- This topic has 8 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by Anonymous.
June 12, 2007 at 1:10 PM #39663AnonymousInactive
I’ve been using the "free" sites to show my videos, imeem and youtube, and of course you lose a lot of clarity from the original when you upload. Does anyone know of a site that can maintain the quality better than youtube? I don’t mind paying.
Also, I’m using an older version of Dazzle to create the files. Is there a better product on the market for this?
June 12, 2007 at 1:42 PM #171180AnonymousInactive
youtube sucks, but I expect it will get better now that Apple has got thier hand in there.
the h264????( sorry I’m dyslexic and sometimes screw up numbers) codec used for the apple tv is way better than the (flash?) current offerings!
June 14, 2007 at 11:21 AM #171181AnonymousInactive
Your question about putting content onto youTube is a fairly common one, and various people have been struggling with it over the past few months, asking similar questions at videomaker.
Some of these answers have to do with creating content. If you create your own content and upload FLV files, youTube and a bunch of other freebie websites don’t touch your video, they just let it through their system. If you decide to upload quicktime or avi or mpeg1 or a bunch of other formats, they encode at their convenience to flash format. You have the most control of how your file looks if you take your own video and compress using dual pass encoding directly to the flash video format. Sorenson Squeeze and ON2 vp6 are the only 2 products which create 2 pass encoding, and they are currently your best solutions for professional quality video. Everything else in the market uses single pass encoding. From Adobe Encore to Premiere, Final Cut, Sony Vegas, Quicktime, even Flash itself; all these products just pull in the single pass flash encoding. youTube and some of the other freebie sites take the content you upload and compress it using open source tools at the lowest and fastest compression bitrates. I think they use the open source tool called ffmpeg.
youTube doesn’t suck, it’s the compression they use to deliver the fastest result. If you do the encoding yourself and upload to youTube you can see amazing results there.
I have a few posts, you can search for virtualscribe or click on some of the links below to read up on older discussions about this topic if you want more information:
Bitrates and video access
FLV Bitrates for online consumption
Optimizing Flash Video Techniques
High Quality YouTube secret: It’s the COMPRESSION !
As far as comparing Adobe flash output vs Apple’s h.264, this is a give and take between me as a web developer who is willing to forego a bit of quality to get a lot of consumer views of my video, vs a videographer who wants the highest quality, but won’t mind if less people view the video. The youTube and other freebie websites which deliver flash give back pure viewing power, because the entrance fee to watch flash video is next to nothing: almost everyone has this codec, and it doesn’t take too much time to compress into flv format.
Apple’s much better h.264 has 2 drawbacks: It is not as widely supported by consumer browsers/plugins, and the much more important unavoidable fact: it is VERY timeconsuming. Encoding to h.264 yields amazing quality because your processor takes a lot of time create the compressed video. But after you encode to this codec, your user requires a very powerful decoder when you want to watch it. Because this video is highly compressed, they need pure power to decompress and watch it. So automatically the average person’s computer today is out of the running for watching this content. When you encode for h.264 you encode for future users. I’m trying to make a living today, so I am encoding for the widest possible viewer range who have processors capable of decoding my flash documents. On average with my software I see encoding times for Sorenson’s codec to be about
I’ll encode for tomorrow’s users later, when I feel like the general population has h.264 decoders and powerful enough processors. Again, it comes down to my desire as a web developer to get the widest range of people to view my work. I’m willing to forego some quality for that. If videographers absolutely have to have the highest quality, just tell your users they don’t have the hardware to see your vision. And expect less users to consume your work. You walk the fine line between giving lots of people access to your lower quality work, or a few people access to high quality work if you decide to deliver your content online.
Quick Summary: youTube is delivery, apple’s h.264 is quality. Choose. Lots of viewers with lower quality? Or few viewers, pristine quality.
June 15, 2007 at 8:50 AM #171182TomScratchParticipant
This is a keeper. Your post is helpful snapshot of state of art/science re video to web transmissions. Thanks.
REGARDS … TOM 8)
June 25, 2007 at 7:54 AM #171183AnonymousInactive
I’ve been using the "free" sites to show my videos, imeem
and youtube, and of course you lose a lot of clarity from the original when you upload.
Does anyone know of a site that can maintain the quality better than youtube?
I don’t mind paying.
You can improve your Youtube video quality by reading this page:
How To Make YouTube Videos Look Great
June 29, 2007 at 5:02 AM #171184AnonymousInactive
You could do a search on any major search engine for "file hosting", there are a lot of big/large file hosting sites that don’t require any payment except that you stare at ads for 10 seconds before downloading the file (and many of them limit users to one download per day or some other small amount), upload an uncompressed (or lightly compressed) file and you can just give people the link to where they can download the file.
July 1, 2007 at 3:44 PM #171185Ryan3078Participant
I tried to encode a video by flv instead of my normal wmv, but the quality wasn’t as good as I had hoped for – it seemed a bit worse than what I had done before!
What am I doing wrong? I used Premiere Pro 2, encoded at 400KB/sec.
I tried again at 700 kb/sec
Here’s the specifics for the latter.
Video codec: On2 VP6 was used, with another choice being Sorenson Spark.
Frame rate 30, quality 700 KB/sec (high)
audio data at 64 KN mono, at a ratio of 320×240.
By comparison, the one with wmv compression
is perhaps a bit foggier with quality but none of the artifacts around text or other problems experienced with the flv.
July 3, 2007 at 8:17 PM #171186faqvideoParticipant
Try Divx.com. The quality is much better, but your audience needs a lot of patience.
July 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM #171187faqvideoParticipant
I have just given DivX.com another try and was pleasantly surprise.
Same great quality with much smoother playback. Actually with all the videos I have tried the buffering speed was higher than the playback.
The problem is DivX codec. The people at home have to deal with downloading and installing it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.