Comments

john_dennis wrote on 6/19/2010, 10:44 AM
MPEG-2

For video without sound, I've been uploading 1280x720-24p at 6 mbps, MPEG-2 from a customized Blu-ray template.

Their post process doesn't seem to have taken too long or changed the video too much.

kkolbo wrote on 6/19/2010, 10:44 AM

For sending to You Tube, I suggest using the Sony AVC format with the internet 16:9HD template. Everything is all set for you in that template.

JohnnyRoy wrote on 6/19/2010, 6:05 PM
> For sending to You Tube, I suggest using the Sony AVC format with the internet 16:9HD template. Everything is all set for you in that template.

Ditto... use the YouTube templates that are provided by Sony AVC.

For the record, MPEG-1 was used for things like low quality Video CD's (VCD) before we had DVD's which use MPEG-2. I can't see any reason for anyone to use MPEG-1 today. I assume it's included for backward compatibility only.

~jr
john_dennis wrote on 6/21/2010, 9:12 AM
I have also used the Sony AVC codec described above it works fine.

John_Cline wrote on 6/21/2010, 10:20 AM
MPEG1 at high bitrates can look excellent. It can encode video at up to 4096x4096 and 100 Mbits/sec. It has become the most widely compatible lossy audio/video format in the world and can be decoded by just about anything on just about any platform, royalty free. It is not designed to do interlaced video which was one of the things added in MPEG2.

None of this has any real bearing on the topic of this thread. As has been suggested by several people here, the Sony AVC codec is the way to go, HD at 1280x720 at a fairly high bitrate as YouTube is going to massage it into something compatible with their specifications. Perhaps there is, but I don't know of an encoding scheme that YouTube will accept and not recompress it.
musicvid10 wrote on 6/21/2010, 10:59 AM
I still use MPEG-1 when creating PowerPoint 2000 presentations with embedded video (which really isn't very often). Why?.

-- MPEG-1 and AVI were the first native PP formats.
-- It's a habit of mine going back to W95 days.
-- It is universally playable.
-- It has a small impact on system and graphics resources.
-- It holds up well on all projectors, and doesn't stutter or lose sync.
Chienworks wrote on 6/21/2010, 11:03 AM
Yep, if i need to provide one single file that's going to be the most playable anywhere MPEG1 is a good choice. Every OS has a player included that can play it. For that matter, burn it on a data CD/DVD and most set-top DVD players will play it too. At higher bitrates about the only thing it's lacking over MPEG2 is interlacing.

Unfortunately, two exceptions i've witnessed are my LG Dare phone, and my Archos 404. The Archos would play it if i bought the MPEG codec pack for MPEG1&2, but sadly doesn't include a free MPEG1 player.
john_dennis wrote on 6/21/2010, 10:00 PM
Because I'm a lot more curious than I am smart, I rendered some of my material to MPEG-1.

"MPEG1 at high bitrates can look excellent."

In deed, it looked fine to me at 1920x1080-24p (15 mbps).

'It can encode video at up to 4096x4096 and 100 Mbits/sec.

This doesn't seem to be the case with the Mainconcept codec included with Vegas Pro 9.0e. Using the available codec, I was able to set 2048x2048 and 15 mbps.

I still don't fault it. I just have never had any experience with it.
John_Cline wrote on 6/21/2010, 11:10 PM
The Main Concept MPEG1 codec included with Vegas has some other problems, too. I don't recommend using it. The free version of TMPGEnc has a very good MPEG1 encoder.

http://www.tmpgenc.net/en/download.html
john_dennis wrote on 6/21/2010, 11:27 PM
Thanks John