Preparing Video for YouTube

[45tripp]

still don't know why i've taken an interest in this...

Make a higher-rez good quality XviD and let them
reencode it? The better the initial quality, the better the finished
FLV?

I think so.
Working with a better source is always key.
As for high rez, I'm starting to lean to resizing before uploading,
but i've not looked into it yet.

I don't really deal with youtube, or the likes, at all.
What about google video though?
A friend of mine views videos on the net and assures me google is
better.

I'm still curious as to whether or not the YouTube people will reencode
it after they get their grubby paws on it. They do, don't they?

Yes.
Anything and everything.
All re-encoded.
Don't pre-encode to flv.



Soopafresh,
I don't know about mod16, but looking at the two files you analyzed,
the keyframe info pops out.
The crap vid has too many keyframes. A low bitrate with too many
keyframes is certain to provide bad quality.
where did you get the file from?

Anyway too few keyframes can also be crap.
like this I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1BBSkmgGgU

Not sure how influenceable scene change threshold and keyframe interval
settings might be and how dependent on the video's characteristics,
but I'll probably try a few things.

I don't like the idea of uploading with pcm audio.
seems wasteful. cuts into your upload mb limit, increases upload time.
i think cbr mp3 would be good enough.

also your mencoder command for previewing has the bitrate set too high,
could dissapoint,
i've not seen a youtube flv (not that i've seen many) with a bitrate
over 265
if someone has, show me.

mencoder xvid.avi -of lavf -lavfopts i_certify_that_my_video_stream_does_not_use_b_frames -vf scale=320:-3,expand=320:240 -ovc lavc -lavcopts vcodec=flv:vbitrate=250 -oac mp3lame -lameopts abr:br=56 -srate 22050 -o menc.flv

there's been mention of cropping.
of course cropping will increase quality!
reducing effective image area does that.
16:9 vids will also look better, essentially being 320x180

having a full screen 4:3 320x240 flv is more challenging
this looked good to me:
florida beaches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcQCNOtEvII

i think most 16:9 vids will look good.
the one soopafresh posted also has good keyframe density, although
bitrate could be a few tiny bits higher.
what interests me though is it's running time.
How do you get past the 10 min upload limit?
privileged account?
I thought maybe increase framerate and have the youtube converter
assume ~30 fps. doesn't work. you get frames chopped to get back to the
framerate.

worth mentioning here that the youtube converter doesn't change your
source framerate when it's 23.976. i'm sure the same applies to 25fps,
haven't actually tried yet though.
it'd be interesting to see when framerate conversion occurs and when not.

Like I said before....there is no set formula for good or great looking
youtube vids. I have 110 videos on YouTube....none of them are
spectacular...and I've found no tried and true method to making good or
great vids.

got links to the good and the bad?

I have noticed that even when you set the fps [-r] to
29.970 fps, when you open the finished encoded flv inside vdub via
AVIsynth plugin and script, or open through outher flv player who
feature an info option, the report seems to always point to 25
fps. I don't know if this is a bug or some of ther param that is
missing in the encoding setup.

it's not a bug.
many programs can't detect flv framerate.
there are many cases where directshowsource can't detect framerate,
when not it defaults to output 25fps.
You have to force the framerate with fps like so:

DirectShowSource("grain.flv", fps=29.97, audio=false)

So I tried uploading using a fairly good quality xvid avi.
i tried soopafresh's suggestions.
it all looked good to me.
i'd say i like adding grain and shadow smoothing.
motion blur i don't like.
here are links to them,
not all are comparable,
messed with aspect ratios.

xvid original
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1EuKfW3KMc
xvid grain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs8fkcq3q4M
xvid grain smooth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrK_hBhKZew
xvid grain smooth blur
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyyaGTdx0cM
flv pre-encode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSBH4MBT9Q
h.264 grain smooth, 4/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKmhvonqrhs

I'll bet the only thing that matters is bit rate.

probably
how much can you do with 320x240 at 250kbps
expectations

gl

[Soopafresh]

Wow! Fantastic study, 45tripp. So much info there. I'm going to have to read through it several times. No question, the flv-flv re-encode visibly suffers, and the h264 - flv transcode was disappointing. I suspect that has to do with built in deblocking in the playback codec - visibly absent from the equation during the transcode.

[SatStorm]

I use to have an account to youtube.

They re-encode everything. So, the option is to feed them "clever".
I had the best results by using xvid @ 320x240 @ 600kb/s and that profile with the many keyframes per second (I don't remember which one). Also, I had to smooth - to an extreme point - my source. That means heavy filtering: 2dcleaner, dynamic noise reduction, msu smart deblocking. Temporal Smoother also creates good results.
Yes, it looks crap on you PC, but for youtube is the perfect source.

I don't use youtube anymore. And just for the story, Google Video was a far better service, even in beta form.

[vhelp]

Hi guys. Its a bit late for, but I had a bit of trouble with youtube cutting
my uploads so many times. Anyway.

I made another attempt to upload another video to youtube. I had to cut
it pretty short, to 10 seconds. Well i'm in testing and debugging stages, so
I'm not there yet with the quality aspects.



Video Source: tipicle noisy analog cabletv
Movie/Film: Duce Bigalow
Capture Card: Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600 @ 30Mbits capture
Source Video: huffy
Video: FLV format (youtube re-encoded)
Length: 10 seconds

Description:
Well, this was a capture that I made back in June/2007 of Duce Bigalow. The
edited-for-tv version was a clean Telecine -- ivtc ready.

I didn't bother with the ideas mentioned earlier about cropping, etc. I thought
that in the end, the more video, the better. So..

This time, I preprocessed the video to a Huffy codec format, and processed the
video to 320 x 240 with an IVTC function to bring back the 24p film frame rate,
though I did mess around with a few Resize and De-Interlacing ideas and incorp-
orated'em into this clip.

Then, I proceeded to encode the video to FLV through ffmpeg, using the tipicle
setup mentioned in one of my prev posts.

Comments:
In terms of quality, I'm not sure how I want to score it. I thought that the video
could have been better, but I did not put much effort into this area. I just wanted
to test an other video, done with other equipments and processes, and just threw
it up as soon as I could. But, for a quick throw-up, it isn' so bad.

I also had to keep the video length short, on account of youtubes rules for
uploading video -- 10 minutes or 100mb, whichever comes first. Dial-up does
not leave much room for either -- aprox 1.2mb boarderlines the disconnet by
youtube. So, I comprimise at this point.

I have a few more ideas to try. And I will try them as more time and energy become
available to me.

-vhelp 4374

[45tripp]

Here's an analysis of a file
with many macroblocks. Note the mod2 dimensions

Youtube does recommend to submit a video with a 320x240
resolution.

Yeah i'm now sold on resizing before uploading.
I hadn't noticed but my first upload, of xvid/avi as is,
got resized by youtube to 320x239.
mod1
and extracting that with flvextract gives distorted colours,
and you can't work with mod1 in avisynth.
You can open in vdub though.
also had youtube resize to 320x242.
I've not noticed quality degradation (flv playback) but along with
other reasons, resizing before uploading is best.

How about 320x240 @ the max 100mb?

My first AVC upload was a 100Mb upload.
It wasn't downsized though.
Still, have a look at the link in my post if you like.
also below i'll link to an xvid 320x240 3000 kbps upload.

I had the best results by using xvid @ 320x240 @ 600kb/s and that
profile with the many keyframes per second (I don't remember which
one). Also, I had to smooth - to an extreme point - my source. That
means heavy filtering: 2dcleaner, dynamic noise reduction, msu smart
deblocking. Temporal Smoother also creates good results.

still got the specific settings?
i'd try it out.

and the h264 - flv transcode was disappointing. I
suspect that has to do with built in deblocking in the playback codec -
visibly absent from the equation during the transcode.

I'd say I get what you're saying but I still prefer h264 over Xvid.
the clip was a 100Mb upload, and I may be a bit attached to it,
but in following tests i still side with AVC.
there's more to image quality than blocks.

worth mentioning here that the youtube converter doesn't change your
source framerate when it's 23.976. i'm sure the same applies to 25fps,
haven't actually tried yet though.
it'd be interesting to see when framerate conversion occurs and when
not.

I was pretty sure that 20-30fps would go untouched.
i wondered about <20fps.
It seems 0-30fps goes untouched. >30fps gets chopped back to ~30.

As an aside, when encoding to flv, blank frames are often dropped.
More so with xvid than h264.
With xvid and 1 bframe just a few are dropped, like with h264, and
from the end mostly. Without b frames and with 2 bframes,
there's a significant drop in blank frames.
the dropped blank frames is why output flv framerate mostly doesn't
match input framrate.
for what it's worth.

I don't use youtube anymore. And just for the story, Google Video was a
far better service, even in beta form.

I don't know about the service,
but as for the actual flv encode,
youtube is better. about ~10kbps extra bitrate, i noticed.
worth noting though that you can upload >30fps and it's not touched.

I made another attempt to upload another video to youtube.

that's either the ugliest girl i've ever seen, the ugliest lighting, or
your colours are off.


Anyway I worked with another sample to test a few things.
I selected the 300 trailer, cause I thought it was challenging enough
and I couldn't really find anything else. (cropped 16:9 to 4:3, increased difficulty)
after seeing the trailer so many times, I think i'll have to get
around to actually seeing the film.

I had a look at filtering again. But I've gone against it.
I generally am against.
Adding grain doesn't really increase encoded bitrate. Maybe you'll
get an increase of ~2kbps. I did an encode with a lot of grain,
and it looked like crap.
Btw i meant to say in my last post that i used addgrain, and started
with addgrainc(7,0,0,0,-1). Which I felt was too much. i moved down
to addgrainc(5,0,0,0,-1) which i think is ok.
And I started using shadowsmoother with 7,1,3. Which I thought was
too much again and went down to 5,1,2 with the first clip. For 300
I actually used 6,1,3. The effect is ok. but with a nice clean source
i prefer not to use them.
I also tried smoothing. the example is pretty heavy. I don't like it.
And i tried temporal smoothing.

I used xvid and x264 for encoding.
after a bit of testing i got to these core settings:
resize (crop) to 320x240.
use constant quant, 2-3 for xvid, 20-21 for x264.
(i used const. quant to make testing easier, and do single passes
but 500-600kbps is the target area, ,reasonably high, good filesizes)
set max consecutive bframes to 1 for xvid and 2 for x264.
set max keyframe interval to 60 (that's what worked best for me)
encode audio to 128kbps cbr mp3 (leaving 192 ac3 as is, was
also convenient)

My preference is not to filter at all with a clean source. And i do
think it's a matter of preference. The effects are mostly minimal,
unless you start butchering.

What can have a significant effect is changing framerate. Effectively
increasing bitrate, by either extending duration, or dropping frames.
My preference is for extending. smoother motion, better picture
quality, but you mess with audio tempo and rhythm (and have the extra
job of audio processing).
Dropping frames can be jerky, but audio is intact.
I dropped the framerate of 300 from 23.976 to 20 as a test.
extending messes with the characteristic beat the trailer score has.
dropping messes with the fluidity of the slow-mo.
24fps->20fps is a big enough drop of course.
They are better than the other encodes though. And that was the point.

So my thoughts are to leave filtering aside.
Encode to h264 with the core settings.
And reduce the framerate if need be.
Crop the image and reduce effective image area if necessary.

Samples

Xvid plain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMiQk5DDNM8
h264 plain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Q0ogGUpZ8
h264 grain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hNDrane4XY
h264 grain shadowsmooth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqujKx2Qqvg
h264 smoothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt5fdctgY7Y
h264 temporal smoothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7oIE5mh3M
Xvid 3000kbps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNW4sXh1kFk
h264 20fps extended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUsHkGCG56c
h264 20fps framedrop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRa8xJMS054
Xvid 20fps framedrop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtLrTZdBYgE

The better the initial quality, the better the finished
FLV?

I think so.

I'll bet the only thing that matters is bit rate.

I think so.

gl

[SatStorm]

@vhelp: I know this girl! You nasty boy, what you are watching.... Does your father know?

[tgilberg]

Hello Newbie here,

I just found this forum but have been on the dvxuser forum and many others trying to tackle this Youtube video setting obstacle

We teach guitar lessons online

I just got a panasonic DVX100b the quality looks good in the video editor I use, it is Imovie
I know that is low end my question before I go out and plunk down some money for final cut is do I need it? We do not do many special effect just guitar lessons

In this youtube clip I taped a little intro with the panasonic dvx 100b (scene setting 30fps progressive in the camera) and the quality is lousy as you can see I had to drop the res to make the whole vid fit under 100mb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6PYb-dEXMI

The interesting thing is the second part of the movie was shot with a $300 panasonic gs-300 and it looks clearer in some spots????


I have tried multiple compression setting h.264 mpeg 4, changed the image size not much change

I see the stuff you guys did with 300 and it is awesome
Just trying to find the most econimical way to boost the vid quality on youtube

We produced a DVD this week with IDVD and Imovie we burned the DVD and the footage looks great panasonic dvx100b so it seems to me to be the compression settings

Any ideas?
Thanks

Tim

[KCAir]

This is too confusing for me...

KCAir

[Soopafresh]

Hi Tim and KCAir -

To put it bluntly, just about anything that gets converted by Youtube is going to end up looking pretty bad. They don't allocate enough bitrate when they convert your video to Flash. Any flat backgrounds (like the walls in the guitar video) will display the artifacts in full glory. Any fast movement will create block noise (where it looks like a bunch of squares). Watch any of those Zipline video links and you'll see what happens during fast movement.

So no, Tim - using a different editing program won't make a hill of beans difference

The solution? Host your stuff on a better provider link - like Google Video. They allocate more bitrate to the video and the image looks much better. Or do both - put a crap version on Youtube and provide a link to the much better looking version you've hosted on Google or Guba.com (which has very nice looking flv encodes)

[45tripp]

I'm still curious as to whether or not the YouTube people will reencode
it after they get their grubby paws on it. They do, don't they?

Yes.
Anything and everything.
All re-encoded.
Don't pre-encode to flv.

Ok,
I was wrong.
I got a tip from a youtuber, that if you upload flv with a total
audiovisual bitrate under 340Kbps, youtube doesn't touch it.
And it's true.
So at first I got my hopes up, and immediately thought vp6, the
finest video on youtube was to come.
I was soon to be disappointed as it gets re-encoded. But it was
interesting enough that i tried a high bitrate vp6 instead of h264:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IlzHD7HFZA
i liked it a lot actually.

These went through unconverted. flv maxed out the bitrate limit:

mencoder flv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SC3VY_IkC8
ffmpeg flv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWpK_U1uiAY

libavcodec flv encoding doesn't excite me much.
i'd say the youtube converter does a better job at the same bitrates.

Anyway if anyone would like to try and squeeze all the quality they can into a 340kbps flv, or provide hints, i'll be watching.
Soopafresh?

There was also the info that flv at 256x192 wasn't upsized.
So i tried uploading at diff resolutions and found that you can basically upload at any 4:3 resolution under 320x240, in any format, and the video won't be resized.
doesn't interest me much. maybe 312x234 could be useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGSL3sKWRe0
too bad there's not a 16:9 resolution that's left untouched.

Just trying to find the most econimical way to boost the vid quality on
youtube

the point is that there is only so much you can do.
starting with a good source is much of it.
that i started with a good enough source and avoided any butchery is
why it looks ok i think.
The biggest impact you could have on the quality I'd say is behind the
camera. Change directorial style. Like the intro. too wide, and the
backdrop should be pitch black. At least i think so.

You can always upload clean source samples, so others might try.

- like Google Video. They allocate more bitrate to
the video and the image looks much better.

I've not seen that.
In fact i see youtube as better. (flv encoding)

-Guba.com (which has very nice looking flv
encodes)

Jesus it's slow!
Extremely frustrating to get a clip up. counter intuitive, painful.
you can upload massive clips though...
I liked this which was reasonably sized, liked the content really:
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000083584

mine: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000084355

gl

[Soopafresh]

Wow, the Guba clip looked really good. A bit stretched on the A/R, but otherwise very few artifacts. Not the fastest host in the world, though.

That's really interesting about the 340k flv encode - friggin bit rate is still gonna get us, especially because we're limited to flv1. Still, at least we can give it a try with our own encoding recipies. Yeah, of course I'll try some Avisynth feeds and will post the results in a bit.

Bummer that VP6 couldn't slip through. I've been working on an adaptation from Sh0dan's VP6 encoding toolkit which creates phenomenal VP6 encoded flv files - as long as the hosting server doesn't re-encode them.

Here's a few semi interesting flash sites

http://www.flashvideofaq.com/

http://www.flashsupport.com/bonus/codec_comparison/

Just shows you how much better VP6 is

[45tripp]

Wow, the Guba clip looked really good.

700kbps...
it should. nothing wrong with the a/r.
i uploaded the same source i uploaded for my "321" youtube video, to see what would happen.

bloody slow yes.
I'm not interested in testing much. they'll need to pick up and upgrade their services.

from my upload though my estimation is that they encode with ffmpeg and use flvtool2 like a method , i think, lordsmurf linked to recently. I'd say resolution is probably left untouched and that the encode happens with a constant quant.

Bummer that VP6 couldn't slip through.

i suppose there are good enough reasons it doesn't.
consider working with flv1 an extra challenge

Just shows you how much better VP6 is

I know

nice links.

this is layed out nicely:
http://www.3dinfografica.com/CICE_The_Art_of_Encoding_Flash_Video.pdf

[goyomora]

I figured out how to get High Quality Videos for Upload to YouTube, converting your videos into the Flash Video Format (FLV) using the Total Video Converter 3.10 and some special settings explained in my tutorial.

Long version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLVA91WkCfI

Short Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08NI4cy4zik

NOTICE: videos converted to FLV format with another programs(Adobe Premier, VirtualDub, Riva Encoder, Sorenson Squeeze), will be and degraded by YouTube Servers, in the same way like other formats.

[Soopafresh]

Hey, thanks goyomora


An additional one I thought was interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8G7pDSkx00

45tripp - Would you mind uploading this to YouTube and seeing if it looks OK? This is based on the settings of the "howto" video below.

a_test_file.flv

This guy claims that pre-encoding to VP6 FLV actually provides a cleaner and less artifact laden image than Divx or WMV source files, hence the file I posted above. Dunno if it's the case, but his vids look pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTGk2myk7a8

Finally, there's a buzz about that Youtube is moving to the h264 format, at the very least with Apple TV subscribers.

[45tripp]

using the
Total Video
Converter 3.10 and some special settings explained in my
tutorial.

excuse the proclamation,
but i've tested the shit out of this youtube stuff,
and quite frankly every indication is that your method is
bullcrap.
smacks of advertising to me.

I've had a look at some of your youtube uploads and see no evidencce of
your method effectively working. i'd like to be wrong. just show me the
evidence.

i tried tvc, and all the encodes were rejected by youtube, claiming the
"length of video is too long" (actual duration: under 2 mins)
seekability broken, mediainfo reports 0.00 fps.
i tried an flv 640x480 encode with ffmpeg too. what happened was what
i'd expected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7XNw8wSPTM

if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a resolution higher than 320x240,
let me know.
if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a total audiovisual bitrate exceeding 350kbps,
let me know.

45tripp - Would you mind uploading this to YouTube and seeing if it
looks OK? This is based on the settings of the "howto" video below.

Sure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7MEakCQXjA

but you must have missed this:

So at first I got my hopes up, and immediately thought vp6, the
finest video on youtube was to come.
I was soon to be disappointed as it gets re-encoded. But it was
interesting enough that i tried a high bitrate vp6 instead of h264:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IlzHD7HFZA
i liked it a lot actually.

i already had it covered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vym2sLskSA was my effort to pass vp6
under the radar, and the above link my high bitrate vp6 feed to youtube
for re-conversion.

I prefer it to h264, and if one was to upload something and let youtube
encode, I'd probably recommend a high bitrate 320x240 vp6 clip.

i'm still eager though to see what kind of quality one can squeeze out
of an flv1 clip at ~290kbps (+ 48kbps mono mp3 audio for that)

gl

[vhelp]

Hello everyone.

Sorry for the long post, but I had lots of things to say and wanted to get them down
as much as possible before I forget.

I don't have any *new* videos to share, yet. Dial-up is painfully slow, and with
youtubes rules, can be very ware n tare on me. Anyway.

Below, are some of my experiences and thoughts on this interesting subject.

My adivice (based on personal trials) is to encode to FLV and then let YouTube transcode
it to its prefered specs. I realize that I did not note this in my very first youtube upload,
from the first page of this topic article, here:

--> https://forum.videohelp.com/topic333660.html#1731532

..where I felt the video was transcoded fairly nicely beyond my expectations, for
a first video try. I'm not saying that the video came out in great quality, at least not
now, but I was surprised (after not following youtube's recommenations) when I used
FLV format instead of the suggested XivD/DivX, and using the same FLV encoding setup
I left on that page, above. And that was my only regret, not mentioning it, first.

Also, it has been my opinion that youtube transcode (you say, potatoe, and I say, Potato)
the flv (maybe those with certain constraints -- low bitrate, etc) videos, but with a better
method than usual. I don't know. I'm speculating at this point.

And, for the time being, I'm going to continue pre-preping videos for upoad to youtube in
the FLV format.

It is also my opinion (for the time being, until a sweet-spot can be found) that all videos
should be uploaded with the highest bitrate available, assuming from a codec such as
FLV, XviD or DivX -- not to forget the youtube rules and limits.. ie, 100 MB or 10 minutes
before cut off, and you loose everything if you get cut off, as I have, many of times,
and even given up and went to bed.

Some other things of thought to share ..

It has come to my belief, based on several examples, that "grain" is not such a good
idea, after all. This is good mainly for MPEG1/2 and XviD/DivX videos, but not FLV.

A-- With FLV, the format thirsts for consistant (smooth graidients, and similar blocks of
4x4 or 8x8 images) of pixels. And the more unique the blocks of pix, the greater
the artifacts of pixelation.

B-- with FLV, "color" has an imortant part in this area, in terms of quality. The format
of flv seems to be (yuv) YV12 color space. And, because of the nature of everyone's
unique computer setup and video sources (w/out going into great detail, here) the
color range of their videos can be either 0-255 or 16-235 or some other number.
The 0-255 seems to be the most tipicle setup, and is the setup that might give the
most problems, on account of the color range conversion, assuming that this is applied
to the final FLV video in the first place. But, the user might have incorporated this
already in his/her video during pre-prep. And depending on this point, some color
(or detail) will be clipped. This too, will result in video artifacts, though mainly in the
darker areas such as blends and lettering and gradients, etc.

Frame Rates-- For youtube videos, I have seen where video looks to be choppy.
I guess this is where users have chopped (reduced) fps to obtain more quality. Some
times, this is good, and others, not. But, it can't hurt to try. I guess it would depend
on your source video and other factors. Well, for this source medium, I would say that
it is ok to reduce it if you can do so strategicly with a good method. Since the video
are ultimately going to be rather poor (low level) to begin with, may as well do what
ever you gotta do to go for broke. I think for youtubing around, it is acceptable

I have found that (as was mentioned in prev comments from others) the "cleaner" one's
video, the better the results will be. But I think that a partial key element here is the
video's pre-prep stage -- what is applied to the video in terms of NR and Consistancy
for the video to -pass- through youtubes transcoding for max quality, if video to upload
is in FLV format.

In one aspect, all videos for potential upload to youtube must be progressive. So, one
of the first things that must be looked into, is the de-interlace method. Now, I realize
that these videos are 240 pix in height, and that is effectively, a de-interlace, but I
think it is wise to go further, and push for a better method of downsizing a video but
(assuming from a higher res) with a optimum algo for both de-interlace (if pure interlace)
or IVTC (if clean Telecine 29.970->23.976 or 24) and then downsizing to x 240 pix res.
The algos for these two steps are important and criticle to the success in final video
quality.

The other aspect is the obvious one.. NR (noise reduction) application and technique.
You do not want to go too off in this area. Its easy to do that. And I've seen many
videos in my search/quest in this endeavor of better quality youtube videos.

For instance, applying a temporal/spacial type filter to one's source video (pre-preping)
can leave poor artifacts. They may lead to smaller files and slightely better youtube
transcoding, but leave these nasty looking trailing artifacts. I mean, the object is
to produce "clean" video that is as less PiXeLaTiOn evident as can be. And this is
a hard thing to accomplish with the many users pareparing (if they even do that) and
uploading their daily videos. Most users are not even aware of the issues. They are
simply blind mise following others simple methods of throwing videos onto youtube.

That is why we see so much poor videos to begin with, because most users are not
doing anything to the video, other than taking a video (who is prob 720x480 pix) and
resizing it to 320 x 240 pix, and then finally uploading it. And, the only time when you
might see a decent looking youtube video is when the user is aware of the facts above
and has (or is) done something about it That's how I see, so far.

So far, and from my own experience, a basic receipe might go like this:

A0 -- apply a mastered NR application to the video from its orig highest form
B0 -- determine if source is pure Interlace or Film and then either:
B1 -- based on video type, apply a mastered DE-INTERLACE or IVTC
** -- 24p fps produces slightely better picture qlty, but 30p clean video (above) can, too
C0 -- so far, better to encode video to 320 x 240, 22050 au, mp3, 56k, mono, FLV format
D0 -- encode to highest bitrate FLV format will allow
E0 -- and, upload it to youtube

-vhelp 4379

[45tripp]

if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a resolution higher than 320x240,
let me know.
if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a total audiovisual bitrate exceeding 350kbps,
let me know.

My youtuber, BeforeMonday, has uploaded an flv with a resolution of 1280x720 at 3fps, 340kbps.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o7G0sxIk7AQ

the 350kbps limit still holds true.
which is why the framerate had to be dropped to almost zero

very cool.

opens up testing possibilities but I don't think it goes much towards the ultimate goal of getting the best possible quality.

I still believe in trying to get a top quality 320x240 flv at 340kbps (audiovisual), that's left untouched by youtube. Increase in quality, saves a second encode, allows some customization and reduces your upload times drastically.

Also, it has been my opinion that youtube transcode (you say, potatoe, and I say, Potato)
the flv (maybe those with certain constraints -- low bitrate, etc) videos, but with a better
method than usual. I don't know. I'm speculating at this point.

I think youtube encoding is good too.
i'd like to replicate or better the method, so that I have a 290kbps video pass untouched instead of a 260kbps one like you get when youtube re-encodes.

[vhelp]

Evening all.

I think that an over-looked fact is the FLV encoder. I mean. We have knowledge
in the things of MPEG and you all know how (in terms of quality) it all boils down
to the [s:a8d52bb147]best[/s:a8d52bb147] feature-rich MPEG Encoder. I would guess that this should apply to
FLV, too.

My point regarding this note (above) with MPEG is in respect to FLV and *our* flv
encoder we are using. I would like to think that it is safe to say (and assume) that
I am refereing to our usual ffmpeg (mencoder ? as well) freeware tools. And, I've
been using the ffmpeg, myself, in my attempts at this endeavor.

I have several diff ffmpeg versions. I recall on one where the quality is *higher*
but also larger in filesize. Step downwards to a lower version, and the encoded
flv spec is lesser, in terms of quality.

So, I guess what I'm saying here is, perhaps we should consider working on the flv
encoder aspect of ffmpeg to fune-tune or tweak it to produce better quality at the
assumed low bitrate of 260k or whatever it is, and try passing that spec to youtube
without any further flaugging.

I myself do not know what lies beneath the hood of an flv encoder, but it would be
interesting to see just what goes into the processing of an source video -to- flv
format video, mechanically speaking, of course.

-vhelp 4383

[Soopafresh]

If I recall, Youtube uses Mencoder to create Flv1 video.

The great free VP6 encoder for VFW is VP6.4.2.rar (Google for it). Use the Heightened Sharpness Profile only for greatest compatibility. It is magnitudes better than Flv1. And make sure you have a recent version of the Adobe Flash player installed.

I wrote a script to convert AVIs to Vp6 encoded flvs. Needs Avisynth.

flv_vp6_encoder.zip

Most of the work was done by Sh0dan at Doom9 - compiling ffmpeg to mux the Vp6 video and Mp3 audio into an Flv container.

Lemme know if anyone needs instructions.

[vhelp]

@ Soopafresh

I just got a noticiation of this topics update. anyway. Can this be
used in a command line front-end ?? ..I have a work-in-progress
multi encoder tool that uses any command line tool available, and
I'd wouldn't mind squeezing this one in if it is. I haven't D/L'ed
it, yet.. but will in a minute.

Thanks for the news of this tool, btw

-vhelp 4384

[vhelp]

Ok. I thought it was something else completely different.. its still ffmpeg.
But, this version does not compile my flv.bat file that I've been using in
most of my flv encodes

fwiw, in the ver I've been using, its takes a vdub[.vdr] -> avisynth[.avs] -> ffmpeg
with no problems. So I wonder what changed in the vp6 version

EDIT: ok. I've got some reading to do, first. (see flv_encode_4x3.bat file for hint)

-vhelp 4385

[Soopafresh]

You need the VP6 VFW codecs installed, per the google search. The enclosed build of ffmpeg only does the Mp3 encoding and the final muxing to flv -

1) AVS2AVI transcodes the AVI to VP6 AVI. First, the batch file will prompt you for the codec to use - Choose the Heightened Sharpness one.



The only part you MUST set in the codec settings is "1 Pass Best Quality". The rest you can config to your own liking.



2) Once the video is transcoded, ffmpeg takes the AVS file and converts the audio to mp3, finally muxing the VP6 AVI and the MP3 into an flv, such as this -

zzz.flv

[45tripp]

C0 -- so far, better to encode video to 320 x 240, 22050 au, mp3, 56k, mono, FLV format
D0 -- encode to highest bitrate FLV format will allow

if video is re-encoded so is audio.
no need to provide in flv format if you plan to have it re-converted.
no need to bother messing much with audio. keep it at 192 ac3 if you have it like that, or anything of a reasonable size.

If I recall, Youtube uses Mencoder to create Flv1 video.

where'd you get that info from?

I wrote a script to convert AVIs to Vp6 encoded flvs.

Nice.
I prefer using mencoder.

Do you know of a service that takes vp6 uploads and leaves them untouched?

if anybody has ever seen a youtube video with a resolution higher than 320x240,
let me know.

I must have fallen asleep during testing at some point because i really did miss this.

BeforeMonday, has uploaded another flv with a 'whatever' resolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5yxdK81Eg

It seems you can upload any resolution under the sun as long as you keep below the bitrate limit to avoid a youtube re-encode.
It doesn't do that much good though.
You can do 16:9 but it's automatically displayed (streched) in 4:3, unless you click the restore button to get original resolution displayed.
my 16:9 320x180 try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bim_K3ayXB4
and 384x288
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmZRhC1maEw

As for material that'll be re-encoded by youtube,
youtube maintains original resolution if you provide any 4:3 resolution under 320x240,
anything else gets resized to 320x240.

the 350kbps limit still holds true.

I believe i have a definitive answer on the actual limit:
If your flv (flv1) opened in mediainfo has a total bitrate below 350 kbps it will not be re-encoded. If it touches 350k, kiss it goodbye.

I used ffmpeg to push that limit, sacrificing audio a bit.
the following should be the finest i've uploaded:
Edit: [replaced]
ffmpeg flv1 320x240, video 309kbps, audio 32kbps, slowed down 10% 22fps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxGxX-tc4dQ
ffmpeg flv1 320x240, video 308kbps, audio 32kbps, framedrop 20% 20fps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffp6YHCvLYo

[kept up because of insane hits.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO5_qwWpysU (120 hits, wtf? )

Edit: What i finally used [was crap and i then used Swain's command]:

ffmpeg -i videofile2.avs -pass 1 -ab 32k -ar 22050 -ac 1 -vcodec flv -b 306k -g 160 -cmp 2 -subcmp 2 -mbd 2 -flags +aic+cbp+mv0+mv4+trell -y outfile2.flv

ffmpeg -i videofile2.avs -pass 2 -ab 32k -ar 22050 -ac 1 -vcodec flv -b 306k -g 160 -cmp 2 -subcmp 2 -mbd 2 -flags +aic+cbp+mv0+mv4+trell -y outfile2.flv

resizing and framerate changes in avisynth.

I hope someone can do better.
edit: but i think it's now very close to as good as it gets.

gl

[Squash]

45Tripp wrote:

Soopafresh wrote:
If I recall, Youtube uses Mencoder to create Flv1 video.

where'd you get that info from?

If you haven't already seen it, here's an interesting article speculating on the origins of Youtube's encoding backend:

http://multimedia.cx/eggs/poking-at-youtube/

It's written by a guy who contributed code to some of ffmpeg's libraries. He noticed bugs peculiar to both Youtube and ffmpeg/mencoder.

[45tripp]

no i hadn't,
ty

[goyomora]

using the
Total Video
Converter 3.10 and some special settings explained in my
tutorial.

excuse the proclamation,
but i've tested the shit out of this youtube stuff,
and quite frankly every indication is that your method is
bullcrap.
smacks of advertising to me.

OK, sorry but I don't excuse your proclamation, because is totally unfunded.

First of all, this is not a scam, I'm just a guy(with knowledge on Graphic Rendering and some experience of digitalvideo) who spent almost 2 months testing ALL video codecs, and encoding tecniques that I know, and uploading almost 300 times the same video, converted with dozens of diferents programs searching for Hi-Fi for youtube, just for me because I want to share videos (mostly are private) with my family in the US (I'm from Mexico). At that time (2006), YouTube was the only way, know I'm using Stage6. However, recently I decide to release this alternative encoding.

The main reason of use specific TVC is because that program has a propietary-internal engine, that creates flv's (H.263/Sorenson) files that skips Resize and reencode from YT servers. Actually, YT in his early years didn't support flv. Actually this flv looks like garbage in sites like google video, only works on YT.

Even though I find one way to avoid/skip YouTubes Re-encoding (quality degrade), its not perfect, and yeah this method is a little tricky... no-moron-proof, like you, know... hehe.

I've had a look at some of your youtube uploads and see no evidencce of
your method effectively working. i'd like to be wrong. just show me the
evidence.

Second, you need to check your eyes, maybe a new pair of glasses.

I don’t think I need to prove anything to you, but the following videos base my argument, for the others viewers of this forum, let they decide.

My videos:
EXAMPLE 1: Canon HV20 Outdoor Sample Footage v2 from crobs808

Original video from crobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeD1VWNWdOo

High Quality Encoded short version of 55 sec -just for testing-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4FWh9SdYvA

--------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 2: Templo San Pedro & San Pablo (2:15 min)

Normal Quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG9NzJR1EJk

HIGH Quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpOzt4Ey4PU

--------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 3: Loba (10 sec)

Normal Version WMV9 codec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2V-TdcMqc

High Quality Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfSCY22H0cQ

--------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 4: The Dark Knight Set on Fire - Chicago

Original Video from kgeisler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te0efJdNOMI

High Quality Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZyEvo9-tyc

NOW the following videos are from other people, mostly from this forum www.hv20.com where I posted this method for the first time and they have tested.

All these videos were encoded with this method. (check the time is incorrect).

pascalbrown videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoRJYBOn8no
google example: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1491349270921475882&hl=en

iotatau videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLa9YGl1wn4

SenorKaffee videos, sadly he set vb very high = more time incorrectly = more heavy stream (takes to load)
YouTube HD Upload Trick - 960x576@6000kbit/s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_HgzguhTKk

*IIxDylanxII
Stranglehold: Get Down With the Sickness (HD)
His video has a 320x240 frame size so in default view not look so great, push the [[]] button to see the real frame size.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kvubxycw14

*fpaldks11
my favorite korean commercial # 8 HD quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbex74Vvs7w

*those are people from youtube

One unique characteristic of this method is that the time is displayed incorrectly PE: a 10sec video YouTube takes like a 33sec. If you increase the videobitrate to much (up to 2000) or your video is long than 2mins, will be rejected. For more long video you need lower the videobitrate to 768 for 3min and 512 for 4min.

I don't care about YouTube, Total Video Converter creators, I do care to share my short clips with my close friends and familiy, with highest quality. Actually for on-demand video share service, I prefer REVER and Livevideo , "ordinary" DivX or XVid or AVC/H.264 encoded videos, looks way better than YT.

I do not proclaim that it is the best way to encode for YouTube, Is the WAY to get High-Fidelity or High Quality videos, taking advantage from Bandwidth (exchanging Video Time Lenght from YouTube for Highest Video Bitrate and SKIP/AVOID YouTube Servers reencode, lowering the original quality), again has a little limitations 4min videos because 4min for youtube will be 10min reaching his limit.

Obvious, if I figured out this tweak-encode-method is because I tested a lot of formats, codecs, and video applications, and by consequence, I know other methods to encode for YouTube, with very nice quality and sharp image, using freeware, more practice without time mismesuare and quick load, actually I using those for my longest videos (private content). =P.

So, mister 45tripp you need to learn some etiquette and talk with based arguments, and evidence.

Asi que callese el hocico sino habla con fundamentos.

Eh... eso me pasa por andar compartiendo un tip, menos mal que hay gente que si lo aprecia y agradece.

[Squash]

@goyomora:

That's an interesting hack. I just downloaded the "Dark Knight" clip above from Youtube. According to GSpot 2.70, it's 640x480, video bitrate of 2097 kbps, and stereo mp3 at 320 kb/s. Never seen anything like it from Youtube. Congratulations.

[45tripp]

You could and should have posted a link to a working example in the your first post.

So, mister 45tripp you need to learn some etiquette and talk with based arguments, and evidence.

i certainly was

Asi que callese el hocico sino habla con fundamentos.

Eh... eso me pasa por andar compartiendo un tip, menos mal que hay gente que si lo aprecia y agradece.

I'm supposed to know spanish?

Even though I find one way to avoid/skip YouTubes Re-encoding (quality degrade), its not perfect, and yeah this method is a little tricky... no-moron-proof, like you, know... hehe.

no it's not. i can't say i really like it actually.
my first attempts(plural) were rejected by youtube.
got it online now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6F4cwk1CIw

also tried 320x240 with a bitrate closer to what i'd been using.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHeKFigSMZY

i don't care much for tvc though,
and i'd guess you could do your own encode taking tvc out of the picture and hacking the flv header.
anyone care to try?

know I'm using Stage6.

I'll have a look at that.


thank you for sharing

[45tripp]

(missed this)

I know other methods to encode for YouTube, with very nice quality and sharp image, using freeware, more practice without time mismesuare and quick load, actually I using those for my longest videos (private content). =P.

I'm sure we'd be interested to hear them

[vhelp]

Evening guys.

Excuse me for butting in, here.. but..

--> FLV: 320x240 res / 22050 aud / mono|stereo aud / 56 kbs aud / 14-30 fps

I thought the general idea(s) of this topic was about finding ways to improve
(through technique, etc) youtube video quality -- not tricking it to accept
non-standard flv's as assumed, above. I mean. I'm all for such endeavors,
really, I am. But I want to stay within the confines of learning techniques
and things with the above flv spec. I'm not saying that it is the spec, but it
is the closest as we all have been using over the years with youtube. And
that's the favor of this topic, and the latest ideas and things seem to be going
beond the scope of this topics original path.

There may be hope (in the near future) that youtube may change a few things
(hopefully, in our favor) to bring improvement, in terms of video quality, etc.
And I don't want to risk going too far off with youtube and their mysterious specs,
less they catch on and change things for the worse. I might be jumping the
gun, here. But, I'm not interested in futzing around with hacks and tweaks
that go outside the assumed above flv spec

Now, I wouldn't mind checking out *other* video hosting sites, and where they
have better video attributes, in terms of producing better quality than youtube.

If youtube didn't have a limit on UPLOAD rules such as Size and Time Limit for
uploading, I would be a happier youtubee, but they don't, and dial-up limits me
to 1.2 mb size video uploads or very short clips -- hardly worth all the effort that
I have put into this endeavor, so far.

And, as crummy as youtube videos are, youtube does have a place worth being a
part of. Improving the videos quality level (as laid out, above) is key, here,
not hacking/tweaking it out of spec or whatever you want to conjure up

Cheers,

-vhelp 4386