YouTube offering higher quality video / Stage6 ends services!

[hotforwords]

Usually I get HQ within say an hour... this one took quite a few hours... Anyway... sorry to bother you with that.

[legendhouse]

Does anyone know how to make Sony Vegas 8 Pro recognize the h.264 codec? I have it installed and use it for other programs.

[bayme]

Does anyone know how to make Sony Vegas 8 Pro recognize the h.264 codec? I have it installed and use it for other programs.

Do you mean x264? The answer to that question is already linked earlier in this thread.

Whoops.. wrong link:

Have you ever heard of the [edit] function? You can change the original post with that.

[legendhouse]

Usually I get HQ within say an hour... this one took quite a few hours... Anyway... sorry to bother you with that.

I'm finding that the larger the upload the longer it takes to get the link.I tested that theory.

[legendhouse]

Re Bayme - Do you mean x264? The answer to that question is already linked earlier in this thread.

No,I mean h.264 - That's why I typed it. I usually don't typo that bad. I've tried your way. I'm not impressed. You come across as the render/upload expert, shooting down anyone's ideas other than your own, yet now having viewed your videos (ALL of them) I see that's not the case and never was. Here are two of my latest uploads done my way. View them and compare them to ANY of your YouTube videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xompd-0OfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_WuLU5o0hU

Whoops.. wrong link:

Have you ever heard of the [edit] function? You can change the original post with that.[/quote]

Why would you respond to Marina like this or to this at all? Are you here to help or to try to make yourself look better by belittling people? That doesn't work you know?

[bayme]

No,I mean h.264 - That's why I typed it.

You do realize h.264 is only the standard, not the codec?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
By far the best H.264 codec is x264.org's. Next to that the one by MainConcept, but it's still worse than x264 for most video sources.
Why are you even posting questions about H.264 and the use of Sony Vegas in a thread about YouTube? (a thread I started by the way)

You come across as the render/upload expert, shooting down anyone's ideas other than your own, yet now having viewed your videos (ALL of them) I see that's not the case and never was.

Oh wow, yet another newbie unable to handle intelligence. Are you jealous or something? You don't even know where my videos are on YT, or what its sources look like. Plus I mostly post at vimeo and dailymotion these days, using my Canon HF10 HD camcorder as the source.

I'm finding that the larger the upload the longer it takes to get the link.I tested that theory.

What a legendary theory! We're all impressed; It takes time to encode video. The bigger the source, the longer it takes to get it encoded. Like, duh!

[legendhouse]

Yes Bayme, I got your private message of checking my spelling and calling me a punk and your replies to my last post which all confirm what I said. Again, go watch my videos then compare them to yours. Now you "Meowbay" are making negative comments on my videos. Grow up. When I said I have seen all of your videos, I meant "Meowbay". You linked to one of your vids earlier in this thread. Plus I was told who you are by a friend a month ago.
Just grow up. And thanks for rating those videos with 1 star. It shows you care.

[vhelp]

Hi legendhouse, I posted a method for determining if your was re-encoded by YT. Its
main purpose is to serve as an indicator.

--> https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336882-750.html#1859841 -- June 21, 2008 09:15

Briefly, the process is like this:

A -- Basically, after encode your video, you note the size it is (maybe a few other things)
B -- When you obtain your YT videos through whatever means you normally keep for reference.
C -- Using whatever downloader (ie, keepvid) proceed to D/L, but keep an eye on your vid specs.

If you get an error or video is unavailable, that means that your video is going to be touched by YT.
But how much will depend on certain undetermined attributes. Don't forget that YT injects every
video with their standard metadata headers. So that might throw off the size but only slightly,
a few kb here or there. If you see a few megabytes difference, then you know you video was
re-encoded, period. And from that point your main concirn is how much compression (encoding
setup) you used in your initial video prior to UL to YT, because if your video was touched by YT,
you better depend on how well you encoded your video! As such, since we are nearing closure
with the fact being that YT is re-encoding every video (give or take) it is prob going to be wise'er
to just upload a HQ video that is not encoded with a compression like H264 unless you use a good
encoding stategy that keeps top quality and less compression, leaving little to know artifacts in
your initial videos.

With that all said, I've been exploring other ways to encode (High Quality) videos through the
usual means of a codec, but incorporate the high quality aspects of the video (without the
compression factor) and slate these for upload to YT. The purpose of this proposal is to see
how well YT will re-encode these videos, and compare them against those vids being initially
encoded to FLV and UL'ed to YT (and are re-encoded) vs. encoding your initial video for YT
and see how well they encode your High Quality (codec) video. When encoding with (ie, h264
or other codec) even with an assumed large enough bitrate still leaves a lot of "unseen" artifacts
(and when YT gets it, its over for your vids) and people are uploading these to YT and (as we
are slowly comming to realize) finding that these videos are not as HQ as YT is boasting, as well
as some of us are, here.

-vhelp 4726

[legendhouse]

Hi legendhouse, I posted a method for determining if your was re-encoded by YT. Its
main purpose is to serve as an indicator.

--> https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336882-750.html#1859841 -- June 21, 2008 09:15

Briefly, the process is like this:

A -- Basically, after encode your video, you note the size it is (maybe a few other things)
B -- When you obtain your YT videos through whatever means you normally keep for reference.
C -- Using whatever downloader (ie, keepvid) proceed to D/L, but keep an eye on your vid specs.

If you get an error or video is unavailable, that means that your video is going to be touched by YT.
But how much will depend on certain undetermined attributes. Don't forget that YT injects every
video with their standard metadata headers. So that might throw off the size but only slightly,
a few kb here or there. If you see a few megabytes difference, then you know you video was
re-encoded, period. And from that point your main concirn is how much compression (encoding
setup) you used in your initial video prior to UL to YT, because if your video was touched by YT,
you better depend on how well you encoded your video! As such, since we are nearing closure
with the fact being that YT is re-encoding every video (give or take) it is prob going to be wise'er
to just upload a HQ video that is not encoded with a compression like H264 unless you use a good
encoding stategy that keeps top quality and less compression, leaving little to know artifacts in
your initial videos.

With that all said, I've been exploring other ways to encode (High Quality) videos through the
usual means of a codec, but incorporate the high quality aspects of the video (without the
compression factor) and slate these for upload to YT. The purpose of this proposal is to see
how well YT will re-encode these videos, and compare them against those vids being initially
encoded to FLV and UL'ed to YT (and are re-encoded) vs. encoding your initial video for YT
and see how well they encode your High Quality (codec) video. When encoding with (ie, h264
or other codec) even with an assumed large enough bitrate still leaves a lot of "unseen" artifacts
(and when YT gets it, its over for your vids) and people are uploading these to YT and (as we
are slowly comming to realize) finding that these videos are not as HQ as YT is boasting, as well
as some of us are, here.

-vhelp 4726

Thak you for this. I'm going out to eat right now but I will be trying this tonight.

[bayme]

Why would you respond to Marina like this or to this at all? Are you here to help

Well yes, clearly I am. Again, here's what I posted:

Whoops.. wrong link:

Have you ever heard of the [edit] function? You can change the original post with that.

Show me where I'm NOT helping her with that advice. What on earth is "belittling" about letting her know she can edit her posts, so the wrong links can be corrected (in time)? Similar to the way you don't realize that it's terabyte, not teribyte, or that h.264 is not a codec, people are allowed to correct mistakes in this forum. Seems to me you suffer from severe minority complexes; As soon as someone confronts you with the fact that you're wrong (or not as smart as you thought you were), you feel insulted and attacked, and feel the need to belittle those who know more about the subject. Grow up.

I meant "Meowbay". You linked to one of your vids earlier in this thread. Plus I was told who you are by a friend a month ago.

Ooh, how exciting, you think some "friend" told you "secrets" about me? You have no idea who you're dealing with. I have 3 different profiles on YouTube, by the way. You only seem to know about one.

Why don't you go start your own new thread and brag about WMV in your protected little world of edgy newbies?

[legendhouse]

Bayme - Why are you stalking me? Why are you leaving negative comments on my videos with your other accounts? Why are you putting thumbs down on all of my video's comments? Dude...move on with your precious life. Drop it. I hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. Get over it.

[bayme]

Bayme - Why are you stalking me? Why are you leaving negative comments on my videos with your other accounts? Why are you putting thumbs down on all of my video's comments? Dude...move on with your precious life. Drop it. I hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. Get over it.

It gets better with the newcomers by the day. You seem to be suffering from delusions of grandeur. You're in MY thread here, needlessly insulting the people for no reason other than the fact that YOU can't even read, write or think properly. Get over yourself, nutcase. And please stop posting off-topic nonsense and lies in this thread.

[mats.hogberg]

@bayme & legendhouse: If you have som personal grudge to settle, please do so outside this forum. The rest of the world is not interested.

/Mats

[bayme]

please do so outside this forum.

I already *tried* getting his nonsense out. Please do not incorporate my username in this.

[NoBuddy]

Can we get back to the "technical" themes?

Also discussion is funny, but...

Just my 2 1/2 cents, to bayme:
"You're in MY thread here"
So every word written here is yours? Or did you simply started a thread, but the owner / responsible is videohelp.com ?

If it´s yours: delete my comment....

And "Newbie" "Kid" : what I checked about your YouTube comments...
Less than a kid - Baby stuff.
Thank you, you´re welcome.

Now back to the "how to make it better" - YouTube stuff

[bayme]

RED ALERT to the fellow hex-editing YouTube tech-pushers out there:
Just got an email reply from YouTube's Engineering Manager John, and I think this will - in the end - be a good thing, even though some of you will probably hate me for bringing the whole thing under his attention. I'll post part of his email to me:

I'll need to read through the thread you're referring to in order to get the whole context of what you're asking about.
[...]
There are some challenges with just serving the same video that a user uploaded - there have actually been some security vulnerabilities in Flash that were exploitable by embedding callbacks into an FLV file. Also, if users only upload a video of appropriate resolution and bitrate for the standard player, then we will not be able to offer higher quality versions for TV and/or users with faster network connections.

Anyway, I'll read through the thread and bring this up with the team for discussion.

-John

If you want to see who he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zgFlCw8Aw

[mats.hogberg]

@ all: Keep this thread on topic. First comment against another member (explicit or implicit) will render a yellow card.

/Mats

[bayme]

..

[zoobie]

Also, if users only upload a video of appropriate resolution and bitrate for the standard player, then we will not be able to offer higher quality versions for TV and/or users with faster network connections.

That's what I thought...one version...but others here insisted they actually kept 2 or 3 versions of the same video...which would be rediculous, a space hog, and inefficient

[vhelp]

Hi bayme,

(yeah, you should have left it alone, I'm pissed, hehe, just kidding :P) )

First, make sure you understand that concept.

Actually, I'm still unsure of how this all works. (LSS...Many months back, as I was writting a tool to
aid in this I was still unclear of it and was pretty sure the method I applied to the tool was not
accurate/correct. The idea behind the tools function and this fudging the time laps was to include
a slide bar for scaling up/down and you could see a change in bitrate vs. time. But, since I wasn't
sure of it all, I just simply gave up on it and moved on with my other ideas and things)

Hay, didn't I read somewhere (here or elsewhere) that this still works to some degree ? Well, I'd
still like to know the details.. perhaps I might include that in my next YTHackTool version

Anyway, I'm here asking for clarity, if you could go over this concept in greater detail and I
hope to understand it better. At least I can finally put that aspect to bed

* (if you prefer, you can PM me to discuss further)

Thanks you,
-vhelp 4731

EDIT: Jun 24, 2008 9:15pm
please disregard my request for your assistance on the timelaps matter.. thanks.

[vhelp]

zoobie,

I came across your response as I was posting one..

Its funny you should mention that. I was just thinking the same thing.. that YT keeps only *ONE*
source and uses that for its master -- re-encoding scenarios as time changes and things get better,
etc. But, my thoughts on this was that there was a choosen (or prefered) format, and that being,
WMV. I could be wrong, but that could explain some of those successfull at obtaining quality YT
videos than others attempts when using non-WMV codec formats.

But, it this be true, the its also possible that there may be more than one codec that they save to,
or archive as a final/master for future purposes.

-vhelp 4732

[manono]

Also, if users only upload a video of appropriate resolution and bitrate for the standard player, then we will not be able to offer higher quality versions for TV and/or users with faster network connections.

That's what I thought...one version...but others here insisted they actually kept 2 or 3 versions of the same video...which would be rediculous, a space hog, and inefficient

You're wrong about that, and you misunderstood what he said. If you want to see the three different versions of one of my videos, then download this and study each of the 3 included videos that I downloaded from YouTube in GSpot or whatever you like in order to convince yourself that there are, indeed, 3 different versions created (40.62MB):

http://www.mediafire.com/?neimdvvi5e3

Each of my 40 something videos comes in 3 entirely different versions. And I'm also assuming there's a 4th version being stored on their servers, the source XviD that I uploaded.

What he's saying is that if you upload a video conforming to the standard video requirements, that although they'll also produce the 2 other versions, they won't be any better than the source video. I've seen that at work as well; some guy grabs a standard quality flash video from a similar site, uploads it to YouTube, and the 2 "better" versions look much like the standard version. It stands to reason that you can't produce a better quality version if the source version sucks.

[bayme]

But, my thoughts on this was that there was a choosen (or prefered) format, and that being,
WMV. I could be wrong, but that could explain some of those successfull at obtaining quality YT
videos than others attempts when using non-WMV codec formats.

I don't think WMV is a preferred format at all, not even for the "View in high quality" linkage.
In fact, here's proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK1-u0yHNSU (that example is uploaded as x264 singlepass lossless encoded video, with wav audio..)

And like manono wrote, YouTube keeps the original, then creates (at least) 3 different versions of it. Exceptions occur of course if you upload manipulated/hexedited FLV files, because you might confuse their scripting with that. The encoding of the extra 'high quality' versions isn't always executed, probably because the scripts error out. Or it's put on hold, since they have a LOT to encode these days.

[vhelp]

Yeah, for some reason I thought that they had prefered WMV as the main archive of choice.
I guess I was wrong. Oh well.

..the 3 files.. And yes, I knew this already, thank you. After going through a few of them on my
own (in my slow dialup) I found that out. But I think that the problem is relaying this to the others
that either still don't get it or want to.

We've pretty much astablished that YT creates/encodes to three *new* formats:

A -- LQ flv, 320x240 < 350 kbps bitrate
B -- HQ flv, variable dimensions, aprox < 700 kbps bitrate
C -- HQ MP4 (h264/avc/vc) variable dimensions < 1000 kbps bitrate, (that I've seen so far)
D -- YT keeps your *original* uploaded file in their archive storage

-vhelp 4733

[ricardouk]

C -- HQ MP4 (h264/avc/vc) variable dimensions < 1000 kbps bitrate, (that I've seen so far)

all the mp4 files i´ve seen so far were under 500Kbps

[vhelp]

Yeah, I know I've seen one arond 850kbps somewhere. After reading your response, I'm
still looking my HDD for that clip -- I could've confused it w/ another non-YT source though.

-vhelp 4734

[bayme]

C -- HQ MP4 (h264/avc/vc) variable dimensions < 1000 kbps bitrate, (that I've seen so far)

all the mp4 files i´ve seen so far were under 500Kbps

500 kbit/s in H.264 yields the same quality as double that of older codecs (like H.263). This has also already been discussed quite deeply on this forum regarding the fmt 6 versus fmt 18 issues.

[ricardouk]

Bayme, since you quoted me and vhelp, can you show me the relation between what you wrote and what you quoted? I was merely saying something and not comparing h264 and h263 like you say.

We were talking about subject that you started:

It seems YouTube is currently offering Higher Quality (up to 850 kbit/s A+V) videos to certain locations only, and testing out several different quality formats.

[bayme]

Bayme, since you quoted me and vhelp, can you show me the relation between what you wrote and what you quoted? I was merely saying something and not comparing h264 and h263 like you say.

I know, and I was merely letting people know that the bitrate isn't the real culprit in quality video for/on YouTube. H.264 has 'messed that all up', because it strives to accomplish the same or better results using half the (video) bitrate of FLV1 (H.263). Point being:

a 500 kbit/s H.264 encoded video is of similar or higher quality than
a 1000 kbit/s H.263 encoded video (old flash)..

[ricardouk]

Will they replace the standart version with the fmt=18 version? thats what i think
as soon as latest flash player is "spread" enough.