HDV video to U tube or Vimeo? Suggestions please

[Canon GL-2 Guy]

I'm considering putting my first HDV video on You Tube.

Thus far, I've signed up toupload a movie greater than 15 minutes and understand the file limit is now 20gigs which is great.

My questions are these:

I'm told that it doesn't matterwhat you upload, it will then be subject to another encoding to meet You Tubesrequirements with accompanying quality loss.

I read that interlaced video onthe web is a non starter. I have HDV cams but currently shoot in 30F so will Ibe fine in
that regard? Any difference between 30F and 30p?

Will footage shot on an HDV "1080i" camcorder shot in 30F work?

Is there a recommended formatto submit a clip to them such as .mp4 which will minimize the hit to visualquality?

Is it possible to uploadfootage that will still look as good as possible after U Tube butchers &degrades it?

What prep work or procedureshould be done if any?

2) Also, how does one get yourown channel/dedicated page so I can direct others to it?

3) Is there any correlationbetween length of video submitted and quality as actually seen on U Tube?

4) How does VIMEO stack upcomparatively speaking? Better, the same or worse?

Pros and cons of each?

Testing the waters!

Thanks.

[NJRoadfan]

As of late, YouTube has been automatically de-interlacing the HDV 60i video I have shot with my Canon HV20. Most of the videos are straight uploads of the m2t files off of the tape. I can't say its the greatest deinterlace job, it looks to be a simply blend algorithm. If you plan on re-compressing your footage prior to upload, de-interlace it first with something like yadif. I don't have any experience with Vimeo, but Youtube's compression can be pretty harsh on most footage. The length of the video doesn't effect quality.

[poisondeathray]

Vimeo's 1080p is better than Youtube's 1080p, but you need the pro account to get that option (free for youtube)

Canon's 30F mode is "29.97p in 59.94i" . I wouldn't trust youtube to process it correctly if you upload it as is - it will probably "accidentally" deinterlace it

30p or 30pN (pN for native progressive) is a progressive scan. HDV cameras don't have this, but the "30F" mode is still progressive content, interlaced scan

[aedipuss]

HDV 30p needs to be de-interlaced. because the 30p is recorded in 2 separate fields(60i) and needs to be put back together into 1 progressive frame. blend would be good if that's what youtube uses.

[poisondeathray]

HDV 30p needs to be de-interlaced. because the 30p is recorded in 2 separate fields(60i) and needs to be put back together into 1 progressive frame. blend would be good if that's what youtube uses.

Actually you don't want to deinterlace, since it's progressive content. You just want to weave the fields, to retain the full resolution. Deinterlacing it will degrade the image, reducing the resolution (almost in half). ie. you want to treat it as 29.97p

The problem lies when software or youtube interprets it as interlaced (because it was encoded interlaced, and has interlaced flags), and inadverntently applies a deinterlace

[aedipuss]

yeh, it's hard to describe for most HDV users. it needs fields joined which is "de-interlace", but off(weave) but as a 60i stream most software is going to do something else to it. blend would end up at least as full res.

[poisondeathray]

yeh, it's hard to describe for most HDV users. it needs fields joined which is "de-interlace", but off(weave) but as a 60i stream most software is going to do something else to it. blend would end up at least as full res.

Blend would make it blurry. The common practice is interpret the footage as 29.97p in the editor (progressive, no fields) , and export a 29.97p video . When you export it progressive, it's encoded progressive, and there are no longer "interlaced flags" for youtube or any other software to guess incorrectly

[aedipuss]

right but he's talking about upping raw HDV files and what youtube will do to them. i always encode to 1920x1080p30 mp4 at about 10mbps for youtube from HDV 30p.

[poisondeathray]

right but he's talking about upping raw HDV files and what youtube will do to them. i always encode to 1920x1080p30 mp4 at about 10mbps for youtube from HDV 30p.

That's why I suggested he NOT upload it "as is".

"30p" consumer AVCHD is treated in the same way by youtube, it gets deinterlaced, blurry 1/2 resolution . I suspect it will treat 30F HDV the same way (if you open in mediainfo it will say "interlaced", even though it's progressive content ) . Re-encoding , uploading as progressive MP4 (progressive content, progressive encoded) is a way around that problem

[Canon GL-2 Guy]

Gents,

Interesting discussion.

I'm trying to boil down the tech speak which just occured.

1a) So, I first need to convert/re-encode to mp4 to 1920 by 1080 30p (progressive). Aedipuss & Poisondeathray thanks for that suggestion.

If i execute a straight conversion/export from a Prem Pro HDV timeline, what effect or differences (if any) will occur from going from interlaced to progressive visually? Will the picture look softer? What workflow or series of steps do you take or is there an intermediatory step?

1b)What visual changes if any will there be from going from HDV 1440 by 1080 to 1920 x 1080?

Look the same? In some scenarios such as this one, does a higher# have any advantages? Any loss of detail, or sharpness?

Does it in essence just blow up the footage to fit that frame size?


2) As an aside, while on the topic of re-encoding, I've always wondered what's the difference between plain H.264 and H.264 for blu ray which Premiere Pro includes for options.

What are the pros and cons of each variant?

My main purpose is to archive master finished programs in a variety of formats.

I use MPEG-2 100 Mbps I-frame amongst others as Lagarith takes too much HD space.

I thought H.264/Mp4 would be a attractive solution which whould preserve quality and whose file size would be reasonable.

Which is best suited in my case in your view?

Thanks

[poisondeathray]

If i execute a straight conversion/export from a Prem Pro HDV timeline, what effect or differences (if any) will occur from going from interlaced to progressive visually? Will the picture look softer? What workflow or series of steps do you take or is there an intermediatory step?

I think premiere handles it correctly as progressive (at least some versions do) (you shot in 30F mode, so it should be progressive) . If it doesn't , right click the clip and interpret the footage as progressive (no fields)

If you deinterlace, it will be softer, loss of resolution, and generate deinterlacing artifacts. These steps are to prevent deinterlacing

When the footage is interpreted as progressive, the sequence is progressive, export is progressive, premiere doesn't deinterlace , When one of those doesn't match up, premiere will apply deinterlace and degrades the footage .

1b)What visual changes if any will there be from going from HDV 1440 by 1080 to 1920 x 1080?

Look the same? In some scenarios such as this one, does a higher# have any advantages? Any loss of detail, or sharpness?

Does it in essence just blow up the footage to fit that frame size?

Yes, it just "stretches" it back to square pixel format for youtube.

When you play back the original file, whatever software or hardware is doing the same thing (stretches it out) . Whatever scaling algorithm is used can affect the quality to a small extent

2) As an aside, while on the topic of re-encoding, I've always wondered what's the difference between plain H.264 and H.264 for blu ray which Premiere Pro includes for options.

What are the pros and cons of each variant?

Premiere doesn't allow you control or have many options for advanced encoding settings. The basic difference is blu-ray is there to ensure compatibility for authoring and standalone playback. In theory, blu-ray imposes some limitations upon encoding (to ensure compatibility), so the upper limit of quality is lower . Premiere/AME doesn't allow you access to many settings, so there might not be a huge difference

My main purpose is to archive master finished programs in a variety of formats.

I use MPEG-2 100 Mbps I-frame amongst others as Lagarith takes too much HD space.

I thought H.264/Mp4 would be a attractive solution which whould preserve quality and whose file size would be reasonable.

Which is best suited in my case in your view?

Personally , neither for archive master in my view. IMO, "archive master" should be higher quality . At minimum , something like Cineform 4:2:2 , or DNxHD

Be careful when you say "h.264" - h.264 is a very diverse spec, you can use 10bit 4:4:4 , and the spec goes up to 14bit even. But probably mean the commonly used 8bit 4:2:0 variety

It's up to you to decide where you are willing to make tradeoffs