VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and copy Ultra HD Blu-rays and DVDs! Or rip iTunes movies and music! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42
Thread
  1. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    I'm not complaining but just reminding everyone how bad youtube compression is. I've uploaded a sample file that is about 93MB in size originated from capturing a S-VHS tape, The uploaded NTSC file is 704x480 4:2:2, video bitrate 9,419 kbps, audio bitrate 192Kbps, 59.94 FPS. After the upload youtube resized the file to 640x480, downsampled it to 4:2:0, dropped the video bitrate to 716 kbps, the audio bitrate to 128Kbps, the frame rate to 29.97 FPS and the file size became 8MB. Wow!!!

    See samples:
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  2. I have no problem with you tube.
    Video I put there in 1080p looks ok to me

    It's free. Everything free has a price....

    Given how much data is uploaded to that platform every minute of every day, it's no wonder they have to do something....

    I do have a problem with the number of mid roll adverts, that is getting a bit out of hand now.

    More adverts than terrestrial tv, and that is saying something.

    Vimeo is a good platform, but heavily restricted for free users in terms of upload limits, 500mb per week, with a 5gb storage limit, I can upload three or four times that to you tube per day on a good day.

    Being able to upload 2gb files to you tube for free is a huge bonus imo. I often upload 1.5 - 2gb in a single upload so I have to be happy with how it ends up looking.
    Last edited by super8rescue; 20th Aug 2020 at 08:07.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Just my two cents but...


    You have actually disproved your own topic header/OP by showing how efficient the yt encoding process is.


    Tell me if I have this wrong but no online player actually supports an AR flag so your video would have to be resized to 640*480 which is, how I understand it, how your 704*480 actually displays.


    Would anyone, who tends to look at an upload once, actually worry that the chrome subsampling is only 4:2:0. And since this is dvd-spec then that is what their eyes are more accustomed to.


    As for the bitrate, you would never convince anyone that +9000kbps is necc for SD AVC. Back in the day I would throw 1500kbps at SD xVID which is a much more inefficient codec. More so that no online platform would even contemplate sending such a bitrate.


    I do not know the source but both actually crop detail from the left of the picture.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Yes YT is bad. But you can improve it - you need to upscale it for YT. Currently (and for the last few years) , 720p is the lowest resolution that offers 50p/59.94p
    Quote Quote  
  5. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Youtube is mediocre.
    My cat likes cat food.
    Farts stink.

    All true and obvious statements.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    My cat likes cat food.
    Which kind? Mine are very fussy.

    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Youtube is the Most Mediocre Streaming Platform
    What is the second most mediocre streaming platform?

    If you don't want to use the second most mediocre streaming platform, then youtube may also be the best. Same for ebay and amazon.

    Youtube will do decent encodes for "partners" (moneyed interests). For the unwashed, you'll take what they give you and you'll like it.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Youtube is mediocre.
    My cat likes cat food.
    Farts stink.

    All true and obvious statements.
    I just bought mediocre cat food, it's on special this week, so I loaded up.

    My cats farts stink, not as much as mine do....

    You tube is very handy for sharing video even if it does stink a bit.

    If anyone expects top notch video playback from a free website drowning in adverts ...........

    I love you tube more than my telly, that's for sure.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by ponens View Post
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    My cat likes cat food.
    Which kind? Mine are very fussy.
    9 Lives, not pate.

    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    What is the second most mediocre streaming platform?
    Vimeo.

    Originally Posted by super8rescue View Post
    I just bought mediocre cat food, it's on special this week, so I loaded up.
    Same here, grab about 2 months worth, which is when the next sale usually hits.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Yes YT is bad. But you can improve it - you need to upscale it for YT. Currently (and for the last few years) , 720p is the lowest resolution that offers 50p/59.94p
    Yes, I learned that from you from an old thread, But like I said I'm not complaining I'm just surprised how bad the compression ratio is. I've never intended from youtube to be my gateway for showing a work of art. It is just a convenient way for sharing useful info. That's why we have to upload samples to the forum.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    I appear to be in a minority of 1 here but I also am in no way endorsing yt since I have not used it for many a year for uploads. And in those days IIRC it did not re-compress at all.


    I just wonder if your sample is too extreme. In that I wonder if the actual quality was so good that it could compress like that.


    Maybe you should do another with a more typical bitrate for AVC for SD video and compare the results then.


    And no one on here ever suggest yt uploads for samples when assistance is sought.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    I just wonder if your sample is too extreme. In that I wonder if the actual quality was so good that it could compress like that.
    I don't think so, Youtube consider any video bellow 720p is mediocre and doesn't deserve to look good, HD and 4K videos can some how look good on youtube since there is more details that can mask the compression artifacts and the algorithms used are more sophisticated, But by the Blu-ray and UHD discs standards they are nowhere near close to be good enough.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Anyway just by way of comparison, I located an upload from 2009 - it was re-compressed. Here is the original link


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOmtVAFEGs


    and both the original clip as uploaded (26 mb) (higher xVID than I had anticipated) and how yt compressed it (5 mb)


    Plenty wrong with the video but this was done for a specific purpose for a forum who did not care about quality etc. and I was still on a learning curve.
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  13. Youtube quality only has to be good enough that people will continue watching it. Anything more is waste of bandwidth ($$$) for the company.
    Quote Quote  
  14. at the risk of being thrown off the videohelp website.. a dvd rip I made and put on you tube.
    I happen to think it looks pretty special.
    So anyone who says you tube is rubbish might like to look at thier encoding settings.
    This looks fine in full screen to me...on my HDMI laptop screen
    I have no complaints. 720p
    https://youtu.be/G1I_N6baahQ
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks Super8, my Dad'll like that! As you say, can't complain about that quality...
    Quote Quote  
  16. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by super8rescue View Post
    at the risk of being thrown off the videohelp website.. a dvd rip I made and put on you tube.
    I happen to think it looks pretty special.
    So anyone who says you tube is rubbish might like to look at thier encoding settings.
    This looks fine in full screen to me...on my HDMI laptop screen
    I have no complaints. 720p
    https://youtu.be/G1I_N6baahQ
    The right size and submission specs can look great. Your encode is fine.
    Quote Quote  
  17. And what a cute movie that was. Superb color.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -Carl Sagan
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by ponens View Post

    Youtube will do decent encodes for "partners" (moneyed interests). For the unwashed, you'll take what they give you and you'll like it.
    This. It's been discussed and proven that YT favors those videos that are likely to be hits and bring in ad money. If your channel had low quality videos, but brought in millions of hits, the algorithm would be tweaked to allocate more bandwidth and better encoding. That's the catch. You need to be big to get the good stuff, but won't get it unless your videos are big hits. And around and around and around...

    I'd love to see how much money YT makes on the small number of multi-million subscriber channels vs the large number of small channels that still bring in the ad money, but it's all keep my YT. Might be just pennies, but billions of them from the small channels that they don't have to pay out on, adds up quickly!
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by super8rescue View Post
    at the risk of being thrown off the videohelp website.. a dvd rip I made and put on you tube.
    I happen to think it looks pretty special.
    So anyone who says you tube is rubbish might like to look at thier encoding settings.
    This looks fine in full screen to me...on my HDMI laptop screen
    I have no complaints. 720p
    As I mentioned in post 11, any video 720p and above is safe, still gets compressed but not as bad as 480p, The cut off is 720p, the compression dial goes all the way up below that.
    Try to upload the original 480i resolution of the DVD and see for yourself.
    Quote Quote  
  20. SD resolutions on streaming are only there to provide a low bitrate option (for users on mobile for instance).

    They now also provide a low bitrate option for 720p: I checked a random techtuber mp4 downloaded with youtube-dl (format code 22, best ?), it uses h264 main 720p30 video <200kbps !
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    W're talking about the maximum quality here, Yes we are aware that there are inferior options.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    My next experiment will be to go back to the original lossless interlaced AVI file, Resize with vdub to 960x720 square pixel, De-interlace with QTGMC and have youtube do the encoding from there and see how it goes.
    Not sure if youtube takes HuffYUV, if not I will decompress it.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Clickbait thread title aside, I thought the youtube re-encode featured in your initial post was OK.
    I prefer it doesn't use 60fps for this type of content, but I mainly liked it had a smaller filesize and downloaded faster. Both the original and the re-encoded youtube version looked equally mediocre in 1080p fullscreen to me, whereas super8rescue encode looked decent @youtube-720p (But it could be down to the content).

    Youtube forces a h264-main re-encode and doesn't let you control how the video will be served to the viewer. If you care about quality (subjective or objective) and unless you expect to get lots of views, why not just use a generic file host with progressive download mp4 ?

    I had to download the full video before I was able to watch it. By moving the the moov atom to the start of the file, I can play it instantly from Videohelp:
    ffmpeg -i Youtube.mp4 -c copy -movflags faststart Youtube_faststart.mp4
    Last edited by butterw; 21st Aug 2020 at 08:53. Reason: will remove attached faststart video
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    The title is not a click bait, I can care less if you view the thread or not, While both files are SD they are nowhere near to be close to each other, When it comes to SD quality every kbps counts, Not like when Im streaming 4K HDR to my OLED TV where the streaming low quality is indistinguishable from a UHD disc, Though I can see a difference on a 100 screen projector in the media room.
    Quote Quote  
  25. This is engineering. We have a solution, boosting resolution, so we are lucky to know it and using it.
    Things never work 100% really.
    Like guys who shoot rockets into a space needing two stages. One would be better though, but there is a workaround.
    Also, youtube users basically do not care about quality. Most of them.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by butterw View Post
    By moving the the moov atom to the start of the file, I can play it instantly
    Also, mp4box default settings sets it that way, so having streams and muxing it, it is always ready for streaming before download.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    This is engineering. We have a solution, boosting resolution, so we are lucky to know it and using it.
    Things never work 100% really.
    Like guys who shoot rockets into a space needing two stages. One would be better though, but there is a workaround.
    Also, youtube users basically do not care about quality. Most of them.
    I agree, That's why I mentioned the 720p cutoff, Not complaining, just showing the numbers before and after youtube butchering. Will run the 720p test and report the new results.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Your thread title is clickbait:
    Youtube streaming is about distributing content to a lot of viewers without lag. Most viewers couldn't care less about bitrate at SD resolutions.

    720p might work for now, but otherwise nobody forces you to use youtube.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Ok, Back to the subject. The first attempt failed, I de-interlaced the lossless file and resized to 960x720 and youtube lowered it to 320p max, I guess it didn't know what to make of the video since all the specs were high:

    Format : HuffYUV
    Format version : Version 2
    Codec ID : HFYU
    Duration : 1 min 21 s
    Bit rate : 212 Mb/s
    Width : 960 pixels
    Height : 720 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 4:3
    Frame rate : 59.940 (60000/1001) FPS
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:2
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Interlaced - This has to be wrong
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 5.117
    Stream size : 2.00 GiB (99%)

    Audio
    ID : 1
    Format : PCM
    Format settings : Little / Signed
    Codec ID : 1
    Duration : 1 min 21 s
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Bit rate : 1 536 kb/s
    Channel(s) : 2 channels
    Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
    Bit depth : 16 bits
    Stream size : 14.9 MiB (1%)
    Alignment : Aligned on interleaves
    Interleave, duration : 17 ms (1.01 video frame)
    Interleave, preload duration : 500 ms
    The second attempt is to encode the resized file to h.264 so youtube algorithm doesn't have to do the guess work.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Second attempt, Encoded the above file to h.264 with FFMPEG, I noticed right away the upload took only few minutes vs hours for the above video, Attached are the files before and after (not sure why youtube converts 48Khz to 44.1Khz though):

    And here is the video link.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads