INDEX  F.A.Q.  SEARCH  LATEST POSTS     Rules  Register  Profile  Private messages  Login


Search all forums or this forum: Advanced search
YouTube offering higher quality video / Stage6 ends services!
Forum Index -> Video -> Video Streaming Printer-friendly version
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Reply to topic
Author Message
yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 01:53 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
I confirm that 640x480 Xvid AVI is also converted to HQ mode. I have 10 videos with this format and upload to YT.
all can append "&fmt=6" to force to play in HQ mode, here is the play list of these 10 videos,

http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=13F7442D4A7498C3

wonderpierrot
Member


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 03:48 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
yawoo wrote:
I confirm that 640x480 Xvid AVI is also converted to HQ mode. I have 10 videos with this format and upload to YT.
all can append "&fmt=6" to force to play in HQ mode, here is the play list of these 10 videos,

http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=13F7442D4A7498C3


"You do not own this playlist." hmm.gif

Are these uploads recent btw? Did you have to await awhile before they got converted?

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 03:54 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
oh! sorry, this is the correct link.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=13F7442D4A7498C3

wonderpierrot
Member


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 03:55 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Looks good. smile.gif How long did you have to wait to get the HQ version to appear?

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 04:01 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
I just checked them yesterday, and found that all have been converted to HQ.

Denizzje
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: Netherlands
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 08:38 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Well I uploaded a 640x480 XviD today on Youtube, and it did not get converted. Still only 4 of my 47 videos are converted. I wonder how long it will take for movies longer then 20-30 minutes to be converted.
_________________
Touchy sensitive dude biggrin.gif.

atropine
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: east angola
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 09:22 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
stsin wrote:

But I seriously doubt they'll convert to stereo. Simply for the copyright problems. Sure, there are a lot being broken now, but they are in mono. If they convert to HQ stereo, YT will be used as a music trading ground. Which will gather attention of the music industry, forcing a lot of headaches with both users and YT, and having to constantly suspend accounts.


Yes I agree. They will never go stereo. I figured it's why they've stayed at 320x240 22khz mono for so long also. Sure there's a lot of copyright infringement material out there that doesn't get pulled but that's probably only because it's such low quality.

If you want quality, you have to find your videos elsewhere or buy the video/music. I know of Artists who's entire album have been uploaded to youtube by their recording company. The logic must be , it's 22khz mono, so you're still going to buy the music. It is strange though that theyuse VBR audio for the LQ videos but CBR for HQ videos. Makes no sense.

bayme
hero


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Location: EU
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 09:41 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
atropine wrote:
Yes I agree. They will never go stereo. I figured it's why they've stayed at 320x240 22khz mono for so long also. Sure there's a lot of copyright infringement material out there that doesn't get pulled but that's probably only because it's such low quality.

If you want quality, you have to find your videos elsewhere or buy the video/music. I know of Artists who's entire album have been uploaded to youtube by their recording company. The logic must be , it's 22khz mono, so you're still going to buy the music. It is strange though that they use VBR audio for the LQ videos but CBR for HQ videos. Makes no sense.
Did they use VBR for the low ones? I never even noticed.
It's also strange they're using lame 3.97 beta code, while there's stable code for it. 3.98 is in beta now.

Regarding the stereo-issue;
If it was that big of a problem for Viacom/BayTSP, then dailymotion, vimeo, blip, stage6, none of those would offer stereo. Also, there are many YT users with almost all of their vids in stereo http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=SHAYMCN for example. Even the YouTube owned production crew channels are offering stereo FLV.

Denizzje
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: Netherlands
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 10:10 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
National Geographic also uses high bitrate stereo (I think they use 192kb/s or more). Atleast they have very good quality sound. So I really hope that Youtube will eventually upgrade to stereo. I don't see the problem why they wouldn't do that.

atropine
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: east angola
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 10:18 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Denizzje wrote:
National Geographic also uses high bitrate stereo (I think they use 192kb/s or more). .

So does BBC World, another youtube partner, or whatever special title they get. But it's material they own copyright to. But they're encoding the FLV's themselves just as we do. Youtube encoder doesn't do it for them, and I doubt the youtube encoder will ever encode to stereo.

And to reply to the message above. Yeah Youtube have always used variable bitrate for 320x240 videos. This is the output of an mp3 produced by the youtube encoder.

Bitrates:
----------------------------------------------------
32 0.1%
40 0.9%
48 |||||||||||| 13.2%
56 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 42.7%
64 |||||||||||||||||||||||| 25.9%
80 |||||| 7.1%
96 ||||||| 7.7%
112 | 1.6%
128 0.3%
144 0.2%
160 0.1%
----------------------------------------------------
Type : mpeg 2 layer III
Bitrate : 63
Mode : mono
Frequency : 22050 Hz
Frames : 3064
ID3v2 Size : 0
First Frame Pos : 0
Length : 00:01:20
Max. Reservoir : 52
Av. Reservoir : 15
Emphasis : none
Scalefac : 22.8%
Bad Last Frame : no
Encoder : FhG (fastenc)
Lame Header : No

Denizzje
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: Netherlands
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 10:41 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
And what is the output of an mp3 by the new encoder?
_________________
Touchy sensitive dude biggrin.gif.

atropine
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: east angola
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 11:04 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Denizzje wrote:
And what is the output of an mp3 by the new encoder?

Bitrates:
----------------------------------------------------
96 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 100.0%
----------------------------------------------------

Type : mpeg 1 layer III
Bitrate : 96
Mode : mono
Frequency : 44100 Hz
Frames : 7569
ID3v2 Size : 0
First Frame Pos : 0
Length : 00:03:17
Max. Reservoir : 511
Av. Reservoir : 503
Emphasis : none
Scalefac : 88.7%
Bad Last Frame : no
Encoder : Gogo (after 3.0)
Lame Header : No

reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 15:36 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
also UMG uses Stereo...which is why i guess the video is usually BAD quality

bayme
hero


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Location: EU
Post Posted: Feb 18, 2008 16:44 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
reez wrote:
also UMG uses Stereo...which is why i guess the video is usually BAD quality

See, I think that's a big misunderstanding. If you use Lame VBR joint stereo for video, you barely lose any extra bits on audio at all. For much of the mono voice recorded videologs for example you'll end up with ~48 kbit/s audiostreams, and they'll sound just as good as, if not better than, the older 22 kHz ~64 kbit FhG vbr. And if they go with 96 kbit/s CBR, they might as well use vbr=2:q=7:aq=0:mode=1 with lame.

Quote:
Encoder : Gogo (after 3.0)
Lame Header : No

Another new one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ftGXgg2e7w&fmt=6
has the "LAME3.97 (beta)" tag in it, and MediaInfo says it's encoded by it.. So I don't think YouTube is using a Gogo codec.

atropine
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: east angola
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 02:44 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
bayme wrote:

Quote:
Encoder : Gogo (after 3.0)
Lame Header : No

Another new one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ftGXgg2e7w&fmt=6
has the "LAME3.97 (beta)" tag in it, and MediaInfo says it's encoded by it.. So I don't think YouTube is using a Gogo codec.


Yeah you are likely right, This mp3 reader is old software and it says it guesses the encoder, it doesn't know 100%, but when I do a text copy of it, the 'guess' part doesn't copy over. This is why it decided to guess at gogo.


if (data.scfsi) //scfsi used
{
if (data.scalefac > 0)
return guess = _T("Gogo (after 3.0)"); //could be new Lame... but then there should be a label. So likely GOGO.
else
return guess = _T("Lame (old) or m3e");

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 10:26 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Just report from my friend that 512x384 XviD AVI can also be upgraded to HQ by youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOsGGFD5FGU&fmt=6

gus999
Member


Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 16:40 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Ok folks, my latest, all my recent uploads now displaying full screen and much better quality. (sorry as yet all set to private as theyre unedited tests) I dont do HD or sterio sound so i wont elaberate on those areas, nevertheless they are a vast improvment on the initial uploads.
For those of you interested, and to all of those who want to keep it simple (as i am one of those who doesnt understand the tech guys methods and i don't have an .flv renderer, well, i do actually, but i am still doing my best to undersand and learn to use Sony Vegas 8 Pro so lets not go there, here are my settings for rendering to .wmv)

video recorded using solid state equipment, (shakes a bit in the helicopter)
Sandisk v mate memory card recorder with a 2GB Extreme 3 SD card (will hold 4 hours at these settings)
v mate set to record in PAL (me in uk) @ 640x480 25FPS high quality
pal 320 TV line bullet camera (wide angle lens)
project saved on pc via card reader (they are .mp4 files) but i'm assuming any source will do...
project created in Sony vegas 8 pro for editing
rendered as .wmv files
640x480 @ 30 FPS using vegas's 3M download template that is then changed to 1M (thats the vid bit rate)
giving sound @ 96 bitrate 44100 sterio (please note not sure if it results in sterio as i've shorted it out to mono)
100 sharpest (video quality render)
1 minute file size before upload = 7.64 MB
uploaded normally to you tube, initially low quality....
Waited 24 hours and... BINGO!...

ALL PLAYING AT HIGHER QUALITY. and FULL VIEWING PANE

I'm not technically minded so please, no picking at my lingo or weird british way of speaking! wink.gif

reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 18:06 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
yahar i SEE the accent..so far none of my .mov/avi files(uploaded today) are HQ

SpongeFreak52
Member


Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 19:51 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Well, at least we have proof that the null frame trick still works. ^_^

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bb0sOqEdcI

LOL, video games.... rolleyes.gif

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 19:57 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
Well, at least we have proof that the null frame trick still works. ^_^

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bb0sOqEdcI

LOL, video games.... rolleyes.gif


What is null frame trick? Am I missing some trick? confused.gif

SpongeFreak52
Member


Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 20:26 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
It's where you pad 3/4 of the video with empty frames in order to distribute the bitrate to the actual video.

atropine
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: east angola
Post Posted: Feb 19, 2008 23:01 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
It's where you pad 3/4 of the video with empty frames in order to distribute the bitrate to the actual video.


How do you do that?

I used sorenson squeeze with 2 pass variable bitrate to make my flv, I had content in the first part and black screen and no sound in the 2nd half. I only raised the bitrate to 450kbit, but youtube still re-encoded. Total video length was 6mins (3mins content/3mins black)

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 20, 2008 02:27 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
It's where you pad 3/4 of the video with empty frames in order to distribute the bitrate to the actual video.


I see! This is really great trick! Appending blank video to lower the overall bitrate (<350kbps).
What bitrate you suggest to encode for good quality 480x360 FLV from your experience?

wonderpierrot
Member


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 20, 2008 03:12 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
yawoo wrote:
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
It's where you pad 3/4 of the video with empty frames in order to distribute the bitrate to the actual video.


I see! This is really great trick! Appending blank video to lower the overall bitrate (<350kbps).
What bitrate you suggest to encode for good quality 480x360 FLV from your experience?


The up in quality and resolution is nice, but I don't think the viewers would appreciate it much using this method. I just don't like the fact that the viewer has to sit through blackness twice as much as the actual video and ponder to themselves "Has the video ended? Is there something else? What gives?". At least with the duration hack the video ended at the appropriate time.

Unless you really desire high quality atm, I'd say wait until YT upgrades your vids to HQ.

gus999 wrote:
Ok folks, my latest, all my recent uploads now displaying full screen and much better quality. (sorry as yet all set to private as theyre unedited tests) I dont do HD or sterio sound so i wont elaberate on those areas, nevertheless they are a vast improvment on the initial uploads.
For those of you interested, and to all of those who want to keep it simple (as i am one of those who doesnt understand the tech guys methods and i don't have an .flv renderer, well, i do actually, but i am still doing my best to undersand and learn to use Sony Vegas 8 Pro so lets not go there, here are my settings for rendering to .wmv)

video recorded using solid state equipment, (shakes a bit in the helicopter)
Sandisk v mate memory card recorder with a 2GB Extreme 3 SD card (will hold 4 hours at these settings)
v mate set to record in PAL (me in uk) @ 640x480 25FPS high quality
pal 320 TV line bullet camera (wide angle lens)
project saved on pc via card reader (they are .mp4 files) but i'm assuming any source will do...
project created in Sony vegas 8 pro for editing
rendered as .wmv files
640x480 @ 30 FPS using vegas's 3M download template that is then changed to 1M (thats the vid bit rate)
giving sound @ 96 bitrate 44100 sterio (please note not sure if it results in sterio as i've shorted it out to mono)
100 sharpest (video quality render)
1 minute file size before upload = 7.64 MB
uploaded normally to you tube, initially low quality....
Waited 24 hours and... BINGO!...

ALL PLAYING AT HIGHER QUALITY. and FULL VIEWING PANE

I'm not technically minded so please, no picking at my lingo or weird british way of speaking! wink.gif


Tried outputting a test video with the exact format and settings listed as you but YouTube just doesn't care if the video received a high quality version or not.

My guess is that they're re-encoding videos randomly or in some order atm, either by video format or by channel.

reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 20, 2008 06:06 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
hey i just thought i'd let you know
http://youtubestatus.blogspot.com/2008/02/s.html

Denizzje
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: Netherlands
Post Posted: Feb 20, 2008 09:15 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Still no more movies of me have been switched to HQ sad.gif. That maintenance of above has already been done right?