YouTube offering higher quality video / Stage6 ends services!

[bayme]

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.

Funny that you should say that because most ideas and options that are new in YouTube are copied straight from dailymotion's successes with these options.
Check how their embed code can be customized a lot these days, YouTube still learns from that, started offering the YouTube api-code and even copied the dm-player a bit. Dailymotion was actually the first videosharing site offering stereo audio on them. Also, they have an alexa rank of 49 (that's pretty f_cking high for a website originally intended for France only, and it has about 1000 times the viewers that vimeo has, or stage6 had!)

Also, you might be interested in this: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/dailymotion_adds_hd.php

[NerdWithNoLife]

2. Here's how you get "Watch this in high quality" on your videos:
a. Use Divx, Xvid, or H.264 video with a (video) bitrate of 600kbits/s or higher

Yet another myth. The "watch in high quality" link does not appear when you upload H.264 mp4 by definition. It all depends on your status on YouTube if they put it there. But you can always force it to be there by simply putting the URL in the description, as seen with this example.

I didn't pull that out of my crack, I uploaded videos to confirm it, which I will now make public so you have proof.

This one has a 550k bitrate and this one has a 600k bitrate with otherwise identical settings. The first one doesn't have a "Watch in high quality" link. The other one does. And by the way, I didn't say anything about MP4. The uploaded videos are AVI's with the x264 Video for Windows codec. Furthermore, the default "Watch in high quality" results in an fmt=6 flash video, not an fmt=18 mp4.

[Zfree]

So far I'm getting the same results as NerdWithNoLife. I need to do more tests but somewhere around 600Kbps seems to be where videos get the "watch in high quality" option. My videos 500Kbps or under never got the option but everything 600Kbps or higher did.

For resolution, I found that if I uploaded a 640x480 video the encoded result would have a higher bitrate than the same resized 480x360 video. About 20% more for fmt=18 (523Kbps vs 434Kbps) and 30% (666Kbps vs 517Kbps) for fmt=6. However, I noticed that YouTube's resizing algorithm is based on speed instead of quality. I noticed it was blocky instead of smooth. In my test everything was the same except for the resolution. Same bitrate (1Mbps) and same audio. I would probably resize to 480x360 unless you want YouTube to archive the higher resolution for later use. I only did 1 resolution test though so it isn't conclusive.

[NerdWithNoLife]

I've noticed the higher the bitrate I send, the higher the final video ends up being - but it's always less. Are you sure your 640x480 and 480x360 had the same bitrate when you uploaded? Edit: I'm not doubting you, I'm just asking for more detailed information.

[Zfree]

The 640x480 video was 1076Kbps and the 480x360 video was 1073Kbps with the same settings. I also had some other 480x360 videos ranging from 632 to 1111 Kbps using 2-pass, 3-pass, and various number of reference frames. The encoded fmt=18 480x360 videos all had similar bitrates around 430-440Kbps and fmt=6 was 517Kbps (differences were less than 1Kbps). The video didn't have a lot of fast motion and changes so that might affect it too because it would compress better. I wouldn't trust my analysis too much since I only did 1 640x480 video. I probably won't test anymore videos larger than 480x360 since I don't like how YouTube resizes them.

Also, I uploaded a 579Kbps video and that didn't get the higher quality option so it really does seem like 600Kbps is the minimum requirement.

[bayme]

I probably won't test anymore videos larger than 480x360 since I don't like how YouTube resizes them.

What I think is strange is how they seem to push forward this 480x360 resolution for online video, and 425x319 while it's obvious that it is FAR from ideal for the codecs (any codec really) and players that are being used.

I'd still say 448x336, 512x384, 576x432 and maybe 640x480 would be much better choices for their embedded players and such.

[connect]

aight, i did some testing

Highreso = 1088x624

Lowreso = 640x360

Highreso avi x264 default bitrate 1.6k http://youtube.com/watch?v=EI6D9jLH9eI
Lowreso avi x264 bitrate 4k http://youtube.com/watch?v=keH2FLLTv1w
Highreso wmv default 3M http://youtube.com/watch?v=OfdHiJYjYME


I think the wmv looks the best...

[bayme]

Highreso avi x264 default bitrate 1.6k http://youtube.com/watch?v=EI6D9jLH9eI
Lowreso avi x264 bitrate 4k http://youtube.com/watch?v=keH2FLLTv1w

1.6 k what, 4 k what? These are not bitrates, are they? Also, if your wmv is 3Megabit/s it's logical that it looks better than the other two.

Here's some hints for the highest possible quality file to give to YouTube:

- Use 25 frames/sec all the way. Try to *record* your video at 25 fps progressive, not interlaced, as well.
- If needed resize to 640x480, and if your aspect ratio isn't 4:3 use letterboxing (i.e. add black bars on top and bottom), VirtualDub lets you easily deal with that under the resize filter.

- Try encoding singlepass lossless with the x264 codec and upload the result using YouTube's uploader. As long as it's under the 1 GB maximum size, that'll give the highest quality result.
- Use uncompressed wav audio in it, because re-encoding (transcoding) audio from one lossy compressed format to another sucks, big time. Use 44.1 kHz samplefrequency, 2 channels (i.e. stereo), 24 bits, or 16 bits PCM.

- If you can't fit your video in 1 GB with a singlepass lossless x264 encode, use Singlepass Rate Factor based (i.e. CRF) encoding with the x264 codec. Start at Quantizer 1 (highest quality) and check if size gets you below the 1 GB limit. If it's still too big, use a higher quantizer value. You can easily go up to 10 and still get amazing video quality with x264.

By the way, contrary to popular belief, x264 and VfW are entirely up to date and perfectly fine these days. (Don't let Google hits about this fool you.) http://sourceforge.net/projects/x264vfw/

[connect]

Thanks for the answer, I thought youtube suggested 30fps, but i'll stick with 25 now on. What should I pick for the Screen Resolution? I can shoot any resolution ingame. What do you mean with 'If needed resize to 640x480,' ?

I'm uploading 1088 x 624 uncompressed avi conveted with singlepass lossless x264vfw - H264.mpeg4 avc codec with virtualdub in a sec...

I am not really pro at this , so i might say some stupid things... but I'm learining. Again, Thanks for the answer


Edit:Why the hell does it show me gray screen after when playing the converted avi (in VLC)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1F2X_mW4JQ


i was kind a stupid to upload 200 meg of gray screen to youtube

And now, i converted it to Singlepass quantizer based (i.e. CQP) encoding with the x264 codec at Quantizer 1 (highest quality).. now it doesn't play very nice on my pc... only frames... every 5 seconds or so... i won't upload 300 meg to youtube just to check if it plays there alright... is it my PC ?

[legendhouse]

I'm still doing WMV 640x480 2mbps (2000kbps). They look just like they do on my PC. They start looking good soon after uploading.I'm not doing much for the sound and have lost an important .inf file in my sound but visually,they look good.

[Yunalesca]

Hiya! Found a link to this thread when I Googled the option "Watch in high quality" on a YT vid I uploaded, I was wondering why the quality was turning out bad on it, and then suddenly saw the new option had appeared!

So, I think if you upload a HQ vid, they're actually making the "standard" quality worse...like compressing it into the size of 100MB, and then just saving the real HQ upload for the new option, at least it seems that way.

About the breakpoint stream rate for HQ: Hmm. I just checked the video I uploaded (xVid) in VLC Player Stream Info while playing, and it is quite variable - it has around ~3000kbps in low action and up to as much as 10000kbps in high density shots, but hovering most often around 5000kbps.

Here is the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENP9Y79mQRA

The original was a beautiful 1280x720 @ 60 fps in xVid, audio 256k MP3. (I wasn't the original encoder, I would've put the audio up higher or in WAV!) I think the HQ version turned out great, I was surprised at how sharp it looked, only a couple of minor defects in fast camera moves.

Unfortunately the audio didn't fare so well; while sounding a bit clearer than regular YT audio, it was still poorly defined and in mono, a far cry from the original which had very spatial placement of the musicians.

Here is a good HQ vid uploaded by a friend, who does encode/record his and the quality is a bit better, though his audio is in mono as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnFfhp_pOY8

[bayme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENP9Y79mQRA

The original was a beautiful 1280x720 @ 60 fps in xVid, audio 256k MP3. (I wasn't the original encoder, I would've put the audio up higher or in WAV!) I think the HQ version turned out great, I was surprised at how sharp it looked, only a couple of minor defects in fast camera moves.

Unfortunately the audio didn't fare so well; while sounding a bit clearer than regular YT audio, it was still poorly defined and in mono, a far cry from the original which had very spatial placement of the musicians.

Here is a good HQ vid uploaded by a friend, who does encode/record his and the quality is a bit better, though his audio is in mono as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnFfhp_pOY8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnFfhp_pOY8&fmt=18
is stereo, as usual.

Your other one as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENP9Y79mQRA&fmt=18

Just read back a bit in this thread and you'll understand why. The current "HQ" version plays format 6, a high bitrate FLV version of the upload, with mono audio. My guess is that when the new flash-player is more commonplace, YT/Google will switch to the mp4 (format 18) version, or maybe even a newer format they might come up with in the meantime. As it stands, YouTube is one of the most volatile video-hosting sites I've ever encountered. They change their scripts almost daily. :-/

[connect]

Ok, here's the Singlepass quantizer based (i.e. CQP) encoding with the x264 codec at Quantizer 1 (highest quality) 1088x624 reso

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sNfSs8z7UWY


didn't came out that good

[bayme]

didn't came out that good

What do you mean? Looks fine to me. ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=sNfSs8z7UWY&fmt=18 ) Has no sound though.

Also, uploading as 1088x624 is a bad idea. Why do people keep on messing with aspect ratios and resolutions? It's clear that anything higher than 640x480, and other than 4:3 AR is useless right now.

[connect]

comparing to http://youtube.com/watch?v=OfdHiJYjYME one... which was same reso and rendered in vegas max quali 3M... but I'll do following tests now:

640x480 Singlepass quantizer based x264 codec at Quantizer 1
640x480 Rendering in Vegas maxed 3M

I'll edit the post and we'll see, hopefully there's a little quality improvement

[bayme]

comparing to http://youtube.com/watch?v=OfdHiJYjYME one... which was same reso and rendered in vegas max quali 3M...

I don't know what "vegas max quali 3M" is, and what happens when you encode it as such. Check what Vegas does with the encode, next to saving it. You probably have it set so that it does sharpening and other filtering while you don't even know it. You can only compare codecs if you use the same source and the same filters.

If you're uploading such short clips, try singlepass lossless with x264. You can't get it any better than that, because it's lossless, and only size-compressed.

By the way:

I recommend going with dailymotion. They're stable, reliable, and if your content is your own, you can upload AND embed video as HD, and longer than 20 minutes. Check this out:
http://www.dailymotion.com/faq#what_motionmaker
http://www.dailymotion.com/hd/video/x5hzav

[connect]

Thanks, but if i encode it to singlepass, it shows me a gray screen video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1F2X_mW4JQ

In vegas
It renders it
Mode : Quality VBR or should i use CBR instead for youtube?
Format: Windows Movie Video 9
Pixel Aspect ratio 1.000 (Square)
Framerate 30 ( will change it to 25 for the next test)
'Quality' 100%

And other things are at default... I'm not sure where i can find the 'filters and sharpering' options...

Have you done any testing using vegas ? What came out? Or you usually save it uncompressed and then convert it in virtualdub ?

[bayme]

Thanks, but if i encode it to singlepass, it shows me a gray screen video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1F2X_mW4JQ

In vegas
It renders it
Mode : Quality VBR or should i use CBR instead for youtube?
Format: Windows Movie Video 9
Pixel Aspect ratio 1.000 (Square)
Framerate 30 ( will change it to 25 for the next test)
'Quality' 100%

And other things are at default... I'm not sure where i can find the 'filters and sharpering' options...

Make sure you have VfW x264 encoder installed, so you can pick it in vegas, see here for an example with the old padding trick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UnQWdPhU8Y

Yes, I do a lot of work using Vegas Pro. It's the best NLE around, in my opinion. I usually render as singlepass lossless x264, depending on what it is for. There's a lot of info on Vegas in this forum already, in this thread even. Just do a search..

[connect]

Holy s!ht at his videos , amazing quality

Does the 'old padding trick' still work but will get yourself banned? (though video owner claims that it doesn't work anymore)

I'll check the x264 encoder in vegas in sec... and will edit my post.

[rajman]

[quote="connect"]Holy s!ht at his videos , amazing quality

Does the 'old padding trick' still work but will get yourself banned? (though video owner claims that it doesn't work anymore)

Noo the padding trick doesnt work anymore...as of 20th may Youtube edited their system during the maintenance and so if you upload a video that has been padded it gets re-converted by youtube into 320x240 etc It was great while it lasted...but I think a new method will be found eventually, I remember when there was an alternative method that was similar to the padding, but it got blocked....than the padding method was found, which has now been blocked....so you never know XD
Heres my channel where I uploaded alot of vids with padding before 20th May: http://www.youtube.com/RajmaniaHD
Some examples of HQ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdDoy3LC_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feRJyMkCskE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ele3ZVnB_7E

[connect]

heh, hopefully there will be a new method soon.

Anyways, which do you think is the best quality?

1) http://youtube.com/watch?v=OfdHiJYjYME
2) http://youtube.com/watch?v=WgYm5qLpICQ
3) http://youtube.com/watch?v=IlydGYsMk1Y

the first one, right?

[bayme]

which do you think is the best quality?

1) http://youtube.com/watch?v=OfdHiJYjYME
2) http://youtube.com/watch?v=WgYm5qLpICQ
3) http://youtube.com/watch?v=IlydGYsMk1Y

How can people compare quality if the other factors differ? You use different resolutions, different framerates and different aspect ratios. Make comparisons when you only change one part at a time.

[happynow]

I download youtube video to my ipod using YouTube Robot , I find it at SPAM

[gbi]

hi all, and thanks for this helpful thread
ok, is there some working solution to preserve stereo sound on YT? I've made more than 20 test uploads; today tried with riva flv encoder (i know, it's probably not the best but have GUI, i can't write text scripts in avisynth, is to complicated for me ) h263, 25fps, 320*240, mp3 audio 112kbps@44kHz, overal bitrate was ~320. And they don't reconvert it - it was really stereo - but for 5-6 minutes then back mono
(sorry for my crappy english)

[Zfree]

hi all, and thanks for this helpful thread
ok, is there some working solution to preserve stereo sound on YT? I've made more than 20 test uploads; today tried with riva flv encoder (i know, it's probably not the best but have GUI, i can't write text scripts in avisynth, is to complicated for me ) h263, 25fps, 320*240, mp3 audio 112kbps@44kHz, overal bitrate was ~320. And they don't reconvert it - it was really stereo - but for 5-6 minutes then back mono
(sorry for my crappy english)

You either need to add fmt=18 to the URL (if a H.264 format was created for your video) or look at the new bypass techniques people are researching here.


Does anyone know what happens if an older Flash player views H.264 video? Does YT's embedded player check for that and prompts for an update or do you need to add the detection code yourself? A lot of people still have <9.0.115 according to Adobe.

Edit: Well I installed 9.0.47 to test and it just keeps "loading" with the embedded player. The player on YT's site is smarter though. It'll display the old video.

[legendhouse]

Maybe you all can check out my new video: WMV 640x480 2mbps 128- 44. I don't think a video like this could get any better looking on youtube.It is pure motion. It got the HQ option in about 10 minutes.I'm waiting for a test version to get the HQ now.I dropped the sound bit rate to 96.As I said before,I want visual quality over sound.

[hotforwords]

I got a new camera... and I am shooting in 1080i format... Does widescreen SLIGHTLY distort your image... making it a little wider than normal?

I only ask because I look wider in my widescreen videos vs. my earlier "shot on my mac isight camera" videos.

I would think that the isight would be slightly wide angle and therefore I would appear wider but it's the other way around.

I'm trying to make a comparison here.. am I imagining things? Is it the flat light? Is it the flattening from a bit of a telephoto effect? Or is there some distortion?



I've always felt that widescreen seems to be just a little wider than what I see when I just shoot normally....

Thanks,
Marina
HotForWords

[legendhouse]

It just gives black lines on top and bottom from what I've seen.My guess is that your Icam was lower than 55mm which would possibly make you look slightly thinner along with everything in the shot.What kind of camera did you get?

[hotforwords]

legendhouse, so you think the new camera is more accurate than the iSight? So the iSight made things a little narrower and the Sony is more of a true representation?

[legendhouse]

Yes.Like my wide angle lens.Everything is a little squished as opposed to me normal one.I'm not saying that you look wide!LOL! You're used to seeing yourself squished on cam.If it's a Sony HDR-SR5 or 7 it will also make you wear more base coat makeup! Mine sees too much.I have to make men and women practically spraypaint there face so look their age.You look yound though.