Youtube: higher video quality coming soon ?

[Hard core Rikki]

YouTube offering higher quality video / Stage6 ends services! - VideoHelp.com

check it. the youtube trick that previously allowed people to upload videos encoded to up to 8 frickin' mbps (instead of the youtube-enforced maximum bitrate of 350 kbps) seems like its not really working well, lately.

i'll copy the content of the first post here. updates on the topic can be followed in the linked thread.

As a result of this thread: Youtube Upload, increase quality/control (HQ hack obsolete) - VideoHelp.com we're moving the Subject here.

It seems YouTube is currently offering Higher Quality (up to 850 kbit/s A+V) videos to certain locations only, and testing out several different quality formats.

You can see if your video has different versions offered by YouTube, by adding "&fmt=18" or "&fmt=6" to the end of the URL, like in these examples:

YouTube - 蔡淳佳 (Joi Chua) - 依恋 Live Performance
yields low quality 320x240, while
YouTube - 蔡淳佳 (Joi Chua) - 依恋 Live Performance
gives you high-res high-bandwidth material.

YouTube - Henry Phillips - The End of the World
yields low quality 320x240, while (adding &fmt=18 at the end)
YouTube - Henry Phillips - The End of the World
gives you 480x360 high-bandwidth material, and even higher quality audio!

This makes uploading in FLV format a questionable activity, since obviously YT will convert your video in more than 1 version so they can decide which one to offer to the viewer. The only downside noticed until now is that they don't offer stereo-audio.

discuss. oh, and dont forget to check pcsx2 videos uploaded there. you never know ;P

[Phil]

hmmm well ive always wondered about the quality.

my vote goes for high res only

[refraction]

850kbit/sec is 0.8mbps, not 8mpbs, if it was 850kbytes, that would be about 7.5mbit.

so its catering more for people with 1mbit or higher interest connections, which are fairly common these days, obviously not quite to the quality of stage6, but itll beat the hell out of what they had before.

edit: &fmt=18 seems to only effect older videos.

for example this is the normal quality (watch when he pans the camera)
YouTube - Final Fantasy XII - WIP

then this is it with the format flag

YouTube - Final Fantasy XII - WIP

[Phil]

yeah. one thing about youtube is that half of the videos look liked they were uploaded by a cheap cell phone

[John Aiton]

To save anyone the bother; here is a picture i made of low vs high.
high is clearly clearer (oh the lols with that sentence)

just click to enlarge

[Radix865]

I hope they'll also enhance the way it runs too, many times one video runs perfectly while another slithers on like a snail...

[Phil]

i think thats the uploaders problem, not youtube's...

[refraction]

it is, if the video is poorley encoded to begin with, there isnt anything youtube can do about it.

unless you mean the loading times, in which case its dependant on how busy the server is

[Phil]

server's. since google bought youtube, they should have far more capacity for high def videos, considering those massive server "farms" near the Googleplex

[ShakirMole]

considering youtube is pretty famous and all... it should it's best to satisfy the customers since videos that u can't find anywhere can be found on youtube but that would need a lot of resources to maintain and store

[DaHumAn]

if love was like a swing? o_O;;;;

I think i'll stick with stage6 for HQ stuff, 160K/s is still abit low for even better encoded 480p stuff, not to mention 720p+ content. even with h.264, a lot higher bit rate dvix/xvid would still win out.

[refraction]

Originally Posted by DaHumAn

if love was like a swing? o_O;;;;

I think i'll stick with stage6 for HQ stuff, 160K/s is still abit low for even better encoded 480p stuff, not to mention 720p+ content. even with h.264, a lot higher bit rate dvix/xvid would still win out.

erm, stage6 is closing..

[Hard core Rikki]

with the youtube trick, going up to 8 mbits (8000 kbts, the bitrate-specific measure) was possible

[refraction]

Originally Posted by Hard core Rikki

with the youtube trick, going up to 8 mbps (8000 kbps, the bitrate measure) was possible

sorry, it wasnt written clearly enough for my lagging brain to understand seeing 850kbit and 8mbps amongst the 2 parts of the post, i got confused.

[Coolsvilleman]

Originally Posted by refraction

850kbit/sec is 0.8mbps, not 8mpbs, if it was 850kbytes, that would be about 7.5mbit.

I agree, 8mbit would be almost DVD quality.

[Samor]

Originally Posted by Phil

yeah. one thing about youtube is that half of the videos look liked they were uploaded by a cheap cell phone

..and they probably were...

[Titus03]

Originally Posted by Phil

yeah. one thing about youtube is that half of the videos look liked they were uploaded by a cheap cell phone

Other possibility is that all people don't have HQ video editors and have to use freeware editors, which can code with so high bitrates that they are forces to go for low-res. At least for me, in Windows 98 time I had only a freeware editor and there was no chance to make better quality. But on the other hand, better codecs are always available and all users may not be able to use their codecs optimally.

Now it's different. Even with Windows XP Movie Maker, a normal user can make quite nice looking videos with ease.

EDIT: Enough nice looking for n00bs. You are right Squall, the quality's getting better all the time with freeware software.

EDIT 2: ...and Windows Movie Maker wasn't enough for me, too. I wanted better quality and needed more features, so after getting WinXP, I never used it for editing my own videos.

I was talking about the times many yaers ago, so please don't think it was today I was talking about. Just thinking of those good old times...

[Squall-Leonhart]

Yuck Windows Movie maker my ass! theres plenty of GREAT freeware apps that are thrice better then that.

[John Aiton]

Originally Posted by Squall-Leonhart

Yuck Windows Movie maker my ass! theres plenty of GREAT freeware apps that are thrice better then that.

do you happen to know any that are good ones,
I currently use movie maker and it saves all movies at 14 fps (yuck)

thanks

[Squall-Leonhart]

Low Quality = No &switch
Med Quality = "&fmt=18"
High Quality = "&fmt=6"

To be 100% honest, i see very little difference between Medium and High, but Medium does load nearly as quickly as the low quality vid

and yes, they are in order from lowest to highest. (as you can tell by the file sizes)

that 3K difference doesn't do much between medium and high though.

actually, after looking at several scenes, the medium quality is the best of them. the last one introduces slight off colouring and pixel pigmentation on certain colour boundaries.