Vegas to Youtube for the masses - a Tutorial

Comments

wm_b wrote on 6/24/2011, 2:30 PM
I have been trying to follow this method all morning and and for some reason it keeps crashing at 14% when I try to render to DNxHD intermediate file. My source is a Cineform clip that's 720p 59.940 fps. It is just a clip, no other stuff going on besides the level's plugin.

I've tried using the exact steps of configuring the DNxHD codec (1080i/59.94 DMxHD 145 8 bit) as well as what matches my project more closely (720p/59.94 DNxHD 145 8 bit) and they both crash at 14%.

I'm using vegas 10d 64bit on Win7 with 12 gigs of ram.

Can I just use the CF clip instead? What does the DNxHD intermediate do?
wm_b wrote on 6/24/2011, 2:36 PM
Duh, I just tried this in V9 and it worked just fine. So should I use the 720p DNxHD configuration or the 1080i? I'm going with the former.
LReavis wrote on 6/25/2011, 4:09 PM
if you can now get it to work, go with the 720p (59.xx) if that is what your project is setup for, and presuming that all of your clips also are 720p. Otherwise, Vegas will resize, and Vegas does not do that well.

Also, you'll end up with interlaced, which will have to be deinterlaced within Handbrake or MeGui. Both do that task well, but my experiments show that still there is some loss of image quality. For that reason, I always keep it progressive from camera to the web upload.

I use .MXF - which cannot result in proper stereo as it goes through Handbrake - but which is OK with me because I always change all audio to mono within Vegas anyway. As I recall, .MXF produced smaller files for me compared to DNxHD even at its lowest bitrate setting, with no visible loss of image quality. I can't remember which one rendered faster . . .
musicvid10 wrote on 6/25/2011, 7:06 PM
Dr. Reavis,
It's probably worth repeating the intermediate codec results from the original thread, as DNxHD is not the only viable candidate.

MXF is certainly in the running with a couple of reservations. Helix 420, my personal favorite, was left out of the tutorial because it requires changing the default decomb settings in Handbrake.

Carefully avoid any codecs that return the wrong levels in HB, even if there is a temptation to forego the the Levels filter in Vegas to precompensate. As in most cases, two wrongs do not make a right.

As you were careful to point out, any resizing and deinterlace should be carried out in Handbrake because it's just better. That means rendering the intermediate at the source resolution and i/p parameters.


DataMeister wrote on 6/26/2011, 9:22 AM
I'm not seeing the Avid DNxHD option in the Quicktime container using Vegas Pro 10 x64. Is this only a 32bit option?

If so how do we get the codec installed in the 64 bit version of Vegas.
If not, why isn't it showing up in my copy of Vegas?

Also, I thought it was possible to install a VfW version of the x264 codec on so that Vegas would have access to it. Wouldn't this completely eliminate the whole tutorial for 720p native source video?

What is the reason that uploading 720p video is the best option for Youtube? Especially considering that they are testing 4k video. If someone is watching video on their 1920x1080 Google TV is the 1920x1080p video not going to be a better option for them? Or is this just an old tutorial?
musicvid10 wrote on 6/26/2011, 12:58 PM
"Is this only a 32bit option?"
"These codecs are designed to run on Snow Leopard v.10.6.3 and higher, Vista Business and Ultimate 64 bit, with SP2, Windows 7 Professional, and Windows XP Professional with SP3."
-- Avid 2.3.4 LE documentation

"I'm not seeing the Avid DNxHD option in the Quicktime container using Vegas Pro 10 x64."
Are you sure you're looking in the right place? It's not a Quicktime template. It is under Custom->Video->Video Format. Go to 6:08 in the tutorial

"Wouldn't this completely eliminate the whole tutorial for 720p native source video?"
As clearly pointed out in the tutorial, if you have 720p source there is no big detriment to doing the work in Vegas. Our tests using Mainconcept 2-pass were pretty good. x264vfw is a less desirable choice according to several testers, partly because of the limitations of having AVC inside an AVI wrapper.

"What is the reason that uploading 720p video is the best option for Youtube?"
1080i uploaded to Youtube looks like pure crap.
1080p on Youtube plays well on a minority of systems -- those that have a true 1080p monitor AND a quad or i-class processor in order to play them.
That is if you are willing to accept much longer rendering and upload times needed to do justice to 1080 for upload.

The tutorial is brand new, and 720p for general delivery to the public is based on hundreds of hours of tests by multiple users including myself. I also see you've been gone for a couple of months while we were putting the finishing touches on this.

These questions have all been researched over the past year, and much of that research is documented in this thread if you would like to dig into it deeper and also run your own tests if you wish:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=765456
Also, the project history and archive page will give you a look at many of the trials and results of our undertakings:
http://www.jazzythedog.com/testing/DNxHD/HD-Guide.aspx
DataMeister wrote on 6/28/2011, 5:29 PM
Yes it has been a while since I've been around here. Thanks for the links. Digging deeper is what I love when I have the time.

With the Avid DNxHD codec, I completely missed the link to download those. I was assuming it was included with Vegas.
musicvid10 wrote on 6/28/2011, 6:44 PM
Nope. Avid and Sony have never shared a motel room afaik.
Addo wrote on 6/28/2011, 8:34 PM
thanks for this, frankly, have not seen a better quality on youtube, I wonder if you'll do a tutorial for musicians how to upload the best from Vegas?
musicvid10 wrote on 6/28/2011, 9:19 PM
"I wonder if you'll do a tutorial for musicians how to upload the best from Vegas?"

What an excellent question; as a music director and producer with decades of experience, I can tell you what a challenge that is.

It's a challenge because Youtube asks for and encodes to AAC audio, which is among my least favorite formats. Certainly 'faac' in Handbrake is substandard, and Youtube's downgrade to 160Kbps doesn't do it any further good.

I will take a look at other audio options in Handbrake to see if it possible to improve the audio in uploads, and also see what Vimeo is accepting / encoding.

In the meantime, have a look at Nick Hope's detailed tutorial, which uses Nero AAC, about as good as it gets for that format. Unfortunately, the Handbrake developers have assured me that Nero will never be seen in Handbrake because of licensing impositions.
http://www.bubblevision.com/underwater-video/Vegas-YouTube-Vimeo.htm
musicvid10 wrote on 8/13/2011, 8:16 AM
The Vimeo version of the tutorial is up.
Very minor changes from the Youtube version, but the qualitiy is noticeably better.
It's worth noting that because of all the slides, the average bitrate of the upload was only 1800Kb/s at RF 19.
I will work on adding some URLs to the description.
http://vimeo.com/24640614
SuperSet wrote on 9/14/2011, 12:24 PM
A follow-up question for the Handbrake/YouTube experts.. I've been following the instructions with great results but wanted to check if the quality slider should be adjusted for YouTube. After I complete the Handbrake render, I'm seeing the Avg Bitrate for the MP4 file at 15K. Since YouTube renders to 720P much lower than this (I've hear 4-6K), should I adjust the Constant Quality slider to make it smaller thereby making the file smaller and stream faster?
musicvid10 wrote on 9/14/2011, 1:29 PM
In Handbrake, raising the Rate Factor slider lowers the bitrate. I know it sounds backwards, but that is the way of x264.

RF 19 will give you maximum quality at any given resolution. Going lower will increase the bitrate, but not temporal quality. Raising the RF to as high as 22 will lower the bitrate quite a bit, but you should not notice any appreciable quality drop unless you have both high detail and high motion in your footage. Not being a pixel freak myself, I use RF 20-22 with consistently great results.

YMWV
If you are focused on bitrate rather than constant quality, around 8Mbps ABR 720p is about optimal for "average" HD footage (whatever that is). The tutorial itself (at RF 20) ranges from 160Kbps (that's right) for the slideshow to over 20Mbps for the ducks!

Remember, Youtube is going to re-encode your video footage, using some rather crappy settings, so very little you do at your end will have much impact on the outcome. A 720p HD video comes back from Youtube at just over 2Mbps, which is pretty dismal.
Adam L. wrote on 9/14/2011, 6:33 PM
Handbrake keeps bombing out on me. I followed the tutorial to the letter. Trying to open the file that was rendered by Vegas in Handbrake results in:

---------------------------
Error
---------------------------
No Title(s) found.

Your Source may be copy protected, badly mastered or in a format which HandBrake does not support.
Please refer to the Documentation and FAQ (see Help Menu).
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

I'm not sure if it's the size of the video (file is almost 9 gigs) causing this. I can render a smaller region of the same project using the tutorial settings and it opens fine. There's little information other than what I found in the Handbrake FAQ (it basically says re-create the rip... which means another 3 hours of rendering to gamble on Handbrake doing the same thing again.) Source is a 1080i multicam project.

Edit: The large video plays fine in Quicktime.
musicvid10 wrote on 9/14/2011, 7:06 PM
This error is usually due to one of the following reasons:
-- Older version of DNxHD. Download 2.3.4
-- Older version of Handbrake. Try a nightly.
-- Wrong template. Use 145 8-bit, not 10-bit or TR. (Future versions of Handbrake will support 10-bit).
-- Wrong settings on the video tab. Must be rendered to square pixels, even dimensions, preferably divisible by 8 (1920x1080).
-- Any Alpha content at the output, even if inadvertent. Put a blocking layer below at 16-16-16, and uncheck alpha in the DNxHD settings window.
-- In one case I had to take nested projects out and paste the actual events in to make it work.

I have encoded much larger than 9 GB intermediate files to x264. The tutorial itself was 15 GB.
SuperSet wrote on 9/14/2011, 9:20 PM
Musicvid - is there a correlation between a larger bitrate and better quality post YouTube render, even though they re-encode it?
Adam L. wrote on 9/14/2011, 9:35 PM
musicvid I paused at each GUI page on your tutorial to verify that my settings were identical to what you had listed, and double and triple checked after the video had failed to load in HB. All of the items I installed were the ones you had linked in the YouTube directions, and I just confirmed that DNxHD is 2.3.4. My video is being rendered at 1920x1080 with DNxHD, with no alpha being output (at least as far as I know, I certainly didn't add any, and am not even sure how to do so.)

If any of these were off the smaller render wouldn't have loaded in HB, correct? I don't want to bother you for troubleshooting, but you're very knowledgeable when it comes to HB and video production in general, so I thought perhaps you might have ran into this before. I was looking forward to using this method since my videos are of kickboxing, boxing, and mixed martial arts, so lots of very rapid movement, and it seems that using the HB method is best for this type of footage from what I've read and from your tutorial.
musicvid10 wrote on 9/14/2011, 10:22 PM
Have you tried the blocking track I suggested?
I have run into this before, and if none of the things I suggested apply to you, your best bet will be the Handbrake forums. I have no connection with their development team. But I know that file size alone is not a known consideration.

If you post the MediaInfo properties of your DNxHD intermediate, it may provide some clue.
.
musicvid10 wrote on 9/14/2011, 10:45 PM
"Musicvid - is there a correlation between a larger bitrate and better quality post YouTube render, even though they re-encode it?"

Only up to a point.

I tend to think the other way -- "Is there a point beyond which an AVC 720p downsize from 1080i AVCHD or HDV source will not benefit from a higher bitrate?" Mathematically, that number is ~8Mbps (I gave that number a generous bit of headroom).

So, if the 720p upload is at or near its optimal level, going above that will not improve the result of Youtube's crappy processing, and it is unlikely that going below that to say, 6Mbps, would have any visible effect, either. Since I can see the difference at 4Mbps, particularly as artifacts in high motion areas and fades, it's reasonable to think I could also see some difference in that as processed by Youtube.

*All bitrates used as examples are ABR.

robwood wrote on 9/15/2011, 9:31 AM
just watched the Vimeo version of the tutorial... looks so good!

thx again for all the work u all put in on this... great to have resources like that for reference.
Adam L. wrote on 9/15/2011, 12:29 PM
Here's the properties of the video:
General
Name: Fight4.mov
Folder: E:\Videos\Genesis Fights 09-10-2011\Fight4
Type: QuickTime
Size: 9.00 GB (9,217,039,616 bytes)
Created: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 2:39:43 PM
Modified: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 2:42:09 PM
Accessed: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 2:39:43 PM
Attributes: Archive

Streams
Audio: 00:08:22.435, 44,100 Hz, 32 Bit (IEEE Float), Stereo, 16-bit Little Endian
Video: 00:08:22.435, 29.970 fps interlaced, 1920x1080x32, Avid DNxHD Codec

ACID information
ACID chunk: no
Stretch chunk: no
Stretch list: no
Stretch info2: no
Beat markers: no
Detected beats: no

Other metadata
Regions/markers: no
Command markers: no

Media manager
Media tags: no

Plug-In
Name: qt7plug.dll
Folder: E:\Sony\Vegas Pro 10.0\FileIO Plug-Ins\qt7plug
Format: QuickTime 7
Version: Version 1.0 (Build 8871)
Company: Sony Creative Software Inc.


I'll have to admit I have no clue what you mean by a blocking layer. I searched the forums, the help, and the web, and there wasn't anything that sounded close to what you're suggesting. Is there a link to a page I can read up on it?
musicvid10 wrote on 9/15/2011, 1:00 PM
I agree that it looks much better on Vimeo, although the upload bitrates were identical. However, 60 views the first month on Vimeo vs. 1,200 its first month on Youtube speaks for itself as far as public exposure. That's a 20:1 viewer ratio.
musicvid10 wrote on 9/15/2011, 1:27 PM
Adam.
The properties reported by MediaInfo, a free download, will be much more helpful than those in Vegas, as it contains much more information.

Although it hasn't been discussed here recently, a blocking track is a solid color with no alpha that is placed on the bottom most track and runs the whole length of the program to clamp black levels to 16-16-16 during fades and blackouts (Vegas defaults to 0-0-0). It can be either an RGB image, or a generated media. It is essential if you are rendering to a YUV codec, esp. for broadcast or distribution.

[EDIT]
Thanks to robwood for catching this oversight.
"if you're using a Computer RGB to Studio RGB filter on the

If your other settings are correct, it may not be contributing to your issue, but it is desirable for other reasons nonetheless.


Adam L. wrote on 9/15/2011, 2:21 PM
Thank you for the explanation, musicvid. I think what I need to do is buy a book on Vegas. There's an overwhelming number of variables, tips, tricks, external plug-ins, and knowledge to be gained to produce a video that looks decent without getting "lucky".

I also didn't thank you for this tutorial, so I am doing that now. It's very concise and well-thought out, and I'm sure once I get the media to cooperate the results will be fantastic.