Will you share your DivX settings? (bitrate, maybe you used Multi-pass, Quarter-Pixel search, Global Motion compensation, quantization [H.263 or optimized], type of interlace, psychovisual enhancements, enhance i-blocks, etc.) and what were your settings in mencoder, of course (don't know the program so it will be my first time).Originally Posted by benrtc
And a noob question: when you talk about "padded flv" you're talking about you own FLV encoding so YT doesn't reencode?
Thx in advance.
Support our site by donate $5 directly to us Thanks!!!
Try StreamFab Downloader and download streaming video from Netflix, Amazon!
Try StreamFab Downloader and download streaming video from Netflix, Amazon!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 271 to 300 of 611
-
-
Originally Posted by benrtc
@NiuuS:
YT does not require DivX for HQ in my experience. Probably depends on your (strange) resolution if YT does not post the HQ link. Black bars don't take up much extra in compression, so that blog you got that resolution from is actually not good advice at all. Always use 4:3 resolutions dividable by 16:
640 x 480
576 x 432
512 x 384
448 x 336
384 x 288
320 x 240
And because YT plays back at 480 x 360 you could argue that this is a good target size.
mencoder settings I've just linked to in several posts before this one.
These are copy-pasted from a recent bat-file I used:
Code:"c:\mencoder\mencoder.exe" "s:\m_s448.avi" -o m_s.flv -mc 0 -ofps 25 -srate 44100 -oac mp3lame -lameopts vbr=2:q=8:aq=0:mode=1:lowpassfreq=16500 -ovc lavc -of lavf -lavfopts format=flv -lavcopts vcodec=flv:vbitrate=300:keyint=200: mbd=2:trell:v4mv:aic:cbp:last_pred=3:predia=4:dia=4:preme=2:vratetol=900:vpass=1 "c:\mencoder\mencoder.exe" "s:\m_s448.avi" -o m_s.flv -mc 0 -ofps 25 -srate 44100 -oac mp3lame -lameopts vbr=2:q=8:aq=0:mode=1:lowpassfreq=16500 -ovc lavc -of lavf -lavfopts format=flv -lavcopts vcodec=flv:vbitrate=300:keyint=200: mbd=2:trell:v4mv:aic:cbp:last_pred=3:predia=4:dia=4:preme=2:vratetol=900:vpass=2
Audio used only 49 kbit/s with this video. It's no longer on YT by the way. Taken down by the sick infringement police. -
NiuuS wrote:
Will you share your DivX settings? (bitrate, maybe you used Multi-pass, Quarter-Pixel search, Global Motion compensation, quantization [H.263 or optimized], type of interlace, psychovisual enhancements, enhance i-blocks, etc.) and what were your settings in mencoder, of course (don't know the program so it will be my first time).
And a noob question: when you talk about "padded flv" you're talking about you own FLV encoding so YT doesn't reencode?
The uploaded flv fifth element clip is obviously high quality source from a DVD and encoded in vegas with mostly default divx settings at 480x360 (4:3 YT player frame size) 3Mbps, no deinterlace - it is 23.97fps progressive after ivtc. The longer version is in x264 and converted by YT.
In your movie I notice judder when there's panning. You changed frame rates when re-encoding at some point. If your cam is 29.97 fps, the rate can be 14.985 (half NTSC), but you used a frame rate that divides unevenly into the source frame rate, causing judder, or uneven temporal spacing between frames. Whether padded file flv (with sufficient bit rate) or YT's new h.264, they can handle your source frame rate.
Padded file: Say you have 2 minutes of video in your editor. Then you append the video with 1 minutes of text with solid color background having the same properties as the video, like frame rate and size. When you encode the flv, the resultant bitrate is higher for the vid and lower for the padding, lowering the overall bit rate. Yes, the goal is to stay below 350Kbps to avoid YT re-encoding the uploaded flv file. I use MediaInfo to check the total bitrate. -
bayme wrote:
Do you mean the motion blur per track, or do you apply it over everything? Why would you want to? Is blurring required for DivX or something? Any encode by YouTube smoothes and blurs enough as it is. -
Just did a test with a huge upload ~ 868Mb of a Huffyuv lancsoz4 resized video from 1080p to 480x272 :
I'm a bit disappointed because it looks very blocky especially on Rihanna's face (see screen below). I wonder if a bit of postprocessing/filtering on the client-side like Dailymotion does wouldn't be a good idea for YT too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz6gOPMvp7A&fmt=18 ( you don't need sound)
.
Damn we have to find a way to upload our own encoded videos, just like we did before with the 350 Kbps limit. those artefacts shouldn't be so apparent (sorry for my bad english, oh and I just woke up lol).
EDIT : granted the source was very good but not perfect : see that ugly greenish line on the left side ? I should have cropped it before uploading :/ *But* it's not an excuse for that disappointing final result I guess... -
Originally Posted by Boulotaur2024
Don't like it when people do that. I can wait 2 hours longer as long as the video is encoded with maximum quality in mind. Audio is also very much double-processed. Sounds like auto-rec-level from those cassette-decks back in the old days...
But let's not get cranky just yet, and give them some time to adjust things. It's amazing enough as it is, that they're offering the world in the vicinity of 40 petabytes of videodata each day, and don't ask for anything. I would just like to see more tech-posts, blogs from its developers, from those working on it, so we know some more about their intentions and plans.
Dailymotion is indeed getting quite good now. They had stereo audio at 96 kbit/s from the get-go. Their smoothing is too heavy in my opinion, and un-smoothed is too blocky. YT smooths as well, but is somewhere in between, which I think is fine. -
Originally Posted by benrtc
Originally Posted by benrtc
Any suggestion in this particular field?
Originally Posted by benrtc
Originally Posted by benrtc
Originally Posted by bayme.
And with the resolutions, 448*252 shamefully is the only one respecting the black bars, at the cost mentioned earlier :P. I'll try using your mencoder settings and see what happens.
Thanks for everyone's help, hopefully i can keep learning from your tips and make that "miraculous" trick to upload decent quality video to YT 8)
EDIT: tried with Boulotaur2024 resolution, 480*272, it also works for me, respecting the black bars. Sadly, can't use &fmt=18 (no quality increase, and no "Low quality" link). I'm gonna try some extreme measures (like uploading a 720*480 DV clip) to see the difference. I'm also experimenting with "De-interlace source" option in DivX, would you rather use Vdub (if so, what deinterlace option, since there are a handful) or rather export the DV again out of Premiere using No fields (progressive) in the "Keyframe and Rendering" export zone? -
Originally Posted by NiuuS
-
Originally Posted by bayme
EDIT: should i tick "Deinterlace Video Footage" or is selecting No Fields enough?
EDIT2: tried both, but GSpot is still reporting me Interlaced video. Oh well.
EDIT3: using 0.9 for aspect ratio works, now 480*360 is not stretched anymore, although is not giving me HQ option. Gonna try with 448*336 like you said below, which i agree. -
Originally Posted by NiuuS
Either way, it's the pixel aspect that might stretch it.. (This could just be a 1 that needs to be a 0 somewhere in the header of the video.) If you do resize in Vdub, set it to Keep the original aspect ratio, only change size with letterbox bars, use Lanczos in the resize config.
By the way, if you encode to 349 kbit/s FLV1 with mencoder, know that the amount of pixels is crucial for quality. I'd recommend not to go larger than 448x336 with only 350 kbit/s on YT. If you create one at 480x360 chances are pretty high you'll see a lot of artifacts already.. the surface is just too large to compress for that bandwidth. It might work if you have black bars though.. -
NiuuS wrote:
used 480*360, 448*336, and sadly they only give me a stretched picture when viewed in YT. The only one working for me is the one used in the link of the guide i posted before, which is 448*252. Only downside is that if i use &fmt=18 the picture gets a bit more squashed vertically! Damn my luck
Well, i didn't changed any framerate settings, but maybe it's related to the two different cameras used, and it's different "24p" simulations? XL2 supposedly does 24p, but with the Sony we used the CineFrame mode to match the materials.
I tried a small clip from a canon HV20 demo H264 9Mbps 1888x1062 29.97fps. Uploaded x264 480x360, gspot says 3409Kbps, no effects added, no blur etc. source frame rate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcaYgZoVIOE&&fmt=18 (edit: deleted) -
Originally Posted by benrtc
. Many times one ends up forgetting simple/stupid things like that :P
Originally Posted by benrtc
Originally Posted by benrtc. I'm waiting for it to be ready in YT, but to be honest i'm pessimistic, everything i upload gets incredibly fugly & blurry. So many tries...
-
NiuuS wrote:
fixed that with a tip given, i just had to use 0.9 for the Pixel Aspect Ratio and BAM! instant widescreen trapped in 4:3 . Many times one ends up forgetting simple/stupid things like that
Here's a pic of the two different settings in the player. The neck of the shaker on the 0.9 is slightly out of round, but without a round object facing the camera it might go unnoticed. http://www.geocities.com/alpha2alpha21/compare.jpg -
Originally Posted by benrtc
Oh, and the last x264 i uploaded, looks... like $h1t. This one gets the crown of blurriness. I even uploaded DV material, and looks incredibly... BAD.
I really don't know what else to do. Almost 28 hours encoding and uploading stuff, i'm starting to give up. -
Originally Posted by benrtc
You have to set the source pixel AR, as well as the render/save/target pixel AR, in editors like Vegas and Premiere. The source one needs to really be set correctly to what the used video-material was recorded/stored as, before rendering it to 1.000 pixel AR, or you'll mess up somewhere guaranteed..
Code:Square 1.000 <- what YouTube wants.. D1/DV PAL 1.064 D1/DV PAL 16:9 1.4587 D1/DV NTSC 0.9117 D1/DV NTSC 16:9 1.2121 1280x720 1.000 1440x1080 (HDV) 1.333 1920x1080 1.000
-
Yes. To get the 0.9 on purpose, I had to set the source preview and the render template as well. When I didn't do it in the preview it was 1:1 when the render was set 0.9.
-
I thought the ar was a little off in the Cortometraje - SombraS vid. which is why I brought it up but it really doesn't apply. I've been watching the 6 and 12 versions and they are fine - their vid size is 480x270. the H264 is really off, way more than the difference I was pointing to. Yeah, just to be sure the letterbox should be in place for YT.
-
i have a question, what video codec/settings do you need to use to get youtube to automatically display your video in high quality if the user has his or her options to view high quality videos if they are available? i want to make all my vids available in high quality without people having to add &fmt=18 or &fmt=6 at the end of the video link all the time.
-
YT is at the experimental stage. They have options on your account page but it appears they haven't enabled them yet. If you have good bandwidth the HQ would play automatically. I hope they go with the stereo audio format.
-
Another attempt with a BBC HD video sample :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0hf8Q-UX-M&fmt=18
Looks a tad better here I think, with a polished sharpened source like this.
edit (27/03) : real laggy playback since the beginning I've noticed, bayme told me it was a "connections alive" Youtube related issue, which explains the laggyness and also the fact it abruptly stops in the middle of the video sometimes. Doesn't get better since the day I uploaded it unfortunately.
@ benrtc : x264 1 single-pass lossless and ac3. -
Originally Posted by Boulotaur2024Touchy sensitive dude :D.
-
I agree but I don't think YT will bring more finetuning from now on; Last night I was browsing through my favorites and 80% of them has a fmt=18 version, it looks like they've already encoded a great deal of videos, hence my conclusion that you shouldn't expect much more from them in the codec quality department.
I'm not complaining, like I said yesterday I was rediscovering my favorite video bookmarks with a better video quality and a pleasant audio quality, I'm really thankful to YT for what they've done, and I mean really.
As for the artifacts around the mountain edges, yea but it may also be my fault, I followed bayme advice and applied some adaptative sharpener (by MarcFD) just below the Mplayer lanczos resize filter. And yes, it may eventually put too much load on the codec as opposed to a light blur, but I'm just learning you know. -
I have found sharpening OK on video like slow shutter mode at night, or encoded in FLV at 600 or more kbps w/letterbox. One I encoded with the so-called goyomora method at 757kbps (Caldecott tunnel); it was also in slow shutter mode. The drawback is player buffering.
This one works well for YT. Except for that blocked lap dissolve at the beginning, Canon HV20 demo has little movement in it. I've read that the camcorder's codec doesn't handle motion as well as the prosumer HD cams. The demo carefully avoids this weakness. In this case no blur was added. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcaYgZoVIOE&fmt=18 (edit: deleted) -
Originally Posted by Denizzje
I'm pretty confident YT/GV will finetune the encoding quality as time goes by, and they will do many re-encodes whenever they feel like it. They did this with the first 320x240 batches as well. The first ones in 2005 looked like crap. This changed drastically over the first months.
Also noteworthy is that encoding quality for all H.264 codecs is still improving on a daily basis. Just see this and you'll know what I mean.
What really is evident is that they have two totally separate systems active now. The old one, for which you can bypass by encoding your own FLV under 350 kbit/s, and the new one, for which they use other server-addresses and create the new big flv and h.264 versions of your video.
By the way, YT is terribly slow again. Even the old small vids stream in like 1 second each 3 seconds, YT seems horribly overloaded right now.
Oh, and I almost forgot, did you see this? -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zgFlCw8Aw&fmt=18 -
Heh, and it's still up there.
bayme, I tried adding blank padding to the end of an upload. So far it helped the # 12. Still waiting hours to get the 18 version. -
Is Youtube only letting certain people have the new 'Watch this in high quality' feature on theie videos? I mean I have tried to upload many videos using the settings that Marina (Hotforwords) uses without any success...even tweaking little bits of settings but still nooo...she said she upload her vids at 640x480, H.264 at 2MBs, 128kbs AAC etc I checked her vids and she had a video that just went 'Live' 20 mins after I checked it and it already had the 'High Quality' link...is Youtube making sure she gets the link as she gets alot of views of her vids? Also we all seen the 'Corey Mr Safety' video by now...that also has the 'High Quality' link, where all his other videos dont...is that beacuse Youtube knows how popular that video is and made sure it had the new feature? I still cant get around it, so Ill just stick to the olf FLV method for now
-
Hi everyone!
Altough everyone is talking a bout HD video on youtube (HD? lol), im still happy with sticking to the 350 bitrate rule with flv.
i'm currently using Mencoder/Automen to encode to flv, has anyone managed to squeeze more quality on their encodes by using other mencoder scripts other than the ones posted on the first page of this thread?
ive tested the "script with mencoder but i can still see some clips that look better when the source clip was the same.
Originally Posted by bayme
ThanksI love it when a plan comes together! -
No point in converting to HQ flv anymore imo, you'd better stick to a _good_ 2 pass x264 encode if you want to reduce the size of the uploaded video (I guess size is your main concern right ? I mean... size of the uploaded vid...) or upload the vanilla video file if you don't mind the uploading time.
But if you still want to go the old custom encoded flv way, check out this thread instead.
@rajman : I believe the HQ conversion is random, I checked most of my YT bookmarks and it appears that 80% of them are converted now. It may be out of complete superstition, but I always attach the tag/title "HQ"/"HD" tag to my freshly uploaded video in order for them to be converted quickly. So far the mp4 version has only taken a couple of hours to appear.
Similar Threads
-
Is this the highest possible quality for YouTube? YouTube compresses video?
By chrissyelle in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 17Last Post: 5th Oct 2010, 11:33 -
Alternatives to YouTube - new site offering direct comparisons
By Karel Bata in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 18Last Post: 3rd Feb 2010, 13:57 -
Higher Bitrate = Higher Quality? - 20MBPS difference for 1080p file
By SgtPepper23 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 4Last Post: 6th Dec 2009, 07:57 -
"Watch This Video In Higher Quality" Link On YouTube
By Leonardo in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 3Last Post: 10th Apr 2008, 15:03 -
which scenario gives a higher quality video?
By graysky in forum DVD RippingReplies: 19Last Post: 3rd Sep 2007, 10:40