that. Now all I need is a mobile phone (over my dead body).
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    England
    Search Comp PM
    I've noticed YouTube de-interlaces all uploads with a resolution of 854x480 or lower - even if the video is flagged as progressive.

    They don't even use a decent de-interlacing filter like YADIF, but instead drop every other line which halves the vertical resolution...

    *slow handclap*
    Quote Quote  
  18. I got message while uploading to Youtube that I am enabled to upload videos longer than 15 minutes, not heavy poster, total about 15 videos, not so many viewed, not sure what the criterias are ...
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    I've noticed YouTube de-interlaces all uploads with a resolution of 854x480 or lower - even if the video is flagged as progressive.

    They don't even use a decent de-interlacing filter like YADIF, but instead drop every other line which halves the vertical resolution...

    *slow handclap*
    hmmm, I stop uploadind SD videos and deleted them, they looked bad and I tried hard to serve them as good as possible , never thought of this ...
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    I've noticed YouTube de-interlaces all uploads with a resolution of 854x480 or lower - even if the video is flagged as progressive.

    They don't even use a decent de-interlacing filter like YADIF, but instead drop every other line which halves the vertical resolution...

    *slow handclap*
    How did you come to that observation ?

    I don't believe that first statement is true. I just uploaded some NTSC test patterns, resized to 640x480, and to examine, I looked at the downloaded youtube encode, not in the native viewer (which might be resized)
    Quote Quote  
  21. 1 original video
    2 youtube video
    3 bob deinterlaced (if youtube applied a simple field resize this is what it would look like)

    No loss of resolution in #2 when looking at the resolution patches, just the typical compression artifacts
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	1 original.png
Views:	514
Size:	94.4 KB
ID:	9538  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2 youtube.png
Views:	629
Size:	126.1 KB
ID:	9539  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	3 bob deinterlaced.png
Views:	777
Size:	108.9 KB
ID:	9540  

    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    England
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    I've noticed YouTube de-interlaces all uploads with a resolution of 854x480 or lower - even if the video is flagged as progressive.
    How did you come to that observation ?

    I don't believe that first statement is true. I just uploaded some NTSC test patterns, resized to 640x480, and to examine, I looked at the downloaded youtube encode, not in the native viewer (which might be resized)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MU1KM7Ojus
    Watching the video at 480p on YT (with the player expanded) and the downloaded .flv shows half the vertical resolution.
    Here's the video I uploaded:
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    I've noticed YouTube de-interlaces all uploads with a resolution of 854x480 or lower - even if the video is flagged as progressive.
    How did you come to that observation ?

    I don't believe that first statement is true. I just uploaded some NTSC test patterns, resized to 640x480, and to examine, I looked at the downloaded youtube encode, not in the native viewer (which might be resized)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MU1KM7Ojus
    Watching the video at 480p on YT (with the player expanded) and the downloaded .flv shows half the vertical resolution.
    Here's the video I uploaded:
    I'm going to guess it's a PAL 25FPS issue, that might incite YT to butcher it

    I re-encoded your source video with 29.97, and it looks fine (look at the 480p version)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0FoH4wo8mc

    I'll do some more tests, there might be other factors causing it to deinterlace it
    Quote Quote  
  24. 25fps re-encoded looks fine too....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiiy7A9QswA

    Might be an encoding or container issue signalling YT to deinterlace (different mp4 wrapper like mp42 vs isom)


    EDIT:

    Nope, even your original looks fine uploaded on my standard account
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkY3bGmETI8

    Maybe they don't like you ?
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    England
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Maybe they don't like you ?
    Well... I didn't give them my phone number. Maybe they're doing it to spite me
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Maybe they don't like you ?
    Well... I didn't give them my phone number. Maybe they're doing it to spite me
    I didn't enter my phone number either

    Maybe they are scared the "British are coming"

    When did you upload the file? Maybe they changed some processing that day? (they always make changes to stuff)

    Try uploading it again now ? Rename the file
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    England
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    When did you upload the file? Maybe they changed some processing that day? (they always make changes to stuff)

    Try uploading it again now ? Rename the file
    It's gets deleted immediately after upload as it's detected as a duplicate. Changing the filename doesn't work. I want to keep the original there as a reference, but I've uploaded a new test which works properly:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkJwpEOORag

    When did you upload the file? Maybe they changed some processing that day? (they always make changes to stuff)
    22nd Sept. Yeah, that sounds likely. I found a number of comments by others reporting the same issue over a number of months, so assumed it was widespread.

    No idea what date the bug first surfaced and if it affected all users though.
    Quote Quote  
  28. It's gets deleted immediately after upload as it's detected as a duplicate. Changing the filename doesn't work.
    That's new behaviour too I think . IIRC you used to be able to trick them by renaming


    Another finding (at least it's new to me; I don't use YT that much), is that 720p versions get allocated more audio bitrate than their SD counterparts. It used to be the same as far as I can recall. A 480p version might get ~128kbps but 720p gets ~150kbps . That's another good reason to upscale SD sources for YT IMO
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    Youtube allows me to upload videos longer than 15 min also and I never gave my cell number. My videos are clean and are all original content, so I assume that has something to do with it...............
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  30. Originally Posted by intracube View Post
    I've uploaded a new test which works properly
    Out of curiosity, what program do you use to create those test videos?
    Thanks.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

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