Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=UH8F0KaiipE&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/UH8F0KaiipE/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJ3P1BN-0nlz6g4bi6FAoGU&amp=

I found an excellent explanation of the various Youtube HQ parameters here:

http://blog.jimmyr.com/High_Quality_on_Youtube_11_2008.phphttp://blog.jimmyr.com/High_Quality_on_Youtube_11_2008.php[/link]

It looks like I have a lot of experimenting to do ;-)

Wow, Laurence, that must be a record on the forum for consecutive self-posts :>) Thanks for the links... my youtube posts always come out horribly, and I'm going to work on some of the info you posted.

I'm amazed at some videos on YouTube... my son was watching this one that looks incredible:

Laurence
The HD version does look much better but I cant get it to play without severe studdering and this is on a high speed connection.

I'm amazed at some videos on YouTube... my son was watching this one that looks incredible:

The funny thing is that that is just a regular Youtube video at the lower resolution. I agree though. It looks really good.

I'd didn't see much difference.
Do you render in Vegas for YouTube?
If so,can you share your settings?

I rendered this with Dr DivX 2.0 because it is so much faster than Vegas and looks equally good. Between Vegas smart-rendering the m2t and Dr. DivX downrezzing and rendering the upload version, I can pretty much make rendering time a non-issue, even without a super fast quad core.

I applied for a director’s account. Very weird. Nothing happened.
Just went to “Channel Info” , clicked on “Change channel type”
a pulldown appeared. Chose “Directors” and clicked “Update Channel”.
Nothing happened but I’d assume that is it. My Channel type is now “directors”.
Nothing else seemed to change..huh???. &fmt=18 doesn't seem to increase quality.


Can I improve this quality? Using MP4 file for upload.

MP4 custom
Project
Video Rendering Quality: Best

Video
Frame size: 640 x 480
Profile: Baseline
Frame rate: 30
Allow source to adjust frame rate: checked
Variable bitrate: Two pass
Maximum (bps): 8,000,000
Average (bps) : 6,000,000

Audio
Sample rate (Hz) 48,000
Bit rate (bps) 128,000

Vimeo...

xberk:

Your video looks great if you go to this link:



or this one:



You have to cut and paste the address though. If I embed it in the page like you did, it reverts to low quality.

You can embed it in a web page at HQ, but not in a forum or blog.

again, details of the parameters to doing this are here:

http://blog.jimmyr.com/High_Quality_on_Youtube_11_2008.php

Thanks!




The &fmt=6 did improve quality noticeably. I think it still works in a link.

Vimeo is also very nice. Maybe nicer. Both require higher speed lines to see first crack. 30 second test (password:"Vegas8")

What a difference from where I started with the SAME FILE !! THANKS EVERYONE!!!

The link still reverts back to regular quality. Sorry.

Did you try going into your account settings?
My Account / Video Playback Quality.

I have uploaded a wmv rendered to 3Mbps template and a 640x480 mainconcept mp4 and it automatically plays in HQ with the option to play in standard quality

When you playback a video from Youtube, it will play back in the resolution specified in your Youtube account preferences (if you log in and set this up). If you play a Youtube video embedded in a website, it will play back at the resolution you determine by the embedding code you use. If you post a Youtube video on a blog or forum such as this one, it will always play back at the lower resolution.

I've tried on and off for forever to try and get anything decent out of Youtube to no avail and finally threw in the towel. With Vimeo and plenty of other video sharing options out there that allowing HD content I'd rather post my stuff elsewhere and not cringe seeing my work that compressed. 640x480 isn't a horrible size for streaming but even the "high quality" ones still look like Youtube to me.

- Ray
Some of my stuff on Vimeo
www.undergroundplanet.com

Hey Muttley -

well - no doubt that is some beautiful video -
looks like Vimeo has solved distribution quality issues.
Even in "SD" it looks great.

I'm gonna get off my butt and post something soon.

v

The trouble with Vimeo is that everytime I go to show anyone a Vimeo video, it takes forever to buffer. As a general rule, If you post something on Vimeo and look back at your stats a couple of weeks later, you'll find you have less views than something that was posted yesterday on Youtube. Youtube may not be the best, but it is by quite a big margin, the most popular.

I have a really fast (5k) Internet connection, but by the time you deal with wifi and traffic issues, there are still delivery issues with Vimeo and Veoh.

When I go to watch a video on a website, most of the time there are problems with smooth playback. Something may play back properly at 4:00 AM but not at 3 in the afternoon. It may play back on a laptop with "n" wifi 20 feet away, but not with "g" 60 feet away.

I firmly believe that most viewers just give up if a video doesn't play back immediately and that all that extra quality means absolutely nothing when they do.

With Youtube, I can post at what they call "high quality" and it is just sort of so so, but at least it plays, and if there are problems, viewing at the lower resolution pretty much always works.

Laurence -
I am a great fan of yours...
but in truth the top two renders are different but certainly not "day and night".

I wonder if you have the time, would you mount the same piece (very nice btw) on Vimeo, as well.

I'm not certain whether it's the original source or the delivery system that is making the Vimeo so nice.
In my book, if it's going to Clients vs the general "click/flit" audience, I'd rather deliver the best possible quality.

thanx in advance,
v

"Youtube may not be the best, but it is by quite a big margin, the most popular. "

Which IMO doesn't make it the best for professional display of your work. If you don't care what kind of sloppy and crappy videos end up in the sidebar because they've got a name or content relation in some way to yours, then YouTube is by far the most popular but I also feel it's the most unprofessional because anyone and their dog seems to upload there as opposed to Vimeo or Veoh (formerly Stage 6) - there seems to just be higher class and less home video-ish stuff posted in the latter sites which to me, make them more suitable for showing highlight reels and such.

I wonder if you have the time, would you mount the same piece (very nice btw) on Vimeo, as well.

Here it is on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/764736

and here it is on Veoh:

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v7058649PjZp4e7z

These are both better than the "HQ" Youtube version:



(which is unlinked so as not to revert to the lower quality.)

The Vimeo version has had 31 plays total over three months. The Veoh has had 51 in the last four weeks. The Youtube, 149 in the last three days.

So if you look at it from the point of view of which looks best, Vimeo wins, but if you look at it from the point of view of exposure, Youtube wins by a landslide.

This video is for my wife's non-profit organization and she cares a who lot more about exposure than video quality.

The whole point of this effort is to squeeze as much quality out of the method of delivery that provides the greatest exposure.

Besides, they're all free. It's not like you have to choose just one... ;-)

I myself have not had the buffering issue that was mentioned earlier on Vimeo and I'm on there constantly. That doesn't mean others haven't experienced it, but I refer all of my potential clients there and post links to my new work fairly frequently and have yet to hear a complaint about any issues with playback.

I totally agree that if someone has the time and inclination and quality is not of issue than posting on both YouTube and Vimeo is a great option, it's a matter of preference and purpose. I will admit I'm kind of a snob about quality and even when I hosted all of my work myself I tended to push the limits of bandwidth. My opinion was that I just did not want my clients and/or potential clients to see a pixelated mess because imho, that would reflect poorly on my work. Even if "consciously " one understands that their watching a low quality version it just seems to me that it can't help but leave a bad impression.

And I cannot argue that one *might* get more view's on YouTube due to the popularity of the site, but at the end of the day that doesn't mean much to me. I've also stumbled on quite a few on YouTube that have been up there for a year or more and only have a handful of views, there are no guarantees on either. One of the few video's I have on YouTube has been watched 527 times in 7 months and the same video on Vimeo has been watched 182 times in three months. Not a staggering difference by any means. Could the views that you have on YouTube be more because of this thread or other promoting by yourself, wife, or others, than just the fact that it's on YouTube? Do you have the YouTube version embedded anywhere? Obviously the more you refer people to a video the more views it's going to get and the links to the YouTube version were in the first post of this thread. I don't mean this in any kind of bad way but I'm not convinced that the "YouTube vs Veoh vs Vimeo" view counts you are citing have anything to do with where the video's are hosted. It's not clear to me that "Youtube wins by a landslide."

I guess I just don't like YouTube hence the rant, never have and probably never will. When it wasone of the only known places to host videos I hosted mine myself and probably still would be if others hadn't come along. Vimeo is supposedly going to offer a "Pro" version soon that will allow embedding of HD videos without their branding and once that's up and running I'll most likely take the time to repost all the video's on my "real" site from there. I just love the quality and ease of use and it serves all of my purposes for posting my work online.

- Ray
Some of my stuff on Vimeo
www.undergroundplanet.com