Ok, I'm officially pissed off.......

[sdsumike619]

If this freak of nature:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4443109380402709434
can get that good of quality onto Google Video, why is all my stuff coming out like crap? I have video shot from a 3CCD tripod mounted camera, with the ability to export to just about anything from Vegas 7 timeline. And all my tests I've uploaded are looking like crud. Can someone tell me something that Mr. Pregnant knows that I don't?

[lordsmurf]

Because Google Video is like Youtube, very random.

[sdsumike619]

Actually, I learned how to get great video on youtube via some posts on this forum.. But google, no luck.. It's because google doesn't accept FLV, whereas with Youtube you can bypass the re-encode if you upload the right type of FLV...

[thecoalman]

Frankly these sites not giving the specs that are required to not reencode video has got to be the lamest thing I have ever heard. Imagine the CPU they go through in a day. They must have a small nuclear plant at youtube HQ.

[45tripp]

what makes you think that's a good video?
nothing impressive there.

these are wide,
which i would like to be able to do,
but I don't know how.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1221999537509644287

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1668253744017280176

the best i managed was uploading 1080p mpeg2,
which spiked converted flv bitrate a very little bit.
no luck with getting a wide resolution though.

gl

[aedipuss]

thank god i had the audio off clicking on that link to the freak.

have you tried uploading what they want? mp4 750kbps video with mp3 128kbps vbr audio.

Here are our preferred video specs:
NTSC (4:3) size and framerate, deinterlaced
Video Codec: MPEG2 or MPEG4 (MPEG4 preferred)
Video Bitrate: at least 260Kbps (750kbps preferred)
Audio Codec: MP3 vbr
Audio Bitrate: at least 70Kbps (128 Kbps preferred)

[sdsumike619]

I tried small tests in various formats and none of them looked all that great. I tried MP4 at 2000kbps video bitrate and google still turns it to crapola... yeah the black dude is pretty annoying. I talked to him finally and he claims he used a cheap $200 camera and windows movie maker encoded to a wmv file, go figure...

[Soopafresh]

I have heard that WMV files seem to convert with less visible artifacts. There's even a Youtube video about it.

[sdsumike619]

The only thing that worked for me as far as getting good video on Youtube was 45tripp's guide about using the hex editor to change the duration so that the reported bitrate is below youtube's spec of 350kbps. If your video is fairly short, you can encode at a much higher bitrate and "sneak" it through.. But since Google doesn't allow FLV uploads, no matter what you send to them will get re-encoded.

[vhelp]

Hi sdsumike619,

Maybe you should consider the prospects of Filtering. How you filter
your video will reflect your vidoe's quality and consiquentially, youtubes
performance, in terms of quality, etc.

The way I see it, you have two choices.

A) you can use the flv encoder's built-in filtering options, or
B) consider AVIsynth or Virtualdub (or a combo of both) for filtering

Each one has their advantages. I myself actually use both while sizing
up for a youtube video upload project.

I've gone the ffmpeg and its flv container, vp6, and back to ffmpeg
again, but this time with some changes in the process. I heard you
can also use mencoder. I haven't yet tried it. But something tells
me that the results will be the same as if using ffmpeg.

But for right now, I'm using ffmpeg; 2-pass encoding; and built-in
filters. In addition, I'm also using virtualdub and avisynth filter
methods, and both are obserd and slow. But this is my only sure way
of obtaining better quality youtube videos in the long run, and I
have many that i've uploaded using this (above) outlined method.

My source is based on cabletv and vhs (fresh) EP recordings I make on
a regular basis. Though Cabletv vs. Satellite/Digital video sources
are two different beasts. Both have their advantages and disadv. And
each have to utilize a unique filter setup for processing. You might
be cought up on this aspect area of flv video comparing.

But perhaps you are applying a filter process that was not designed or
intended for your type of video. I don't know. I'm just guessing here now.

-vhelp 1416

[MysticE]

I tried small tests in various formats and none of them looked all that great. I tried MP4 at 2000kbps video bitrate and google still turns it to crapola... yeah the black dude is pretty annoying. I talked to him finally and he claims he used a cheap $200 camera and windows movie maker encoded to a wmv file, go figure...

have you tried uploading what they want? mp4 750kbps video with mp3 128kbps vbr audio.

Seems worth a shot.


His YouTube stuff looks better,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im7IorDZ9uY&eurl=http://www.mrpregnant.com/

[zoobie]

mr pregnant has 203 videos that all look the same?
that's scarey...
at least he's off the street