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!!!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 42
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Anyway just by way of comparison, I located an upload from 2009 - it was re-compressed. Here is the original link
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.
Youtube quality only has to be good enough that people will continue watching it. Anything more is waste of bandwidth ($$$) for the company.
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
Thanks Super8, my Dad'll like that! As you say, can't complain about that quality...
And what a cute movie that was. Superb color.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -Carl Sagan
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!
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 !
W're talking about the maximum quality here, Yes we are aware that there are inferior options.
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
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 I’m 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.
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.
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.
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%)
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