Need proper setting to upload 16:9 video to youtube w/o squishing

[slobizman]

I'm having trouble uploading a 16:9 video to YouTube. I've uploaded lots of videos to Youtube in the past, but now I have a new HF100 HD camcorder and uploaded my first video to Youtube , that I filmed at 16:9. I uploaded it as a MP4 file. When I went to view the video on Youtube, it sometimes showed it in the proper dimensions with the black bars on the top and bottom. But then, it also sometimes showed it squished into 4:3. Never consistent. So, I made the video private while I try and figure this out.

Can someone please tell me the proper settings to get the video into YouTube so it shows as a 16:9 aspect ration inside youtube's 4:3 box, with the black bars on the top and bottom, properly letterbloxed?

Much appreciated!!!

[jagabo]

Resize your video to a 16:9 frame size, like 640x360. Then letterbox to a 4:3 frame size like 640x480.

Note:

640 * 9 / 16 = 360

640 * 3 / 4 = 480

[slobizman]

Thanks for the reply. We did that and it's still not working.

What's very strange is how the video sometimes looked right on YT and sometimes looked wrong you YT.

What's really interesting is that I've been searching the web and YT videos too, for anything that speaks of doing anything different on the encoding/upload if it's 16:9, and there really isn't anything. In fact, in and imovie tutorial video on Apple.com, the example shows just selecting the youtube encoding option and it then shows the resulting video letterboxed.

Do you think that it's possible that this whole thing is being casued by something on youtube's end? Is there another web sharing site that works exactly like youtube and we can upload it there and see if it does the same thing?

[vhelp]

As long as you know, YT flash (windowed) player plays your video in a 480x360 window.

If your source origin is widescreen and true aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (rounded) then, for
example: 854x480=1.78, 720x405=1.78, 640x360=1.78, 480x270=1.78, 320x180=1.78

--> 480x270=1.78 inside a 480x360 window

To view a 16:9 type (widescreen) video on YT using its 480x360 (HQ flv or HQ mp4) you have to resize
your video to 480x270 and padd 90 (or 45T/45B) pixels to make a final 480x360 widescreen letterbox
video.

--> 320x180=1.78 inside a 480x360 window

To view a 16:9 type (widescreen) video on YT using its 480x360 (LQ flv 320x240) you have to resize
your video to 320x180 and padd 90 (or 45T/45B) pixels to make a final 480x360 widescreen letterbox
video. But, because the width is actually smaller than the 360 height we will have to do it a little
different. So instead, we take the 320/180=1.78 and subtract 240 (the 320x240 flv dimensions) from
it to get 60/2=30 pixels for top/bottom padding. But, the problem with this (with YT) is that the
final destination gets stretched to YT 's current viewing format, which is 480x360 and consequentially,
things get a bit distorted and/or artifacts become more apparent. So, to help eleviate things, we just
add a little more pixels and make the padding now 32T/32B. This helps to reduce the artifacts you
see when YT stretches the 320x240 video inside the 480x360 flash (windowed) player view. So things
get a little tougher to complete.

However, the thing you want to most pay attention to is the pixel x,y property. That is, as long as
you are dealing with YT videos you should always have 16x16 blocks in mind. Everything else lessor
will result in artifacts around the borders of the padding (letterbox area) and video. So, as long as
you stay within the 16x16 block rule, your video will look better than most 1.78:1 widescreen video
put through their respective conversions.

-vhelp 4714

[jagabo]

Thanks for the reply. We did that and it's still not working.

So you are saying you uploaded 16:9 video letterboxed in a 4:3 frame and YouTube removed the letterboxing and stretched the 16:9 video to 4:3? I find that hard to believe. Could you supply a sample MP4 video that got cropped and stretched like that?

[slobizman]

vhelp: So there is no way to just upload a 16:9 movie and have it play on YT without squishing it into the 4:3 size? The upper and lower black bars must be created in the video editing process? I guess I had thought that you could upload the 16:9 video and YT recognized the dimensions and added the bars. I see that on Apple's site, their tutorial shows them able to do it. Look at the video at the following page:

http://www.apple.com/ilife/tutorials/#imovie-sharing-32

and then when you see the final video on YT at the end of the tutorial, you'll see that it is letterboxed. How do you explain that?

jagabo: No, we simply uploaded a 16:9 video to YT.

Thanks to all.

[bayme]

Don't bother, and just go with dailymotion or vimeo, both support 16:9 uploads just fine.

[slobizman]

Don't bother, and just go with dailymotion or vimeo, both support 16:9 uploads just fine.

Can't. It's my son's music channel and he has nearly a thousand subscribers.

[jagabo]

I don't know exactly what YouTube does with video and aspect ratios. I believe they do support 16:9 video because I've seen some downloads where the FLV file has a 16:9 image letterboxed in a 4:3 frame but the MP4 file has a 16:9 frame with no letterboxing.

In any case here's some general information you may find useful:

The relative frame size of a video doesn't have to equal its display aspect ratio (DAR). Some containers allow you to include DAR information (it may be specified indirectly by a pixel aspect ratio, PAR, the relative width and height of individual pixels). Individual codecs can also specify the DAR. This way any frame size can encode any aspect ratio. In the absence of DAR flags pixels are usually assumed to be square. In that case the DAR is equal to the relative frame dimensions. For example, a 480x480 with a DAR flag set to 4:3 will display as 4:3 if the player understands the DAR flag. Otherwise it will probably play back as a 1:1 square image.

The problem with DAR/PAR flags is that not all programs understand them. Some always assume square pixels. Some may only understand DAR/PAR flags with particular containers or particular codecs. What you need to do is find out what containers and codecs Youtube accepts and for which it understands the DAR/PAR flags. Or resize the video so that the frame dimensions match the desired DAR.

[bayme]

It's my son's music channel and he has nearly a thousand subscribers.

So? I don't see why that makes a move impossible or even remotely wrong. Just link to the new page on your YT page, and you're done. Make a video in which you state the move, and the thousand subscribers will bookmark the dailymotion or vimeo profile. You're basically saying you prefer being an idiot rather than smart:
http://www.dailymotion.com/nl/creative/1
http://www.vimeo.com/1115036

Can't.

"Can't" is just not true. Of course you can, you're just lazy and nuts about a lousy site with shitty technology and a terrible comment section that coincidentally got famous because of others like you being too lazy to move out. Pretty silly, if you ask me.

[slobizman]

Gee Bayne, thanks for calling me an idiot.

Idiocy would be to take a technologically preferable route over marketing-preferable route. You see, Youtube is a marketing vehicle on it's own. That's where the vast majority (virtually all) young people who are interested in discovering new music in video form go. He does not just embed the video into his website alone. The action is entirely within Youtube itself. DailyMotion and Vimeo are not the same animal, even if they are better technology.

Luckily, we're not just techies, but we are businessmen. Or else we'd make the critical mistake you propose.

It's my son's music channel and he has nearly a thousand subscribers.

So? I don't see why that makes a move impossible or even remotely wrong. Just link to the new page on your YT page, and you're done. Make a video in which you state the move, and the thousand subscribers will bookmark the dailymotion or vimeo profile. You're basically saying you prefer being an idiot rather than smart:
http://www.dailymotion.com/nl/creative/1
http://www.vimeo.com/1115036

Can't.

"Can't" is just not true. Of course you can, you're just lazy and nuts about a lousy site with shitty technology and a terrible comment section that coincidentally got famous because of others like you being too lazy to move out. Pretty silly, if you ask me.

[bayme]

Luckily, we're not just techies, but we are businessmen.

Trust me on this: Those thousand subscribers don't give a rats ass about your marketing-bullshit. In fact: They're more likely to be disgusted by it than not.
You have your head in the sand. If you want to keep it that way, that's fine with me. I don't care about your son's music or his success. It'll never become much anyway, considering the fact that your 'business' talents seem to be keeping development and growth out of the equation.

Good luck.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. We have discussed this _SEVERAL_ times before bayme. Please try and consider the feelings of others when posting. Thanks.
/ Moderator offline

[slobizman]

Luckily, we're not just techies, but we are businessmen.

Trust me on this: Those thousand subscribers don't give a rats ass about your marketing-bullshit. In fact: They're more likely to be disgusted by it than not.
You have your head in the sand. If you want to keep it that way, that's fine with me. I don't care about your son's music or his success. It'll never become much anyway, considering the fact that your 'business' talents seem to be keeping development and growth out of the equation.

Good luck.

I didn't think this was such a rude board. But I have a feeling it's just you.

[ricardouk]

I agree with bayme about youtube being that bad, i still experiment with it but moved to dailymotion

if you still want to letterbox here's the avisynth script you should use:

DirectShowSource("C:\widscreen video.avi")
Lanczos4Resize(320,180)
AddBorders(0,30,0,30)

[slobizman]

Thanks ricardouk.

I apologize to the board for bringing out the rudeness in bayme by saying the word youtube..

[hotforwords]

I have no problem uploading 16:9 and having it display properly. Here's how I do it.

Compress it to H.264 at 640x360 BUT WITH SQUARE PIXELS.. not the HD or DV kind.. and it will display it properly from that point on.

I did start taking my 16:9 footage and zoom in to go back to 4:3.. as there is so much real estate lost with the 16:9.

So I am back to uploading 640x480 videos again.. but I had no problem with the 16:9 when I made them square pixels.

[Emersk]

HotForWords is right. 640X360 with square pixels works well. I just did a close comparison against 640X480 and video quality is identical. But when you maximize with 640X360 there is no screen space wasted unlike 640X480 where you get a thick black frame, assuming you are using a wide screen display. Since widscreens are the future this future proofs you. Hotforwords may be maximizing screen real estate on 4X3 screens now by cuttting of pixels on the left and right but in the future her videos will have black bars on the side for most people.

I wonder if H.264 is really better than Windows Media 9.2....

[Coma]

H.264 on its own... only maybe. It depends on the encoder.
See http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html

Currently, (disregarding codecs), x264 (H.264) is the best, followed by Microsoft VC-1, Elecard HD (H.264) and Nero Recode (H.264) fighting for the second place. (each does better than the other on different content, and x264 defeats all of them everywhere)

[bayme]

I wonder if H.264 is really better than Windows Media 9.2....

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/mpeg-4_avc_h264_2007_en.html
is a bit more reliable than just some forum-users claiming things about codec quality.
x264 is the best, by far. Especially the more recent versions.