brassplyer
Member
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Location: United States
|
|
I've been experimenting with making better quality files on YouTube using the trick of adding a low bitrate black tail on the video, but I seem to be hitting a ceiling as to how good I can make the vids look, even doing that and getting the average bitrate butted up right against the max to get under the re-encode wire.
The ones I've been making look decent but I see some of these HQ movie trailers like the stuff that YTGarbage puts up that are really *POW* - crystal clear, high resolution. He's been uploading Indiana Jones trailers he's apparently getting off the Indiana Jones website out of his temporary internet files folder.
Looking at the specs of one of the videos downloaded off the Indiana Jones site I find - 812kbps (701 vid, 96 audio), 24fps. Healthy bitrate but not ultra high. Yet at Youtube size, these trailers look incredible, they're decent and watchable even at full screen.
I assume part of it is just the fact that they're using a very high quality source file to begin with - i.e. professional grade digital, but wonder if there's more to it than that.
What do you think they're making the original .flv files with? I notice that even at full screen I don't see the obvious "blockiness" - the network of little squares that I see with those I've made with WinFF which apparently uses ffmpeg. On the ones I make, they're very obvious even at over 1000 kbps video, made in 2-pass mode. Is there some command line setting I can adjust or are they using some industrial strength encoder that just has better capabilities?
Is there a certain file type that translates to .flv better? The ones I've been making have all been mpeg off a DVD converted to DV, then making the .flv off the DV.
I'm wondering if there are certain file types that translate to .flv better than others.
|
|
