YouTube videos go 1280x720

[@MeGui]

"Wired, with the help of users on the VR-Zone forums, has uncovered a simple way to get high-quality uploaded videos to display in 1280x720--also known as 720p.
YouTube has long been expected to roll out high-definition video playback, and this appears to be the first viable way to do it. The hack in question is similar to the one that was first used to toggle on the "high quality" mode. It is done simply by adding "&fmt=22" to the end of the video URL...."


http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10104182-2.html

[Dark Shikari]

Its not anything new: in fact, its an extremely old experiment on Youtube's part that wasn't intended to be used for more than a few test videos.

The encoding is done with a very old revision of x264 and near-default settings (but no CABAC).

[@MeGui]

I can't understand, why with an old x264?...

p.s. they need Doom9 forum :)

[Dark Shikari]

I can't understand, why with an old x264?........extremely old experiment

p.s. they need Doom9 forum :)I spent half a weekend talking with the guy who maintains their encoder last month ;) I don't think they're exactly uninformed.

[@MeGui]

U said old...it is ok, but looks like all members on Doom9 knows more than guys and gals from Tube regarding x264, seems ...:)

[Atak_Snajpera]

YouTube 720p Where the Hell is Matt? (2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY&fmt=22

MediaInfo
General
Complete name : C:\video.mp4
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID : mp42
File size : 73.6 MiB
Duration : 4mn 28s
Overall bit rate : 2 296 Kbps
Encoded date : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Tagged date : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09

Video
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Main@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 4mn 28s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 2 060 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 2 000 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 11.8 Mbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 30.000 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.075
Stream size : 66.0 MiB (90%)
Title : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v06.24.2007.
Writing library : x264 core 54
Encoding settings : cabac=0 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x111 / me=hex / subme=5 / brdo=0 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=1 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / bframes=2 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / wpredb=1 / bime=0 / keyint=60 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / rc=abr / bitrate=2000 / ratetol=1.0 / rceq='blurCplx^(1-qComp)' / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=38 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30
Encoded date : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Tagged date : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09

Audio
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format version : Version 4
Format profile : LC
Format settings, SBR : No
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 4mn 28s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 232 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 256 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : L R
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits
Stream size : 7.43 MiB (10%)
Title : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v06.24.2007.
Encoded date : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Tagged date : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09


Why they use Main Profile instead of High?!!? I'm not sure if 30fps is correct. All NTSC HD camcorders record in 29.97 not in 30 ?!?!?

[Flux]

It is really a shame that the most popular video player site has so terrible video and audio quality. Resolution is low (mostly 480x360), bitrate is terrible (1280x720 with 2 Mbit/s? WTF?), ehhh the most common audio quality is 96 kbps MP3 with MONO?

If I could decide, I would hire some people from Doom9 site. High quality needs passion. You can't really get the optimal results if you are thinking that encoding is just a job where you get some money and then go home. You must have personal care about these things to get them right.

Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions? Or maybe it breaks some compatibility? Maybe they have built something important around the old version of x264 and they can't really change it without extra expenses? Who knows.

BTW, what is the build date for that "extremely old x264 version" they are using?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions?
New builds are usually faster than older

[LoRd_MuldeR]

With newer builds you usually get:
Higher encoding speed (for same quality) + better quality (at the same bitrate) + less old bugs (+ new bugs ???) ;)

However I assume each new revision/build would need to go through their QA department first, before they update all the servers.
That delays updates and makes them expensive...

[Dark Shikari]

Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions? Or maybe it breaks some compatibility? Maybe they have built something important around the old version of x264 and they can't really change it without extra expenses? Who knows.

BTW, what is the build date for that "extremely old x264 version" they are using?How is it that I can explain exactly why they're using an old version, from the mouth of the man who runs the encoding chain himself, and people still continue to speculate in the thread as if I never posted the information?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Something is going on YouTube site. Default resolution changed to 640x360 (?!!?)

[Flux]

How is it that I can explain exactly why they're using an old version, from the mouth of the man who runs the encoding chain himself, and people still continue to speculate in the thread as if I never posted the information?

Its not anything new: in fact, its an extremely old experiment on Youtube's part that wasn't intended to be used for more than a few test videos.

The encoding is done with a very old revision of x264 and near-default settings (but no CABAC).
Was not intended? Okay. The point is that the very old build is still there after an year. Why? Because they are dumb, because they don't care or because...? :confused:

Something is going on YouTube site. Default resolution changed to 640x360 (?!!?)
They increased horizontal resolution for widescreen so that the "old" 4:3 ratio doesn't lose any resolution but just gets rendered black bars.

[CruNcher]

It is really a shame that the most popular video player site has so terrible video and audio quality. Resolution is low (mostly 480x360), bitrate is terrible (1280x720 with 2 Mbit/s? WTF?), ehhh the most common audio quality is 96 kbps MP3 with MONO?

If I could decide, I would hire some people from Doom9 site. High quality needs passion. You can't really get the optimal results if you are thinking that encoding is just a job where you get some money and then go home. You must have personal care about these things to get them right.

Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions? Or maybe it breaks some compatibility? Maybe they have built something important around the old version of x264 and they can't really change it without extra expenses? Who knows.

BTW, what is the build date for that "extremely old x264 version" they are using?

not many encoder these days are capable of this avg bitrate @ 720p X264 is one of them that is, though without cabac and only subme 5 it's a little weak for a lot of sources indeed imho not even counting High profile (overrated by many it only has 1 very high visual purpose more detail preservation).

[Dark Shikari]

Was not intended? Okay. The point is that the very old build is still there after an year. Why? Because they are dumb, because they don't care or because...? :confused:Let me bold the important words for you then.

extremely old experiment on Youtube's part that wasn't intended to be used for more than a few test videos.

If they knew people were hijacking it for their own purposes, they'd disable it, not upgrade it.

[Flux]

So &fmt=22 "hack" is not meant for public anyway...not yet at least? The bad side is that more and more people are using it and think it is as the "official" Youtube HD solution. There is currently several Anime and other 720p stuff on Youtube and users are like "wow, that is cool, HD at last!", etc. Well, misunderstandings happen I guess =/ Hopefully they will upgrade it before official HD support is released...

Do they use same old experiment x264 for current "High Quality" mode too which is 480x360?

[Dark Shikari]

So &fmt=22 "hack" is not meant for public anyway...not yet at least?Correct.The bad side is that more and more people are using it and think it is as the "official" Youtube HD solution. There is currently several Anime and other 720p stuff on Youtube and users are like "wow, that is cool, HD at last!", etc. Well, misunderstandings happen I guess =/ Hopefully they will upgrade it before official HD support is released...Official HD solution? I know of no plans to do that on Youtube; given what I heard from Pascal I highly doubt that will happen soon, simply because it doesn't fit their model.
Do they use same old experiment x264 for current "High Quality" mode too which is 480x360?No, they use an in-house Baseline-only encoder for that.

[Codex0nz]

what benefit would having high def on youtube give, really ll copyrighted material will be removed, and the stuff that people want to see is there for quick easy access, how many people realistically have the bandwidth to support watching a lot of hd content from youtube? Unless they are looking at providing streamed movies perhaps...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

HD Camcorders become widely used, so people may want to publish their recordings in full resolution !?

Also: What about screen captures? Or HD trailers/samples? And so on...

[Dark Shikari]

From a reliable source, I can confirm all my above information is now outdated, and Youtube has decided to change their strategy a bit ;)

(PROTIP: Expect them to update their x264 soon :p)

[cyberbeing]

Good to hear. So did the old experiment become a new experiment or will HD now become a permanent fixture on Youtube?

[Atak_Snajpera]

From a reliable source, I can confirm all my above information is now outdated, and Youtube has decided to change their strategy a bit

(PROTIP: Expect them to update their x264 soon )
I hope that you taught them how to use all weapons in x264 arsenal :) No cabac , only 1 ref , no 8x8DCT is a major sin.

[AnnaFan777]

Can someone get the youtube trick to work?

[slavickas]

I hope that you taught them how to use all weapons in x264 arsenal :) No cabac , only 1 ref , no 8x8DCT is a major sin.

my guess that crap Apple TV is responsbile for this...

[2Bdecided]

Can someone get the youtube trick to work?Yes, it still works even for new videos this week...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rlLJsbvvoKU&fmt=22

Just upload 1280x720 and add &fmt=22 to the URL

Cheers,
David.

[easy2Bcheesy]

Is it possible to embed the HD versions at 640x360? This is the best hosted streaming video I've yet seen.

My own attempt at uploading a 4mbps 720p30fps wasn't that great. Refuses to run in HD at all!

EDIT: It does work but you need to give it plenty of time after its first encodes to do the HD ones.

[slavickas]

Is it possible to embed the HD versions at 640x360? This is the best hosted streaming video I've yet seen.



http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/20/how-to-embed-and-play-720p-hd-high-definition-youtube-videos-fmt22-code-hack/

[easy2Bcheesy]

They seem to have closed that loophole as even the sample code in the feature doesn't appear to work any more - you get the low resolution version up instead :(

[Nightshiver]

It's why you should use vreel.net instead of youtube.

[cyberbeing]

They seem to have closed that loophole as even the sample code in the feature doesn't appear to work any more - you get the low resolution version up instead :(

I just checked http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/20/how-to-embed-and-play-720p-hd-high-definition-youtube-videos-fmt22-code-hack/ and the video they have embeded on the bottom is the 720p version. Are you talking about something else?:confused:

[2Bdecided]

I just checked http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/20/how-to-embed-and-play-720p-hd-high-definition-youtube-videos-fmt22-code-hack/ and the video they have embeded on the bottom is the 720p version.Works here too.

I think you'd be brave to force that version (and only that version) onto typical website visitors though - it would be glitchy and/or re-buffering constantly for many many people.

Cheers,
David.

[Flux]

This is a bit off-topic because I didn't want to create a new thread for one simple question and it is related to Youtube anyway.

Does Youtube honor any aspect ratio flags? For example, if one has anamorphic video, there is a way to force Youtube player to use resize on it?

[um3k]

YouTube HD is now official. HD videos now have a link below them that says "watch in HD". Turns out a video I uploaded way back in September is available in HD. Guess they've been preparing for a while!

[Charbax2]

I posted a basic comparison of the Online video sites that provide free HD Flash streaming: http://techvideoblog.com/reviews/online-video-sites-hd-quality-comparison/

Youtube HD: 1280×720 - 2mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz stereo 254kbit/s AAC audio

Facebook HD: 1280×720 - 2.5mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz 146kbit/s AAC stereo audio

SmugMug HD: 640×360 - 1.4mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz AAC stereo audio

Sevenload HD: 1280×720 - 1.8mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz 96kbit/s AAC stereo audio

Vimeo HD: 1280×720 - 1.7mbit/s VP6 - full framerate - 44hz 128kbit/s mp3 stereo audio

Would you like to do some more advanced comparative testing, especially compare Youtube HD and Facebook HD?

My initial test shows Facebook has chosen to encode with 500kbit/s more bitrate. Any other differences in the way the H264 files are encoded?

[Dark Shikari]

I posted a basic comparison of the Online video sites that provide free HD Flash streaming: http://techvideoblog.com/reviews/online-video-sites-hd-quality-comparison/

Youtube HD: 1280×720 - 2mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz stereo 254kbit/s AAC audio

Facebook HD: 1280×720 - 2.5mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz 146kbit/s AAC stereo audio

SmugMug HD: 640×360 - 1.4mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz AAC stereo audio

Sevenload HD: 1280×720 - 1.8mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz 96kbit/s AAC stereo audio

Vimeo HD: 1280×720 - 1.7mbit/s VP6 - full framerate - 44hz 128kbit/s mp3 stereo audio

Would you like to do some more advanced comparative testing, especially compare Youtube HD and Facebook HD?

My initial test shows Facebook has chosen to encode with 500kbit/s more bitrate. Any other differences in the way the H264 files are encoded?Facebook uses full High Profile and medium-high-ish quality x264 settings. Youtube uses a very old x264 version (unless they've fixed it since a few days ago) and Baseline profile.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Youtube uses a very old x264 version (unless they've fixed it since a few days ago) and Baseline profile.
Why they always must stay behind in terms of quality? is that hard for Google/YouTube to update x264 and use recommended settings by developers. It does not require 1 milion bucks !

[NerdWithNoLife]

Why they always must stay behind in terms of quality? is that hard for Google/YouTube to update x264 and use recommended settings by developers. It does not require 1 milion bucks !
But it wouldn't hurt to pay the wise people in this forum for some advice. You'd do it for half that, right guys?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Why they always must stay behind in terms of quality? is that hard for Google/YouTube to update x264 and use recommended settings by developers. It does not require 1 milion bucks !

Most likely updating all their severs is a huge amount of work for such a big service. Also I think they wouldn't throw a new version on their severs until it has been tested excessively.
So why change a running system? The average Youtube user wouldn't notice the difference anyway, that's for sure!

And most important: Youtube's business was never to deliver high quality video, but to reach as many users as possible. That's a reason to go "Baseline" profile...

[Atak_Snajpera]

So why change a running system? The average Youtube user wouldn't notice the difference anyway, that's for sure!
So why x264 instead of deafault VP6 or any other crap codec like h.263??? Latest revisions are more stable than those year ago.

Most likely updating all their severs is a huge amount of work for such a big service.
They should use recent builds from the beginning when they decided to introduce 720p!

FaceBook quality is very good. r1019 AQ + PsyRdo rules
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=561481753914

[LoRd_MuldeR]

So why x264 instead of deafault VP6 or any other crap codec like h.263??? Latest revisions are more stable than those year ago.

Even a pretty old revision of x264 should compress more efficient than VP6 or h.263, so it helps to safe bandwidth. And bandwidth costs money ;)

They should use recent builds from the beginning when they decided to introduce 720p!

Maybe they took the latest revision of x264 when they first started their experiments with 720p/H.264 and didn't update since then.

After all we can only speculate. Quite possible that they had a project running to evaluate options for adding h.264 support and the project is done now, so nobody is actively working on it...

[Dark Shikari]

Most likely updating all their severs is a huge amount of work for such a big service.No it isn't, it's a trivial amount of work.

It's just that Pascal is incredibly lazy... :p

[Sagekilla]

It should just be a simple "copy x264.exe to all servers," shouldn't it?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

But imagine somebody copies a defunct or incompatible x264.exe to all the Youtube servers, which causes all these servers to fail and go down :scared:

I guess the admin who did that mistake would need to look for a new job. So I'd test everything ten times, before I actually apply the update ;)

[Sagekilla]

If I were him I'd copy it over as something like x264new.exe and test it first ;)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

If I were him I'd copy it over as something like x264new.exe and test it first ;)

This would be pretty useless, if their sever software calls "x264.exe" instead if "x264new.exe". Well, unless you want to install a modified version of the server software too :p

In fact the best way would be to apply the update to a test server fist and test it there, before it goes to the public servers...

[Nightshiver]

Has anyone checked out vreel.net? I actually like it a lot, as it uses the Divx codec and is a replacement for the Divx streaming site that went down a few months/years ago, as thus offers HD resolution and playback.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Future belongs to AVC not ASP. Especially when we need good quality at low bitrate (2Mbps for 720p)

But imagine somebody copies a defunct or incompatible x264.exe to all the Youtube servers, which causes all these servers to fail and go down
Facebook uses r1019 and I see no disaster :) If x264 was compiled for pentium 2 I see no reason why new build would crash! Especially when doom9.org users do not report any problems. That guy gets nice salary every month and he still cannot update ONE f****** .exe !!?!?! If I was his boss he would loose job at once!

[2Bdecided]

Vimeo HD: 1280×720 - 1.7mbit/s VP6 - full framerate - 44hz 128kbit/s mp3 stereo audioVimeo is capped at 24fps - that's only "full frame rate" if your video is 24fps or less. e.g 25fps gets one frame dropped per second to make it 24fps.

...I guess none of the services is "full frame rate" if you try to upload 1280x720p50! 30p is the highest on facebook and YouTube.

Cheers,
David.

[MilSF]

In fact the best way would be to apply the update to a test server fist and test it there, before it goes to the public servers...

... and also test any new settings to see how they play on grandma's PIII with 256M of RAM and antique video card. I've run into that problem myself. "Hey look at this great quality, low bitrate video! Oh, well, I guess you can't really..." :D

[Sagekilla]

Hey, I have an old P3 (800~ MHz?) running on 512 MB of RAM that I use as a server occasionally and it actually runs SD resolution x264 content with CoreAVC flawlessly. CPU usage is somewhere around 60 - 70%. I bet if I really tried to, I could coax maybe 1024x576 out of it.

[FragmentsRevised]

Has anyone checked out vreel.net? I actually like it a lot, as it uses the Divx codec and is a replacement for the Divx streaming site that went down a few months/years ago, as thus offers HD resolution and playback.

Thanks for that! I was a big fan of stage6 and was upset to see it go, nice to find another similar site!

[easy2Bcheesy]

I'm confused at HD presentation on YouTube now. If I do a direct link with the &fmt=22 extension to the URL, I get a 640x360 playback window. If I go direct to the video, then select the 'view in HD' option, I get a whopper playback window (most likely 960x540).

Is there any way to link to the 960x540 version directly?

[Dark Shikari]

I'm confused at HD presentation on YouTube now. If I do a direct link with the &fmt=22 extension to the URL, I get a 640x360 playback window. If I go direct to the video, then select the 'view in HD' option, I get a whopper playback window (most likely 960x540).

Is there any way to link to the 960x540 version directly?fmt=35 or 36 I think?

[easy2Bcheesy]

That gives me the 960x540 window, but it's just blowing up the low quality version instead.

Sometimes adding &fmt=22 gives me the 960x540 version, sometimes the 640x360. It's all really confusing.

[Atak_Snajpera]

960x540 does not sound like HD. Does it mean that youtube is cheating us?

[easy2Bcheesy]

You can click on the full-screen button to get 720p, but the 960x540 versions are still very very nice... when they work!

[Dark Shikari]

You can click on the full-screen button to get 720p, but the 960x540 versions are still very very nice... when they work!Most videos aren't yet available in HD.

[um3k]

I measured it, it's actually 853x480, rather than 960x540. Still quite large, relatively speaking.

[Sagekilla]

DVD resolution is better than what most sites offer. Most use 320x240, or 480x360 (don't see that very often though). I'd be quite happy watching DVD resolution over that crap they're playing now.

[easy2Bcheesy]

Most videos aren't yet available in HD.

The point I'm making is that videos that are available in HD are behaving differently. Sometimes I can get them working at 640x360, othertimes at the 853x480 resolution. There seems to be no hard-set way (via URL) to ensure the 853x480 resolution.

[cweb]

I'm uploading a standard widescreen video (source dv ; avi - xvid) in 640x352 and Youtube I believe is resizing it.. it really makes it look terrible, lots of artifacts are produced which weren't there... does anyone have any ideas on any good way to create something which looks decent (sure the high quality version looks better but still...) ? I use avisynth in my video processing of course...

[Schrade]

I'd recommend installing YousableTubeFix for Greasemonkey (or Opera): http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13333

It offers many options for viewing YouTube videos and it'll actually show you which resolution you're watching as well as a dropdown menu under the video that allows you to switch to a different version. You can also configure it to to choose the highest quality video available as well as change the size of the non fullscreen video size.

It also provides simple download links if you want to save a video.

[cweb]

I'd recommend installing YousableTubeFix for Greasemonkey (or Opera): http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13333

It offers many options for viewing YouTube videos and it'll actually show you which resolution you're watching as well as a dropdown menu under the video that allows you to switch to a different version. You can also configure it to to choose the highest quality video available as well as change the size of the non fullscreen video size.

It also provides simple download links if you want to save a video.
Thanks. I just installed it to aid my experimentation.
I'm uploading small snippets to see the quality and whether anything I change improves it. I removed my call to LimitedSharpenFaster and added a call to Lanczos4Resize instead.. seems like there is an improvement, though I'd like the youtube result to be better than it currently is..

Pity the youtube hack stopped working, *sighs*...

[Flux]

I'm trying to make videos for Youtube which are focused on audio tracks instead video. HD-version supports 224 kbps 44.1 kHz MP3 stereo which seems to be the best for Youtube. However, video has only still image(s) but I need to push the bitrate high enough so it is seen as HD or at least has High Quality link on it.

This can be done with some lossless encoders but then bitrate is very high and it takes ages to upload one video with my slow upload connection. I'm using MeGUI and x264 encoder. My goal is to get something like 1500 - 2000 bitrate with still images. I have also noticed that Youtube seems to have some trouble encoding x264 videos which use low CRF like 10 or maybe even 12. When I play these videos in Youtube, the loading circle doesn't vanish or playback stutters in certain positions of the video. Sometimes they work fine.

Might as well put these couple questions in this post:

1. Why Youtube use 480x360 resolution for High Quality because 360 is not Mod16? Doesn't it cause quality drop?

2. When I upscale or downscale video resolution for Youtube, they should always scale like 2x, 3x, 4x, etc.? If that is not possible, then scale with 0.5x, 1.5x, 2.5x, etc.? Or 0.75x, 1.75x, etc.? Scales like 1.65347x should be avoided at all cost and use black borders to get "clean" multiplier for scaling?

[2Bdecided]

640x360 is a common 16x9 size.

What do you think the designers care more about - a tiny drop in efficiency, or not getting the exact page layout they want? ;)

Cheers,
David.

[Atak_Snajpera]

640x360 is perfectly resized 1280x720.

[Sagekilla]

They don't scale by a specific factor. They'll resize until one side fills up a whole side in the 640x360 box, then pad with black borders I believe.

At least, that seems like the most intelligent thing to do anyway.

[Flux]

My post seems to be a bit vague. I meant that when I upscale low resolution video before uploading it to Youtube, should I always try to follow factors like 2x, 3x, if not possible, then 1.5x, 2.5x, if not possible, then 1.75x, 2.75x, etc. and not just pick some random factor like 1.6456x so it fits to 640x360 or 480x360 window? For example I have CG made videos which have 288x224 resolution and I want to have High Quality link for it, I should scale it to 480x360 directly or something like 432x336 with black borders to get 480x360?

Also looking for a method to get high bitrate for still image videos so it passes the Youtube 1500 kbps check for High Quality. x264 (or any modern encoder) seems to encode it with tiny bitrate. Lossless mode corrupts the video for Youtube. It says "Processing..." forever last time I tried. Other lossless compression makes huge files so I just want 1500 kbps for those videos. Nothing more because I have slow upload.

[Sagekilla]

Okay, that clarifies things a bit more. My recommendation? If your video is something like 320x240, just upsample to 640x480 and throw it at x264. Otherwise, don't change the AR. Just pad it to either 640x360 or 640x480.

Also, if you wanna try to get x264 to use 1500 kbps, I recommend forcing it to use keyframes only with a low crf (keyint 1, ref 0, crf 1) or try using 2 passes with --bitrate 2000 or something like that.

[NerdWithNoLife]

I've purposely upped the bitrate in the past. Experience tells me if your video isn't making the bitrate, file size with lossless x264 won't be a problem unless you pick a keyframe interval that's too small. It handles dups really well. That's the trick - you have to find the magic number. If you're having this issue, 2 pass probably won't work (it will say 2 pass curve failed to converge).

If YT keeps giving you issues with x264, try Xvid. Set the target quantizer to 1. Then lower the max I-frame interval. Just be sure you're doing it in target quantizer mode, not target bitrate mode, or you could lose quality.

[Atak_Snajpera]

YouTube finally uses High Profile@3.1 for 720p videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5F-u73hSSY&fmt=22

Video
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 4mn 5s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 1 999 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 4 587 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 29.784 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.073
Stream size : 58.9 MiB (93%)
Title : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007.
Encoded date : UTC 2009-01-14 20:12:45
Tagged date : UTC 2009-01-14 20:12:48

[Dark Shikari]

They also turned on psy-RD, though they're still not using weightb.

[Atak_Snajpera]

What exact settings did they use? Unfortunately mediainfo can not help.

[Atak_Snajpera]

I'm really disappointed regarding youtube encoder. I uploaded couple Audiosurf videos (1280x720 30fps in MP4 container) and look what I got!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCTtmO0P1lE&fmt=22

Video
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 5mn 59s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 2 199 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 4 375 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 21.773 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.110
Stream size : 94.8 MiB (96%)
Title : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007.
Encoded date : UTC 2009-01-26 03:28:05
Tagged date : UTC 2009-01-26 03:28:06


Source
Video
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L4.0
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 4mn 22s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 6 928 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 10.3 Mbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 30.000 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.251
Stream size : 217 MiB (96%)
Writing library : x264 core 65 r1074M b6bb3d4
Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x133 / me=umh / subme=7 / psy_rd=1.0:0.0 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=6 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / wpredb=1 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40(pre) / rc=crf / crf=22.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / vbv_maxrate=25000 / vbv_bufsize=25000 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30 / aq=1:1.00
Encoded date : UTC 2009-01-25 22:34:10
Tagged date : UTC 2009-01-25 22:34:12

[um3k]

Oddly enough, I don't think it dropped any frames. Look at the duration. It just slowed down the video. Must be a bug or some such.

[LogicDeLuxe]

I have a few questions:
Is the bitrate the only thing, Youtube decides on whether there is or is not a HD link available?
Will interlaced video work, or should I upload progressive only?
In case of progressive only, would it be a good idea to bob it before encoding, ie. making it 50i for PAL or 60i for NTSC sources?
Is there a way to upload a video that Youtube won't re encode at all?

[Placio74]

Is the bitrate the only thing, Youtube decides on whether there is or is not a HD link available?
Video resolution - minimum 1280x720 (16:9 AR) and 1280x960 (4:3 AR).

Is there a way to upload a video that Youtube won't re encode at all?
No.

[LogicDeLuxe]

Video resolution - minimum 1280x720 (16:9 AR) and 1280x960 (4:3 AR).Too bad. 2Mbps would be good for standard DVD resolution also. There are still many artifacts visible in the high resolution videos (although much less then the lower quality versions). A well made DVD shows more detail, despite the lower resolution.

Another thing I noticed is that the decoder could be more efficient. I have frequently dropped frames when playing on Youtube (video completely loaded) while Nero Showtime plays the same video flawless.

And yet another strange thing, I noticed on Youtube recently: There are some videos with a standard and a high quality version. The high quality version has a better image quality, but audio in mono while the standard version plays stereo. How could that be? I thought, standard video is always 22kHz mono on Youtube.

[Placio74]

...
And yet another strange thing, I noticed on Youtube recently: There are some videos with a standard and a high quality version. The high quality version has a better image quality, but audio in mono while the standard version plays stereo. How could that be? I thought, standard video is always 22kHz mono on Youtube.

Sometime (rarely) instead standard format, played is format 34 (FLV with AVC/AAC, same resolution as standard, audio 22,05 KHz but stereo.

At this moment as HQ is:
- format 6 - FLV with H.263/MP3, same resolution as old HQ (format 18), higher video bitrate, audio 44,1 KHz but mono
- or format 35 - FLV with AVC/AAC, possible higher resolution as old HQ (640x360), higher audio and video bitrate, audio 44,1 Khz stereo.

However, I do not know what exactly determines conversion to format 6, and as to format 35.
Some vids are always converted into a format 35 (even when source have horrible quality) and some vids are always converted into a format 6 (even when source have good quality).

[MauiNick]

What software can I use to get my videos in this format?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Ok. This time i remuxed all my .mp4 to .mkv. These play ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1dev57tHw&fmt=22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIXGFHGuhK4&fmt=22

My advice for people is DO NOT UPLOAD IN MP4 format. USE MKV INSTEAD.

[DJ Bobo]

Anyone getting a decent framerate with HD videos in full screen mode?!

[sumawo13]

Anyone getting a decent framerate with HD videos in full screen mode?!

It's funny, but the framerate used to be fine on my Q6600 and now it's crap. Don't know what that's about.

[cweb]

Ok. This time i remuxed all my .mp4 to .mkv. These play ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1dev57tHw&fmt=22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIXGFHGuhK4&fmt=22

My advice for people is DO NOT UPLOAD IN MP4 format. USE MKV INSTEAD.

So now we can upload in mkv? This is good news!

[tgcujo]

So they encode the videos at 1280x720 but present them to you at 853x480? Wouldn't they look better encoded at 853x480 then? Is there any good reason except for "LOOK ITS IN EACH-DEE"?

[2Bdecided]

Yes, you're supposed to click "full screen"! ;)

They're not going to have a default page layout with a width of 1280 pixels.

Cheers,
David.

[Flux]

It's funny, but the framerate used to be fine on my Q6600 and now it's crap. Don't know what that's about.
I have an old Athlon Barton 3000+ processor and HD-videos stutter a lot in Youtube, but when I download the video and play it with MPC, it is smooth with full frame rate. Yes, I waited the stream to load ahead quite a lot and even to the end before playing, but it doesn't help at all.

[tgcujo]

Yes, you're supposed to click "full screen"! ;)

They're not going to have a default page layout with a width of 1280 pixels.

Cheers,
David.

Yeah but even in full screen, wouldn't up sized 852x480 look better then upsized 720p considering the lower bitrate combined with the fact that youtube often has to process a sub-par source, seems like its just a gimmick really to me.

[manono]

If you're talking about their widescreen window, it's 640x360.

[mikelinley]

I did not know that YouTube had gone HD. I am headed over there to check out right now since I just got a new HD laptop...sweeeet!

[2Bdecided]

Normal Quality:
Window = 640x360
16x9 Stream = 320x180
4x3 Stream = 320x240

High Quality:
Window = 640x360
16x9 Stream = 480x270
4x3 Stream = 480x360

HD:
Window = 854x479
16x9 Stream = 1280x720
4x3 Stream = 960x720


I have the same problem here with the HD streams - they are unusable within the YouTube website, but play fine in VLC if I download them.

It's annoying, because all streams default to "normal quality", with HD streams having the "watch in HD" option, but no "watch in High Quality" option. So most "normal" users will have the choice between lousy (normal!) quality and stuttering HD. Adding &fmt=35 to the end of the URL usually (not always) gives you the "high quality" version, but how many "normal" users are going to do that? It's a great disincentive to uploading in HD.

Cheers,
David.