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?

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

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...:-(

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

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

Got it. If your interested...see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-qqXG8Pds

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.

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.

Interesting. The only issue then is the length of time it takes to upload the higher quality footage to Youtube?

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.

I did wonder though, say you upload a 50mb clip and a 5Mb clip which are the same content and duration but different quality - would YouTube convert both to identical size files? You'd think probably not. And wouldn't a smaller file size mean the movie will load/start quicker? I would have thought so.

I notice that for one of your YouTube movies, Renton, the version labelled 'for 56k dialup' seems to load a lot quicker than the same movie labelled 'for fast BB'.

That would seem to suggest that there IS a benefit to loading up dialup sized versions in addition to higher res versions (particularly with the kind of extended news coverage material you're loading, Renton).

Again. I'm not a YouTube expert so I may be talking out of my elbows here, but it seems to make sense.

Jason, yes it looks like you now have the capability of loading up to 1Gb files using the YouTube loader.

Thanks Ian. I thought there was a benefit also, which is why I did it.

And while of course it is nice to have better video, in these sort of clips it is the audio which is most important.

I was at my daughters place last weekend, out in the country on a terrible phone line. They are on dialup and it is absolutely painful to experience how long it takes them just to connect to the web, let alone do any search or downloads. It would take forever for them to get anything it takes me secs to get. The incredible slowness of their connection would be a severe disincentive to me to even go on line! The only way they can get a better connection is to go via satallite but it is too expensive for them at the mo.

It was such people that I thought I was catering for...

Hopefully someone who understands these things better than me will confirm or rubbish my logic!

The thought of going back to dialup now fills me with terror. I've had broadband for over a decade and 20Mb broadband for over a year. It would be like taking my whizzy middle-age crisis car away and giving me back the piece of junk I learned to drive on twenty five years ago! Noooooooo!!