Is YT video quality really so bad?

[Bernix]

Hi all.
I still read about how YT damage video quality. I though about it. So why someone or some group do not create site, where (most probably payed subscription because of huge traffics and HW usage) the video is uploaded and published on users demands settings. If YT quality is as terrible as mentioned here, such service can take charge. Or YT can make such service itself, but available only for people they pay for it (upload/download/HW), because the bandwith will increase enormously. And since there are too much of usage of YT, can't imagine they will increase upload/download and their HW for free. Another issue is legal content. I think the main purpose is (home video, tutorials and similar things). At home video I understand the highest quality (but still the service is for watching(sharing*) not to store video), in tutorials I don't see big problem. But highest quality for illegal content is nonsense. The service should somehow calculate price from Uploading size and how much was their HW used. And also end user that downloaded such video should pay some obolos (it means very low price) for such video (higher bandwith)
But at the end, is the YT video really such bad for free service, or is better go with the way to pay for bit better quality? And honestly probably there is such service, but i didn't hear about it, so probably not successful.
Sorry for errors, mistakes and wrong idioms in text.
*I mean by this sharing home video with relatives, or to exhibit.
Bernix

[hech54]

My personal YouTube videos are "bad" because I only ever uploaded "bad" quality. I downsized all of my stuff before uploading.
The video screen on YouTube is about the size of a postage stamp compared to a television....why waste the upload time?(my upload speed is terrible)

[jagabo]

So why someone or some group do not create site, where (most probably payed subscription because of huge traffics and HW usage) the video is uploaded and published on users demands settings.

Because bandwidth costs money and few viewers will notice or care about the improved quality.

There are many file sharing sites that will let you share video files without any corruption.

[Bernix]

There are many file sharing sites that will let you share video files without any corruption.

Yes, that's precisely what I mean. Not to blame youtube for quality degradation, because high quality or not re-encoding of video it isn't goal of this service. So it is clear that video will be more or less affected. If some user want share his video with world in best possible quality, he can put link bellow "affected" video. But for me the quality of YT videos are usually sufficient.

Bernix

[poisondeathray]

vimeo pro is a popular platform for sharing . The pro ($) account enables higher bitrates/quality encoding and a few other features

"Best" possible would be using your own video host CDN and website. For example something like amazon cloudfront/aws/s3 . Then you can specify and make exactly what you want

[lingyi]

As has been stated, the majority doesn't care about getting the highest quality video.

Streaming services like Netflix offer "near Blu-Ray & DVD" quality, yet often offers lower quality during peak hours or because a video is popular (i.e. too many users to maintain the highest quality streams) and most subscribers can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. And I suspect the majority of subscribers don't opt to pay the additional fee for HD quality anyway.

There are high quality video providers, but we don't hear about them because they're not popular. Why pay, when you can get something "close" for free.

[pandy]

YT is OK for most people and most common cases - additionally YT is de facto monopoly case - same for CPU's Intel dominate on market even if other CPU vendors exist.

[lingyi]

Hi all.
At home video I understand the highest quality (but still the service is for watching(sharing*) not to store video), in tutorials I don't see big problem. But highest quality for illegal content is nonsense. The service should somehow calculate price from Uploading size and how much was their HW used. And also end user that downloaded such video should pay some obolos (it means very low price) for such video (higher bandwith)
But at the end, is the YT video really such bad for free service, or is better go with the way to pay for bit better quality? And honestly probably there is such service, but i didn't hear about it, so probably not successful.
Sorry for errors, mistakes and wrong idioms in text.
*I mean by this sharing home video with relatives, or to exhibit.
Bernix

Look at the numerous posts asking about reducing HD videos to DVD or lower (even making them small enough (<10meg) to email to Grandma and Grandpa). In the days before video, 2 for 1 deals on photo prints specials would cause big issues because with two sets of in-laws, sometimes one set of in-laws would be left without a set.

Add in other relatives, "My son (your nephew) is is in your pictures and I want a copy of it." "Why should I pay for a reprint when YOU took the pictures". *SIGH*

I can guarantee the number of family members wanting a copy of your videos would quickly diminish if you told them it would cost $5 to access it.

[Bernix]

Hi lingyi,
EDIT: you quoted it all, and at the bottom is my conclusion. Which in my case is to stay with free services.

But at the end, is the YT video really such bad for free service, or is better go with the way to pay for bit better quality? And honestly probably there is such service, but i didn't hear about it, so probably not successful.

By this I mean that I prefer free service.

Hi Pandy,
Yes it is monopoly. But as it stay "free" it is good enough for me . Intel isn't free and if they slowdown my PC in feature by 30-50% that I bought for lots of money, I don't know what will I do....

Sorry for late responses, I didn't get your reply on email.

Bernix

[pandy]

Hello Bernix, other free alternatives to YT exist - Vimeo is one of few and IMHO Vimeo offer better quality than YT - YT monopoly is outcome of people habits created by Google politics - however as Google policy changing then also YT is affected and slowly begin to be hostile service - personally trying to use Google associated services as less as possible.

[Bernix]

Hi Pandy,
I also try to avoid google as I can, but it is almost impossible. Now facebook poking nose everywhere also. As I have noscript, and visiting imdb.com, noscript ask me there is some cross script or whatever, I don't know right terminology, to facebook. So stay away from this services or how to name it, is impossible. Even visiting companies you need new driver from, there is google and others also. Maybe searching with duckduckgo, but it is not as good as google, but there is also some improvement. Probably when more people will use these alternative search engines, it could helps.
But on other hand, I couldn't resist some new feature of google earth. The models of cities are incredible (3d buildings). Also example of poking nose everywhere. How for example they can know how inner side of our buildings block looks like from inside? Where they got a textures? Because they can't get here personally. Satellites is only answer. But I hope, it is just temporary infatuation on my side.
To Vimeo, average person, that doesn't use noscript and similar add-ons, or just using Edge or other browser, can't avoid google tag manager, or google tag service there also. What does Googlesyndications.com here? By here I mean here

Bernix

[pandy]

Well... very far from topic but i have no Facebook or Twitter account and i can assure you that quality of my life is not affected.

[Bernix]

Really off topic but too shy to write PM. The point is it doesn't matter if you have or not facebook account, the thing is there on imdb.com.
To be more IN here is a list of Video hosting sites
And here is Comparison of them

Of course everybody interested in can easily find it, but at least is related to topic That 7 billions (milliards) viewers per day at youtube.... Some interesting numbers there.

Bernix

[KarMa]

Kind of hard to compete with Youtube when even they operate at a loss. Despite being part of Google, and even creating their own video compression format (VP9) to drive bandwidth demand down. Also Vid.me, a youtube competitor, went under a few weeks ago. Might give this a watch on.... youtube (https://youtu.be/r3snVCRo_bI)

I also tend to believe that Youtube gives some extra features on encoding settings for ranking Youtubers or Top Companies on the platform.

[Tom Saurus]

I am using Google at lot less lately. I tried this browser called Waterfox and the main search engine is called Ecosia. I usually go back to Google really quick because the other search engines seem inadequate in comparison. I was pleasantly surprised that Ecosia has worked so well for me. There have been a couple times where I have to launch another browser and use Google but I would say at least eighty percent of the time Ecosia finds me what I want to find.

As for YouTube it is certainly nice to watch the videos and as long as the videos are at minimum 360p I have no complaints about the video quality. I am glad there are alternatives like Dailymotion.

[_Al_]

Google script is almost on every page and some pages would not show graphical or other objets without allowing it, it is messy, leyer upon leyer of scripts, web pages are designed by other modules that are working under other modules, just what marketers wished for.

To have streaming website on its own is a hassle,
it costs money for decent size and quality delivery. Advantage - quality is what you want but imho that does not outweigh the rest that comes with it. You can have some cheap provider, you are told while signing up that nothing is a problem. But then you find out that site is down here or there. And you need to be a geek kind of, having some knowledge roughly how it works, sometimes details like .htaccess no one tells you why you video is not playing, and many more. So it is not straightforward. Maybe today things get simplified already, I doubt it though. When provider realizes you have video content for streaming on it something interesting might happen as well. They do not want customers like that , those who done it perhaps know. If you have server on its own, then you need uploads, so you pay more to your own internet provider anyway, at least in the USA to have decent upload speed. Also there are subtitles ad other features, that with this format would be spending even more time or selecting specific javascript player that cooperates with it, did not check latest html build in capabilities, if it is possible.
Another bummer is encoding bandwith versions for the same video! Sizes increase, and again your build in player have to support it.

So overall not much worthy. The best thing is to share files thru mediafire and other services, just sending links, then delete those videos, almost no hassle, and some limited space 10GB or so is free.
There are sites that can play those stored MP4 files right away, some want money for that.
For example mediafire, you rightclick that green download button and using: mpv.exe "copy paste link here"

[lingyi]

I also tend to believe that Youtube gives some extra features on encoding settings for ranking Youtubers or Top Companies on the platform.

I don't know about different encoding settings, but they definitely provide more bandwidth (= guaranteed highest quality) to top ranking companies and users. Makes sense as more viewers means more ad revenue.

[Bernix]

Hi _al_ and all,
Just read interesting column, that filesharing is used less than video (*meaning youtube etc.) One interesting thing was the volume of data transferred some years on internet was 2 Zettabytes. While 1 zettabytes was described as 36 000 years long HD video. But there wasn't said, anything about compression of this video, probably uncompressed. Can't imagine it. And it is related to YT, because it has huge majority of videos on internet (*probably some sort of video services can compete or maybe even more Don't know how much), but it means really big volume of data.

Bernix

[Bernix]

if the above statement about Full HD video is right, it seems 36000 of years of video at bitrate bit more than 20MB/s.
Is it normal bitrate for uncompressed video? And yes, megabytes, not megabites.

Bernix

[jagabo]

The bitrate for uncompressed video is simple to calculate:

bitrate = frame width * frame height * bits per pixel * frames per second

For 1920x1080 8 bit YV12 video at 30 fps:

bitrate = 1920 * 1080 * 12 * 30 = 746,496,000 bits per second

Dividing by 8 to get bytes per second gives you 93,312,000 bytes per second.