YouTube do 1080p as well now

Nick,
Unfortunately, although Youtube accepts 1080 vertical, it downrezes it to 540 by discarding.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=684445
1280x720 is the way to go, as Youtube keeps it in its native resolution.

SuperG,
I have far better results with Handbrake than either of the Vegas AVC encoders.
See the tests I ran with Randy Brown's DVD footage at http://vimeo.com/user1440262/videos

Thanks Mark, I remember that now. So based on that test, if it's for YouTube only then he should shoot in 720p and keep it at that.

YouTube are always changing things and that test is over a year old now. I personally will do a quick check like AGrandt's before I choose whether to upload 1080p or downres to 720p next time I upload material. If the footage is shot in 1080 then debatably it might be better to upload that and let them chuck away half the vertical resolution and keep all the horizontal resolution. I guess the argument hinges on the quality of the downres and any deinterlacing done the by uploader. As my native footage is 1080i then if YouTube really are simply chucking half away it means I wouldn't have to do any deinterlacing at all and just send them 1080i, which makes me happy (although if I sent them interlaced then the lower res versions that YouTube render would still be at the mercy of their deinterlacing/downscaling).

Another potential issue for those interested in number of views, is that YouTube might at some point prioritise videos available in 1080p over those available in only 720p.

You're right about YT always changing things. Last time I tested this downrez behavior was about 3-4 months ago, and it still held true then.

As for the decision whether to send interlaced to the web, I have settled on sending everything in deinterlaced and 1:1 PAR, so 720p fits this decision perfectly. The reasons are 1) that web-based and player-based deinterlacing is generally so poor; 2) that players like Quicktime still do not understand stretched pixels although they play mp4 natively; and, that 720 streams and plays so much smoother without stalling on modest connections and dual-core machines. With Flash solutions now accepting h264 straightaway, and 720p being a nice fit for modern monitor resolutions, this is going to remain my one-size-fits-all solution at least for the time being. And Handbrake (I know...) has an advanced decomber in development that is going to put an end to diagonal jaggies almost completely without touching static detail. Should be in a nightly sometime soon.

As an aside, I tested VP8 side-by-side with x264 and came away more than a bit disappointed. The On2/Google solution doesn't hold a candle. Sorry to hijack the thread, but Nick and I have had this ongoing discussion for a couple of years now, and he drops in less frequently these days (now that he is the hottest thing in stock footage!).

SuperG,

I think, when we're at the pixel-peeping level, it becomes a matter of personal preference. I didn't see a whole lot of difference between them - except maybe a bit of twitter in the Handrake version - but that's just *my* impression.

I really don't have any personal preference for the Sony AVC codec other than it's quite fast and has some ideal presets - especially good for getting newbies started without a lot of explanation.

I generally stay away from the high-level quality discussions, and take them with a grain of salt. It's not that these discussions don't have salient points, but just that I put a lot more weight in personal experience - I simply have to do it for myself.

As far as YouTube - I suppose they're going to maul your video no mattter what you do, which is why some pros and artsy types go for vimeo. But for the vast majority, the 1280 HD out of Yahoo 'ain't too bad'.

Cheers!

Just a humorous aside...

A local community organization decided to do a "Frozen" Flash Mob where the group would "freeze" for two minutes. Unfortunately, they choose an outdoor concert where most people were seated and there was no "relative" movement.

We shot it three cameras, still photography, the works. It was hilarious because no one noticed! The mob looked just like everyone else standing around!

I tried to tell'm...!

Neither the Sony nor Mainconcept encoders have a streaming option, so if using one of them it is advisable to run them through MP4 Fast Start before uploading.

With Video4YouTube you can 'flatten' (prepare for Internet streaming) the movies using free MP4Box tool before uploading to YouTube. This especially makes sense if you want to host your videos on your own website.

"Neither the Sony nor Mainconcept encoders have a streaming option, so if using one of them it is advisable to run them through MP4 Fast Start before uploading"Here's my experience - YMMV. True, the Sony and Mainconcept encoders do not fix the moov atom for progressive download, however, the YouTube post-processor will fix this for you.

Because of musicvid's posts (thanks!), I've started to use Handbrake for low bitrate (eg. 1Mbps or lower) videos that I post on my own websites, because it seems to be far superior to the Vegas mp4 encoders. This is particularly true at transitions. However, I don't see that great a difference when encoding at high bitrates (e.g. 6Mbps or higher). So, when going to YouTube, I just use the Sony encoder with standard template and it turns out pretty damn good, without having to go thru the extra step of Handbrake.

Again YMMV,
...Jerry

Yes, at high bitrates the encoding differences iron themselves out, if your minimum vbr in Vegas is high enough.

The advantage that HB has over Sony or MC AVC at any bitrate is yadif mod deinterlacing, which works conventionally or as decomb, and much faster rendering using CQRF. Traditional deinterlacing doesn't hold up well by comparison. As mentioned above, I avoid sending interlaced video to the web like the plague.

I take your points Mark and sending 720p is for sure the "sweetspot" for sending them for the time being. What concerns me more is what YouTube are doing these days with the gamma. Should we be sending sRGB, cRGB etc.? I know there have been a few threads about that.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but Nick and I have had this ongoing discussion for a couple of years now, and he drops in less frequently these days (now that he is the hottest thing in stock footage!).

I wish! I'm more the king of adding lots of metadata and hoping that some obscure aquarium wants to license a few seconds of a Cyclichthys orbicularis munching on a Sarcophyton trocheliophorum. I still drop in here every day. It's just that I've got nothing to say lol. By the way I'm back into CC/rendering soonish so I'll send you a couple of over-red underwater clips to play with as discussed months ago. p.s. Do tell us when the new fancy Handbrake decomber is available!

"Should we be sending sRGB, cRGB etc.?"

Still gotta send Youtube sRGB because it's going to expand everything whether it needs it or not. Same with Vimeo. This is source-independent.

Laurence came up with a hybrid 0-235 approach, which beefs up the shadows a bit. Works well for some things, but I would rather just drop the gamma a bit when needed. I tested all three approaches here (I get the same results on YT) ->
http://vimeo.com/15445943

Still gotta send Youtube sRGB because it's going to expand everything whether it needs it or not. Same with Vimeo. This is source-independent.


This is my understanding too - otherwise you'd have a mess.