Do you see any diff betw default in HD and full HD on YouTube?

[brassplyer]

I've noticed that when a video is posted in HD, I don't see any difference between the default non-HD video that comes up compared to actually selecting HD even though the file is much larger. I'm watching on a CRT monitor, maybe that has something to do with it?

[Baldrick]

Can you post some examples that you don't see any difference?

I see difference in some and not in some...probably because of crappy video source(upresize).

[themaster1]

[QUOTE=brassplyer;1948432 I'm watching on a CRT monitor, maybe that has something to do with it?[/QUOTE]
You think so? Good guess Sherlock, buy a full hd monitor like i did and we'll take again about the "i see no difference between SD & HD on a full hd monitor"...

[guns1inger]

There is a huge variation in quality across youtube regardless of resolution. Even two clips at the same level (say, 480p, for example) can look radically different, with one be crystal clear, and one being a blurry mess of over compressed artifacts. This can be because of the source, or when the clip was uploaded to youtube. The compression applied by youtube now is a lot less damaging than it was even 6 months ago. For HD material you still have source differences. A lot of people ask here how to upscale their SD material (or even lower resolution) to 720p so they can get the HD tag on youtube. However just because the file has the right resolution doesn't mean it will look like HD. Even source shot on a 1080 camera, but badly resized and compressed for 720p will look horrible. Any one can post at youtube, and therefore a lot of the material will be at the lower end of the quality spectrum and not necessary representative of the quality capabilities of the platform.

[brassplyer]

Gee I dunno Sherlock, learn how to spell and how to use quote tags and we'll "take" again.

[guns1inger]

There is a recent post in one of the other forums here that is a perfect example of why some HD is no better that the SD files on youtube. That user is using a second rate encoder (xilisoft) to upscale standard definition material to (almost - hopefully they made a typo or they know less than they seem to) 720p resolution for youtube. Upscaling just to get 720p status is a wank unless you upscale and process the video properly. Otherwise you just get low quality, fuzzy video taking up more space on the screen.

[manono]

Yeah, I thought the comment was a little harsh also since, as guns1inger says, a lot of so-called Hi-Def material on YouTube is just upscaled from Standard-Def. Or encoded by idiots that don't know the first thing about encoding.

But maybe it is time for a new monitor, brassplyer

[brassplyer]

Yeah, I thought the comment was a little harsh also since, as guns1inger says, a lot of so-called Hi-Def material on YouTube is just upscaled from Standard-Def. Or encoded by idiots that don't know the first thing about encoding.

But maybe it is time for a new monitor, brassplyer

Civil responses with useful info are always appreciated. Pointlessly dickheaded responses are....pointless. For some reason asshats with personality disorders seem to lurk in tech-geek forums.

One of these days I'll probably go for an HD monitor, no really pressing need at the moment. The CRT monitor is more than good enough to see the difference between higher res and lower res.

[dLee]

I recently had to undertake a YouTube project. I don't use it much because my internet connection is ISDN, the latest in 1995 technology.

I shot with my Canon HV30, transferred to Vegas 8 and edited it down to about 6 min. - which resulted in an 894MB m2t file.

After reading the threads about YouTube here and elsewhere, it seemed that there wasn't a consensus on what settings would guarantee high quality. So I decided to upload exactly what YouTube asks for.

I made my own h264/ mp4 preset, and the MainConcept encoder in Vegas rendered me an 182MB mp4 file.

Both versions are full of HD goodness when played on my LCD computer monitor and on my Sony 40 LCD TV via my WDTV media player. The m2t file looks better, but the mp4 is quite good.

I took the files down to the Festival office (they have DSL) and uploaded them. When the uploading was complete, I watched the film. It was fairly close to the original mp4. At the time YouTube, was telling me it was still encoding the file.

I came back later to watch it again and the "still encoding" message was gone. The video had degraded into the typical muddy, aliased mess that I associate with YouTube.

So, my conclusion is that it's probably the YouTube encode, although some people have said that it's some of the best quality video they've seen and others have said it's normal for YouTube.

[edDV]

What is the resolution of this CRT monitor? What display card settings? Its not difficult to find the display card-CRT monitor's limits by playing known good high def files with a good player like VLC.