FORUMS: list search recent posts

Best results for youtube upload

COW Forums : Compression Techniques

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Lasse Laursen
Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 15, 2009 at 10:59:38 am


I have shot and edited a full spot that the client wish to get published on youtube.

I have tried verious formats from .mov over wmv to dvcproHD and no doubt, the quality is fine on youtube, but it is nothing to the native HD 50fps footage (shot on Panasonic AG-HPX170) that the spot is made of.

I know that the online youtube-conversion will take a lot of quality, but at the moment all the HD details that other youtube videos contains is off. Many videos, in my perception, on youtube still remains in HD detail.

Could anybody provide me with some great advise for acheiving the best quality possible on youtube. What should my export workflow be?

Thank you very much in advance.

Regards

/Lasse





Very nice forum )


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 15, 2009 at 4:19:23 pm

Mac or Windows computer?

Generally I'd recommend 1280x720p H.264 mov (mp4 may work find too) at 5000kbps 2 pass VBR. Audio at 44.1KHz, Stereo, 128kbps.

Don't compress the output from your sequence. Use the native codec. You don't want to compress anything twice. As it is, YouTube is going to give it a second round.

Telestream Episode (which uses Dicas H.264 codec) is cross platform so that would work whether you're on Mac or Windows.

If you want FAST too, Matrox CompressHD can help and will soon work inside of Episode.

There may be other suggestions but that's what I do.



Return to posts index

Lasse Laursen
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 16, 2009 at 5:32:16 pm

It's a MAC.

I use FCP export option with your described settings (1280x720p H.264, 5000kbps 2 pass VBR).

When uploaded to youtube it's still nowhere near the HD quality i see from other youtube-videos even though my sourcematerial is native HD.

Maybe the build-in h.264 compressor in fcp id bad compared to the one in Episode Encoder - do you know if the apps is worth the investment?

/Lasse

Very nice forum )


Return to posts index


Daniel Low
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 16, 2009 at 7:17:04 pm

Don't export straight out of FCP, use compressor to do your transcoding. That said, the H.264 codec in Episode is much better than the one FCP and compressor uses. Episode is a no-brainer purchase as far as I'm concerned.

__________________________________________________________________
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."

Steve Ballmer To USA Today


Return to posts index

Terry Mikkelsen
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 15, 2009 at 6:14:47 pm

Never use a specific data rate if you want the very best quality possible! You are limited by YouTube to a 10 min length and 2GB file. Use your math skills to maximize your data rate (don't forget to leave some headroom for the audio). Now when YouTube does the second pass, you have as much data as possible there, so hopefully it won't throw away "the good stuff".

ps - I like to convert frame rate to 24fps. It takes more time to render, but it frees up 6 frames per second of data and I can allocate that extra data to the other frames. (fewer frames, but higher quality frames)

Tech-T Productions
http://www.technical-t.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 15, 2009 at 6:27:52 pm

[Terry Mikkelsen] "Never use a specific data rate if you want the very best quality possible! You are limited by YouTube to a 10 min length and 2GB file"

With YouTube there's a point of diminishing returns. Above 5000kbps I see very little difference. If turnaround time is a factor, uploading a 10 min 2GB file will slow the upload and their encode and may not buy you much difference in quality. When YouTube when HD I did lots of tests and this is what I've come up with. BTW I see many other compressionst also mention 5000kbps for YouTube HD so I suspect I'm not the only one whose run such tests. The "turn it up to 11" approach is not always best for efficient compression.

[Terry Mikkelsen] "ps - I like to convert frame rate to 24fps. It takes more time to render, but it frees up 6 frames per second of data and I can allocate that extra data to the other frames. (fewer frames, but higher quality frames)
"

True that's more bits per frame but there are other consideration like the source frame rate. If you shoot 24p you're all set. If you shoot 30p, going to 24p can be a problem. I would NEVER shoot interlace if your primary purpose if for the internet. I also consider temporal resolution important and 30p is higher temporal resolution that 24p and the internet and computers don't care about NTSC, PAL, "Film" frame rates. The fewer conversions you do to the source the better before uploading to YouTube. Simply upload at the source frame rate.




Return to posts index


Terry Mikkelsen
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 15, 2009 at 6:39:29 pm

[Craig Seeman] The "turn it up to 11" approach is not always best for efficient compression.

Definitely agreed. However, I didn't assume efficiency, but rather absolute best quality.


[Craig Seeman] Simply upload at the source frame rate.

I tried to qualify this one better by saying that "I like to" convert to 24fps. I shoot 1080i and 480i for the most part. So converting is advantageous in my situation.

ps-None of my comments are meant to be gospel. Otherwise, I would write a book that provided all the cold, hard, fast answers that everyone assumes are out there. These are the things that I have found to work well with my shooting habits and workflow. Always try things out for yourself and deduce the best workflow for you.

Tech-T Productions
http://www.technical-t.com


Return to posts index

Daniel Low
Re: Best results for youtube upload
on Sep 16, 2009 at 12:06:51 am

Craig is right and YouTube recommend that you do not alter the frame rate of your source material. Going from 30 to 24 may give you more bits per frame but you are also ditching 6 frames per second, unless you employ the best of standards coverters.

__________________________________________________________________
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."

Steve Ballmer To USA Today


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]