YouTube HD vs. Local Player Comparison

musicvid10 wrote on 10/14/2009, 10:07 AM

I got caught up in a curious question -- "How good is YouTube 1280x720 HD compared to local playback?"

While working with AVC MP4/FLV content (from an original 1440x1080 sample provided by Kimberly), I decided to make a direct comparison and post it. My results can be found here:********

One interesting "feature" of YouTube HD is that no matter at what bitrate you upload, it spits it back at less than 4Mbs. So, in order to be fair to that limitation, I rendered my locally stored copy at 3Mbs. (The original YouTube upload was 10Mbs CBR. Uploading at 6Mbs and 4Mbs didn't improve the result in any way I could see, as expected.)

The obvious disadvantage to local playback of HD material is server space. That is why one would upload to a server like YouTube in the first place. No argument there.

I just wanted to share some quality comparisons, and invite discussion (without giving my own observations just yet).

-- HD playback should automatically load on both players
-- Be sure to hit "Pause" and wait for the videos to load if you have a 1.5Mbs LAN connection
-- Be sure to play each again in fullscreen mode. You guys know what to look for.

Comments

amendegw wrote on 10/14/2009, 11:51 AM

Oh how I love these little testing experiments!

IMHO, the local JWplayer is better than than YouTube - if you look at the grass in the backgound, you can see considerable loss of detail when the camera pans (not seen in the local player).

In addition, you don't get all the "crap" surrounding the YouTube player (YouTube branding, video adverts for "Sex with Ducks" videos, etc.) This doesn't have much to do with the quality question, but I'd be happy to put up with lower quality - just so the viewers would not see all this "crap".

On more thing... my old, slow laptop (Pentium M/ wireless) could not keep up with either player. Task Manager had my CPU at 100% - stuttering & jerky playback. My desktop (Q9550, 8GB Ram, Vista 64, hardwired Ethernet) had no problems.

So, since I love testing, I thought I'd jump in and add a third dimension to your test - Silverlight. I rendered out the Ducks clip to a 3Mbps mp4 and posted it to: http://www.jazzythedog.com/ducks.aspx My take is that the Silverlight video is not as good as the local Flash, but better than the YouTube. (you must install the Silverlight plugin to your browser - you don't need Interent Explorer, it also works fine with Firefox, Safari & several other browsers).

BTW, did you use the Sony codec to render your mp4? I tried using the MainConcept codec, but I couldn't save the template - it kept reverting to 192,000 bps (is this a bug?). So, I used the standard Sony 720p template and set the bitrate to 3Mbps.

...Jerry

musicvid10 wrote on 10/14/2009, 12:03 PM

Actually, I used x264 (HandBrake) because it renders out faster than MC and I like the controls.

amendegw wrote on 10/14/2009, 3:48 PM

Hmmm... I just went back to the webpage I set up and noticed that the mp4 I created using the Sony codec doesn't stream. Maybe I need to run the Faststart utility? I never had a streaming problem with MainConcept mp4 using Variable bit rates.

In any case, I'll do some experimenting and post back when I get the problem fixed.

...Jerry

Edit: That worked... I ran mp4Faststart against the mp4 render & now it streams.

musicvid10 wrote on 10/14/2009, 5:48 PM

The link to my rendered MP4 (3Mbs), is here:
********

If you're interested, Kimberly's original M2T file (1440x1080, 25Mbs) is here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?a44neytdcio

TeetimeNC wrote on 10/15/2009, 1:58 AM

FWIW, on my 5 year old laptop the only one of the four that will play smoothly is the Silverlight WMV.

Jerry

Laurence wrote on 10/15/2009, 4:40 AM

I can watch the Youtube one on my cell phone. With the growing use of cell phones to browse the Internet, that's a pretty big issue.