My HDV Ecode for You Tube Look Terrible
 

I have tried almost every concievable combination and have yet to get the right encode from my hdv project to put up on you tube.

The stuff that was shot and edited in regualr DV format looks great on the Tube. Not the HDV

JVC HD110u
FCP
Shooting and editing 24p

Any suggestions would be much appreciated!

Thanks

Phil

Youtube takes your video, and re-encodes it into a flash file, so no matter how good a video you upload, it will always look more compressed that it really is. It's one of the negative aspects to youtube, but it's also what keeps their servers running effeciently.

What did you upload it as? More important than what you shot is what you sent them to be compressed through their servers - there are various tutorials out there on how you can optimize your videos for Youtube.

Give this a try:

1. Create a new DV timeline. Make sure you've got all the Best Quality options selected for that timeline (High Precision YUV, Best Quality Motion, etc.). Drag your HDV timeline into the new timeline.
2. Add a slight sharpen and colour smoothing filter to the whole timeline.
3. Export your timeline using QT Conversion as:

H.263
Automatic Data Rate / Best Quality
Frame Rate 24
Best Quality (Multi-pass)
Size: 320 x 240
Audio: AAC/Mono/44.100/Better

4. Check to see if you're export is under 300MB. If it's not then you'll have to select a data rate that gets you under 300. Try and get to exactly 299MB if you can!
5. Upload the file. YouTube will re-compress it. Post a link to the YouTube file once you've uploaded it.

Hope this helps!

Chris!

I thought YouTube are now going to use H.264 encoding to work with apple TV.

Give H.264 a go on the upload and see if it makes a difference.

James

I found a video on youtube talking about compression for youtube. His settings using quicktime conversion are:

H.264
default frame rate
limit data stream to 2000kbps
single pass
size 640x480
deinterlace (very important)
AAC audio

I've gotten better results with this that anything I've previously tried. For shorter clips, increasing the data stream may help too.

I find the most useful feature when playing youtube videos is the button that makes the video smaller. Most things look a lot sharper that way.

Before YouTube switched over to H.264 (have they actually done it yet?), I'm pretty sure they used 320x240 for the final encode and then just scaled it up for display on the website. So, if you export your movie as 320x240, you can get a higher data rate than if you exported as 640x480 (due to the 300MB upload limit). Either way, try and get your file to exactly 300MB by using the highest data rate possible...

This advice may be irrelevant once they start using H.264 for everything.

Chris!

Forgot to mention...

This is worth reading as well:

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ssor_gary.html

I read in Videomaker that if your video follows the above standards in terms of size and resolution and is all ready in FLV format and @ or below 100MB it will not be touched. This would mean you would have full control of the compression. I will try it out later and post the results.

YouTube does not currently accept videos in Flash (.flv) format.

Well that would certainly put a stop to it... hmmm..

I just uploaded FLVs to Utube last week. Although the FLV codex is not listed, they work just fine.
Jon

You tube is poor quality - try Brightcove for far superior quality - sure you wont get the same audience but then again do you want to showcase your efforts in a vhs/betamax standard online??

This would be the best way then, if they do not recompress the FLV.
The whole point of broadcasting on Youtube is to reach a wider audience, otherwise you could just set up your own Web site! Or you could do both, and point viewers from Youtube to your Web site if they want to watch a higher quality version of your video.

Here is a good place to upload for better quality...
http://www.dailymotion.com/us
Send your sh*tube viewers here for a nicer looking version.
Jon

Hey Jon, did you ever find a way to get your HDV videos looking better on Youtube? I have the exact same problem as you, still. And just like you, I've searched this forum and others, read every post, googled my pants off, and sent a boat load of HDV clips up there in all sorts of different formats and settings. I've even downloaded special compression settings for Compressor which were specifically made for Youtube by some web video genius. Nothing doing - they all look terrible.

Have you ever seen anything on Youtube that does not look terrible?

That's good. I like that comment ; )

When I say terrible though, I mean compared to the crap that's already up there. For some reason it seems that the higher quality HDV content looks worse than SD. For me at least.. and possibly Jon

no way no how
 

No, I found no way to get anything I've done to look "good" on uTube. Seems one must serve ones own flv's if you want quality. Otherwise your at the mercy of whatever crazy compression these video server people think up. I can just see it, some project manager who knows nothing about anything saying....
"No goddamnit, it must work with dialup!"
Jon

I hear you Jon, but what pisses me off is that I DO find videos on Youtube that look far better than what I can get up there when the video comes from HDV. That's the part that I especially don't get. I have seen vids up there that look decent. Even some that come from this forum. So somebody knows something that I don't - which is pretty much the way my days go all the time. SOS...

Depends on the content...
 

I think the main difference is movement within the video.
Here is a video that "moves" on uTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK8HNVYPIhE
Here is the same video on my server:
http://www.fotgfilms.com/video/woof.html
BTW this was shot SDDV
Now, here is a slower paced video shot in HD
uTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bst3nmQVqE
My server:
http://www.fotgfilms.com/video/holidays.html

So maybe with just the right content and lucky duck transcoding someone might get a video to look ok on uTube. But I bet if I sent them this, they couldn't get it to look good, no matter what they tried....
uTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-NfNhWgY4
my server:
http://www.fotgfilms.com/video/agogo.html

Ok, enough of my shameless self promotion, but I think you'll get the idea.
Jon

Eric, did you try my suggestion?

Here's two samples that used the settings I suggested:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=74j5WzW-6j4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQyha30nm6k

And Chris's videos pretty much support my post above...locked camera, not too much motion. The dance part turned out really good btw. My Happy Holidays video came out fine and is 720p to 320x240@ 24fps (letter box). What leaves me scratching my head tho, why the hell do we need to upload 100mb+ files when a final files size using mpeg4 can be 20mb or less. Makes no sense, and is a huge waste of time. I'm sticking with my project manager story, it's the only logic I can find in this whole mess.
Jon

PS if you have Compressor, looks like Chris has the answer!

I'll upload something with some camera movement and lots of motion shortly to see how that goes.

Also, you don't need Compressor to do the conversion. I've just been using Quicktime Pro to compress my files.

Chris, how do you check to see what size your export video will be? I never knew you could do that. Man would knowing this have saved me time in the past...

As far as I know - you can't.

Let us know how it goes Chris.
Thanks,
Jon

I guess I misunderstood your instructions then "Check to see if you're export is under 300MB." Too bad, that would be one cool trick!

I'm trying your settings now. I'll let you know how this works out. Thanks for offering the extra help. I feel like I'm back in 9th grade algebra with a tutor again...

Chris,

No kidding. I just followed your process to a "T". You're a genius. COMPLETELY different results.

Aside from everything else I have tried, I almost gave slamming my head in the doorway a go. Now, no need.

Thank you very much Chris.

Here's something with a lot of motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03RljmnUv8E

It doesn't look nearly as good as a "static camera shoot", but it's still watchable. The main thing that looks "bad" is the transitions/dissolves - they really stand out.

Still looks better than what I'm getting. Unfortunately I have a problem with QT on my PC. Crashes all over the place. I tried your settings, but when I click on the "settings" tab, it crashes. Also crashes firefox when QT is embedded in the page. Bummer! I'll try to export with your settings through After Effects.
Jon

Have you tried reinstalling it?

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60342

Yeah, tried reinstall a couple times. Might be a conflict with my video card, danno.
Jon

I used similar compressor settings to get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adJJP5AZlWQ

The comparison to the raw hosed Flash is here:

http://www.buddyjackson.com/ (episode 19)

I am not at all dissapointed with the quality there. Certainly it isn't what you want to see projected on a movie screen, but for what it is it came out fine.