Google Video, You Tube - Best export settings? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > Adobe Creative Suite

Adobe Creative Suite
All about the world of Adobe Premiere and its associated plug-ins.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 27th, 2007, 07:39 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: calgary, Canada
Posts: 48
Google Video, You Tube - Best export settings?

I'm new to web encoding. So far I've tried the export within premiere and exported two hdv projects to windows media 9 based on pre-sets with premiere (one at the 1024 setting and one at the 512). I am not stoked on the results, definitely lower quality in both video and sound than I was hoping for.

What's the best web exports for Google Video, You Tube or other online video uses? What tools do you normally use? Is the exporter within preimiere good enough? Should I create an AVI first of project then use another program??

My project is going to be heavily web instensive so I'd love to hear some feedback here.

Michael
Michael Barrette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007, 08:19 PM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 1,520
I think I finally got a decent YouTube video using the method suggested by the producers of the Mr. Diety videos.

My best YouTube output:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GxYqIyyeW4

The method was to export a DV AVI from Premiere Pro, then follow these instructions:

"Before uploading, I convert the file with QuickTime Pro to h.264, 480x360 pixels at 24fps, better quality, and with a keyframe every 24 frames. The audio is set to AAC, VBR 96-110, 32k stereo."

I left mine at 29.97 but the rest seemed to do the trick. It still looks better when you click the button that makes it 320X240.
__________________
Steven Gotz
http://www.stevengotz.com
Steven Gotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007, 10:50 PM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 456
Intelligent Assistance has a pdf on web encoding recipes, with a special section on encoding for YouTube.

http://www.proappstips.com/EncodingRecipes/
Eric Darling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 11:36 AM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 1,520
Since I don't have access to any of the three programs they use for examples, I think I will save my $4.95 for a sandwich instead.

I'll bet that they use the same general rules I followed, since my three minute video came in at just under 50MB and a six minute video would come in just under the 100MB maximum.
__________________
Steven Gotz
http://www.stevengotz.com
Steven Gotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 05:14 PM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Hollywood, Atlanta
Posts: 437
so (acorcding to that link) I have have sorenson squeeze or some program to be able to make my YouTube videos look the best?
__________________
Tyson X
Tyson Persall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 05:39 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 1,520
No, they just use those programs as example, I imagine.

If you try my way, and you are happy, then great. If my way does not work for you, let's figure out why.

It works for Mr. Deity, and it works for me, so I am done searching.
__________________
Steven Gotz
http://www.stevengotz.com
Steven Gotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 06:55 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 456
Well, the pdf certainly doesn't imply that you need to use one of their software choices to get optimum results. As a matter of fact, they clearly state that there are other options such as Procoder that will do just as well.

YouTube does limit the size of your source media upload, so you want to make sure you're maximizing your quality by submitting the least compressed file possible, no matter which codec you choose to send their way.
Eric Darling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 07:41 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 1,520
Well, yes, within reason. I doubt that I could double the data rate and get any realistically more quality out of their Flash encode. Plus, knowing that I could go from three minutes to six minutes and still use the same preset does give me some comfort.

The PDF clearly shows that they use three different programs, and I don't own any of the three.
__________________
Steven Gotz
http://www.stevengotz.com
Steven Gotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 08:00 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 456
The old adage of GIGO applies. Since you have to submit pre-compressed source media to YouTube (you're limited to 100 MB), you will likely experience better encodes to YouTube's Spark H.263 codec if you opt for maximizing your file size within their 100 MB limit. Obviously, depending on a number of factors, your particular clips may or may not see an appreciable boost in quality for pushing the file size limit. But why not give it all you got?

With proper video encoding software, you should have the option to limit your output file size by total MB. If you don't own such software, or you opt to export directly out of your editing app, the math isn't really all that complicated to come in under the 100 MB target.
Eric Darling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 09:49 PM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: calgary, Canada
Posts: 48
Thanks for the replies, that tennis vid is actually pretty high quality, good work.

10 Minutes is pretty short, and I am shooting everything in 16x9. Does YouTube not allow wide screen?

Google Video has no limits. Anyone have experience getting stuff on Google? Is it a lot more difficult getting a 20-30 minute wide screen movie on Google for example? Anyone have ideas on best output format for google?

ERIC, As for encoding software, is the standard premiere encoder ideal? If not, what do you recommend?

Cheers,
Michael
Michael Barrette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 10:21 PM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 456
Quote:
ERIC, As for encoding software, is the standard premiere encoder ideal? If not, what do you recommend?
Honestly, I don't have enough experience with Premiere (I edit with FCP) to speak with much insight to its capabilities. However, I know that it's not a compression tool per sť. It allows some adjustments, but certainly not the level of control needed for pro compression tasks. I would point to Canopus Procoder or Sorenson Squeeze as the primary compression tools of choice on the Windows platform. In an ideal world, you would have one of those programs available. However, I realize the expense of such software isn't always justified. If you're dissatisfied with the results provided by Premiere, though, it's probably time to consider a compression tool.

As for YouTube, there is no current way to get 16:9 material properly encoded. You would have to letterbox your material in a 4:3 window.
Eric Darling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 03:11 AM   #12
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: calgary, Canada
Posts: 48
Thanks for the response.

Curious, is Canopus Procoder also ideal for encoding HDV to SD?

Thanks,
Michael
Michael Barrette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 08:12 AM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 456
Yes, Procoder can interpret M2T transports. I haven't used it for that job, but it is listed as a capability.
Eric Darling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 09:30 AM   #14
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 1,520
One of the least expensive ways to handle YouTube exports for Premiere Pro users is to pay for Quicktime Pro. The Quicktime export from Premiere Pro leaves a lot to be desired. Since all Macs have Quicktime as a part of their OS, they don't have to pay extra to get that quality from FCP.
__________________
Steven Gotz
http://www.stevengotz.com
Steven Gotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 09:51 AM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 456
Actually, QuickTime Pro is not included with the OS on a Macintosh. The reason you get QuickTime Pro functionality if you're running FCP is because you get QT Pro when you install FCP, so it's included with the Final Cut Studio suite, but not with the operating system.
Eric Darling is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > Adobe Creative Suite

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:03 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network