YouTube offering higher quality video / Stage6 ends services!

[offline]

@ ALL

It seems a minority are using youtube to stalk and flame each other, and it threatens to cross over to VH.

Instant BAN's may be issued WITHOUT WARNING if this continues.
Thankyou.

[manono]

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

I have a theory about that, based on nothing other than sheer speculation. Google didn't spend 1.65 billion dollars of their stock in order to continue to have it lose money hand over fist. Some estimates of their current expenses range up to a million dollars a day for bandwidth costs alone, costs that are still increasing exponentially. And if one of the plans is to be able to put YouTube videos on the TV screen, then they'll have to spend even more money serving up better quality videos. With the continuing growth of YouTube, the plans to add longer length shows and movies, the increased bandwidth usage necessitated by the higher quality videos, just selling advertising isn't going to begin to cover the recurring costs, much less the investment cost by Google, and surely won't make it profitable.

No, I think it's going to turn into a subscription service. Continue to get the low quality stuff for free, but better quality stuff for the TV, perhaps served up via some sort of an Internet-connected box attached to the TV set, and better quality stuff for those that want it for general computer viewing, will come at a price. What price? I have no idea. Ten dollars a month? Twenty-five dollars? A flexible fee which varies depending on how much higher quality video you watch per month? I don't know. The idea began to take shape in my mind when bayme published part of the e-mail he received from that YouTube guy. It gave some information about the directions YouTube planned on going. Or else it's just a figment of my fertile imagination. I've seen no one else mention anything about a subscription service, although it's not all that far-fetched of an idea. So, if it ever comes to pass remember that you heard it here first.

That bandwidth cost estimate and the bit about how advertising will never cover YouTube's costs came from here:

http://imediaconnection.com/content/19309.asp

[hotforwords]

Interesting post manono, but I don't see Google ever charging for YouTube. Google rarely charges for anything as most of their revenues come from ads.

I think that the cost of bandwidth will continue to drop and Google will just continue to invest in YouTube until the time comes where they can start being supported by ad revenues and promotional, marketing revenues, etc.

My understanding is that YouTube consumes SO MUCH bandwidth, like 5% of the entire Internet.. and for them to now start offering higher quality video is even more insane as it obviously drives their costs up as well!

But I see them remaining free no matter what.. without a tiered low quality-free/high-quality-pay structure.

Just my 2 cents.

[Zfree]

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

I've seen ones over 600Kbps but not 850 or 1000Kbps yet.

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

There's also the fmt=17 format that YouTube creates. A low quality MP4/3GP for mobile phones.

My guess is that YouTube will try and make money from displaying ads on the TV. Although a subscription service seems possible too but they're going to need a lot more high-quality content that's worth paying for.
http://googledesktop.blogspot.com/2008/06/from-desktop-to-your-tv.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/17/youtube_talks_video_ads/

[vhelp]

Hi Zfree, Yeah, but the problem with that is partly what I menition in other threads..

That YT is constantly evolving and changing their rules and things, prob by the week or so. Some videos that are reporting certain bitrate levels (among other things) are no longer reporting those *same* pieces of info, today. I found this out these past two weeks, where I had initially started out with three videos, and now down to two, and the line up was swaped around a bit, too.

So, the moral of all this is that you have to educate yourself of these things and come to terms with the fact that although YT will initially provide three videos within a certain time frame, that sometime down the road, those same videos may not be there or in the same "format" order..

EXAMPLE TODAY:

LQ 320x240 flv
HQ 480x360 FLV
HQ 480x360 MP4

EXAMPLE NEXT WEEK:

HQ 480x360 FLV
HQ 480x360 MP4

Infact, I have even seen where YT will re-encode there initial HQ MP4 video. So, you never know what to expect by all this behind-the-scene confusion.

-vhelp 4749

[legendhouse]

..

[hotforwords]

Isn't it funny how this tread has become the defacto thread for all things YouTube video related? I am thinking that perhaps I should just start a thread on my website? I mean.. it seams like they don't really take YouTube seriously over here. This thread should be renamed YouTube Video and given its own slot.

Just a thought.

What do you think?

[bayme]

it seams

seam
Function:
verb
Date:
1582

transitive verb
1 a: to join by sewing b: to join as if by sewing (as by welding, riveting, or heat-sealing)
2: to mark with lines suggesting seamsintransitive verb: to become fissured or ridgy

you mean:

seem
Pronunciation:
\ˈsēm\
Function:
intransitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English semen to appear to be, be fitting, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse sœma to honor, sœmr fitting, samr same — more at same
Date:
13th century

1 : to appear to the observation or understanding
2 : to give the impression of being

[hotforwords]

bayme, actually I was thinking about making a YouTube forum the old fashioned way, with needle and thread!

[NerdWithNoLife]

Funny funny, Marina. I agree with your strategy though. If you want the views, go on YouTube. If you insist on high quality, go somewhere else. Quality is very noticeable to me, but to the average viewer the first thing they see is the content, followed by visual/audio differences.

I'll never go to the internet for my favorite TV shows until the quality is improved, but many people will.

[doomed]

Well, it's official now: http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=91450

Youtube now recommends 480x360 sized videos instead of 640x480 (as they did before)

[manono]

It says 480x360 or higher.

[bayme]

I'll never go to the internet for my favorite TV shows until the quality is improved, but many people will.

Seems to me you are unaware of the existence of this website.. Most new/more recent shows are available in HD 720p mkv format.

[Baldrick]

I'll never go to the internet for my favorite TV shows until the quality is improved, but many people will.

Seems to me you are unaware of the existence of this website.. Most new/more recent shows are available in HD 720p mkv format.

Only WAREZ releases and please don't discuss it our forum.

[doomed]

This guy can still upload very HQ videos: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBY13OcBUhs&fmt=18
I thought this wasn't possible anymore.

[hotforwords]

Can someone help me with the math here?

I am now using 29.97 for my framerate on YouTube... in Final Cut Pro I look at how many frames I have and divide by 2 to get the center frame for the YouTube thumbnail.. but I seem to be off with my 25% and 75% calculations.

At 30fps I would just divide the total frames by 4 to get the 25% mark and multiply that number by 3 to get the 75% mark.. but when I upload to YouTube I am off by about 25 frames or so on a 3 minute video.

Do I need to be subtracting or adding frames to account for the drop frame of 29.97?

Thanks so much!

Marina

[legendhouse]

..

[mikeyai]

Mivid.net (http://mivid.net) doesn't have a limit on video quaity if I hear correctly...

[DereX888]

Mivid.net (http://mivid.net) doesn't have a limit on video quaity if I hear correctly...

Plenty of sites like this don't have such limitation, but the problem is that most of them don't live long enough, most of them dies and disappear - often in less than a year since start - and your videos usually disappear altogether with'em

[mikeyai]

Heh... we'll see. Lol I'll post back here in a year.

[yahoobuckaroo]

I uploaded a video to YT yesterday, and for the first time the video and audio both look and sound great in high quality mode, with no noticable pumping/compression artifacts in the audio. I wonder if they've changed something recently? I haven't done anything differently. I've always uploaded wmv files for the most part, all made the same way.

[legendhouse]

I uploaded a video to YT yesterday, and for the first time the video and audio both look and sound great in high quality mode, with no noticable pumping/compression artifacts in the audio. I wonder if they've changed something recently? I haven't done anything differently. I've always uploaded wmv files for the most part, all made the same way.

They fluctuate.

[Captain Satellite]

Can someone help me with the math here?

I am now using 29.97 for my framerate on YouTube... in Final Cut Pro I look at how many frames I have and divide by 2 to get the center frame for the YouTube thumbnail.. but I seem to be off with my 25% and 75% calculations.

At 30fps I would just divide the total frames by 4 to get the 25% mark and multiply that number by 3 to get the 75% mark.. but when I upload to YouTube I am off by about 25 frames or so on a 3 minute video.

Do I need to be subtracting or adding frames to account for the drop frame of 29.97?

Thanks so much!

Marina

Well, I'm no mathematician, Marina, but it seems to me you would add .3 frames for your calculation to be correct.

[manono]

I uploaded a video to YT yesterday, and for the first time the video and audio both look and sound great in high quality mode, with no noticable pumping/compression artifacts in the audio. I wonder if they've changed something recently? I haven't done anything differently. I've always uploaded wmv files for the most part, all made the same way.

After reading your post I've uploaded a few videos without using the workaround to avoid the periodic distorted loud blasts of audio, and I think you're right. Thanks for the heads up. Makes life a bit easier. Now what to do about all those videos with the messed up audio sitting up there making me look bad?

[DereX888]

Heh... we'll see. Lol I'll post back here in a year.

Wish you luck (not sarcasm, I mean it) and pls do post back in a year.

Whatever the outcome, I'm sure youtube will still be there

[NerdWithNoLife]

I'm pretty sure YouTube includes randominity in its 25/50/75% frame to prevent thumbnail abuse. I uploaded two different videos with the same amount of frames and the frame number printed on each frame - and the 25/50/75% frames differed. Frame rate, frame count, encoder settings, and audio were the same - only the actual footage was different.

The only thing that was constant was the thumbnail chosen by YT was always sooner than the calculated 25/50/75% frame, the smallest amount being 11 frames, the largest being 55. The difference is far too big to be just a timecode issue.

[Seeker47]

"YouTube offering higher quality video"

This has become quite a long thread. I don't have time to read through it now, but will just note that -- in my experience -- YT remains synonymous with crappy-looking FLV video. It was a great revelation to me when I (recently) discovered that FLV can in fact look quite good and hold a larger image size. Therefore, I can only chalk this up to one of two possibilities: YT specs or rules, due to storage / bandwidth issues, OR lousy uploads from people at the lower end of the skills curve. (This is NOT a dis. The former is understandable, and I would know very little about encoding good-looking FLV myself, without studying up on it. I could also easily accept that a fair amount of good video was uploaded there, but they converted it down to some lowest common denominator.)

Mostly, YT is a case of "You probably won't be able to find this anywhere else at all, so just be glad it's here and put up with the poor quality."

Meanwhile, if you happen to know of any excellent looking YT vids (in which the content is also worth watching), and would like to cite them as exemplary exceptions . . . .

[manono]

Meanwhile, if you happen to know of any excellent looking YT vids (in which the content is also worth watching), and would like to cite them as exemplary exceptions . . . .

Boy, is that ever a loaded statement. Therefore I won't point you to mine as you won't think them worth watching. Thousands of people do, though.

However, there are (usually) 2 different quality FLVs they create (and a third "High Quality" MP4 version). One is the "Standard Quality" 320x240 lower bitrate FLV that almost always looks like crap unless there's not much motion. The "High Quality" version is a higher 480x360 resolution and a higher bitrate. Assuming that what was initially uploaded was of higher quality yet, then YouTube's "High Quality" FLV is obviously of much better quality than is their "Standard Quality" version. I agree that it doesn't qualify as "High Quality", but it is "Higher Quality".

...but will just note that -- in my experience -- YT remains synonymous with crappy-looking FLV video.

Perhaps you just don't know how to get the best they have because, as I said, they also produce MP4 versions of all their videos.

The former is understandable, and I would know very little about encoding good-looking FLV myself, without studying up on it.

There's nothing that says you have to upload your video as FLV. In fact they recommend uploading in other formats. You seem to assume they get posted as-is, but everything is reencoded.

[legendhouse]

Meanwhile, if you happen to know of any excellent looking YT vids (in which the content is also worth watching), and would like to cite them as exemplary exceptions . . . .[/quote]


Ignore the stretch in this one. I'm fully aware of what caused it. The vid was really for showing that I can have lots of motion and still make it clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kT3WoGVJVQ

[DereX888]

"
Meanwhile, if you happen to know of any excellent looking YT vids (in which the content is also worth watching), and would like to cite them as exemplary exceptions . . . .

In general I'd agree, most of the "home brew" stuff is just a crap not worth my time - IMHO.

However we all aren't the same since we were born - some of us are white, some black, some men, some women, etc etc etc, and each one of "different us" has different taste for food, clothing, and entertainment needs too. Obviously what suits you will not suit someone else. So 'scuse me, I'm not saying you are a fool (since I don't know you at all), but certainly you have just posted one of the most foolish words in this thread

I have a trailer of one of the really crappy and stupid movies there on youtube (again - that is *my* opinion) which few million people viewed and majority found it out worth watching, so you'll never know what others may like even if you don't like it. Obviously.