Hi Bryan,

You are absolutely correct! The data rate is set to unconstrained and not uncompressed. I agree it is a VERY important distinction and thank you for catching that.

No problem, thanks for sharing your settings, I have always been less than thrilled with my youtube renders and might have to give your settings a whirl when i get some time.

I haven't seen a lot of chatter here about what people are using for an input file into Mpeg Streamclip. I'm working in Vegas, and in order to use Streamclip, I'd need to first export my project into a file (typically compressing in right) which would create one generation of quality loss.

Then you'd have to use Mpeg Streamclip to recompress the video to create a file suitable for uploading to Youtube, Vimeo, etc, etc...

I shoot and work with HDV footage shot in 1440x1080i. What project settings should I be using to export footage to slip into Streamclip to get this kind of quality?

Jon

Jon, I am not very familiar with Streamclip (I just visited their site after reading your post.) What advantage do you see to using the secondary render versus using Vegas's renderer?

Most of the posts in this thread revolve around the common perception that using this software can enhance the look of your video as presented on youtube. Since good quality video on Youtube seems to be such a difficult thing to obtain, I'd like to learn the optimimum way to encode video for upload to the YouTube servers.

Jon

The answer is: use the highest quality format - that would be uncompressed... but in some cases that might not be feasible due to the huge resulting file size.

The next best would be your project intermediate. In my case, since I work with Edius, that would be Canopus HQ; I am not sure how Vegas works and also don't know if you're editing HDV natively or using some intermediate format (e. g. Cineform).

The general idea would be to get the video out of your NLE and into Streamclip with no recompression; you can achieve that by using the project intermediate (your original video has already been converted to that format anyway).

Reading through this thread I have tried a few different things myself and am looking for opinions....

Which looks better:

Option 1) YouTube - Christmas Concert 2009 Pt2

Option 2) YouTube - Test



Thanks for your feed back!

I'm going to go with Option #1

Thanks Jon, and to further qualify my query, would you consider either "high quality" I.E. would you be happy with it?

There is a bit of color smudge on both, worse on the second. You may need to turn down chroma in your editing app.

Thanks, I use Vegas 9c any tips on how to do that?

You may want to post that question on the Vegas forum to get the best advice... I am not familiar with Vegas.

Thanks, I figured it out...

I'll put up another copy and see if that is better, but seems like my first option, which I am going to put up again is the better minus the higher chroma.

Never really noticed that until you pointed it out doh...

Better?

YouTube - Part 3 take 2

To me, it looks about the same, but to answer your question before, yes I would consider it good.. but that all depends on the audience... for a family to see their young kids... it's just fine...

Jon