H264, YouTube and render performance

PNguyen wrote on 4/19/2010, 7:40 PM
Hey guys,

Forgive me if this has already been asked (i.e. I searched and couldn't find any previous posts) but is this the best render setting for YouTube 1080P HD? I'm trying to find the proper balance between file size, looks and performance so if anyone is using anything different, please let me know.

Video:
File Type (MainConcept AVC/AAC)
Frame size: 1920x1080
Profile: Main
Frame Rate: 29.970 (NTSC)
Field Order: None
PAR: 1.0
Variable bit rate: Max - 8,000,000 Min - 5,000,000

Audio:
Sample rate: 48,000
Bit Rate: 256,000

Video Rendering Quality: Best

Also, I'm using a Canon HFS100 which delivers video in an MPEG4/H264 container. So, technically, should this not be the fastest render since it's going from H264 -> H264?

Many thanks.

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 4/19/2010, 8:20 PM
Hey Nguyen,

You have asked a bunch of great questions, and welcome to the forums.

There is nothing wrong with your render settings.

Have you played with Handbrake? I have found it generally faster, sharper, and better deinterlace (using Decomb at default) than other solutions, and I use it often.
xberk wrote on 4/19/2010, 8:38 PM
I prefer the Sony AVC codec for upload to YouTube or Vimeo.
Here's the last settings I used for 1080p

But I don't really use 1080p on Youtube as I'm not sure who can really enjoy 1080p or that it actually IS 1080p. I have a 10mps line and still 1080p is difficult to view smoothly at times.

Here's some tests I ran.


720p test on Vimeo


Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

A. Grandt wrote on 4/20/2010, 12:47 AM
I'm not sure who can really enjoy 1080p or that it actually IS 1080p

I've found that YouTube's 1080p isn't, in fact you have lower vertical resolution in their 1080p mode than you do in 720p.
From what I can see they convert 1080p to i, and discard half the fields.


[url=
Look at the text, you can see the jagged edges, and from 5 seconds onwards, the right edge should have been fine alternating black/white lines.
The original is [url=http://www.grandt.com/Vegas/YT Aspect test 1920x1080.mp4] (6MB)
Malcolm D wrote on 4/20/2010, 1:59 AM
Hello
I have used much the same settings but I understand YouTube want 44100 audio which I did at 128k.
I recently posted some 1080 50i video converted with quicktime on a Mac at 6Mb video. I subsequently used both Main Concept and Sony AVC to do the same with similar results.
I think you are at the mercy of YouTube conversion what ever you send them.
Some here recommend de-interlacing the source. I didn't on these.
Go to http://www.youtube.com/user/malcolmdyer to see result.
Search here for "Las Vegas' subject line to see method used.
Malcolm
PNguyen wrote on 4/20/2010, 6:01 PM
For Handbrake, I checked the website and it looks like a X264 encoder. I've never used anything outside of Vegas for rendering so to get the sequencing correct:

1. I'd compose and render lossless in Vegas first.
2. Re-render using Handbrake to X264
3. Upload to YouTube using new X264 file

Is that all correct?
musicvid10 wrote on 4/20/2010, 8:22 PM
Yes, that is correct, but with the added wrinkle that if you are able to smart-render your Canon video in your version of Vegas, you may be better off rendering the whole thing there. Otherwise, HB would be my choice.
PNguyen wrote on 4/27/2010, 9:30 PM
musicvid,
Sorry to be a pest but your last post confused me a little bit. I thought the purpose of rendering lossless and then HB render is that the X264 codec ended up looking better and the file size was smaller than smart-rendering in Vegas. Can you shed some light on this?
musicvid10 wrote on 4/28/2010, 7:09 AM
A true smart-render (the preview screen in Vegas displays "Recompression not Required" continuously) will always be sharper because the video is not re-encoded, but is passed through bit for bit. Whether you are able to accomplish this with h264 is dependent on your Vegas version, your source video, and a bit of luck.

For Vegas to have a chance to smart-render any video, the settings must be exactly the same. The critical ones are size, par, frame rate, field order, maximum and average bitrates. YMMV

Otherwise, my choice is Handbrake, for exactly the reasons you stated (plus it renders faster). You are on the right track, IMO.