"How to achieve higher quality HD than Youtube ?" Need thoughts on my article

[St Devious]

I made a little tutorial on my website titled "How to achieve higher quality HD than Youtube ?"

Link - http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=8123

I need thoughts about it from the gurus of video encoding. :)

I'm not trying to violate Rule #5 here, I'm seriously looking for some thoughts, good and bad both.

[mariush]

Bright yellow and bright green on black is annoying.

Now as for actual tutorial.... well, it's kind of obvious that Blip's quality would be better than Youtube's when you look at bitrate 3700 vs 2000.

There's really no fool proof method to encode videos so that you'll have the best quality for Youtube. No matter how you encode a movie, Youtube will recompress it so that it fits their system.
For example, you can encode one movie with HD-Insane profile in MeGUI at 10mbps bitrate with the option to burst for 2 seconds to 15-20 mbps - that's obviously not Ok for Youtube which will recompress the movie so that the average bitrate during a certain number of seconds is around 2000 kbps. Being forced to fit data in 2mbps it's obvious the quality will be lower than Blip's, which can squeeze more data in almost twice the bitrate.

So there's no point in using some HD-Insane, HD-Hq profiles when Youtube will just recompress everything.... I'd personally using more than 5 mbps and Fast - Balanced presets would be pointless.

ps. SUPER is OKish, but the encoders it uses may be old, you can achieve much better quality in shorter time using MeGUI and one of it's presets like DXVA-HD-Balanced further tweaked for speed.

ps2. Blip's tv has buffering issues on my computer, even though I have 10mbps broadband. Sometimes it's better to think at the average person's bandwidth, the one who's going to watch the movie, and keep quality second. Optionally, offer a better quality video as download only.

ps3. that chart with the hd dimensions is all screwed up... the values are incorrect for lots of dimensions, so are the titles for them.

[St Devious]

Bright yellow and bright green on black is annoying.



:) They were done to make note of the important points.


Now as for actual tutorial.... well, it's kind of obvious that Blip's quality would be better than Youtube's when you look at bitrate 3700 vs 2000.

That's true about the bitrate, but that is not the point. The point of the article is to show that user can decide the quality of the streaming video, not the video sharing website.

ps. SUPER is OKish, but the encoders it uses may be old, you can achieve much better quality in shorter time using MeGUI and one of it's presets like DXVA-HD-Balanced further tweaked for speed.

I personally use MeGUI for everything. But I needed things to be put into FLV container. SUPER offered an easy alternative, so I used it. It was updated on June 10, so the encoders might not be so old.

Plus it would be easy to encode on it for newbies rather than starting with MeGUI+Avisynth. :)

Thanks for posting, appreciate your thoughts.

[mariush]

:) They were done to make note of the important points.




That's true about the bitrate, but that is not the point. The point of the article is to show that user can decide the quality of the streaming video, not the video sharing website.



If that's the point, it's a wrong point. IF the video sharing website recompresses the video there's no way for the user to decide the quality of the video.
The only thing that user can do is take advantage of the rules of that video site and upload the best looking video.

For example in Youtube's case, you could have just as well uploaded a 990 MB video, probably lossless x264, and you would have probably obtained a video 5-10% better than the one created from the 22 MB video, as Youtube will still recompress to avg 2000kbps. However, if you used this 990MB video on Blip, I wouldn't be able to view it, because I don't have 100 mbps bandwidth.

User can decide to upload 25 MB or 1GB, but Youtube decides the quality in the end.

[St Devious]

If that's the point, it's a wrong point. IF the video sharing website recompresses the video there's no way for the user to decide the quality of the video.
The only thing that user can do is take advantage of the rules of that video site and upload the best looking video.


The point is you can stream the video you encode on Blip. The video on Blip that you see in the article is encoded by me, NOT by BLIP.

[mariush]

The point is you can stream the video you encode on Blip. The video on Blip that you see in the article is encoded by me, NOT by BLIP.

You can do that by uploading your movie on a 5$ a month VPS server. All you need is a html page with the code for a flash video player and the disk space.

Encode your clip to 2mbps bitrate, upload it to blip and compare the quality between it and Youtube, you'll see they're very close.

If you want quality you can also use Vimeo, which as far as I know, recompresses the videos but uses much higher quality settings.

Those bitrate values used on Youtube are selected for a reason, and probably 2mbps is what 80% of the people on the Internet right now have. Do you think with so many viewers watching Youtube, they don't keep statistics on how fast the videos are transferred from their servers to users?

The 3700 bitrate on Blip is not too much, but some people will have problems watching your videos and if your video becomes popular, Blip may have issues sustaining the bandwidth your clip would need.

[St Devious]

You can do that by uploading your movie on a 5$ a month VPS server. All you need is a html page with the code for a flash video player and the disk space.

please explain a bit more of this. wouldn't i need a lot of bandwidth ?

Encode your clip to 2mbps bitrate, upload it to blip and compare the quality between it and Youtube, you'll see they're very close.

agreed.

If you want quality you can also use Vimeo, which as far as I know, recompresses the videos but uses much higher quality settings.

here are the stats from this file
http://vimeo.com/4855995
Video
ID : 201
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 3mn 55s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 1 800 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 3 197 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 25.000 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.078
Stream size : 50.6 MiB (94%)
Writing library : x264 core 66 r1101 b69548a
Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=4 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x133 / me=hex / subme=6 / 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=-4 / threads=16 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=1 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / wpredb=1 / keyint=125 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40(pre) / rc=2pass / bitrate=1800 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30 / aq=1:1.00
Encoded date : UTC 2009-05-27 18:18:28
Tagged date : UTC 2009-05-27 18:18:28

Audio
ID : 101
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format version : Version 4
Format profile : LC
Format settings, SBR : No
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 3mn 55s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 112 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 153 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : L R
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits
Stream size : 3.15 MiB (6%)
Encoded date : UTC 2009-05-27 18:18:28
Tagged date : UTC 2009-05-27 18:18:28

Those bitrate values used on Youtube are selected for a reason, and probably 2mbps is what 80% of the people on the Internet right now have. Do you think with so many viewers watching Youtube, they don't keep statistics on how fast the videos are transferred from their servers to users?

agreed, I make a point about something like this in the article. Also about uploading 1080p 10Mbps Full-HD, not practical right now.

The 3700 bitrate on Blip is not too much, but some people will have problems watching your videos and if your video becomes popular, Blip may have issues sustaining the bandwidth your clip would need.

A good and high quality alternative for people who can stream 3700 Kbps.

[zilog jones]

I've noticed something weird about uploading HD video to YouTube - if you upload 720p (any width will do) it'll do some silly interpolation and look like 480p. I got much better results uploading at higher vertcial resolutions, e.g. 960, 1080, 1152, etc.

More on the issue here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1298070

[2Bdecided]

Link - http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=8123

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/resolutioncharthd.png

"PAL anamorphic (standard definition & Non square pixels) (1024x576 5:4)"

?!?!?!?!

Cheers,
David.