Thank you so much for your ultrafast answer.

I will follow your advice and make the bitrate higher (will 25Mbps be enough?)…can't wait to see if it works.

 

25 Mbps may not fix the problem if it is in the youtube encode, but it won't hurt anything except the use of network bandwidth and youtube's disk space. Go for it.  

X264vfw is crippled because AVI does not support its compression features, making it about as efficient as mpeg-2.

Similarly, AVCHD is very bitrate-challenged because it is a hardware format that doesn't try to be efficient, just accurate.

x264 in Handbrake, for instance, is much better. That said, YouTube does what it does with fades and transitions.

then I would render out an intermediate file (I use MagicYUV RGB for this) and render an MP4 file with x264 inHandbrake.

Handbrake also has the x265 encoder, that although slow as snails, is getting high marks. Wonder how that would look comparatively as vp9 converted on YouTube?

John_dennis, MusicVid, NickHope, thank you – thank you – thank you!!! It is so very kind of you to have reacted to my post and shared your professional knowledge/experience with me. I am forever grateful.

The 25Mbps didn't work (I ran to my pc first thing in the morning and saw, on youtube, the same blur on the fades & transitions), so right now I am reading the articles/posts/faq… wow, it's like being inside Aladdin's cave of wonders…  heaps of precious info! I thought I knew quite a lot about editing and rendering but I realize I still have a lot to learn. And everything is clearly presented and explained, with pictures attached… way better than what I have seen/read/watched on various other websites.

I will follow the instructions to the letter and report as soon as I have achieved something acceptable. Again, thanks a mil! Keeping fingers crossed,

DS

then I would render out an intermediate file (I use MagicYUV RGB for this) and render an MP4 file with x264 inHandbrake.

Handbrake also has the x265 encoder, that although slow as snails, is getting high marks. Wonder how that would look comparatively as vp9 converted on YouTube?

I was about to say that they don't support H.265 upload, but it sounds like some people have started to have success. YouTube are still officially recommending H.264 though.

Daniella, can you upload a short original footage that shows the problem when uploaded to YT? You need to use a file sharing site for this.

Also, be sure when you watch in on youtube that you are watching the Highest Quality version. It doesn't always default to that.

Daniella, can you upload a short original footage that shows the problem when uploaded to YT? You need to use a file sharing site for this.

Musicvid, thank you!  Here is a link to a short original footage: https://we.tl/XIx7entEyo

Also, be sure when you watch in on youtube that you are watching the Highest Quality version. It doesn't always default to that.

Thanks, david-tu. The thing is, the fades are blurry/pixelated even at 1080p (on youtube).

Yes that kind of complex motion is going to be mush on YouTube, no doubt. Go to sharp cuts is my only suggestion.

Do you have a Vimeo account? It's better, but not perfect.

That AVC > VP9 trick by saving YouTube enhancements did work again for me today. Not sure how long it took but 6 hours later it's changed from AVC to VP9.

I'm curious how my methods would look on youtube, so I uploaded a video using daniella's sample file.. There is a crossfade from a colored screen and a simple fade to black.

The VP9 processing was started at about 1130 PST.

Stats for Nerds: (Sometimes photo upload gets broken. This is one of those times.)

Nick Hope said: "For my last YouTube upload"

My wife and I both watched your last upload mesmerized. I see you locked the focus on that GH4.

I'm curious how my methods would look on youtube, so I uploaded a video using daniella's sample file.. There is a crossfade from a colored screen and a simple fade to black.

The VP9 processing was started at about 1130 PST.

Stats for Nerds: (Sometimes photo upload gets broken. This is one of those times.)

Good job John. I'm seeing VP9 now here. The last fade to black is a bit iffy but I've seen a lot worse. What were your render settings?

Nick Hope said: "For my last YouTube upload"

My wife and I both watched your last upload mesmerized. I see you locked the focus on that GH4.

Thanks. It has to be done. I hate all that "micro-hunting" that auto-focus on the GH4 gives. It's actually one factor keeping me away from the GH5. I might have been tempted if they'd improved that.

"What were your render settings?"

Nothing special. I used the Mainconcept AVC/MVC Internet HD 1080p template from Vegas 13-453 with the following changes:

It produced a file with these details:

Download the project and rendered file here.

I'm gonna add my 2 cents worth as a suggestion (with less technical knowledge as my Vegas collegues here):

Try rendering and uploading as AVC, either the Sony or mainconcept version. I usually render with an average of roughly 16 to 18 mb/s for YT. Yes, it's not looking as good as my originals once it's on YT, but I haven't gotten my head around the whole handbrake thing yet and AVC is convenient and seems like the next best thing. And it's true that on Vimeo, my AVC renders look noticably better / cleaner than on YT.

Before you render, switch your project properties to 32 bit. I find it greatly improves the quality of the fades in the rendered video..

Thank you all so much!!!

I am up to my neck in editing, rendering and uploading on youtube. Am using all the suggested methods.

Each rendering is done twice:

1. First with Sony Vegas Pro 12, on my good ol' ProBook-6560b. Only i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50Gh and 4Gb Ram, but the AMD Radeon HD 6470M is great. (I will have to buy a more powerful laptop soon, for editing & rendering more easily.)
2. Second with Magix Vegas Pro 14, on my neighbour's brand new gaming Asus Strix which is more powerful; I don't like its graphic card much though (Nvidia Gforce GTX).

The 'Vegas2Handbrake' method is a bit complicated but I won't give up. Btw there is a link that doesn't work in the brilliant "(FAQ) How can I improve the quality of my AVC (H.264) renders?" Please see part 4: "4. x264 EXTERNAL ENCODER – 4c. Vegas2Handbrake – here". (web.archive.org/web/20160518100436/) The "2.1. - Download and install DebugMode FrameServer" link leads to "404 Not Found". Would you know where else I could download the DebugMode FrameServer? Thanks.

Oh and john_dennis wrote:

It produced a file with these details:

How did you get all these details, please? Do you use a special program for it? Thanks. When I right-click on a rendered video file, it doesn't show such detailed info.

In a day or two I will publish here links to all the results (my youtube uploads), for you to please help me pick the best one. The chosen upload will then be made public on youtube by the owner of the song.

Again, thank you all very much! For your time, for your kindness… It is a fantastic feeling to be so well supported.

DS

Daniella-s wrote: "How did you get all these details, please? Do you use a special program for it? Thanks."

See Nicks FAQ here. 

"In a day or two I will publish here links to all the results (my youtube uploads), for you to please help me pick the best one. The chosen upload will then be made public on youtube by the owner of the song."

A few years ago I started a thread where the forum members were able to comment on different encoding methods based on what they observed from youtube. You might find this playlist on youtube interesting and informative.

I have Vegas2Handbrake running on my machines but I've become selective on when I use it in the last year.

Would you know where else I could download the DebugMode FrameServer?

http://www.debugmode.com/frameserver/

john_dennis, many thanks for the info, thread and playlist… so very interesting… I have learned more in this couple of days than in a whole month.

Nick Hope, thank you for the www.debugmode.com/frameserver/ page. Unfortunately the link is dead too (the Frameserver 2.14. that is). It seems one can only get Frameserver 2.15 now, for Vegas Pro 13+. 

Anyway, I need to face the reality: I can't keep on borrowing my neighbour's laptop forever just to use his version of Vegas. And since I will be editing more music videos, I have to buy better, more recent devices and software. Not only a stronger pc and a different video camera, but also a recent Sony/Magix Vegas, like the one my neighbour has, Pro 14 build 211 (or should I buy directly Pro 15?).

Musicvid said: "Similarly, AVCHD is very bitrate-challenged because it is a hardware format that doesn't try to be efficient, just accurate."  Thanks. Very useful info. Which would be the most efficient format these days for editing, rendering and uploading to youtube? The Sony PJ810 was clearly a wrong purchase, it is a nice tiny thing but it's not what I need, and the colours are somehow exaggerated. Now some people say that DSLR cameras are the best… but I never take photos, I only shoot and capture stills from the footage. Also, many of the DSLR cameras do not have a viewer, yet I don't know how to shoot properly without it. I learned to film on Sony VX2000, the best camera I have ever had: natural colours (3CCD), even at night (3lux), avi, great viewer, nice grip... I could film anything anywhere and the quality was always perfect. I still use it for archiving; bought great software years ago called scenalyzer (another successful purchase).

If only I could find an equivalent! Something that would have a viewer, produce natural colours, would look nice on youtube… and would shoot in 1080pixels. Quality of footage and of rendered product being my n°1 priority, I should probably buy something that shoots in an uncompressed/raw format… is there a difference between uncompressed, raw and lossless? A very strong pc/laptop would be necessary to read such format, I suppose.

Musicvid said: "Yes that kind of complex motion is going to be mush on YouTube, no doubt. Go to sharp cuts is my only suggestion. Do you have a Vimeo account? It's better, but not perfect."  The singer-songwriter prefers Youtube. (I have access to both her Youtube and Vimeo accounts and yes, Vimeo does offer a better quality.) As far as sharp cuts, I wish I could do without cross-fades but the artist insists on keeping them.

Back to the main subject: the blurry fades on youtube I have been trying to get rid of. I don't have much time to figure out the Vegas2Handbrake thingy, so I will use it for the next music video (on a newer Vegas Pro). The good news is my youtube uploads look way better. Yay!

There is one last method I would like to try and compare with the rest:

Mindmatter said: "Before you render, switch your project properties to 32 bit. I find it greatly improves the quality of the fades in the rendered video.." Which of the 32-bit floating points should I use please: video levels or full range? Thanks.