Can FLV Video Quality Be Improved?

[rckowal]

I have some downloaded (YouTube, etc.) FLV video files that have mediocre quality. This lack of quality is, of course, obvious on the source.

I know that this question has been asked many times in the past, but has anyone come up with a way to improve FLV video quality?

If this is possible, it would be a very welcome tool.

[filmboss80]

FLV's only strength is that it compresses video down to small file sizes and is not a bandwidth hog when streaming online. That is all it is good for. The compromise is that the compression process throws out image detail--and it cannot be recovered.

Certainly, things like brightness, color levels, and "perceived" detail can be enhanced by converting to an intermediate video format like HuffYuv, then adding filters in a tool like VirtualDub, but there are still limitations to what you can do. This is a case of "garbage in, garbage out," and if your source video is lousy, your hands are considerably tied.

[Seeker47]

FLV's only strength is that it compresses video down to small file sizes and is not a bandwidth hog when streaming online. That is all it is good for. The compromise is that the compression process throws out image detail--and it cannot be recovered.

Certainly, things like brightness, color levels, and "perceived" detail can be enhanced by converting to an intermediate video format like HuffYuv, then adding filters in a tool like VirtualDub, but there are still limitations to what you can do. This is a case of "garbage in, garbage out," and if your source video is lousy, your hands are considerably tied.

O.K., but I thought that not all .FLV was created equal. A surprisingly good quality trailer for the last James Bond movie (for example) was widely available online. (But that was professionally made, and I think it had a file size notably larger than average for FLV of similar length.)

[filmboss80]

FLV's only strength is that it compresses video down to small file sizes and is not a bandwidth hog when streaming online. That is all it is good for. The compromise is that the compression process throws out image detail--and it cannot be recovered.

Certainly, things like brightness, color levels, and "perceived" detail can be enhanced by converting to an intermediate video format like HuffYuv, then adding filters in a tool like VirtualDub, but there are still limitations to what you can do. This is a case of "garbage in, garbage out," and if your source video is lousy, your hands are considerably tied.

O.K., but I thought that not all .FLV was created equal. A surprisingly good quality trailer for the last James Bond movie (for example) was widely available online. (But that was professionally made, and I think it had a file size notably larger than average for FLV of similar length.)

Well, if the source file is good from the very start (encoding at a higher bitrate, and likely using H.264), you certainly can have a good looking video. However, your introductory post spoke of YouTube videos of "mediocre quality." You can't really do a whole lot with ultra-compressed media files, other than some slight enhancements that make them a bit easier on the eyes.

[Seeker47]

your introductory post spoke of YouTube videos of "mediocre quality."

Uhm, not mine -- that was the OP. I just asked a question in response . . . which you've now answered.

[filmboss80]

your introductory post spoke of YouTube videos of "mediocre quality."

Uhm, not mine -- that was the OP. I just asked a question in response . . . which you've now answered.

Ah, yes. My mistake. Yeah, those Bond trailers had an excellent source, too.

[rckowal]

FLV's only strength is that it compresses video down to small file sizes and is not a bandwidth hog when streaming online. That is all it is good for. The compromise is that the compression process throws out image detail--and it cannot be recovered.

Certainly, things like brightness, color levels, and "perceived" detail can be enhanced by converting to an intermediate video format like HuffYuv, then adding filters in a tool like VirtualDub, but there are still limitations to what you can do. This is a case of "garbage in, garbage out," and if your source video is lousy, your hands are considerably tied.

Thanks for the reply Filmboss, it's appreciated.

I don't know a thing about about either of these s/w but I'm going to learn what they have to offer. Do you know of any good beginners guides for using them? If so, where can I find them?

[lordsmurf]

You need to use the best version of the Adobe encoder for a good FLV. It also helps to know what you're doing in the custom options, to tweak bitrates, keyframes, etc. And FLV quality it is very directly related to the quality of the source, or of the filtered intermediary.

I don't like Squeeze.

[hech54]

The compromise is that the compression process throws out image detail--and it cannot be recovered.

CANNOT be recovered.
CANNOT be recovered.
CANNOT be recovered.

[lordsmurf]

Use Avisynth and the special super double top secret CSI filters.

FLVSource()
FixAnything()

Works every time

[hech54]

Use Avisynth and the special super double top secret CSI filters.

FLVSource()
FixAnything()

Works every time

Next thing you'll be posting the super duper universal Blu Ray player zone free/region free hack.

[rckowal]

You need to use the best version of the Adobe encoder for a good FLV. It also helps to know what you're doing in the custom options, to tweak bitrates, keyframes, etc. And FLV quality it is very directly related to the quality of the source, or of the filtered intermediary.

I don't like Squeeze.

Thanks for the tip Lordsmurf. I know very little about this Adobe FLV s/w so I don't know what the "best version of the Adobe encoder" is. Where can I find more information, better yet a users guide, for it?