HDV Frame Captures And YouTube Videos I've Put Up

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by David Ruether, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. At www.donferrario.com/ruether/HD-video-captures.htm
    on my web site I just put on the index page for the small frame
    capture images from my first five HDV videos (go to those
    links to see what the videos were *supposed* to look like...;-)
    three imbedded YouTube versions of the videos. These vary
    from quite good for the simple geometric forms to barely
    acceptable for the complex fine detail of the flowers in
    constant motion. I first made a highest-quality .flv of each
    (which looked quite good for all, at 640 wide on the
    computer monitor) using Premiere Elements 4, and uploaded
    those files to YouTube. As an experiment, I also tried
    exporting a YouTube file directly from the PE-4 timeline
    (to remove the intermediate .flv step) using an abbreviated
    version of "THE CHICAGO BEAN", and was surprised
    to find that it sometimes subtly didn't look as good. Since
    the abbreviated version of "The Bean" is only 13 megs, I
    may put it on my web site for comparison.
    --David Ruether
    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Sep 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thanks - I will give them a look. I just got an email from a
    friend telling me about his YouTube video. To my surprise,
    a higher quality viewing option was available with his, and it
    looked good. Maybe I need to take up YouTube on their
    1-gig upload limit...;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thanks. I'm still going to try to improve the YouTube look of "The
    Chicago Bean", if it is possible, but "Pretty Rhodhodhendhrons"
    (with its fine detail in constant motion) is hopeless I think. "Squares"
    survived since the material is easy to compress - but it may be
    possible to improve that one, too. "Spex" pointed out a couple of
    other sites, and the videos look wonderful on ExposureRoom.com,
    and very good on Vimeo.com. YouTube is free, and it has its "fun"
    aspects... Still hemmin'-'n'-hawin' about what to do...
    It shouldn't shut down in camera mode without a tape, so far
    as I know... (I've played with mine for long periods with the
    HV20 connected to the TV [sound off!] without shut down).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 4, 2008
    #3
  4. I will check further. ER mentioned unspecified charges, I think,
    but I could easily be wrong. Both are FAR superior in terms of
    image quality to YouTube (especially ER), but neither has the
    "readership" of YT. Both would be far better for imbedding
    videos in a web page. BTW, I tried to optimize a YT file by
    deinterlacing the HDV original, adding blur, doing a bit of
    "frame stuffing" (but probably not enough to help much), and
    predetermining the Flash file characteristics before uploading it
    (hoping to keep under the YT limits to avoid recompression).
    I just finished uploading the smaller file (the larger of the two
    never finished the processing stage after a successful upload,
    but the one compressed at 240kbs instead of 325, did). Both
    looked better than the YT original (uploaded from the highest
    quality 640x480 Flash file version) when they were viewed
    directly on my computer, but something in the files caused YT
    to recompress or reject even these small files). Even so, they
    were not exactly wonderful...:-(
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 4, 2008
    #4
  5. They seem to be somewhat outdated, but I've tried E V E R Y T H I N G ! ! !
    (Mpeg4, mpeg2, mpeg1, Flash, Flash double-size, DV-AVI, HDV - with
    deinterlacing, different sizes, different compressions, with/without pre-blurring,
    and nothing looked better than the original 640x480 flash version that is up
    now (and it looks TERRIBLE!!!). The videos on ExposureRoom.com look
    just plain great - especially the HD ones with the "HD" button used - so I
    guess that is next, especially for imbedding videos in my web page.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 6, 2008
    #5
  6. The articles seem to be somewhat outdated, but I've now tried
    E V E R Y T H I N G ! ! ! (Mpeg4, mpeg2, mpeg1, Flash, Flash
    double-size, DV-AVI, HDV, WMV - with and without deinterlacing,
    different sizes, different compressions, and with/without pre-blurring,
    and nothing looked better than the original 640x480 flash versions
    that are up now (and they look TERRIBLE!!!). Your comments about
    YouTube mangling the pixels were correct! The limiter seems to be at
    the YouTube end (but those "how to" sites had some pretty decent
    looking videos posted on YouTube, so I'm still mystified...). The videos
    on ExposureRoom.com look just plain great - especially the HD ones
    with the "HD" button used - so I guess that is next, especially for
    imbedding videos in my web page. Thanks.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 6, 2008
    #6
  7. I appreciate your help, but the results of ALL attempts to improve on
    the miserable YouTube results from using 640x480 Flash from .m2t
    (non-deinterlaced 1080i) files have failed. I just uploaded an MP4 file
    ("CHICAGO BEAN" - Short Version, in H.264 at 480x360 progressive,
    from a 720p .m2t, 30fps, sound at 128kbps, 2-pass, max bitrate
    4.6789Mbps, file size 503.91kbps, length 2:10, file upload size 66megs).
    I will leave it up a day or so so you can compare it with the Flash version
    (by opening two windows and narrowing them, the videos can be placed
    side by side and synchronized for playback during much of the shorter
    video's length). Do a search on david ruether to find them...
    Sigh..., but thanks anyway for your help!
    I have several SD videos I want to upload to YT - maybe these will
    survive better...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 6, 2008
    #7
  8. David, I read somewhere once that there was a way to "trick" YT's automatic
    encoder by manually editing the information header on a flash video,
    thereby allowing you to upload higher resolution videos. You'd have to
    Google it.


    jaybee
     
    Jacques E. Bouchard, Sep 6, 2008
    #8
  9. David Ruether

    effectvdo Guest

    effectvdo, Sep 14, 2008
    #9
  10. ??? I'm confused... The original material was in 1080i HD .m2t files, with an
    attempt to get the best possible quality in the YouTube versions. The originals
    had four strikes against them (fine detail, continuous motion, letterboxing in YT
    which reduced viewed image size, and universal DOF so no easy to compress
    soft areas). I tried everything for uploading to the YT site (Flash in 320x240,
    480x360, 640x480, and 960x720 - and iPod/H.264/MP4 in 320x240 and
    640x480 - and the .m2t files directly), and the three best (and essentially equal,
    and all pretty bad on YT) were the two highest-res Flash files, and the higher
    res MP4 file. (The YT videos, with three HD and six SD originals, are at -
    www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+ruether&search_type=&aq=f,
    with all of these currently in Flash 640x480 uploaded versions.)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 14, 2008
    #10
  11. Thanks, but whatever I now have on Youtube appears to be the best I can get up
    there now (and they are mostly pretty bad due to the originals' motion and detail
    levels and YT's "mangling" of everything). I just uploaded three HD videos (viewable
    in small, medium, and 720p HD [!!!]) to ExposureRoom.com - and these look FAR
    better (at - http://exposureroom.com/search/?q=david+ruether&ep=on&t=0 - but
    you may need to play the HD versions twice to get smooth playback). The HD is
    not quite as good as the originals (smaller, less sharp, with some motion artifacting,
    aliasing, and noise) due to conversion from 1080i to deinterlaced 720p, then to
    compressed MP4 for uploading, then further compressed and converted to Flash by
    ER for streaming, but it is amazing that the results still look as good as they do on ER
    (the three sizes are selected from the buttons under the images after the thumbnails
    are clicked on at the URL above). I will try uploading some SD videos to ER soon,
    and will embed medium sized versions from ER in my web site. What a service
    ER offers!
    --David Ruether
    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Sep 20, 2008
    #11
  12. I used VBR 2-pass with a target of 4,000 ave. and 10,000 peak with MP4
    (same as H264) using Vegas Pro 8. I first put my 1080i on the timeline,
    changed the project preferences to 720p with interpolated deinterlacing (it
    gave me the highest sharpness of the three options for the 720p m2t files).
    I then sharpened the 720p by 0.001 in Vegas during the conversion to MP4,
    which is what I uploaded. I think ER then converts everything to Flash, so if
    one knew *exactly* what they do for making the streaming files, I guess a
    conversion step could *possibly* be avoided - but, maybe not... The better
    looking videos may be a touch better to begin with, and they may stress the
    process less by not including so much fine detail in constant motion (including
    tough material like distant building lines and masses of pine needles on the
    ground). Let us know what you conclude. Thanks, and have fun! ;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 20, 2008
    #12
  13. David Ruether

    gpsman Guest

    Have you tried divx?

    I've also been trying ad hoc to improve the quality of my videos
    uploaded to Google and YouTube. Google seems to be a lost cause, but
    I think I've attained somewhat reasonable quality on YouTube.


    I shot that with a Canon XL1, rendered it at 640x480 then compressed
    it with divx.

    I shot this with a Canon PS A510 (believe it or not) and compressed
    the 320x240 raw footage with divx and upped it:


    I couldn't be more ignorant regarding DV, I've been out of the video
    business some 9 years and am just amusing myself, but I think the
    results are "nearly" as good as anything I've seen on YT.
     
    gpsman, Sep 24, 2008
    #13
  14. David Ruether

    gpsman Guest

    Oops:
     
    gpsman, Sep 24, 2008
    #14
  15. Have you tried divx?

    --From what I gather (correct?), DIVX and H264 are similar to
    MP4...

    I've also been trying ad hoc to improve the quality of my videos
    uploaded to Google and YouTube. Google seems to be a lost cause, but
    I think I've attained somewhat reasonable quality on YouTube.


    I shot that with a Canon XL1, rendered it at 640x480 then compressed
    it with divx.

    I shot this with a Canon PS A510 (believe it or not) and compressed
    the 320x240 raw footage with divx and upped it:


    --I tried 320x240, 480x360, 640x480, and even 960x720 and
    1280x960, with Flash, MP4, H264, and anything else I could think
    of, at different compression rates, all uploaded to YouTube to a
    "blind" location and compared with the original ("THE CHICAGO
    BEAN" - at )
    which was uploaded as a 640x480 Flash file. Only two of the
    many tries equaled the original, and these were more difficult to
    make, so there was no point...

    I couldn't be more ignorant regarding DV, I've been out of the video
    business some 9 years and am just amusing myself, but I think the
    results are "nearly" as good as anything I've seen on YT.
    -----
    - gpsman

    --***IF*** There are large areas in the image without detail
    (or large areas with very soft focus) ***AND*** there is only
    moderate motion speed (preferably none at all...;-) anywhere in
    the image, THEN the results on YouTube can be, er, kinda,
    sorta, maybe "acceptable"...;-)
    --David Ruether
    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Sep 24, 2008
    #15
  16. David Ruether

    Guest Guest

    | I've also been trying ad hoc to improve the quality of my videos
    | uploaded to Google and YouTube. Google seems to be a lost cause, but
    | I think I've attained somewhat reasonable quality on YouTube.
    |
    |
    | I shot that with a Canon XL1, rendered it at 640x480 then compressed
    | it with divx.
    |
    | I shot this with a Canon PS A510 (believe it or not) and compressed
    | the 320x240 raw footage with divx and upped it:
    |

    Both URLs are the same. And I've seen better on YT.
     
    Guest, Oct 19, 2008
    #16
  17. That may be - but you have attributed these to the wrong person.
    Please observe correct header attributions in posts.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Oct 19, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.