Getting the best quality from YouTube??

1. Southcross
   Member

   
   I've been experimenting with different video sizes/compression/codecs on YouTube and I can't seem to find a good combo.... at least in my opinion. I know their quality is mediocre at best, and they over compress the video files.
   
   My first discovery is the video should be exactly 320x240, or it gets resized...
   
   What file format/codec gives the best quality in your experiences? Any suggestions (specific to YouTube) or tips would be appreciated.

   Posted 5 years ago #

2. ;0)
   Member

   
   here's a tip.
   read the fine print.
   please correct me if wrong, but weren't they demanding that you give up your copyrights on anything you post there?

   Posted 5 years ago #

3. Southcross
   Member

   

   ;0) Wrote:

   here's a tip.
   read the fine print.
   please correct me if wrong, but weren't they demanding that you give up your copyrights on anything you post there?

   when was I asking about copyright??? I am asking about getting the best quality from my YouTube posted videos...

   Posted 5 years ago #

4. ;0)
   Member

   
   My Bad. I apologize.
   I assumed anybody who didn't read the Youtube instructions on how to prep videos, for uploading to thier site, also may have failed to read the fine print on copyright.
   I figured the warning about copyright may may encourage one to reread thier info. If you didn't want to give up your rights to your work, then the codec issue becomes a moot point.
   I find quicktime works just fine. I use quicktime pro. Hope that helps.
   
   http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55745&topic=10526
   http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55744&ctx=sibling
   http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=57410&ctx=sibling

   Posted 5 years ago #

5. birdcat
   Moderator

   

   ;0) Wrote:

   here's a tip.
   read the fine print.
   please correct me if wrong, but weren't they demanding that you give up your copyrights on anything you post there?

   
   
   According to the user agreement on YouTube: For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions
   
   It's on this page: http://www.youtube.com/t/terms under Chapter 5 - User Submissions
   
   As for the best format to use, I've had good experiences rendering to MP4 (what YouTube suggests).

   Bruce Paul
   7Squared Productions
   http://www.7squared.com

   Posted 5 years ago #

6. ;0)
   Member

   
   I believe I heard about it a year or so ago when a video creator, was sued and ordered to take down a video (from his own site) that he made after some company downloaded it from Youtube, altered it for thier own purposes and decided they owned it.
   
   True, there is a newer clause, that is in response to public outcry when people discovered the original terms. and is followed by:
   
   

   However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.

   
   
   The new clause still makes you liable for damages, and on your own if somebody sues, or steals.
   
   But I stand corrected.

   Posted 5 years ago #

7. KBVP
   Member

   
   I always burn my web site into the video. http://www.kbvp.com
   
   see: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=www.kbvp.com

   Posted 5 years ago #

8. faqvideo
   Member

   
   YouTube is a poor quality video. Unless you want to use it for promotion purposes, I would recommend to try Google Video. They use Flash as well, but with better size/resolution format.
   
   If you are really concern about video quality, you may try DivX.com, Stage 6. Your viewers will need good broadband and some patience to watch the videos though, but download works great, and that's real DivX, not Flash. Hopefully they will fix lagging problems soon enough.
   
   Shoot-It-Yourself Wedding Video Guide

   Shoot-It-Yourself Wedding Video Guide, http://www.faqvideo.com/siy_book

   Posted 5 years ago #

9. birdcat
   Moderator

   

   faqvideo Wrote:

   YouTube is a poor quality video. Unless you want to use it for promotion purposes

   
   
   I don't know that it's as poor as you say - If you render to 320X240 MP4 it looks pretty good to me after uploading -
   
   As an example:

   Get the Flash Videos

   
   
   I agree with you if you are taking a 720 X 480 MPEG2 and uploading, but this looks fine to me.
   
   Just my opinion.

   Posted 5 years ago #

10. faqvideo
    Member

    
    Not bad. It definitely looks better when you format it to their size. Thanks!

    Posted 5 years ago #

11. Southcross
    Member

    

    ;0) Wrote:

    My Bad. I apologize.
    I assumed anybody who didn't read the Youtube instructions on how to prep videos, for uploading to thier site, also may have failed to read the fine print on copyright.
    I figured the warning about copyright may may encourage one to reread thier info. If you didn't want to give up your rights to your work, then the codec issue becomes a moot point.
    I find quicktime works just fine. I use quicktime pro. Hope that helps.
    
    http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55745&topic=10526
    http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55744&ctx=sibling
    http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=57410&ctx=sibling

    I have read all their available FAQs... and I still think they look like crap. I have seen super sharp video uploads and some super crappy ones. I have tried MPG2, MPG4, Divx/Xvid... I just don't find a codec/compression level/etc that seems to fit my personal standards of quality...

    Posted 5 years ago #

12. Lifepartner
    Member

    
    You really can't get good quality from them, unless you have a really good camera.
    I have a Sony DCR-TRV250 and the footage is decent, on youtube.

    Posted 5 years ago #

13. compusolver
    Member

    

    You really can't get good quality from them, unless you have a really good camera.
    I have a Sony DCR-TRV250 and the footage is decent, on youtube.

    
    That's a common misconception. The fact is that with their screen size and with them recompressing the videos, you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between a pro camera and a consumer cam - especially if both were shot in daylight.

    Posted 5 years ago #

14. virtualscribe
    Member

    
    Yes, as videographers you all do your absolute best to capture the highest quality. But youTube thrives because of its delivery method. Fast delivery online means compression. While you can certainly rely on their compression, you can do a lot better if you compress your own video files before uploading. For all the scientific settings on compressors these days, it is still an art, and you get to be the artist. Here's a hint: YouTube's final output is FLV video, flash video.
    
    First of course, get the highest quality source. Then to get the best online compression use dual pass FLV encoding at a bitrate you feel your audience has the capacity to consume. By not wasting your own or youTube's time trying to best guess their compressor settings and by you supplying high quality flv files, you will be miles ahead of your competition. This also allows you to upload their absolute limits in terms of filesize restrictions, as creative compression will allow you to put in more minutes of your content than the defaults they allow.
    
    This is what my own compressed video looks like taken from my site.
    
    http://www.virtualscribe.com/blackBoxChicago/
    
    I then uploaded the very same piece, as an FLV file, directly onto youTube in November or December of 2006.
    
    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=virtualscribe
    
    Compare and contrast the compression both on my site and youTube; youTube does not recompress video when you already have it in Flash. The reason my video is bad is that I tried too many motion backgrounds on it. Also, youTube demands blackbars if your content can't fill its requirements, so at the youTube section, click the rectangle next to the audio icon, to get it back to its original dimensions. All artifacts are mine; you can do a lot better if your source content does not have a lot of motion, transitions, fades, and other compression causing problems.
    
    You can also see the encoding quality on my website, of 5 different wedding videography samples. These are clips which individual videographers have created. The source material is theirs, in very high quality material and my part is creatively, artistically encoding it so that it looks good to both the videographers and the bride/groom parties. Each has slightly different challenges; some are in black and white, some slow motion, transitions, water and hair, waving flowing cloth.
    
    http://www.sharingmyjoy.com
    
    Short answer:
    
    

    1. Compress to FLV before uploading

    
    

    2. Upload

    
    
    
    If you don't follow these steps, your final output depends on the guesswork on the part of youTube's compressor. And it doesn't care what your video is, it applies the same compression to EVERY one of the 150 thousand videos per day which are uploaded. The same formula applied to cell phone video, digicam video, vcr tape capture, or high end XL2 camcorder footage, like the ads on the right. So be better than your peers, do your homework, and compress to flash FLV format before uploading.
    ______________________
    virtualscribe
    http://www.sharingmyjoy.com
    share your wedding video online

    Posted 5 years ago #

15. KBVP
    Member

    
    Very good! My stuff is high speed action, which totally dies after compression. I have had to change my edit style when doing dissolves. One second dissolves get trashed in the re-compression, so I got acceptable results with 1/4 second effects. I had one video that had a 50% larger file size than a much shorter duration video. If the amount of background motion makes that much difference, guessing the bitrate gets a bit complex.
    The YouTube played straight through without pausing, but your site took a long time and loaded in segments. I don't think it was my computer. Equipement list: http://www.videomaker.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4228

    Posted 5 years ago #

16. cinetech
    Member

    
    Hi guys
    
    You might want to read this article:
    
    How To Make YouTube Videos Look Great
    http://www.squidoo.com/youtuberight/
    
    Hope it helps

    Posted 5 years ago #

17. RLN_USA
    Member

    
    O.K., let's put some of these claims to the test. ;-) I'm having trouble getting any decent quality for a documentary I'm trying to produce, and would like some advice. I'm going with my existing capturing technology as explained in my other thread elsewhere on this forum. For purposes of the below videos, I caputured some footage in AVI DVD Quality, and compressed in MPEG-4 in the case of the first two tests. Upon playback on my pc, the finished MPEG-4 file looked fine.
    
    To recap, users on this forum are suggesting:
    a) Render your video in MPEG-4 320x240 as per YouTube's instructions - what birdcat advised.
    b) Encode your video to .FLV before uploading.
    c) Render your video in WMV streaming format.
    
    Video 1 - I uploaded my clean MPEG-4 320x240 to YouTube. The picture quality I received back was unacceptable - blurred faces and checkerboard background. See for yourself:

    Get the Flash Videos

    
    
    Video 2 - Same process, but at 640x480. Actually, slightly better picture, but still unacceptable.

    Get the Flash Videos

    That also seems to kill the 320x240 theory.
    
    Video 3 - We try encoding in .FLV . But I had to go with an AVI rendered file because my FLV encoder did not recognize the MPEG-4 file. Still very poor quality:

    Get the Flash Videos

    
    
    Video 4 - FLV again, but first render in streaming format WMV. No change in quality either.

    Get the Flash Videos

    
    
    Oh, yes, and I read that article as well - utilized 2000 bps data rate whenever possible and non-interlaced.
    
    What options do I have left??

    Posted 5 years ago #

18. virtualscribe
    Member

    
    RLN_USA,
    
    Send me your clip, and I'll see what I can do with it; I just want to see if the quality you are getting and the quality I can get is different. It would be an interesting experiment for me. Get in touch with me at my website, http://www.sharingmyjoy.com and I'll see if I can encode the same timecodes you have encoded, and put them up on youTube.
    
    I still say this has to do with the art of encoding, not with the technical details of which preset options to take. If you can mail me your uncompressed footage, or place it online somewhere and have me download it, I can take a portion of the clip and put it onto youTube after compression to see if it is any different in resultsets than what you can come up with. If nothing else, we can learn from each other.
    
    ___________________________
    virtualscribe
    http://www.sharingmyjoy.com
    Share your entire wedding video online, easily and securely

    Posted 5 years ago #

19. KBVP
    Member

    
    This was a test upload to Google Videos. The original was on my master DVD. I imported to WMM at highest quality and 720x480. Upload retained the same file size/resolution. The playback is killing the detail, but when downloaded it's good. The super wide Canon lens had some cut-off that didn't show when using a standard monitor- typical under scan/over-scan thing.
    
    

    Get the Flash Videos

    
    
    Keith breazeal http://www.kbvp.com

    Posted 5 years ago #

20. RLN_USA
    Member

    
    Thanks Virtualscribe. I sent a message through your website.
    
    KBVP, I watched half of your Google video. Compared to my file's results, your quality looked fine at the "original size". Yes, when you blow it up to 200% there is a loss in quality, but that is a very wide screen. I would be interested to know how you went about rendering this and what settings you used.

    Posted 5 years ago #

21. cinetech
    Member

    
    First of all, KBVP shouldn't have any problems
    encoding low motion, quality should be acceptable.
    
    The issue is to encode motion as RLN_USA did with his video,
    that's a tough one to encode since is changing all the time,
    and at 250Kbps (YT encoding bit rate) is almost impossible
    that it will look nice, in YT that is.
    
    Try using the best I've see so far: Quicktime's h.264 codec.
    
    

    RLN_USA Wrote:

    Thanks Virtualscribe. I sent a message through your website.
    
    KBVP, I watched half of your Google video. Compared to my file's results, your quality looked fine at the "original size". Yes, when you blow it up to 200% there is a loss in quality, but that is a very wide screen. I would be interested to know how you went about rendering this and what settings you used.

    Posted 5 years ago #

22. KBVP
    Member

    
    Here's the same compression settings, but extreme motion:
    
    

    Get the Flash Videos

    
    
    Both cameras recorded on DV. Imported into a wavelet editor via S-Video(less compression). Exported S-Video encoded to Firewire into DVDShop. Same WMM settings as above response and video link.
    
    Keith Breazeal http://www.kbvp.com

    Posted 5 years ago #

23. KBVP
    Member

    
    Here's a screen shot of WMM settings when you go to "save". It results in full 720x480 screen size.
    
    
    
    
    Keith Breazeal
    http://www.kbvp.com

    Posted 5 years ago #

24. guoke
    Member

    
    hi geys, i am still a student and is trying to do some research on YouTube, do u mind to help to do a survey?
    
    thanks a lot for your help.... 8-O :D
    the website is http://www.my3q.com/home2/156/zhuke/58602.phtml

    Posted 5 years ago #

25. KBVP
    Member

    
    YouTube looks great on the small screen, but when you want to see a fairly good full screen, you might want to use Google Videos.
    My son wanted his mountain biking promo uploaded for sponsorships. The standard playback for high speed action leaves a lot to be desired. However, when downloaded, the full screen playback is really good. Using the above setting in the screen shot I posted, this is the result:

    Get the Flash Videos

    Posted 5 years ago #

26. RLN_USA
    Member

    
    Thanks KBVP / Cinetech,
    
    Well, unfortunately, I am using this for promotion purposes, and I need my video work to join a particular "community" where it will receive better exposure, than on Google video. So I really need to get my work on YouTube rather than Google, Dailymotion, etc..
    
    Now check this out: I processed some of the same footage with the same caputure standard (AVI, dvd quality) and compressed down to WMV 640x480 instead of YouTube's recommended Mpeg4 @320x240. Then I uploaded to Myspace for a change. Although I won't benefit from having my video on myspace down the road, but just wanted to run a test . . . . . . . so what happened??
    
    http://www.myspace.com/58023979 click on my dummy profile to the left and watch the video! The picture quality beats YouTube hands down. Now why would that be??!! 640x480 compressed down to myspace's standard of 430x346. But, hey, I don't see any checkerboard background here (unlike YouTube). And I can see the details on human faces. Yet this is still a motion shot.
    
    So why is YouTube's technology inferior to Myspace? Aren't video streams supposed to be YouTube's selling point?? :-)

    Posted 5 years ago #

27. cinetech
    Member

    
    YT rationale is simple there are more browsers
    with flash 7 in the world, so they transcode everything to Flash 7.
    Namely, they want reach more people, it's not about quality.
    They're quite few other competitors that have better
    quality videos: Stage6, Ravver or even MySpace, yet
    they're not as succesful....
    
    If you want to be in YT, meet their requirements.
    
    

    RLN_USA Wrote:

    Thanks KBVP / Cinetech,
    So why is YouTube's technology inferior to Myspace? Aren't video
    streams supposed to be YouTube's selling point?? :-)

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

youtube, myvideo, funnyordie, gametrailers, collegehumor, dailymotion, glumbert, liveleak, redtube, googlevideo, sevenload, metacafe, clipfish, vimeo