Preparing Video for YouTube

[themaster1]

I'm back in this thread to know what's the latest & greatest regarding techniques to have videos as high quality as possible.

Like i'm a lazy type of dude i will discard the "error socket" option if you don't mind.

Is there a simple approach for this somewhat annoying matter.

I have tested with the sorenson codec but i don't find this codec particularly good unfortunately.

[bayme]

if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a resolution higher than 320x240,
let me know.
if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a total audiovisual bitrate exceeding 350kbps,
let me know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNJgVilhcBw
but hey, they are "universal" so they probably have some special deal with YT.

[vhelp]

I'm sorry you are still having trouble in this area. Preparing youtube videos is a bit of
a tricky one at that.

Q: I'm back in this thread to know what's the latest & greatest regarding techniques to have videos as high quality as possible.

Not much, if any. Actually.. most progress goes unheard of. That is, it moves in its own
pace according to its path. IOW, we are hanging in there.

The only progress to speak of is practice. And a lot of trial n error, too.. ffmpeg; mencoder;
tmpgenc; and many more have been tested and trial n error'ed over the last 6 months or so and
by many peoples.


Q: Like i'm a lazy type of dude i will discard the "error socket" option if you don't mind.




Q: Is there a simple approach for this somewhat annoying matter.

Actually, no. FLV (flash) when used in an environment like youtube, must be at the lowest
bitrate comprimisable to the masses. Youtube choose 350k as their maximum. Mine you,
there is no 'official' statement stating this, at least none that I could find on youtube. I think
that we just arrived at it based on math and other factors that lead up to this value. And if
there is an actual youtube ingredient, then it is known only to them.

My advice is to upload a short (managable and untouched) clip so others can get an idea
of your source video and research it for odities that is swaying your attempts. Otherwise..


Q: I have tested with the sorenson codec but i don't find this codec particularly good unfortunately.

I think you have it sort wrong. Its not exactly about a codec prior to obtaining the quallty flv.
So, weather it is an XviD; DivX; .MP4; .MPG; H264; etc.. that is not the secret to quality. In
fact, any quality in prev attempts were (IMHO) strickly coensidental.

Youtube uses the Sorenson H263 codec format for its FLV (flash) videos. That means that if you
want to obrtain the maximum <350k quality in your flv encodings then you have to be using that
codec. That is the codec that I use in my youtube videos, using my prefereed tool, ffmpeg. I
built a front-end gui to ffmpeg of my own, but specifically unique to the functions and repatisious
trial n error procedures I run every day or when I use it. And because I am mostly trying to
aim for highest quality, that is the main purpose of my developing such a unique tool for ffmpeg.

The next thing you need to realize is that its not just entirely about the quality of the video
source, but rather of the way (or, technique) you encorporate into the process, and how you
compensate for your encoding's <350k bitrate strategy, because the key element to the quality
side is finding the right combination for your given videos and encoding for <350k quality 'wise.

My last (or latest) attemp using this strategy was with an analog capture of the movie, "The Matrix",
using the opening scene. I ran a battery of encoding parameters (using my developed front-end)
and came up with what I considered (at the time) the final product, and upladed it to youtube.
(see my sig for the youtube videos) But in doing so, I came across a few techniques that actually
surpriised me when encoding that short "Matrix" flv clip. So, I tried apply that unique technique
to other videos, and the startegy didn't work. So, I say, that encoding strategy and technique
can and does vary from video to video.. how was it obtained (downloaded xvid/h264 etc) or,
captured from vhs; or HD capture; or laserdisc capture, etc etc etc. The groundulairty or video
texture (pixel detail) is almost always different, and with Interlace being one of the worse to
obtain quality from. And anything captured with (all) interlace (even if deinterlaced to progressive)
will result in poor quality. I'm still working in that area for flv videos, because I do have some
interlace that I learned how to turn out greate looking, progressive 'ly -- WWF wrestling, for
instance. But the broadcasters really chew them up pretty badly.
Now, it is my opinion that I could have prob increased that short "Matrix" flv sample quality, further,
with a few ideas I hadn't applied to it then, but I usually don't attemp them when I've finalized them
to their respective outcome.. ie, youtube.

There is this certain feel that you learn over time when encoding various types of video.
And learning how to manuver your encoding around the <350k for flv videos can be a trickey
business. But when coupled with the above and trial n error you begin to realize what that
feel is.

So, as I've said it once and twice and many times before, and I'll say it again, you should not aim
your encoding bitrate for the 350k mark. You have to go lower.. like, 346k.. or maybe, 347k.
But don't go higher than that. If you do, you risk youtube bloating your videos when it adds in
its metadata to the video as part of the video. Basically, what this metadata is, is a different
'header' packet, and with additional data elements that pertains to this formats standard -- and
youtube uses it -- and, those 'newer' decoder or players will understand this header and utilize it
according to its advantage (design) purposes. And, when you encode with the sorenson or other
non-RIFF FLV codec, it may or may not have this metadata built-in. I know that the sorenson (per
ffmpeg/mencoder) builds, does not have the metadata feature.., at least not yet. But maybe at
a later date they will. But, its not really important. What is is how you aproach your bitrate strategy.

If you use a single pass encode method, then you may risk lower quality even at the <350k
mark. So, in using the FLV (flash) codec format for this purpose it is a wise move to incoporate
a 2-pass method in the encoding to flv. I would suggest using the sorenson codec and be
mindful of the <350k mark in your 2-pass encoding. But I make this suggestion based on my
own experience. But as you know, quality (and results) is dependant on your source.

My source is mostly (analog) noise. So, I have to employ various filtering processes (pre-prep
work) into my video prior to encoding to flv. Mind you, MPEG noise and Analog noise are two
different things. With mpeg, you have all sorts of dct errors; and/or pixelations; and/or color
de-gradients; (that I consider a part of mpeg error) that can prove difficult for a given non-mpeg
codec. The reason I use the term, 'de-gradient' is because of the way the color grades at a
certain slope. And you can see how certain frames do not 'align' (in terms of gradient) across
other frames and with the gradient flowing smoothly between those frames.

--> Describing this aspect of 'GRADIENT' using a crude analigy:

Frame 1: [10] [12] [14] [16] [18] [20] ..
Frame 2: [11] [13] [15] [17] [19] [21] ..
Frame 3: [12] [14] [16] [18] [20] [21]..
--- Good ---

Frame 1: [10] [25] [08] [30] [40] [05] ..
Frame 2: [20] [35] [10] [05] [11] [90] ..
Frame 3: [15] [45] [12] [05] [08] [10] ..
--- BAD ---

The less your video source fluctuates (or deviates) from pixel to pixel within a single frame and
across mulitple frames, the better expectation of encoded quality.

Now, you can reduce some of this by applying filter strategies in your encoding processes.
Some people refer to this as filter-chaining. What filters and how much to and where to apply
them is dependant on your video and your desire and knowledge of producing the highest quality
possible with your limits. And, if you want to produce the highest quality possible with this limited
bitrate that yourtube has governed for this codec, then you will have to employ an arson of
filter-chaining processes according to your videos unique attributes.

As for the audio, that is another part of this, but is not as important as getting the video encoded
with as high a quality as possible. But, in my lastest few uploaded vidoes they all have Stereo,
and the sound is fairely decent, imo.

-vhelp 4502

[zoobie]

just want to mention no 2 videos are alike
trouble with your source may include sun vs. shade, wind vs. calm, handheld vs. tripod, backlight vs. forelight, light vs. contrast...and the list goes on
I've put hundreds of short clips on my sites and no two ever had the same settings...or formula

[bayme]

just want to mention no 2 videos are alike
trouble with your source may include sun vs. shade, wind vs. calm, handheld vs. tripod, backlight vs. forelight, light vs. contrast...and the list goes on
I've put hundreds of short clips on my sites and no two ever had the same settings...or formula

I strongly disagree with you here. The quality of the source video is not what this thread is about. It is about getting it from source avi (preferably raw RGB avi) to FLV1 (as unconverted into YouTube for example) with the least amount of loss and depletion of the original quality.

In order to get from format A to format B without losing stuff has nothing to do with the quality of the source video. Bad video in will be bad video out, that goes without saying, but that's a different issue altogether.

[manono]

I strongly disagree with you here.

Disagree all you like. That doesn't make you right. The fact remains that it'll be a lot easier to compress with acceptable quality for YouTube a video of a man sitting in a chair and talking as compared to a chase scene in the jungle from the movie Apocalypto, or the beach invasian scene from Saving Private Ryan. Different videos compress differently, and the source video does have a lot to do with the output quality, given YouTube's very strict restrictions. It's not the quality of the source video that's important (well, it is, but not for the purposes of this particular discussion), but its complexity, or how difficult it is to compress. zoobie was 100% correct.

[vhelp]

I thought I would follow-up with a latest encoded flv video and describe the background
history of this in hopes that my expereience will help to shed some light on the feel I
was on about, earylier..

Ok. I just uploaded another clip, (even longer than the 'Matrix' one) and this one I managed
to encode it to 347k bitrate max. Actually, I had processed this clip back in Nov/2007 but
my uploader tool would bail on me with the Socket #10054 I spoke of on the prev
page here. But it was mostly on account of my dial-up, again, also as commented about
in prev page. So, I found a free computer at work (I don't like to play.. its work time, you
know) and was able to U/L the 21mb flv file to youtube in less than a minute -- nice.


YouTube Video: #023



Video Source: Analog CableTV
Movie/Film: TV Series: Star Trek: Voyager "The Raven" -- opening scene with 7of9 ..
Capture Card: Pinnacle Studio AV/DV (pci) capture card
Source Video: various time-consuming pre-prep (NR) and encoding work
Video: FLV format ([s:63e66e4611]youtube re-encoded[/s:63e66e4611]), Stereo audio
Bitrate: 347k !!
Length: 8m:28s

Description:
Basically, this tv series is processed with TEC (Time Expansion/Compression) by the network
broadcasters or whoever applies this process to Telecine content. TEC is not such a bad
thing, but when certain owners of a given content [s:63e66e4611]butcher[/s:63e66e4611] edit/cut parts of it or
even at the scene-changes, this has the nastyness of ruining the cadense or 3:2 or TEC
pattern that could otherwise be restored back to 24p or film rate through the avenue of
an IVTC algorithm. With the right equation even TEC can be restored back
to 24p/film rate, provided that the person under this source type has the knowledge and
patiance to manaully traverse or parse through the video for the identification of the markers
that make up the TEC. Don't worry, after you've done a few, you find your way around these
sources with ease. After this process is finished (according to the users decision) then the
equiation is built from this through the identification of the markers (3:2 or other)
pattern, etc. All Star Trek series ( DS9; Voyager; TNG; ) have TEC applied to them. The
only ones that doe not are Star Trek: TOC and Star Trek: Enterprise.

This episode had various glitches in some of the scenes. But this is a part of video encoding
life. You deal with what you got in front of you and make the best decisions/comprimses
as you go along. However, things would have prob been better if it were able to restore
back to 24p/film properly. But, since this is youtube, it doesn't really matter all that much,
as long as you compensate in other areas such as noise reduction and bitrate stretegy
and multi-pass encoding, etc.


About the video's encoding complications..
I struggled a lot on this clip. The opening scene where 7of9 was describing her dreams to
the doctor, in the frames in the scene, the detail was 'shimmering' a bit. That causes the
pixels (when NR algorithms are crunching them) to sway off too far behond certain thresholds
settings. This aspect of the encoding would either result in raised bitrate or pixelation in those
low motion scenes where as 7of9 was walking and describing her dreams panning was also taking
place. Of course, in addition to the flv encoding issues, and to complicate or add to the issues,
it prob didn't help when I encoded it with 29.970 fps using a deinterlacing method I normally use
on this tv series for youtube. But if I had lowered the frame rate then the studdering would have
definately be more noticable. So, deinterlacing and keeping it 29.970 fps (IMHO) was the best
choice for this particular clip at the time I was processing it. Anyway. It was prob this particular
scene(s) that produced worse results than other scenes and clips. But that is the nature of this
hobby. You win some and lose some. IOW, it varies from video to video and even scene to
scene within the video(s) !!

There are certain key points to notice in these clips.. at least in the ones that I have been
encoding for the last several or so clips and try to clue you in on why (or how) I am able to
manage them under the <350k bitrate mark and with decent quality under youtubes mysterious
limits, among other strange things.

(I wanted to throw up some additional tips about the <350k bitrate mark and insight on certain
key elements for the aiming at quality. But I'll wait to try and compose thought thoughts and
then post them in another post separate from this)

And, if you are still not getting anywheres with this method (of <350k bitrate strategy) then
perhaps trying the 'hacking' alternative might serve you better, here:

--> Youtube Upload, increase quality/control

Now I've tried this method, and it does work, but I don't really have much interest in it
(other than a personal challenge for me to see if I could develope a side tool (in pascal) that
would pre-calculate the Bitrate, Size, etc. with only the user having
to either enter a few parameters, or drag this scale that pre calculates for you the relavent
values (in real time) that might go into the encoding. But it was still buggy at the time.)
at this time. I just prefer the usual youtube crummy 320x240 limits, etc. I like to know that
what I'm watching is actualy 5 minutes, and not 15 seconds. Too confusing to me otherwise

-vhelp 4503

[bayme]

zoobie was 100% correct.

You're wrong. zoobie mentions "sun vs. shade, wind vs. calm, handheld vs. tripod, backlight vs. forelight, light vs. contrast...and the list goes on". Those are the exact things that do not make one bit of a difference for optimal conversion from format a to format b. The only thing you could argue about in optimal 1:1 conversion is framerate and the amount of keyframes you can therefore put in. But still, the best option there is already determined by the source, not by the conversion itself.

[bayme]

About the video's encoding complications..
I struggled a lot on this clip. The opening scene where 7of9 was describing her dreams to
the doctor, in the frames in the scene, the detail was 'shimmering' a bit. That causes the
pixels (when NR algorithms are crunching them) to sway off too far behond certain thresholds
settings. This aspect of the encoding would either result in raised bitrate or pixelation in those
low motion scenes where as 7of9 was walking and describing her dreams panning was also taking
place. Of course, in addition to the flv encoding issues, and to complicate or add to the issues,
it prob didn't help when I encoded it with 29.970 fps using a deinterlacing method I normally use
on this tv series for youtube. But if I had lowered the frame rate then the studdering would have
definately be more noticable. So, deinterlacing and keeping it 29.970 fps (IMHO) was the best
choice for this particular clip at the time I was processing it. Anyway. It was prob this particular
scene(s) that produced worse results than other scenes and clips. But that is the nature of this
hobby. You win some and lose some. IOW, it varies from video to video and even scene to
scene within the video(s) !!

So what did you use to convert to FLV1 with? And could you post the command-line you used for this clip? It seems the 320x240 resolution makes all the difference. As soon as you start going larger, sharpness introduces a lot of issues that are immediately more visible.

[manono]

You're wrong. zoobie mentions "sun vs. shade, wind vs. calm, handheld vs. tripod, backlight vs. forelight, light vs. contrast...and the list goes on". Those are the exact things that do not make one bit of a difference for optimal conversion from format a to format b.

They sure as heck do make a difference - a big difference - when you're as bitrate constrained as you are with YouTube videos. Surely you're not suggesting that you can compress video of a tree on a bright sunny day in a strong wind as easily and with the same quality using the same settings (including bitrate) as you can that same tree on a cloudy calm day (to use zoobie's first 2 contrasting examples)? Because if you are, you should go back and retake Video Encoding 101. This is all very basic stuff, so maybe you just don't understand what he said.

But I don't use YouTube anyway because it almost forces you to have your videos ruined, and I don't feel like jumping through hoops to make them a little bit more presentable. For example you can contrast vhelp's jerky playing and blurry Voyager sample with this episode from the same series here:

http://www.stage6.com/voyager/video/1914490/Voyager-418

To view it you'll have to install their DivX Web Player. They play AVIs and not FLVs. The resolution isn't much higher, but it's much sharper and more detailed. That's not mine, by the way, although I have over 200 videos up there.

[themaster1]

Well it seems that we still got a long way to go
As far as i'm concerned the best i could do w/o going into 10 hours of whatever pre processing y'all doing was this
not the best quality ever seen but well that's watchable
I have encoded it with sorenson with a size of 320x240 & 700k if i remember well & also lots of keyframes more than the framerate which is 25fps)

The sad thing was when i have encoded another video after this "sucessful" experiment the quality was horrible & i suspect it's because this time the video was at 4/3 "full frame".... go figure

Anybody knows if youtube plans to upgrade to flash 9 soon? I guess that will save us lot of time when this happen

[bayme]

As far as i'm concerned the best i could do w/o going into 10 hours of whatever pre processing y'all doing was this
not the best quality ever seen but well that's watchable
I have encoded it with sorenson with a size of 320x240 & 700k if i remember well & also lots of keyframes more than the framerate which is 25fps)

The sad thing was when i have encoded another video after this "sucessful" experiment the quality was horrible & i suspect it's because this time the video was at 4/3 "full frame".... go figure

Well that's just it; If your encoded flash is 320x240, it looks fine when upscaled on screen because of the blurring caused by that. When you upload a larger resolution FLV suddenly the sharpness of it reveals all kinds of (flash) artifacts because it's not being blurred anymore, for FLV1 the more detailed image clearly comes with a price..

[atropine]

But I don't use YouTube anyway because it almost forces you to have your videos ruined, and I don't feel like jumping through hoops to make them a little bit more presentable.

I see it as a game of skill. The ability to get a good looking video from every different video you may want to upload. Each video you need to treat differently depending on the subject matter. Maybe 15ftps, is all you need for 1 video, but another will look as jerky as hell, so you need to go 25fps(or maybe 20fps), then you've got to work out another way of improving the quality.

It's just like playing a computer game for me, and winning or getting a high score is when you beat youtube's shit bit rate and shit codec and 22khz mono sound (if the video needs better sound) and upload something that looks and sounds good.

[manono]

I see it as a game of skill.

With the deck stacked against you. Which would you rather watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsixgHlrXoY
http://www.stage6.com/user/tommydan/video/2212824/Nagada-Nagada

Fullscreen them and compare. And the YouTube one is better than most. 15fps? Give me a break. Unless it's some guy sitting at a desk talking, it's always going to be jerky. And if by "improving the quality" you mean filtering it some more so it looks even more blurry, then no thanks.

[bayme]

I see it as a game of skill.

With the deck stacked against you. Which would you rather watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsixgHlrXoY
http://www.stage6.com/user/tommydan/video/2212824/Nagada-Nagada

Fullscreen them and compare. And the YouTube one is better than most. 15fps? Give me a break. Unless it's some guy sitting at a desk talking, it's always going to be jerky.

Only movement requiring more than 15 fps will. The rest won't. By the way, for FLV you can go to 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, which can all be perfect framerates for your source. There's an interesting story on this here: http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm

Also, the problem with Stage6 is the ugly branding and the smaller community. You might as well host your own FLV then, you end up with even higher quality than Stage6, no ugly logos or advertising, and your community can be your own.

[manono]

Only movement requiring more than 15 fps will.

That's a matter of opinion, and it's certainly not my opinion. Maybe at the low res and lousy quality of YouTube garbage it can be argued that a video that plays jerky is the least of its problems.

Also, the problem with Stage6 is the ugly branding and the smaller community

I have no problem with the branding, whatever that means. But I think by your definition this site (Videohelp.com) also is ugly with its branding and advertisements, and I have no problem with that either. One way or another the bills have to be paid. As for the smaller community, I personally haven't the ego-stroking need for the huge numbers that visit YouTube to view lousy looking videos. My main concern is for the quality of the video. And on that note, FLV would be the last format I'd choose to make my videos. I'm happy with the 3000 views a day I'm getting currently as word of mouth spreads and more visit Stage6 to view the videos. After all, my particular video genre (classic Indian film music videos) appeals to only a small percentage of the video viewing public.

[SatStorm]

off topic:

Videohelp is not ugly!

It is an exotic sensual web site, ready to seduce all the users at once!

If someone disagrees, I'll democratically ban him!

[vhelp]

Hi guys.

Ad's on youtube, you gotta be crazy!

I've been pretty busy in all my video many video (programming) projects and things that
I got bored and took a break from it all to browse around the forums here (and at work)
and here I am (back) with an odd finding regarding youtubes latest nonsense. I can't
believe its true, or is it not. Anyway, I'm speachless and confused, so I'll let the pic
below explain it



fwiw, I'm on dial-up and so i am guessing that the 320x240 resolution is still in effect
in lue cause of this. Never the less its still all nonsense to me, and now my head hurts
so much that I think i'll retire from all this youtube (nonsense) confusion for the time
being.

I mean, good quality, bad quality, less quality, oh my..

-vhelp 4569

[vhelp]

I just wanted mention a few things here..

As some of you may already know, youtube is now offering higher quality videos.

However, in order to be able to take advantage of the higher quality videos that youtube is now
offering, you will prob want to upgrade your flash plugin version. I could not see the benefits that
everyone here was raving about until I D/L'ed and installed the latest plugin, below.

The latest version that youtube is using is: 9,0,115,0

--> to check your version: http://www.adobe.com/products/flash/about/
--> player download center: Adobe flash player v9,0,115,0

Once the plugin is installed (you have to close down your browser window) the plugin will be in
effect when you load up your browser window again.

I'm using Opera v9.24 and I can finally see the difference. Not all that great (cause all the videos
I have seen so far have been made by newbies of the video relm) but can be much better, given
the enhancements offered by youtube. I've commented more on this, below.

---

As far as quality goes, well, I can't completely agree that the videos are so called, higher quality.
Well, they are in terms of certain attributes, but the bottom line here is still true, that the real
fact is, the users (of those videos) are still beginners in the things of video encoding. And as
such, the quality of those videos (based on what I have seen so far) is lacking. There is
much room for improvement. But to take advantage of this next level, some skills need to be
learnt. And that comes with practice and time, yada yada.

---

Unfortunately, with this new (HQV) feature comes a price. That price is in the form of ads that
get imbeded into the video that is streaming in one's "windowed" player. See my earlier pic of
this, above.

The ad (or, commercial) is un-avoidable though only when you have the higher quality videos
enabled. That is, when your flash player in your browser's window is the newer version from
youtube, not the Adobe flash player posted above -- the one that is v9,0,115,0 latest. The
player that changes according to the users selection of the higher quality option is the player
that I'm refereing to. When that player is loaded up in youtube, then you will see a flash
advertisement to your right. It is that ad that gets embeded inside your streaming video.

The commercial can be spotted by the YELLOW marker in the timeline. It will only show once,
(and whenver you scroll or jump around before/past the yellow marker) but that is too much,
especially when the commercail has already been played (to your right) and is still there!
Go figure!

Videos that are LQ (low quality) will not be effected. I guess something's gotta pay for the
new features and prob add'l pay load of videos for watching, etc. Oh well

---

(note, this tip I got from reading around here on this forum)

The next thing you want to do is go log into your youtube account and select your [MY Account]
link, and scroll down to the bottom where another link has to be selected, [Video Playback Quality]
and then choose the option:

--> (o) I have a fast connection. Always play higher-quality video when it's available.

Then, if there is a video that is in HQ, then that will most likely be in the newer HQ video player
and be available for your viewing at the time of the streaming. If your video window is the newer
ver by youtube, (not the flash plugin ver) expect to see a commercial, at least once.

-vhelp 4570

[themaster1]

hmm i have installed the new version but i don't see anything . *confused

No video player with ads for HQ videos or anything, i don't see what i missed

However, i found the option to change the type of connection so i could set it up from slow to high.

Can you give me the link of a "high quality video" from youtube i'd be curious to see this asap

[45tripp]

you can read through this to see all changes youtube:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic346256.html

[vhelp]

Remembering the older ERA of youtubes 320x240 @ < 350k bitrate FLV format videos..

And, with respect to finding the Holy Grail of qaulity from the additional new HQV (high quality video)
features in terms of this formats limits that is, ( now at the 2nd ERA or phase of this quest ) what
we need to continue in is the finding (if not using) the same methods/practices used in the older
youtube flv format.

As an example, recalling the encoding to flv and using not more then 350k (aka, +/- 348k) bitrate.

It is this flavor that I am talking about. Thus, what we need to know, now, is what format has youtube
chosen in standardizing in, ( ie, flv and ???* ) and assuming it is H264, then we should be targeting on
that codec and it's tuned encoding attributes -- the parameters, that is.

* replace ??? with H264 or VP7 or whatever codec.

Therefore, my belief goes with the above pointers!

-vhelp 4573

[NerdWithNoLife]

whoops... wrong one.

[NerdWithNoLife]

Edit: What i finally used [was crap and i then used Swain's command]:

ffmpeg -i videofile2.avs -pass 1 -ab 32 -ar 22050 -ac 1 -vcodec flv -b 306k -g 160 -cmp 2 -subcmp 2 -mbd 2 -flags +aic+cbp+mv0+mv4+trell -y outfile2.flv

ffmpeg -i videofile2.avs -pass 2 -ab 32 -ar 22050 -ac 1 -vcodec flv -b 306k -g 160 -cmp 2 -subcmp 2 -mbd 2 -flags +aic+cbp+mv0+mv4+trell -y outfile2.flv

Oh my gosh! I just tried that and it made me sign up for an account just to thank you! The video got through without being transcoded AND STAYED at 480 x 360! I could kiss you on the lips!

Note though that "-ab 32" should read "-ab 32k" in the new version. Thanks again.

Edit: Here is the video. Even when downloaded from YouTube, the resolution remains 480x360! I'm so glad I didn't have to excessively resize my screen caps. Sorry for the weird post above; I got all excited and lost track of my keyboard/mouse skills. I set the audio at 56K and the video at 275K yielding a total of 344K.

[45tripp]

you're welcome.

nice clip.

Note though that "-ab 32" should read "-ab 32k" in the new version. Thanks again.

i know,
wasn't bothered to fix the typo.
i'll do it now


tripp

[NerdWithNoLife]

Now that YouTube is starting to release higher quality flash videos ( &fmt=6 ) and mp4's ( &fmt=18 ), I've been trying to get one of those through the system without being reencoded, with no success so far.

If anyone else gets it, please let me know!

[vhelp]

Now that YouTube is starting to release higher quality flash videos ( &fmt=6 ) and mp4's ( &fmt=18 ), I've been trying to get one of those through the system without being reencoded, with no success so far.

I've been sort of working on this too. And I was going to post latest info, but now that you
threw a screw into it, I'll delay it till I had the time to re-review what I've found so far. In
any case .. anyway .. per your last statement, I didn't know that the following were such:

--> &fmt6 was for flash, res/video: TBD (i don't know what they are)
--> &fmt18 was for mp4: 480x360 res, AAC 125kb audio, ...

So, I've been going about it all wrong I thought all the videos were h264 (mp4) now.

But I don't know what the specs are for the newer flash (flv) format on youtube is.. anybody
know what they are ??

-vhelp 4651

[NerdWithNoLife]

Yeah - I can't get the fmt=6 (flash) videos anymore either. They may have abandoned flash for H264. Anyway, here they are:

I suspect what we need is H264 in ASP and AAC sound with a higher max bitrate (than the previous 350k). I've seen different aspect ratios/frame sizes, so I don't think that is a factor.

[vhelp]

Sorry I've been away and very busy at my filter plugin developments and other programming type
projects.

Anyway..

In my spare time, I've been playing around with posting various kinds of mp4 videos onto youtube
(at work, diff account) and I have to say, I'm not very pleased at the new upgrade in codec choice.
The quality of the video is more or less worse than the their previous FLV (YouTube'ish) format. And
the last video I have on my dial-up account was a complete and utter washup -- the video is pretty
poor and even blocks up in various decoding type errors (prob from a failed initial encoding) and quite
disturbing. I've ben meaning to remove it but have been pretty tied up with other things.

I'm thinking that YT will continue to use their LQ'er original flv versions in addition to thier misleading
HQ version videos. And I'm thinking of going back (staying) with those. I will try a few more scenarios
I hadn't had time to test, and if those fail, then I'll prob give up for the time being.

-vhelp 4653

[Lincoln Burrows]

Hi folks,

I tried to convert a simple AVI file (about 10-13 seconds), which is using XVID and 576x432 pixels using the software called SUPER from eRightSoft and Adobe Video Encoder.

Both give me FLV videos with 320x240 and different resolutions/bitrates/several different configs, but the image looks bad, with macroblocks yelling at me that the videos were compressed. They were not good enough. I even used higher bitrates and file sizes, but the result was always the same!

So I did uploaded the original AVI to Youtube. The results were downloaded using Keepvid.com.

**************
The first file is FLV, 320x240 and about 600 KB.
The second file is MP4, 480x360 and about 1 MB. Also using H.264.
**************

The second I believed was better anyway, so I checked the first. And no macroblocks at ALL! The image was of course worse than the original source, but this is what is annoying me - their method of encoding is far, far, better!!!!!

Is there a logical explanation for this? And some guidelines I should follow when encoding any file to FLV? I really don't know what to do.

This is very important for everyone who wants to use their own server/bandwith and player, and not rely on Youtube. But we can't do that when all converted videos are worse than if they were uploaded to Youtube.

If this can't be solved, then I would have to upload my videos to Youtube, and download them using Keepvid.com. A considerable waste of time.