What's my best option for encoding H264? (Adobe Media Encoder is lacking.)

[Asterra]

Topic. I tried Adobe Media Encoder and I am just not liking the results I'm getting, even when I specify Bluray-like bitrates. This isn't the first time I've had to deal with AME's poor encodes. A home video project I developed a few years ago also unfortunately had to filter through AME and the results were disappointing to say the least.

I know H264 can look better than this. If I could somehow upload a raw 60GB video to YouTube, YouTube would give me a better result than AME. So there has to be something I can do on my own pc that will net me the perfect result. Avisynth? Something?

If it matters, the video is 1080p @ 59.94fps (not interlaced). I intend to keep the framerate and let YouTube cut it down to 30fps for now. But what I don't intend to do is give YouTube a video that looks like it's already been encoded two or three times.

[jagabo]

x264 is about as good as it gets.

[lowellriggsiam]

It's funny you should mention Adobe Media Encoder having less than desirable results, in some instances. In one file I got far better results encoding the same file using Nero Xtra.

[budwzr]

So you've got a 1080p60 video in hand? Or you haven't rendered it yet? What does "raw" mean?

[Asterra]

Raw means it's sitting in Premiere Pro in various chunks, all captured via HDMI and ultimately converted to YUY2 (or sometimes RGB). None of it is already compressed, though.

[budwzr]

Raw means it's sitting in Premiere Pro in various chunks, all captured via HDMI and ultimately converted to YUY2 (or sometimes RGB). None of it is already compressed, though.

Well, I have to assume that the Adobe H.264 is Main Concept, because Adobe doesn't make codecs. That one isn't too good.

Have you tried the Quicktime H.264 encoder? In any case, X264 is available via ffmpeg or ffdshow.

The secret to a good encode is getting your media into proper condition first, and thereby eliminating any guesswork by the encoder. If you have mixed media, render oddball clips separately.

It may not be the encoder's fault. You might have a toxic brew on the timeline.

[poisondeathray]

I intend to keep the framerate and let YouTube cut it down to 30fps for now.

Why? Just a waste of time and bandwidth

[edDV]

It would help to better describe the 1080p60 acquired by HDMI. Was this film rate with repeat frames? Deinterlace?

Was the project set to 1080p60 or other?

As usual quality in affects quality out.

[turk690]

From

[budwzr]

Another option might be a switch to http://youtu.be/vadtBlWCHHw

[Asterra]

I intend to keep the framerate and let YouTube cut it down to 30fps for now.

Why? Just a waste of time and bandwidth

Once upon a time, YouTube's specs were very low and they didn't even allow stereo audio (unless you cheated). Now the specs are higher, and old videos that were uploaded with stereo audio can now be heard in stereo. Eventually the same will be true for videos that exceeded 30fps. Also, 60fps is the native framerate of the footage I captured and the visuals are severely compromised when the framerate is halved.

[Asterra]

It would help to better describe the 1080p60 acquired by HDMI. Was this film rate with repeat frames? Deinterlace?
Was the project set to 1080p60 or other?

It's a 1920x1080 59.94fps progressive project. The footage has been deinterlaced but the deinterlace job is pretty much as good as it gets in software (QTGMC at "Very Slow", which is very slow). Since the footage was originally as digitally perfect as video game footage gets, the deinterlaced version is just shy of identical to true 1080p.

[poisondeathray]

I intend to keep the framerate and let YouTube cut it down to 30fps for now.

Why? Just a waste of time and bandwidth

Once upon a time, YouTube's specs were very low and they didn't even allow stereo audio (unless you cheated). Now the specs are higher, and old videos that were uploaded with stereo audio can now be heard in stereo. Eventually the same will be true for videos that exceeded 30fps. Also, 60fps is the native framerate of the footage I captured and the visuals are severely compromised when the framerate is halved.

Is this still the same xbox project?

So why don't you upload it when that time comes?

By then, who knows, maybe youtube will support YUY2 and better formats. By uploading it now as a YV12 1080p60 you are wasting bitrate and time - it's going to be cut down anyways, low bitrate 1080p30

There might be better compression, better processing , better deinterlacing methods than what you have now when that time comes. You would have to reprocess and upload a better version anyway


If it's that important, why don't you host it yourself? 1080p60 isn't very streaming friendly, but at least you can specify what bitrates to use, and the original file can be hosted . (For your content, 720p60 would probably look fine, it's not that high detail to begin with)

[Asterra]

By then, who knows, maybe youtube will support YUY2 and better formats. By uploading it now as a YV12 1080p60 you are wasting bitrate and time - it's going to be cut down anyways, low bitrate 1080p30

This is true. And so it will when YouTube upgrades to 60fps, because the final file is almost 1GB. Fortunately, this is far from the maximum YouTube permits. Since they are going to re-encode the video no matter what state it's in, I'm going to push the limits, and ensure it's future-proof while I'm at it.

There might be better compression, better processing , better deinterlacing methods than what you have now when that time comes. You would have to reprocess and upload a better version anyway

Since YouTube does not allow one to replace old videos with better versions, the only option - as they themselves say - is to make sure one gets it right the first time.

If it's that important, why don't you host it yourself? 1080p60 isn't very streaming friendly, but at least you can specify what bitrates to use, and the original file can be hosted .

The simple answer is that I want the video to be part of YouTube's "cloud", and not simply a curiosity for a handful of people I personally know.

(For your content, 720p60 would probably look fine, it's not that high detail to begin with)

As a matter of fact, this particular game takes full advantage of 1080p60, and I have always had an aversion to needless sacrifice of preexisting quality. (If it looks like upscaled 720p, that may be because the style of the graphics avoids sharp transitions between colors.)

[edDV]

It would help to better describe the 1080p60 acquired by HDMI. Was this film rate with repeat frames? Deinterlace?
Was the project set to 1080p60 or other?

It's a 1920x1080 59.94fps progressive project. The footage has been deinterlaced but the deinterlace job is pretty much as good as it gets in software (QTGMC at "Very Slow", which is very slow). Since the footage was originally as digitally perfect as video game footage gets, the deinterlaced version is just shy of identical to true 1080p.

My best guess is a deinterlace to 1080p30 would get best results with YouTube.