Rendering for 16x9 Online Video

Robert Smith wrote on 8/10/2010, 9:53 AM

Hey gang,
I have tried and successfully uploaded youtube videos online and they did real well.

I am now uploading teaching sessions for streaming with ComF5dotcom. This will be streamed and I want it streamed 16x9 in an average size and quality. I am looking for help with settings for rendering.

When I render a 2hr session with youtube hd settings, the file is 2Gigs. I want to cut that down to 600-700mgs.

Thanks for any tips.
rob

Comments

Robert Smith wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:08 AM

It is rendered to MP4, it is right at 120 minutes and is 2.63Gigs.

My ability to speak intelligently about these things may be off but I see what I see. <smile>

I got the settings from a youtube tutorial:
Main Concept MP4
1280*720
VBR 8Mil - 5Mil
29.97fps
No field order, 1 PAR

musicvid10 wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:12 AM

Deleted first message, my math error ;?)

700MB = 5600Mb
120 min = 7200 sec
5600 / 7200 = .78Mbs

You're looking at low quality at any resolution.

1GB per hour of video at 1280x720 is about the lowest I would use if I wanted my clients to see acceptable quality. You may be able to get by with less at 853x480. HTH

Robert Smith wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:20 AM

I'm not looking predominately for full screen. I am happy with it being contained in a player. I don't know if that makes a difference.

Here is an example. http://rapidvideoblogging.com/resources/video-3

It is a 30min video and is 154 MGs which would be a little over 600/hr.

What do you think?

BTW, I see you helping a lot and this is the second time you have helped me. Thanks a ton!

musicvid10 wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:23 AM

What works better for me at these lower bitrates is Handbrake.
Using the default decomb and playing with the CQ settings, I get some nice results at lower bitrates and resolutions. Be sure to check "web optimized." Works with Flash. Also renders lots faster than Vegas.

I like 853x480 16:9 as a good compromise for player-based delivery. Actually 864x480 (9:5) is "better" because of the stray macroblock issue.

Download one of the "nightly builds." Several improvements over the stable release. See if you like the results.

musicvid10 wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:33 AM

Here is an example.

It's cleverly disguised bad video. The intro was chromakeyed against white to hide motion artifacting. To see how really bad it is, look at the scene dissolves and the color noise in his blue shirt at full resolution.

Robert Smith wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:37 AM

Are you suggesting prerendering with Vegas (my file is Multi-Cam) and then rendering for web with Handbrake?

musicvid10 wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:47 AM

I've found that Sony MXF makes for a very good intermediate between Vegas and Handbrake.

(Some of the others introduce a gamma bug with x264)

Robert Smith wrote on 8/10/2010, 10:59 AM

hmmm. Ok.

I am surprised that Vegas wouldn't have an acceptable solution within itself.

musicvid10 wrote on 8/10/2010, 12:11 PM

Acceptable, yes.
Up to date, no.

Not putting down Mainconcept here. Still use it for a lot of things.
The improvements in x264's control over blocking, artifacting, noise, deinterlace, rendering speed, are all visibly noticeable over the Mainconcept version in Vegas, IMO.

Have a look at this sample I corrected in Vegas and delivered in Handbrake. It has both its static detail (grass) and high motion (questionable camera technique). It was rendered at only 1Mbs from interlaced source (HDV). Not as good as 3Mbs by any means, but it will give you exactly 900MB for your two-hour video.

http://vimeo.com/14140443

EDIT: I'll post my HB settings if you're interested in going this route.