YouTube Challenged

[jfharper]

I've searched and read and tested and am YouTube challeged...once again.

I have a client who wishes to have their 4 minute video (source 720x480 targa sequence setup in Premiere for whatever export) displayed on YouTube. Last year, for a different client I simply resized using vdub the same source to 480x360 and encoded to h.263 flv using Sorenson Squeeze and used Hexcellent to change the duration to avoid YouTube reencode, which worked great. The quality doesn't have to be great, just adequate. Which brings me to my current project which has yet to yield adequate results.

So for my current project I've tried using Avidemux to proportionally resize the source (avi uncompressed) to 540x360, adding black areas to 640x360 to match YouTube screen size and encoding at 4000 kbsp, to h.264, and to Xvid4, with mp3 (Lame) audio at 128 kbps, using mp4 container. These resulted in YouTube re-encoding and less than adequate results.

Adequate results, to me, is compared with an encode of the same source 720x480 resized to 360x240 and encoded with Squeeze at 250 Kbps, h.263 flv, and mp3 48 Kbps, Sample size 16, Sample rate 44100, Mono audio since it is only narration with some background music. This gave adequate quality. The quality looks good enough for web delivery, file size and data rate is small and delivers well with only minor pixelation during fast motion sequences which is a little noticable but acceptable without distraction.

Can someone please offer me just a bit of direction, as I keep running into roadblocks. Should I be using a different tool or codec to encode, or a different resize? I haven't found a description on how to use the &fmt=22, 18, or whatever number setting, and am a little uncertain about conveying this to my client if they are the ones who need to add this setting via their account...which I don't even know how to use. I'd like to simply deliver a format that the client could upload via their account, giving adequate results as compared to my own encode using Squeeze. Any advice would be very much appreciated...TIA.

BTW, using uncompressed source to upload straight to YT, thereby having YT encode is a little difficult since 4 minutes of video would result in a 7GB uncompressed avi file...even going with a higher quality codec would still require an upload that would take forever and would be difficult to convey to the client...unless that is the only alternative. I was hoping for a file size around 20-50MB ideal, but I could go up to 150 MB if need be, but I thought the whole point of using mp4 was to help with the file size while maintaining good quality, but if YT re-encodes to crap then what is the point. Thanks again for any help anyone could offer.

[aedipuss]

the tube has gone weird lately. they are competing on the HD front now and videos uploaded to them are getting converted to multiple end size videos. the videos will have either a watch in HQ or HD link depending on what you upload as the source. rather than downsizing a 720x480 source, now you are probably better off upsizing it to 1280×720p and aac stereo 44.1KHz or above. the upload file size limit is now 1gb so make your bitrate accordingly. videos with smaller than 720p but above around 480 usually get the HQ link not the HD link. 480 and below just a normal flv.

[jfharper]

Thanks for your relpy...OK, so I tried upscaling to 1280x720 to dv avi and the upscale cause horrible results even before any YT uploading/enocoding or intermediate encoding. I think I may be stuck with the normal flv...because I did try during my initial testing uploading a 720x480 source and that got YT re-encoded to 540x360 with horrible results.

So, I'm still stuck...thanks for your help though, but can anyone else offer any other direction I might try?

[aedipuss]

i just made an mp4 with aac audio at 1280x720p from a DVavi source and it looks pretty good. i used a bitrate of 2.5mbps with 44.1 256kbps aac audio for a 90% reduction in file size. it's uploading to yt right now and i will let you know how it looks when it's done "processing" on youtube.

[zoobie]

there 's a whole populace that just lives on youtoob...just like ebay....weird :P

[aedipuss]

hey zoobie, it's like watching the tv show "cops" some love it and others can't be bothered. and some, like me, can't stand the "bad boys" theme song.

jfharper - update, the 720p i upped took 3 hours to process, 'n so far only a normal flv on yt. i will up a higher bitrate mp4 shortly and see it that's the problem.

[jfharper]

Super big thanks aedipuss...I really appreciate you time.,,btw, what are you using to make your mp4...if you don't mind me asking.

[aedipuss]

jfharper - 2nd update. the higher bitrate mp4 is a success. it gets the watch in HD link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_j66xY8mY&fmt=22

it look like the 720p has to have a bitrate closer to 5mbps than the 2.5mbps i used on the first one. the actual settings i used were 1280x720p 29.97fps best/main profile/ 2 pass vbr 5mbps ave, 10mbps peak, 256kbps aac 44.1htz.

the reduction in file size was from the 175mb source DVavi to the 30mb mp4. the video quality of the HD yt vid is not bad at all. much much better than the usual crappy flv youtube video.

here are the mediainfo specs of the downloaded yt vid.

[jfharper]

Just a question, what screen size was your source DVavi...was it 720x480? Thanks again.

[gamerscircle]

Wow "aedipuss" that great quality -

Obviously the source is camera, but would you process work for other sources too? Would you mind sharing the process?

thanks,
Andy

[aedipuss]

the source was DVavi 720x480 from a cam. loaded it into vegas pro 8 and used it's mainconcept h264 encoder. set it to custom. "best". 1280x720 progressive 29.97fps. the bit rate was set to 2 pass variable 5-10mbps. the audio to aac 44.1khz 256kbps. it was quick and easy. uploaded to yt and it was quickly ready for viewing.

[jfharper]

is mainconcept's h264 encoder a pro codec that requires a big cost to obtain? I remember buying Sorenson's video 3 pro codec for $500 when it was first available...and it was and still is a great codec...I bought it for a job I needed it for, which the client covered the cost for, so I justified the expense...thanks.

[zoobie]

adeipuss, curious why you didn't keep it 720x480...whats to gain from making the frame larger then having youtube making it smaller?

when searching youtube for your video (as most would find something), it showed as standard youtube quality...horrible...with the "HD" option in the lower right

I'll bet almost 25% of surfers have high-speed by now
with this in mind, wouldn't it still be best to get youtube's SD as good as possible?

wow...someone actually used a tripod...(faints)

[aedipuss]

zoobie - the object of the test was to get standard def 720x480 an HD link and the better visuals without it being HD 1920x1080 to start with. to me the HD yt vid is watchable, even with the fast action there isn't a lot of blurring or macroblocking. even upping the source DVavi will only get you an SD youtube vid, no HD or HQ. so upscaling it is the only option to force yt to make the HD vid available.

imo the SD stuff on youtube is the visual equivalent of a joint-stereo 192kbps mp3. not worth listening to. i don't have any vids on yt anyway other than the tests i run. if i have something for others to view i put it up on my own website.

is there any other way than a tripod? my cams are practically superglued to them

[zoobie]

oic...it worked

[aedipuss]

is mainconcept's h264 encoder a pro codec that requires a big cost to obtain? I remember buying Sorenson's video 3 pro codec for $500 when it was first available...and it was and still is a great codec...I bought it for a job I needed it for, which the client covered the cost for, so I justified the expense...thanks.

the mc h264 encoder i used comes with vegas pro v8. along with the mc mpeg-2 and a bunch of other encoders including ac-3.

[Vlenbo]

Hmm, so you used mcH264 in order to make it that good quality? is it better than the standard h264 though? btw nice video, very great quality, I use sony vegas 7 though, so...:\ btw, in staxrip you can turn the audio to aac, am I correct?

[aedipuss]

any h264 encoder should be able to make the same quality vids. just make sure to use the original source and only encode once with the highest quality settings before upping to yt. and yes staxrip will encode to aac.

[SatStorm]

Since you have the upload speed connections and you can test things (impossible for me) and just out of curiosity: Can you do a test for me?

Get any mpeg 2 file and patch it with DVD patcher so to make it have headers like 1280x720 framesize and 9.000kb/s. Then upload it patched to youtube.

I'm very curious to see what shall happen...

You see, I uploaded a 720X480 avi that by accident didn't have the correct aspect. Well, it got the HD link and indeed it looks great (squished but great). So, I bet we can bypass that re-encoding step, just with patching the video headers!

[aedipuss]

satstorm - i'll give it a try with mpeg-2 for you.

i don't think we can patch DVavi files though. that's what i was using for a source and if it's just going on yt then going with the h264 is better than mpeg-2 and patching the headers. it's one step, easy, fast to encode and the yt conversion is quick.

[SatStorm]

There are ways to patch avi files (h264, h263 or whatever).
For DV I don't know.

If the patching actually works, then imagine the possibilities! Forcing youtube treating the files same way the big ones, is a great deal, if your upload is limited.

[aedipuss]

well yt accepts the header patched mpeg-2 and makes a HQ vid but not HD. here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL0RfphGKiI

plays a small sized vid inside the large HQ player.

[SatStorm]

Ha ha ha ha, that's funny!

Anyway that means something: We need to find the correct way to patch stuff and upload them.

Thank you very much for the test!

[jfharper]

aedipuss, thank you for your time with this. Something is in question...when I look at your video...the first one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_j66xY8mY&fmt=22
I don't get the HD link...I've never seen the HD or HQ links before, so I don't know what to look for. The only buttons I see are full screen and another button that brings up two greyed out options, which are just symbols I don't know what they are...are these the HD and HQ links? If so, why do I not have them enabled...do I have to download the entire video first? Do I need a certain newer version of Flash? You video only shows up at, what I am guessing is, SD flv...screen size of 640x360 with a picture of 480x360, and it looks like your stereo analogy. Is the only way to ensure HQ or HD is to include the fmt=22? (Sorry for all the questions)

[zoobie]

I think I know why they call it youboob...

[aedipuss]

the link to the first one is a direct link to the HD version, as shown by the &fmt=22 at the end. there should be a watch in normal quality link right below the video on the right side.

you should get the links automatically, on videos that have the other versions. not many do at this time however.

[jfharper]

Nope...no "watch in normal quality link right below the video on the right side" to be found...see attached image.

[jfharper]

OK, I think this has to do with the installed Flash Player and/or Internet Speed...first using Flash 7 and a dial up 28.8 modem, no links ever displayed...then upgrading to Flash 8 and using a dial up 28.8 modem, I saw Watch in HQ Quality on one of my own videos, but I only saw this on one visit, when I visited the same video again, I didn't see the Watch in HQ Quality again...then on another computer, with Flash 9 and a dial up 28.8 modem, I visited your link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_j66xY8mY&fmt=22
and the first visit displayed the Watch in HD Quality link only, but the rest of the page looked like it didn't download anything but text, which may have tricked YT into thinking it was a faster internet speed than it was...when I refreshed the page, the Watch in HD Quality link was gone.

I bet YT is detecting the connection speed and giving links appropriate to the speed...

[aedipuss]

could be autodetection on yt's part. if you go into your account settings you can change your internet connection type to always highspeed if you wish.

[jfharper]

OK, I made that change on the Flash 8 dial up 28.8 computer and visited my own video and the Watch in Normal Quality link appeared, indicating it was displaying HQ and the connection speed was fast enough (not really tho) and Flash 8 is OK for HQ.

Same computer, visited your link with fmt=22 and no Watch in HD link, or normal, or HQ links.

Tried different system with Flash 9 and setting switch to "fast connection" using dial up 28.8 speed, and visited your link, no Watch in HD, normal, or HQ link was displayed.

I think the Flash version affects it too. I think Flash 10 or 11 is required for HD.

What Flash version are you using?