YouTube offering higher quality video / Stage6 ends services!

[Spritemoney]

Well the &fmt=18 is more for the iphone, they've been making h.264 vids for a while now (when u upload them, it will be flash, and mp4) now the view this in higher quality, yes i've been noticing it's for partners only now, that's why u gotta add &fmt=18.

[atropine]

Well the &fmt=18 is more for the iphone, they've been making h.264 vids for a while now (when u upload them, it will be flash, and mp4) now the view this in higher quality, yes i've been noticing it's for partners only now, that's why u gotta add &fmt=18.

Yeah but my point is, Why is the bitrate so high, when for example people in the USA have such a slow mobile device communications system that they can not view these videos via their phone network, and I've used plenty of wifi hotspots that could not give you 600kbit/s reliably. So I think there must be lower bitrate mp4's as well.

I would not add &fmt18 unless you want badly compressed encoded video, with compressed stereo audio, that to my ear sounds pretty bad on my home speaker system, no doubt it would sound much better on an iphone or laptop, Instead add the &fmt=6 for non youtube partners.

I looked at a single video in 3 versions from youtube partner hotforwords.

normal (mono 22khz) 6.3mb
http://74.125.15.90/get_video?video_id=NHAgooboQpA&origin=nyc-v102.nyc.youtube.com&OBT...=get_video.flv

hq-flv1 (mono 44khz) 12.9mb
http://vp.video.google.com/videoplayback?id=347020a286e84290&itag=6&begin=0&len=604800...eoplayback.flv

hq-mp4(stereo 44khz) 10.7mb
http://anehkc.vp.video.l.google.com/videoplayback?id=347020a286e84290&itag=18&begin=0&...=videoplayback

I think my preference is for hq-flv for picture quality and sound quality on my home speakers. Look at the compression noise in hotforwords chest area, between 00.39m & 01.08m(as example). Concentrate on the chest, and compare the 2 HQ encodes. I wonder if maybe the mp4 is only single pass encode during testing or something. I just don't see why the video quality is so bad, mp4 is the future, whereas flv1 is like 2 generations ago as far as compassion efficiency, and yet the flv1 is better quality at a slightly higher bitrate.

[bayme]

The assumption that when something is mp4 it is intended for mobile use is complete nonsense.
H.264 is simply the best lossy video encoding method out there at this time, so its target medium is everything that can decode mp4 with aac audio, which is practically 80% of all hardware out there, mobile or not. (How does one even distinguishes between mobile and immobile? Ever been to a LAN-party? And on a side-note; I don't know 1 person in my surroundings who watches YT videos on his/her phone.)

The only reason format 18 is not a default, or not an open option is because it is all in an experimental phase right now. Google/YT is quite overloaded several hours each day. Reliably pumping out double the bandwidth takes some hardware expansion, which is most likely in progress.
I bet you the FLV1 options will be deprecated sooner rather than later, and it will turn entirely to AVC/h.264 codecs.

[atropine]

I bet you the FLV1 options will be deprecated sooner rather than later, and it will turn entirely to AVC/h.264 codecs.

I'd like to believe that except for the compression of mp4 audio. Why do that?, and Why isn't the HQ FLV1 audio compressed?

To me, it's trade offs for the music/Film industry. The bulk of users will get FLV1, and they'll get the full dynamic audio, which is good, but only mono, to protect the music/film copyright holders. Iphone & other portable devices will get stereo but compressed dynamic range stereo. Meaning it works better with small speakers, and in noisy enviroments, but also acts as a 'quality reducer'.

So to summarise. FLV1/mp3 best quality audio, but only mono = copyright holders happy
(H264/AVC)/AAC-LC stereo audio, compressed dynamic range , thereby lowering quality, = copyright holders happy. especially considering someone using an iphone etc, is less likely to be wanting to rip the audio for copyright infringing use with the device.

If both HQ versions had the same audio, I'd be more ready to believe that .mp4 was the intended universal HQ version sometime down the line, with HQ FLV1 only acting as a transitive format.

[bayme]

So to summarise. FLV1/mp3 best quality audio, but only mono = copyright holders happy
(H264/AVC)/AAC-LC stereo audio, compressed dynamic range , thereby lowering quality, = copyright holders happy.

The people who are behind YT's audio-quality and flv presentation could not care less about copyright holders. If that would really be such a big issue (which it isn't) you would not have dailymotion, (the late) stage6, vimeo, guba, blip.tv, the list goes on forever.

All Google cares about is their bandwidth bill, which is by far their highest cost for YouTube a.t.m., so which ever way you put it, H.264/AVC/x264 video with AAC/AAC+ audio will win in that game and is the way to go. Read back in this thread for more on that.

[reez]

To me, it's trade offs for the music/Film industry. The bulk of users will get FLV1, and they'll get the full dynamic audio, which is good, but only mono, to protect the music/film copyright holders.

where did you get that from..then dailymotion would have a problem too if that was the case

[Leonardo]

Oh my gosh. I got an automatic "High Quality" setting in YT!
The little screen pops out at the bottom of the video in order to choose HQ, which doesn't normally happpen in any video!

Think of it as the "Watch in Higher Quality" link of the new interface.
If you have the "Always Play HQ Video" setting enabled, then it should play as HQ.

Here's the link, tell me if you can see it too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQlRSCqSleM

[Denizzje]

Jep. It's automatic on some videos.

[reez]

Think of it as the "Watch in Higher Quality" link of the new interface.
If you have the "Always Play HQ Video" setting enabled, then it should play as HQ.

i posted this and even gave a screenshot of it a while ago...if only people would listen....if only

THE WORLD WOULD BE AN AMAZING PLACE! =O

[mgh]

went to youtube and checked
some vids have the quality button- the higher quality leads to a flv1 with 96 kbps mono mp3 at 44100kHz-the vid is 480x270 at 750kbps
if you add &fmt=18 you get a mp4 with approx 120kbps aac lc 2 channel audio at 44,100 kHz and the video is avc baseline level 1.1 or 2.1 at about 500 kbps-resolution is 480 width

to my ears the aac audio is much better than the mp3

also looks like youtube is thinking of going with total 850 kbps flv1, as the high quality button when present leads to higher quality flv1. you get the mp4 only by adding &fmt=18

[hotforwords]

I just thought of something. Do you think that the HQ button appears for partners more often than non-partners because we have ads attached to our videos and it helps pay for the added bandwidth?

Just a thought.

Marina

[reez]

I just thought of something. Do you think that the HQ button appears for partners more often than non-partners because we have ads attached to our videos and it helps pay for the added bandwidth?

YT may be presenting the button on partner videos more than others but that doesn't really help pay for bandwidth. They WANT everyone to use low quality, the only reason they started HQ was because they wanted to attract the customers that might go to other sites(like dailymotion) for HQ. If anything using HQ INCREASES the bandwidth bill with no benefit in return.

I think they should profess the HQ MORE in order to reach the customers they are trying to reach...at least when they roll it out properly

[hotforwords]

reez.. the difference between no ads on a video and the ads is pretty significant so I would say that it does offset the costs quite a bit. They get a very good cpm for those in-video ads.

Also.. since 1 day a couple years ago... it was a Sunday, after the airing of a certain Saturday Night Live skit called Lazy Sunday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKSIaeQHV94.. people were scouring the Internet looking for a clip of this skit.. and I remember that EVERY SINGLE SITE choked under the load except for one site that nobody had really ever heard of and that site was YouTube. By Monday.. YouTube had served this video clip over 5 million times! And it put YouTube on the map.

Of course by Tuesday, NBC forced them to take it down (idiots).. but two factors lead to YouTube's success in this matter:

1. They used Flash video which was crappy, but existed on pretty much everyone's machine and
2. due to the crappy quality of the video, they happily served up those 5 million streams while EVERY SINGLE other video site choked under the loads.

YouTube today accounts for something like 50% of ALL video on the net, while their next competitor (perhaps myspace?) accounts for something like 3%. And this is due to reliable, though crappy looking video... which has been the tradeoff... and that allowed other companies to come along with better quality video. But it only makes sense for YouTube to move to higher quality video... not as a predatory behavior.. but just as a natural progression as they can now afford it with the addition of advertising which has been pretty much non existent until recently.

My 2 cents

[reez]

My 2 cents

damn girl...well aren't you a regular nerd =D
although that kinda has nothing to do with what your original question was...or my answer.
I didn't say ads do nothing, i said putting HQ on partner videos do nothing.
It doesn't matter where they put the HQ button they won't get more/less money.

You say: putting HQ on partner vids help make more money
I say: How? Watching a video in HQ doesn't make the ads worth more


you lose..bow to me

[hotforwords]

Cute reez. It does have everything to do with what I am saying. People have asked wyhy the HQ button appears on my videos almost immediately and not their videos.. and I venture to guess that it's because YouTube is paid for my videos whereas they make nothing on everyone else's videos. So it's cost effective to put the HQ button on my videos!

You are correct that they don't have to put any hq buttons anywhere, that they are merely trying to compete.. and I'll agree with you on that as well.

or should it be this:

[reez]

You are Cute reez.

i think you just like arguing with me..i didn't know i was that fun.

ONE more time to explain what i mean ..and because myspace is boring

I'm NOT trying to explain why you get HQ button and others don't, i have NO IDEA why that happens
I AM trying to explain that it CAN'T be because of money. Because it doesn't make sense.

withOUT the HQ button your the ads on your videos are worth lets say $10
WITH the HQ button the ad value doesn't CHANGE, it's still is $10
You don't get MORE traffic BECAUSE of the HQ button. Nobody goes "HEY LOOK her video has a HQ BUTTON, let's watch her video AGAIN and AGAIN"

i think it has to do with VIEWS. people who get alot of views seem to have it.
I will investigate ..when i have time

[hotforwords]

reez... I am not arguing with you I responded to a question some people had as to why the HQ button was not appearing on their pages whereas it was appearing on mine. Now.. you will notice something that you may not have noticed. YouTube DOES NOT put ads.. NO ADS - ZERO on videos that are not by partners.. and ONLY puts ads on Partner videos. Therefore I was proposing that that is probably why the HQ button appears mostly on partner videos and less on regular videos.. as partner videos have ads and non-partner videos have no ads. And at a pretty hefty cpm.. those ads can help pay some of the increased bandwidth bill caused by the HQ button.

So I am not arguing with you.. just having some fun

[reez]

YouTube DOES NOT put ads.. NO ADS - ZERO on videos that are not by partners.. and ONLY puts ads on Partner videos.

DAMN YOU...i was about finished but this one ticked me off


check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKSxHYK_wfs

it's called the video ID system. The company submitted that episode to youtube for "fingerprinting" then when they find your video, instead of REMOVING IT, they "monetize" it, put an ad on it, and make some money.

we must now kiss and make up..or i will be banned from this forum..as i am the one who starts the most off topic topics.

[wonderpierrot]

I think YouTube is finally finalizing the HQ option for all users.

I'm finding a very significant amount of non-partner videos now have a HQ button, and to add to that, every single one of my videos have a HQ button presented automatically.

I can't say the same about a couple days ago, where the HQ button only appeared very rarely in certain videos and when it did, it would randomly go away and later come back.

[legendhouse]

I've been uploading WMV 480x360 3000 kbps test videos and deleting them. I'm getting the HQ option within an hour or two every time.

[atropine]

My 2 cents

It doesn't matter where they put the HQ button they won't get more/less money.

You say: putting HQ on partner vids help make more money
I say: How? Watching a video in HQ doesn't make the ads worth more

They will, because if a viewer is impressed by the quality, they are more likely to come back, so why not start with the advertisement carrying partner videos. I don't watch hotforwords videos, but I watched lisanova's latest video (talking to a skater, coincidently enough sounding like hotforwords), and if you scroll through the comments, there are a huge amount of comments talking about how good her video looks in high quality.

Won't increase the viewer count of those already subscribed to her, but as partners will often on the front page of most viewed etc, you'll get new people watching and be blown away by the quality, and perhaps the high quality video helps on a psychological level to present the advertiser as a high quality client.

[atropine]

To me, it's trade offs for the music/Film industry. The bulk of users will get FLV1, and they'll get the full dynamic audio, which is good, but only mono, to protect the music/film copyright holders.

where did you get that from..then dailymotion would have a problem too if that was the case

Dailymotion are nobodies. I've never even heard of them until you mentioned them. They don't' have million dollar contracts with sony/bmg, apple, etc etc etc.

[reez]

They will, because if a viewer is impressed by the quality, they are more likely to come back, so why not start with the advertisement carrying partner videos. I don't watch hotforwords videos, but I watched lisanova's latest video (talking to a skater, coincidently enough sounding like hotforwords), and if you scroll through the comments, there are a huge amount of comments talking about how good her video looks in high quality.

Won't increase the viewer count of those already subscribed to her, but as partners will often on the front page of most viewed etc, you'll get new people watching and be blown away by the quality, and perhaps the high quality video helps on a psychological level to present the advertiser as a high quality client.

-__- i answered this already. Like I said i believe it's the VIEWS and not exactly PIN POINT on PARTNERS. otherwise ALLL partners would have it and ALL partners do not.

Like I said AGAIN. If they want to advertise it, they shouldn't do it video by video...but more ANNOUNCE it. Like in their slogan or something...or post a video.

You probably haven't been online "videoing" too much because Dailymotion IS a big deal..VERY

[atropine]

-__- i answered this already. Like I said i believe it's the VIEWS and not exactly PIN POINT on PARTNERS. otherwise ALLL partners would have it and ALL partners do not.

You probably haven't been online "videoing" too much because Dailymotion IS a big deal..VERY

Well the thing is everyone has heard of youtube, , I think hotforwords was quoting statistics before, and youtube are where it's at when you think video streaming for the general person in the street. You people are posting on a video streaming section of a video encoding forum. You're going to know of all these places, but doesn't mean joe blog in the street is. I represent joe.

Anyway, I DO think it's partner orientated because as a case in point, NON-youtube partner TheHill88 gets maybe 50K views per video, numerous 1/4 million views and a couple over a million, and she doesn't get the high quality option

EDIT: her videos don't appear in full resolution using the HQ suffix codes. It's possible she's not uploading high resolution videos, so that would explain the lack of HQ. ok bad example.

[rajman]

I think YouTube is finally finalizing the HQ option for all users.

I'm finding a very significant amount of non-partner videos now have a HQ button, and to add to that, every single one of my videos have a HQ button presented automatically.

I can't say the same about a couple days ago, where the HQ button only appeared very rarely in certain videos and when it did, it would randomly go away and later come back.

Yuppppp Im seeing alot of videos now with the High Quality 'TV Icon'...it seems for now (hopefully permanently) it appears if you upload videos using MP4, WMV or XviD using a resolution of 480x360 or above! Im glad if they keep this so I can stop using the FLV method which I can only upload like 5 mins max

[atropine]

went to youtube and checked
some vids have the quality button- the higher quality leads to a flv1 with 96 kbps mono mp3 at 44100kHz-the vid is 480x270 at 750kbps
if you add &fmt=18 you get a mp4 with approx 120kbps aac lc 2 channel audio at 44,100 kHz and the video is avc baseline level 1.1 or 2.1 at about 500 kbps-resolution is 480 width

to my ears the aac audio is much better than the mp3

YOU NEED NEW EARS!

Unfortunately the new HQ audio on .mp4 ddoesn't even sound good with the relatively small frequency response of the human voice.

Take this as an example. Listen to this woman's voice up to the intro graphics, first HQ FLV1, then HQ .mp4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3SKaxNdoaBU&fmt=6 (HQ FLV1)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3SKaxNdoaBU&fmt=18 (HQ .mp4)

You must surely be able to hear the differnce.

[reez]

hey i don't know if anyone talked about this but: this video was done with Frifox's VMUtube so therefore it goes UNTOUCHED by YouTube..but yet when adding &fmt=18 it sounds different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQD00fICFWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQD00fICFWY&fmt=18
why would an untouched video still sound different as if it was converted

[Boulotaur2024]

sounds the same to me, with my Sennheiser HD650 and crappy ears, maybe the non-fmt=18 one is louder but thats about it. Anyway the original mastering probably sounds totally awful.

[legendhouse]

That's what I'm hearing. It's just a little louder.

[atropine]

hey i don't know if anyone talked about this but: this video was done with Frifox's VMUtube so therefore it goes UNTOUCHED by YouTube..but yet when adding &fmt=18 it sounds different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQD00fICFWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQD00fICFWY&fmt=18
why would an untouched video still sound different as if it was converted

Of course it would. Youtube re-encodes the original FLV1 & compresses the audio of the &fmt=18 mp4, and generally makes it sound like shit. Not sure if you realised this, but youtube makes .mp4 videos of ALL flv1 vidoes, doesn't' matter what the original resolution is, or weather youtube encoded the flv1, or weather you uploaded the flv1 without youtube re-encoding it.