Adobe Premiere H.264 Encoding

[Priapism]

Okay, the MTS file via the Canon Vixia HFS10 looks astounding. Its brilliantly sharp, deep colors, and clear even with high movement.

I have now wasted an hour of my time blindly trying various encoding settings in Premiere.

Each time I try a new one I have to wait 15 minutes for it to encode.

Prefer to do this the more intelligent way.

1) Format: H.264 Preset: 1440x1080i High Quality - Produced poor results with horizontal lines.
2) Format: H.264 Preset: HDTV 1080p 29.97 High Quality - VBR 1 Pass - Produced what I would call DVD quality, but movement was delayed, and slow. Nowhere near the MTS quality.
3) Format: H.264 Preset: HDTV 1080p 29.97 High Quality - VBR 2 Pass - Same basic results. Maybe a little clearer. Nowhere near MTS quality.

Which setting do I want in Premiere so that i can simply *duplicate* the original quality without loss?

I dont understand why its so insanely hard to just retain the quality. I feel like I need a PHD to do this!

[Priapism]

Hi, does anyone have any idea?

The goal is to have an H.264 MP4 file that is equivilent in visual quality to the original.

What Adobe Encoder settings do I want to use to achieve this?

[poisondeathray]

What is your original footage? 1080i30? or progressive?

Are you using AME to deinterlace? e.g. for youtube? If so, you will never get close to original quality. Also, Adobe's deinterlace is drop field and very low quality

Which setting do I want in Premiere so that i can simply *duplicate* the original quality without loss?

Any re-encoding will cause quality loss when using a lossy format. If you encode using a lossless format, it will be many times the size of the original. If you want original quality, why not use the original?

[Priapism]

Thanks for the response!

Here are the answers to your four questions/comments:

1) Lossy format: H.264 is a "lossy format" I assume?
(comment: i've seen H.264 HD videos on youtube that looked almost equivilent in quality to my MTS files so I know its possible. They were significantly sharper than the H.264 I was able to produce with the above listed settings.

2) Original footage: All I know is that its an MTS file created by a Canon Vixia HFS10. How would I go about determining whether its 1080i30 or progressive? Im leaning towards 1080i30 as someone once told me its not progressive. But I am not sure. Suggestions?

3) Am I using Adobe Media Encoder to deinterlace: Not sure what you mean. I am using A.M.E. but I am using the presets listed above. I select H.264 as the format, and then select one of the bolded items listed above as a preset. I don't recall seeing a "deinterlace" setting in there, but if there is one, let me know, and Ill confirm.

4) Why not use the original MTS file when uploading to YouTube: I did this, and youtube jacked it up. The video quality looks phenomenal, and exactly what I am shooting for. However it quickly degrades, sputters and the audio goes completely dead after about 10 seconds. There are several reports all over the web that YouTube is terrible at handling MTS files, and a lot of people are having problems. Here is how it looks with an original MTS from Canon uploaded directly to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuzcUMfXOhg&fmt=22

Therefore: Im trying to encode it myself into an MP4 file, which I assume is easier for YouTube to work with, so I can get an end-result that is satisfactory.

-P-

[poisondeathray]

1) Lossy format: H.264 is a "lossy format" I assume?
(comment: i've seen H.264 HD videos on youtube that looked almost equivilent in quality to my MTS files so I know its possible. They were significantly sharper than the H.264 I was able to produce with the above listed settings.

h.264 is usually lossy, but there is a lossless mode for some h.264 encoders. Either your perception of "quality" is distorted, or you have terrible quality videos if you think there were some on Youtube with similar quality to your camcorder vidoes. Youtube re-encodes the videos at 2Mb/s for the 720p versions. Terrible quality.

2) Original footage: All I know is that its an MTS file created by a Canon Vixia HFS10. How would I go about determining whether its 1080i30 or progressive? Im leaning towards 1080i30 as someone once told me its not progressive. But I am not sure. Suggestions?

You can use mediainfo, but it's not necessarily accurate (just reads header info)
If it looks anything like this www.100fps.com , when you play in a non deinterlacing player, it's likely interlaced.

If you upload a tiny sample to a free hosting site, I can check for you

3) Am I using Adobe Media Encoder to deinterlace: Not sure what you mean. I am using A.M.E. but I am using the presets listed above. I select H.264 as the format, and then select one of the bolded items listed above as a preset. I don't recall seeing a "deinterlace" setting in there, but if there is one, let me know, and Ill confirm.

If you have interlaced material, and you select a progressive output, Adobe will deinterlace it for you. If you have progressive, and select progressive....well there's not problem then. If you want to see an example of the Adobe's "quality" for deinterlacing I posted screenshot here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/sd-interlaced-footage-for-flash-broadcast-t371951.html

4) Why not use the original MTS file when uploading to YouTube: I did this, and youtube jacked it up. The video quality looks phenomenal, and exactly what I am shooting for. However it quickly degrades, sputters and the audio goes completely dead after about 10 seconds. There are several reports all over the web that YouTube is terrible at handling MTS files, and a lot of people are having problems. Here is how it looks with an original MTS from Canon uploaded directly to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuzcUMfXOhg&fmt=22
Therefore: Im trying to encode it myself into an MP4 file, which I assume is easier for YouTube to work with, so I can get an end-result that is satisfactory.

If you just want to do it the easy way, you can use AME, but suffer the low quality deinterlace (assuming you shot in interlaced mode). It's a bit harder to learn avisynth deinterlacing methods, but you should confirm what kind of footage you have first.

[Priapism]

Thanks. Responses on the way later this evening.

In the meantime, take a look at this video. Filmed with the same camera I have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDpYUVjdAo&fmt=22 That's MTS original quality if you ask me. I don't think my brain is playing tricks on me.

[poisondeathray]

Thanks. Responses on the way later this evening.

In the meantime, take a look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2gJoBUtxRA&fmt=22 Its even a tutorial on how to make HD videos on youtube (LOL). But he uses a discontinued mac program, and Im on windows. Note the clarity. You can see the pores on his bald head. Its very good quality in my opinion. Very close in quality to the one I linked you to above. Maybe im fooling myself but this one looks pretty crisp.

1) Quality is a relative term here: it might be decent for youtube quality, but if your native camcorder videos look like that on the highest quality setting, I would return it ASAP . It's quite low quality and I doubt anyone would disagree. Even if you upload a high bitrate, super high quality version, it gets neutered to 2Mb/s when youtube re-encodes it. That is a youtube limitation.

2) The content in that example is low complexity, and easier to encode for efficiency. What I mean is there is the same static background, and most encoders code the differences between frames. There are very few difference between frames. If this was a football match or something with movement, it would look very different. So unless your videos are all "classroom" type low complexity static videos, they tend not to look very good on youtube because of the low bitrate

[poisondeathray]

In the meantime, take a look at this video. Filmed with the same camera I have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDpYUVjdAo&fmt=22 That's MTS original quality if you ask me. I don't think my brain is playing tricks on me.

Definitely not original quality. I admit this one looks better than your first example, but this is 1/2 the resolution and about 1/10 the bitrate of the files your camcorder spits out. It's a 2nd generation encode, and I'm 100% sure that it's not even close to the original.

[creamyhorror]

3) Am I using Adobe Media Encoder to deinterlace: Not sure what you mean. I am using A.M.E. but I am using the presets listed above. I select H.264 as the format, and then select one of the bolded items listed above as a preset. I don't recall seeing a "deinterlace" setting in there, but if there is one, let me know, and Ill confirm.

If you have interlaced material, and you select a progressive output, Adobe will deinterlace it for you. If you have progressive, and select progressive....well there's not problem then. If you want to see an example of the Adobe's "quality" for deinterlacing I posted screenshot here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/sd-interlaced-footage-for-flash-broadcast-t371951.html

...

If you just want to do it the easy way, you can use AME, but suffer the low quality deinterlace (assuming you shot in interlaced mode). It's a bit harder to learn avisynth deinterlacing methods, but you should confirm what kind of footage you have first.

Seconding. If you're looking to deinterlace properly, just install Avisynth, grab a good deinterlacer filter like NNEDI2, and write a two-line script to work magic. AME and Quicktime H.264 is, from what I've seen, pretty bad.

Why don't you post up a short sample of your clip like PDR asks, and he'll/we'll check it it for you.


edit: Here are some raw HF-S10 MTS files I found through searching Vimeo:

http://mr.leureduthe.free.fr/HFS10/

[creamyhorror]

3) Am I using Adobe Media Encoder to deinterlace: Not sure what you mean. I am using A.M.E. but I am using the presets listed above. I select H.264 as the format, and then select one of the bolded items listed above as a preset. I don't recall seeing a "deinterlace" setting in there, but if there is one, let me know, and Ill confirm.

If you have interlaced material, and you select a progressive output, Adobe will deinterlace it for you. If you have progressive, and select progressive....well there's not problem then. If you want to see an example of the Adobe's "quality" for deinterlacing I posted screenshot here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/sd-interlaced-footage-for-flash-broadcast-t371951.html

...

If you just want to do it the easy way, you can use AME, but suffer the low quality deinterlace (assuming you shot in interlaced mode). It's a bit harder to learn avisynth deinterlacing methods, but you should confirm what kind of footage you have first.

Seconding. If you're looking to deinterlace properly, just install Avisynth, grab a good deinterlacer filter like NNEDI2, and write a two-line script to work magic. AME and Quicktime H.264 is, from what I've seen, pretty bad.

Why don't you post up a short sample of your clip like PDR asks, and he'll/we'll check it it for you.


edit: Here are some raw HF-S10 MTS files I found through searching Vimeo:
http://mr.leureduthe.free.fr/HFS10/
Downloading one to check it out now.
-- don't download 00024.MTS, it's a dark scene
-- 00056.MTS is an indoor scene
-- 00037.MTS is more dark footage, urgh

edit2:

In the meantime, take a look at this video. Filmed with the same camera I have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDpYUVjdAo&fmt=22 That's MTS original quality if you ask me. I don't think my brain is playing tricks on me.

The colors are good, but there's not much detail (left). If you compared it with the original video, I suspect you'd find a fair bit of differences. Still, I'm surprised you can't achieve even Youtube level with AME...I didn't expect it to be that bad.

[Priapism]

I guess I should say this then: I would be *extremely* satisfied with that result on YouTube (the flower video). That video is what got me to buy the camera in the first place.

[creamyhorror]

Upload an MTS for us to work on then...

edit: I suspect I could get footage as good as that Youtube video from a $200-300 Aiptek...though once uploaded to YT, all bets are off.

[Priapism]

Are you sure you're viewing the High Definition form of that video? Look at the "bud" in front of the flower ... he had the focus a little off .... but that bud is focused. Its insanely crisp. Its high definition quality for sure. I dont know why you feel its so inferior.

Look at the comments people are making below the video....

Oh ma gawd, that's f*cking awesome picture quality!
holy smokes great camera and quality.
this is awsome.. what a beautiful quality.. i am going to buy this camcorder.
Amazing! Did you upload the file striaght to youtube or do some editing...?
can u do another shoot.. this was so beautiful but brief. i want to see more the colors with this camcorder.

[creamyhorror]

Obviously people are going to think that's good quality, because they're comparing it to other things on Youtube. And yes, I know it's HD, but it's not really "quality" - just the best you can do with Youtube. I'd be happy to do a comparison with the original source but I don't have access to it.

I just encoded a properly-deinterlaced 720p video from one of the files I got from that random site above. It's not going to be as impressive color-wise because it's not a plant scene, but it's what I'd consider a fair-to-good level of quality.

Link

4711 Kbps (the Youtube one is 2000Kbps), CRF 20, deinterlaced with NNEDI2 and resized from 1920x1080 with Lanczos4Resize.

Snapshot (JPG for quicker loading):

[Priapism]

Anyways its not important to debate what your minds eye see's, compared to my minds eye.

The only thing that matters is that I'd like my videos to look as good, or better, than the flower video.

If we can accomplish that, I will be elated.

Its late so ill respond to the above posts in the morning with more of the info you requested.

-P-

[creamyhorror]

Anyways its not important to debate what your minds eye see's, compared to my minds eye.

Sure, but you should realize that this isn't purely (or even mostly) subjective. If you're happy with that sort of quality, no problem - I was just letting you know that it isn't considered that great by me (and probably a good deal of encoder folks).

The only thing that matters is that I'd like my videos to look as good, or better, than the flower video.

Deinterlace with Avisynth and encode with MeGUI (or Handbrake) as I did. It's that simple.

[Priapism]

So basically what you guys are saying is that the nearly $1,000 video editing package known as Adobe Premiere is incapable of creating a high quality H.264 video.

The whole purpose of getting the insanely expensive Adobe Premiere was so that I wouldn't have to stumble around downloading 400 different programs just to do what I want to do.

This is just one aspect of what I want to do with my videos. Youtube. I also will want to author standard DVD's. I also will want to author BluRay DVD's. I don't want to have to have 10 different programs installed just to do each little step of each type of process.

That's why I titled this thread, basically, "how do I do this using Premiere?"

I noticed that 99% of threads on this board degrade into a discussion of between 5 and 15 different mini-programs you have to use to piecemeal together your videos.

I was hoping after 10 years, someone had created an all-in-one solution. I assumed Premiere was advanced enough that it could do these things...

[filmboss80]

It is not Premiere that degrades the video, it is YouTube. You have completely missed the point of most of the posts in this thread. You need to analyze your source video in terms of resolution, aspect ratio, frame rate, bitrate, interlacing vs. progressive, etc., and work within those parameters.

I am assuming you have the latest version of Premiere Pro. It should be able to handle what you throw at it, provided you have enough CPU power and the proper settings.

Additional note: a YouTube "HD" video may look sharp on your PC, but try playing that out on a real HDTV set...or any TV set for that matter. You'll begin to see the compression flaws of low bitrate video, especially with high-motion footage. A flower is not a high-motion object.

[poisondeathray]

Premiere is a great NLE, but it has limitations. It can do lots of stuff the "other" programs can't.

AME deinterlacing sucks big time, vegas sucks too for deinterlacing. This is fact and not debatable at all. We can argue about things like which encoder is better, as the differences between them are less than the differences between deinterlacing....but did you look at the sample screenshot I posted? It drops 1/2 the fields!

As filmboss reiterated, the main problem is youtube, not AME/Premiere. 2Mb/s for 720p? come on!!

Yes, you can do it all with Premiere/AME/Encore, but it's not necessarily the best for everything, that's all. And if you "percieve" those youtube videos as "high quality" , you might not even notice the difference anyway... so go ahead....

You can call it "degrading into a discussion", but we are just providing you better options . Easy isn't always better quality, it's up to you to make the trade offs, weighing the pros/cons and what you are comforatble with

You still haven't provided the sample file or information requested. We cannot give specific instructions on how to use AME or proper settings until you identify what you have...

[Supreme2k]

I think that you first have to get your math straight.

2 or 3 programs does not equal "400 different programs" (or even 10).

Just because a program is expensive, doesn't mean it is the best at everything. I can get an Enzo that will win me races, but it's not going to tow my boat very well.

[creamyhorror]

So basically what you guys are saying is that the nearly $1,000 video editing package known as Adobe Premiere is incapable of creating a high quality H.264 video.

Yes, that's what I think. But it may be high-quality enough for your needs.

The whole purpose of getting the insanely expensive Adobe Premiere was so that I wouldn't have to stumble around downloading 400 different programs just to do what I want to do.

This is just one aspect of what I want to do with my videos. Youtube. I also will want to author standard DVD's. I also will want to author BluRay DVD's. I don't want to have to have 10 different programs installed just to do each little step of each type of process.

Tough. I'm sure to some extent you can do most of those things in Premiere, though.

That's why I titled this thread, basically, "how do I do this using Premiere?"

You asked about how to achieve better quality in Premiere, but we don't think Premiere can give you that quality. Simple as that.

On the other hand, you might be doing something wrong in Premiere, and we could tell you if that was the case if you had just posted a raw video sample and one of your encodes from Premiere. Which you still haven't done.

I was hoping after 10 years, someone had created an all-in-one solution. I assumed Premiere was advanced enough that it could do these things...

It might be able to do most of these things, but not well. Using specific tools for different tasks is still the standard practice for high-quality amateur encoding.

[Priapism]

Damn. That really sucks.

Is Adobe aware that their flagship video editing software is incapable of creating "loss-less" High definition video?

Im amazed they're able to sell it.

[Priapism]

doublepost.

[Priapism]

h.264 is usually lossy, but there is a lossless mode for some h.264 encoders.

Okay and just to confirm: Adobe Premiere CS4 does not have an encoder that has a lossless mode. Right?

If it looks anything like this www.100fps.com , when you play in a non deinterlacing player, it's likely interlaced.

See the list of bolded presets in my top posts. The first two - I believe - resulted in the interlaced effect. The last two had no issues with interlacing. It looked pretty much DVD quality, but nowhere near High Definition.

If you upload a tiny sample to a free hosting site, I can check for you

Are you able to download it directly using this? http://www.randomstufff.com/dev/clip.mts

you want to see an example of the Adobe's "quality" for deinterlacing I posted screenshot here

That looks about right. Where do they get off calling that high definition? At best, its standard DVD quality.

It's a bit harder to learn avisynth deinterlacing methods

AVISYNTH can output HD quality H.264 MP4 files, right?

Even if you upload a high bitrate, super high quality version, it gets neutered to 2Mb/s when youtube re-encodes it. That is a youtube limitation.

My MTS looked awesome, but the video quickly faltered and sound went dead. I see other HD videos that look great on youtube though. Hopefully AVI Synth can help me make one that works well with YouTube. Im assuming if I go for Mp4 it will play nicer with it. Any merit to that assumption?

The content in that example is low complexity, and easier to encode for efficiency. What I mean is there is the same static background

That's a really good point. I had noticed an incredible HD video with a hummingbird which looked great. But 80% of the background was completely stationary. I had wondered if that played a role in how well it ended up looking on YouTube.

I admit this one looks better than your first example, but this is 1/2 the resolution and about 1/10 the bitrate of the files your camcorder spits out

Do ya think I can make it look better on youtube by using AVI Synth? Fingers crossed...!

-P-

[poisondeathray]

Okay and just to confirm: Adobe Premiere CS4 does not have an encoder that has a lossless mode. Right?

You should read up on what lossless and lossy compression means. You can use uncompressed for example, that would be lossless. You can install lossless codecs, like huffyuv, lagarith. Lossless formats are many many times the size of the original, probably not what you want.

An analogy is flac and mp3. You can re-encode the same mp3 over and over again and it gets worse and worse each generation. Some information is lost each generation, permanently. Flac remains the same. Flac is lossless, mp3 isn't.

See the list of bolded presets in my top posts. The first two - I believe - resulted in the interlaced effect. The last two had no issues with interlacing. It looked pretty much DVD quality, but nowhere near High Definition.

"high definition" usually refers specifically to the resolution. This implies better image quality, but not necessarily so. So anything over 720x480 is usually "HD".

Are you able to download it directly using this? http://www.randomstufff.com/dev/clip.mts

I'll report back after looking at it

That looks about right. Where do they get off calling that high definition? At best, its standard DVD quality.

Again HD refers to the resolution. Specifically you want to look at the remanining "jaggies" ; lines aren't smooth, they look like zig zags. This is an example of bad quality deinterlacing, even before we have a discussion on encoders.

AVISYNTH can output HD quality H.264 MP4 files, right?

avisynth is a scripting language , a frame server, it doesn't output it directly, it can be used to manipulate video. It "feeds" frames into an encoder

My MTS looked awesome, but the video quickly faltered and sound went dead. I see other HD videos that look great on youtube though. Hopefully AVI Synth can help me make one that works well with YouTube. Im assuming if I go for Mp4 it will play nicer with it. Any merit to that assumption?

likely an issue with .mts and youtube, and/or interlacing issues. The higher the quality the video you upload, the higher the quality it becomes you youtube. But I can't emphasize enough even if you upload a masterpiece, it will look like crap on youtube. This is a youtube limitation. But if you upload crap, it will end up looking like worse crap.

The content in that example is low complexity, and easier to encode for efficiency. What I mean is there is the same static background

That's a really good point. I had noticed an incredible HD video with a hummingbird which looked great. But 80% of the background was completely stationary. I had wondered if that played a role in how well it ended up looking on YouTube.

Absolutely. That's how video works, it encodes differences between frames. With a fixed 2Mb/s limitation like youtube, you have no leeway. Everything looks like crap, and anything with motion looks like worse crap.

I admit this one looks better than your first example, but this is 1/2 the resolution and about 1/10 the bitrate of the files your camcorder spits out

Do ya think I can make it look better on youtube by using AVI Synth? Fingers crossed...!

Not much, the limitation is youtube. If you used a better hosting site, it would look 100x better.


EDIT: your clip is 1080i30 , so it is interlaced.

[Priapism]

Okay a bit of a redirect here. Humor me (i know this is going to be painful for ya!) on the Adobe Premiere thing.

The AME has an option "H.264 BluRay". I hadn't noticed that before. I tried it just now and was very impressed with the results. Let me run the default settings by you, and tell me what you would change to improve the quality. I just want to see how good Adobe can get, if everything is set optimally. If Im still disappointed, I'll give up on it.

Format: H.264 Blu-ray
MULTIPLEXER
* Multiplexing: TS
* Bitrate Type: Constant
* Mux Rate [kbps]: 0
* Video Buffer Size [kB]: 0
* Audio Buffer Size [kB]: 4
VIDEO
* Codec: MainConcept H.264 Video
* TV Standard: NTSC
* Frame Dimensions 1440x1080
* Frame Rate: 29.97
* Field Order: Lower
* Pixel Aspect Ratio: Widescreen 16:9
* Profile: High
* Level: 4.1
* Bitrate Encoding VBR, 1 Pass
* Target Bitrate: 20
* Max Bitrate: 25
* Set Keyframe Distance: No
* Macroblock Adaptive Frame-Field Coding: No
AUDIO
* Format: Dolby Digital
* Codec: Dolby Digital
* Audio Layer: Dolby Digital Stereo
* Frequency 48kHz
* Bitrate: 192 kbps

Resulting file is an .m2T file

Suggested Changes?

EDIT - here is the resulting video - I actually changed it to VBR 2 Pass and the quality increased. But there is a sputtering in the video with both 1 and 2 VBR. Compare to "clip.mts" in the link in my post above if you want to compare to original:
http://www.randomstufff.com/dev/clip_AME.m2t

-P-

[poisondeathray]

If this is for youtube, you should use 1:1 pixels ie. 1920x1080, not 1440x1080 anamorphic

2pass VBR will always get you better quality than 1 pass VBR

Higher bitrates will get you better quality that lower bitrates, all else being equal. But this means larger filesizes to upload to youtube

But I think the recommended guidelines for youtube are resize to 1280x720, instead of 1920x1080

I'm uncertain if youtube will allow transport stream (.m2t). So you could re-wrap it into .mkv or .mp4 (mkvtoolnix , or yamb). You have to check their guidelines

If you're happy with the quality locally on your PC, then that's great. Just be prepared for a quality "let-down" when you upload it , again youtube limitation...

EDIT: your re-encoded clip is still interlaced (ie. it was encoded interlaced), and you swapped the field order from top to bottom. That is why it's jerky. So youtube will probably not like it. An easy way to tell this without getting into avisynth, would be to play it in VLC (or any player), and turn off the (automatic) deinterlacing

[poisondeathray]

If you want a youtube compatible file, with just Adobe stuff:
format=> h.264

video settings
width 1280
height 720
frame rate 29.97
field order progressive
pixel aspect ratio: widescreen 16:9
profile high
level 4.2
bitrate encoding vbr 2pass
target bitrate (something high, try 10-15Mbps)
maximum bitrate (something higher, try 20-25Mbps)

audio
(I think you might have to resample the audio to 44.1Khz, the 48Khz might not be accepted by youtube)

This is overkill for youtube, because it will re-encode it to 2Mbps, but it should look "acceptable" locally on your PC, although 1/2 resolution (1280x720). I don't use youtube, so maybe others can give you better ideas

[Priapism]

If this is for youtube, you should use 1:1 pixels ie. 1920x1080, not 1440x1080 anamorphic

That is true for the HD version of the video on youtube right?
What shape is my MTS file?

You swapped field order from bottom to top

I set it to "lower" (see settings above)

[poisondeathray]

If this is for youtube, you should use 1:1 pixels ie. 1920x1080, not 1440x1080 anamorphic

That is true for the HD version of the video on youtube right?
What shape is my MTS file?

Your original file is 1920x1080 1:1 square pixel, but interlaced (ie. 1080i30)

Sorry, I meant you swapped it from top to bottom. The original file is Top Field First. Most all consumer HD interlaced formats are TFF. I edited the above post

Youtube HD is 1280x720 1:1 square pixel, progressive (ie. 720p). I think that is what they expect you to upload as well. I think you should resample the audio as well to 44.1Khz, I think it says that on their page

If you look above or at the encoding settings you used, it was 1440x1080 (anamorphic)