I've never uploaded a YouTube video, but I was under the impression
they were severely degraded by process of conversion to the format the
YouTube uses since they're typically fuzzy, blocky, with degraded
sound that's often out of sync, but then you'll see some like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1qSB4Jxcfcs


Not too shabby - looks decent at the default size that WMP plays it,
sound is quite good - and stays in sync. All in a video file that's
smaller than I'm sure a 4:15 length CD track would be. So what's the
difference between this one and the typical ones I'm used to seeing?
Is it strictly the quality of the original video or is there more to
it?

Doc wrote:

Garbage in, garbage out.

Sure, the final format can be a limiting factor in some cases, but if
the original video is of low quality, the output will be even worse.

Some problems with the "original" video include:
1) Too low resolution
2) Too low bitrate
3) Not deinterlaced / improperly deinterlaced
4) Poor choice of codec
5) Point camera at TV screen to capture video
6) Degraded VHS/other source
etc...
x) All of the above

-WD

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:27:21 -0400, Doc wrote
(in article <1180873641.583279.127040@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>):

Well it was professionally lit for one thing. Good cameras were used...
properly. The audio was to begin with.

It'd be very interesting to see what the file size was. I think they allow
100MB.

Ken Stone's published an e-article a few months back about youtube's
compression and how to render for it. It's still up on his site.

I was shooting a Canon XL2 with my best attempt at good lighting to get my
little piece. http://youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Jun 3, 7:19 am, Will Dormann <wdorm...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
That's not the entire story. I have found that I get pretty good
quality videos with my Canon SD200 digital camera (640x480, 30fps non-
interlaced, m-jpeg codec, outdoor video with plenty of lighting). It
looks pretty sharp viewing it with WMP, but after uploading to
youtube, it looks like crap (pretty blurry). I blame that squarely on
the youtube transcoder.

great video and guitar playing! so what was the specs of the file that
you uploaded? codec, resolution, fps, bitrate, etc.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:06:38 -0400, Bucky wrote
(in article <1180933598.816452.180160@o11g2000prd.googlegroups .com>):

::With embarrassment:: I'm not totally certain. It was a while back. I tried
several different compressions
based on a 10.6 MB I still have on my hard drive. That file is:

FCP Compressor's Fast Cable Streaming.mov
Apple MPEG4
320x240, millions
AAC Stereo 32 kHz
29.97 fps
293 kb/sec.

Normal size is 410 x 240.

When I pull that up and compare it to the YouTube version, they look pretty
similar.

Of course there isn't a lot of motion going on in the shot, so that helps a
lot. If I were Pete Townsend, windmilling the guitar, I don't think the video
would look as good.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:27:16 -0400, Ty Ford wrote
(in article <mPidnUSmA_epjvnbnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com>):

Update. I went back to Revver to look at my video there (videos can be
downloaded from revver). I did and looking at the settings remember that I
used Apple Photo jpeg compression on at least that version because I had read
somewhere that someone had tried it and got good results. It's about 2 MB
larger than the 10 MB file I sent up to YouTube.

Try that.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 10:31:19 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:


It would be cool if YouTube could write and issue a codec as a free
download which would render in exactly the format they need. Then we
could experiment with it to see what looks best before submitting it.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:19:14 GMT, Ed Chilada <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

I noticed today that Pinnacle Studio 11 does this for Yahoo Video
(which I didn't even know existed). I imagine it won't be long before
a YouTube/Google Video version comes along.

On Jun 3, 5:27 am, Doc <docsavag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have uploaded several files to youTube, with varying success. My
latest I experimented with mpeg-4 usind DivX encoding. I shot with a
Sony HD camcorder (HVR-A1U), edited in Media Studio Pro 8 (Ulead),
then created a Standard Defintion NTSC -DVD mpg2 version, which was
189 megs for the 5 min video. Then encoded to DivX mpg-4, creating a
53 meg file. The quality is certainly not up to your original post,
but quite good, and much better than others I've uploaded, although my
great white shark clip came out OK with mpg2 encoding. I'm thinking
next time I'll mid-render to HD mpg file instead of SD, then go to
DivX; should be even sharper.

Your original example was obviously a professional clip, guessing HD
cameras (because of widescreen format), and the pro house has the best
info on specs specifically for youTube. I'm guessing they use a
version of mpeg-4, which I have heard is what youTube uses, so there
is minimal transcoding.

See the clip I referred to with mpeg-4 DivX encoding at
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NlzRHJno3kQ

Search youTube for scubajam to see my other clips, some older ones are
very fuzzy, even though my originals are very sharp. Any 4:3 clip was
shot with a SD camera; all widescreen 16:9 shot with HD camera.


Jim McGauhey
Washington State