Thread: Encoding For YouTube with Vegas

I spoke too soon above. The high vision footage suffered the same through-a-watery window effect.

This Youtuber
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=flyingchaucer

Gets very good results using a very different technique. Here is his in depth article.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ssor_gary.html

The most important point is that he claims that one should use a size of 425x318 because that is in fact the size that YouTube broadcasts.
The writer also recommends the PhotoJPEG in Final Cut, but I don't think Vegas has one does it?

In vegas, using mp4, 1Mbs, 30fps and 425x318 is not so big as to produce a >100Mb file even at 10 minutes (this one 15MB for 2 minutes). The bigger size obviously creates a better quality intermediate file:
http://ds21.cc.yamaguchi-u.ac.jp/~econo/temp/standing.mp4

On Youtube.

My attempt use video from a top of the range Panasonic HVX200 and a low quality Casio Ex p505.

There needs to be more people working on this.

There are a lot of threads on a lot of forums talking about the best rendering for Youtube but most of them seem to be getting it wrong, at least in the size.

425x318 works better than the Youtube recomendation of 320 x 240.

The 1Mbps recommended above is not written in stone.

The jury is out on which of the Sony Vegas rendering formats (wmv, Main Concept mp4, Sony mp4) is best.

I hope that others have time to try other rendering formats, other sizes, other bit rates and even other frame rates.

Tim

Plz... have a look at this video on Metacafe


The original size of this video was 1024x737 pixels and when it was reduced to 435x325 pixels as the size of any metacafe video has, the software used in this video was Sony Vegas 7.0. The problem is the words in this video are not clear and the video is blurred, the settings I made was almost the same as most of the users that is Windows Media Playe v9, plz... have a look at this video!! And tell me the correct settings in which I won't see any mistakes regarding it!

Thanks, wud really appreciate it!!

It does not look blurred to me. It looks quite good considering you are trying to display a full screen capture in a 435x325 pixel box. It is so good I think I should move to metacafe.

The comment is right thought that the there is not enough definition and a lack of audio (as far as I can tell) or other commentary so that it is difficult to know what you are you are doing. Make it again using Camstudio, try and capture less of the screen and this time add audio.

425x318 is Youtube's display for a 320x240 flv file. However, I agree that if after having compressed your video 320x240 at a very high bit rate, the compressed file is still much smaller than 100MB, then we should provide a larger aspect ratio file. Otherwise 320x240 should be ok.

Also, HD footage will look better in Youtube since it has a better pixel/sq inch resolution.

Mr.Deity's videos look also great since they use a solid backgroud
with very little motion. It's simple.

Btw, this is a great article on compressing videos for youtube:

How To Make YouTube Videos Look Great on Squidoo

Originally Posted by timtak

There needs to be more people working on this.

There are a lot of threads on a lot of forums talking about the best rendering for Youtube but most of them seem to be getting it wrong, at least in the size.

425x318 works better than the Youtube recomendation of 320 x 240.

The 1Mbps recommended above is not written in stone.

The jury is out on which of the Sony Vegas rendering formats (wmv, Main Concept mp4, Sony mp4) is best.

I hope that others have time to try other rendering formats, other sizes, other bit rates and even other frame rates.

Tim

What about encoding for Google Video?

For example: How do you make the the red bleeds go away? Last video project had lots of red text over mostly dark background and it all bled so bad i had to chang eit all to white. The green text did it too but not as bad. Perhaps I should start a new thread?

I havent done exhaustive tests but my impression is that when I upload my vids at DV res, wmv, 1 meg bit rate thay look as good as a you tube vid ever does.

I follow the 'crap in crap' out rule. The better the original the better the compressed version will be, but it can never be bettter then a low res / bit rate .flv can be.

I really think that the most important thing is to uplaod the best original you can - I dont believe for a moment that you tube encoders work better with some codecs than others.

And if a file is to be compressed to a lower res it is always better to start at a higher res.

I wonder if all this is driven by frustration at you tube's poor quality and the myth that there is a way to beat it?

A few things you can do is to up the contrast a bit and avoid material that has lots of motion. Shaky camera work will kill any you tube video as the few bits available have to update the whole screen every few frames, spreading your paltry bit rate will cause 'blockyness' - whereas a still head and shoulders shot of a still photo in a vid will look acceptable.

You tube doen't lack in inherent quality, as evidenced by the Mr. Diety skit.

I'm glad I read this thread, if only to check out that funny video.

Alright, so should I use the resolution 425x318 or 320x240?

It seems that higher resolutions and bit rates produce better results. So it is best to up the resolution and bit rate to the 100Mb limit. If you have a short video of say 3 minutes then one can get pretty good definition.

It seems that the guys at Youtube are lying to reduce the load on their servers.

And it seems that there is little or no difference between wmv and mp4.

And HD video produces a much better output on youtube.

There is also a way of getting truly excellent quality by using a certain type of flv file. The result looks like high definition even though taken with a normal (non hd) camera. This is because a certain type of flv file bypasses the you tube reencoders and is used as is. However there only seems to be one software manufacturer that makes the wmv/mp4 (or whatever) to flv conversion just right so that it bypasses the youtube reencoders. I have the free erightsoft SUPER but htat does not work. I hear that the famous Sorrenson Squeeze Flv does not work either.

And I have forgotten the name of the software that the guy is using!

If you google high definition and youtube then you may be able to find it eventually.

Tim