Rendering for Youtube at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > What Happens in Vegas...

What Happens in Vegas...
...stays in Vegas! This PC-based editing app is a safe bet with these tips.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 14th, 2008, 08:55 PM   #1
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,104
Rendering for Youtube

I have a 9 minute 57 second clip edited in Vegas 8 to put on Youtube. In the past I have rendered out a 56k and 256k version so people can choose suitable download.

However...grrrrrrr... everytime I post, the clip gets rejected as too long!!!*&^%$! Youtube claims it is 20 and a bit minutes instead of the 9 mins 57 sec. I have rendered the clip selected length only (render loop region only), done new files, etc, etc.

Anyone have any clues any to what could be going on?
Renton Maclachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2008, 11:26 PM   #2
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Echuca, Victoria, Australiamate
Posts: 179
I would be tempted to do a recut, and reduce the time.

From my understanding the file size is not the issue with You Tube, but project length.

Ben
Ben Longden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 12:48 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,104
When the project was finished, it wsa 10 mins 18 seconds. Rather than go through it all and find 18 secs, I just shortened the length by draging the end and squeezing everything up a bit - made the whole thing go 1/35th faster but it was hardly noticable. However that didn't work.

So I went back to my original veg file and found the 18 secs through making a myriad of cuts. This brought it down to 9 mins 57 secs.

Just to make sure that the file wasn't reading longer than the project length, I selected the whole thing as a loop region and rendered that. The file info says it is 9:57 but Youtube says it it is 20 mins + .

I've tried it over and over and taken the file to another computer but no go.

Read on a blog somewhere to try .rm format. I did and youtube got the length right, but said it couldn't read the format!!!

This was supposed to be a scoop...:-(
Renton Maclachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 07:43 AM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Echuca, Victoria, Australiamate
Posts: 179
Bugger....
Im in the news biz as well, so I know how you feel about a scoop..

I would really aim for reducing the time... even if you have to cut it into two parts and post them separately.

Ben
Ben Longden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 01:54 PM   #5
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Longden View Post
Bugger....
Im in the news biz as well, so I know how you feel about a scoop..

I would really aim for reducing the time... even if you have to cut it into two parts and post them separately.

Ben
THis is probably going to be your best option.
Jason Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 01:57 PM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,205
Anyone got any ideas about what's going wrong in the first place though?

Renton, what format did you originally render to? Have you tried asking YouTube tech support (if such a team exists).

Ian . . .
Ian Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 03:05 PM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Stark View Post
Anyone got any ideas about what's going wrong in the first place though?

Renton, what format did you originally render to? Have you tried asking YouTube tech support (if such a team exists).

Ian . . .
regarding the incorrect time, I am not sure. If YouTube was expecting a different frame rate and was only counting frames, then if you produced a 30p project instead of 29.97i then they might be adding up the frames and getting a slightly longer time.

A 10 minute clip has 18,000 frames at 30p but 17,982 at 29.97i. If YouTube was looking at those interlaced fields and making a direct conversion to progressive with no pull-downs, then may be that messes up things? It would seem to only potentially make your video look a 1/2 second longer, so I'm pretty sure that isn't the issue.

Last edited by Jason Robinson; May 15th, 2008 at 03:11 PM. Reason: more info
Jason Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 03:38 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,104
Thanks Guys,

I rendered out to .wma at both 56kbps and 256kbps templates as I have done in the past - for people with dialup and those with Broadband.

The time has effectively doubled - Youtube says it is 20 minutes, yet it is only 10.

The piece is not really splitable, and anyway, I've noticed that when things are split, the numbers of viewers who move on to the second clip is about 1/4 of those who watch the first one.

You can't get to any person at Youtube for advice. They only have FAQ's.

I'll check through all the properties...but would really like to know what is happening.
Renton Maclachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 07:00 PM   #9
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,205
I'm guessing you mean wmv rather than wma? Have you tried rendering to something else like mpg or mov and uploading that? That would be my first port of call I think.

Considering you can load files up to YouTube of up to 100mb (1Gb wit hthe YouTube Uploader) I would have thought it best to render to a higher quality rather than using the 56kb or 256kb wmv presets. It's going to be compressed and converted to Flash by YouTube anyway so there's no value in lowering the quality that much, as far as I can see.

Still can't understand why you're getting that weird problem though.
Ian Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 07:30 PM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,104
Thanks Ian

Yes it was .wmv.

I'm just in the process of trying Mainconcept mp4 - actually just this minute have confirmed it worked so it is now live. That is good. It took a long time to upload.

Now...re this quality thing. What are you saying. That no matter what people are on, dialup or BB, that I can upload in quality and the compressed Youtube file will be ok for anyone to download in reasonable time? The reason I went for the low quality, was because I thought I was being kind to those on dailup, who would be more likely to look at it if they didn't have to spend ages waiting for the download.
Renton Maclachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 09:33 PM   #11
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,104
Got it. If your interested...see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-qqXG8Pds
Renton Maclachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 01:55 AM   #12
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,205
I'm not a regular YouTube user to be honest, so maybe I've got this wrong. Anyone more intelligent care to chip in?

Congrats on getting the vid up eventually! I'll take a look in a second.
Ian Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 03:59 PM   #13
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton Maclachlan View Post
Now...re this quality thing. What are you saying. That no matter what people are on, dialup or BB, that I can upload in quality and the compressed Youtube file will be ok for anyone to download in reasonable time? The reason I went for the low quality, was because I thought I was being kind to those on dailup, who would be more likely to look at it if they didn't have to spend ages waiting for the download.
YouTube does not provide any difference in streaming quality depending on the users connection. That is why providing the highest quality image to YouTube is the most important variable in getting a high quality video displayed to users.
Jason Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 05:27 PM   #14
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,104
Interesting. The only issue then is the length of time it takes to upload the higher quality footage to Youtube?
Renton Maclachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 06:23 PM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton Maclachlan View Post
Interesting. The only issue then is the length of time it takes to upload the higher quality footage to Youtube?
I may need to correct myself because I just read on another thread here on DVInfo that YouTube is now giving people the option of uploading files larger than 100MB and is allowign the video to be presented in formats larger than 320x240. I'll have to verify this information.

But essentially, yes it doesn't matter what connection people use, they all get the same version. Som times on dialup you have to wait for YouTube to buffer before it can play. But it is the same quality video.
Jason Robinson 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 > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > What Happens in Vegas...

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:57 PM.


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