Frage von skorbert:
Hello,
I have a music video (animation) and made it to
Youtube set.
But it is too bad or I have irgentwelche
Mistake, because it appears in list to None.
(Eg new this week)
Therefore, nobody can see it synonymous.
So I thought I post it here.
Simply "skorbert" into the youtube search engine
enter, it is to be found.
(Title: Pick Me Up)
Schönen Gruss
Norbert
Antwort von chris67:
nice video and nice song. both gave me good laune brings. many thanks for this and my respect;)
Antwort von Johannes:
Here, once the link to the video:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=TFJkUIfOexQ
Das Lied gefällt mir ganz gut. I think not all the transitions and match the characters not otherwise unnecessary move made quite nice.
Antwort von Chezus:
that the characters do not move is unnecessary I think wanted.
Or let's say it this way: in Stop Motion, they are not redundant would not move otherwise Stop Motion
Is probably a lot of work behind
Antwort von smooth-appeal:
Hat mir ganz gut gefallen nd I have it until the end compatriots. That, I create 90% of Youtube videos do not normally ;-)
Especially the song is great, very pleasant!
Antwort von noch n´ Gast:
Jo, so the video is nice (must have done quite a job) and yes synonymous tells the whole story could be almost silent when running. Denm - sorry, it might hurt - the song is good, at least on first listen (and this is the second time, not better), only in conjunction with the pictures. Alone, he is bothered that he has created, not worth it because of the musical pretty much anything is missing, what could help. But as I said, the video is very nice --
and also I only!
Gruß, and stay tuned
Antwort von Knieschi:
Skorbert Hey!
This is really really nice ... with much love for detail.
I've a question and in what format do you have the film uploaded to YouTube? I have a lot of experiments done with YouTube and tried different variations, since it's not a real statement about the internal compression process. When your clip is yes keep the compression effects still limited, so I suspect that you are in HD resolution Uploaded searched? My guess after 20 Uploads different is that depending on Youtube Resolutionauf a certain (constant) bitrate runterkomprimiert. Say certificate!
Greetings and next so!
Knieschi
Antwort von PowerMac:
Nonsense. At best a file under 100 MB Upload. This should be a qualitative H.264 or MPEG-4-codec include. These 320x240.
Antwort von Knieschi:
@ powermac:
... nee I have everything in hours of night work and tasted even at 320x240 will always be compressed again! A 640x480 resolution looks much better! From the visual impression, I appreciate the time is estimated at around 500kB / s compressed CB. For complex movements lubricates the almost completely, so guess I have a CB, especially the processing after the upload is synonymous very quickly, which can only be CB.
H.264, MPEG4 and <100MB are interesting premise but is that a 90MB movie exactly the same quality as a higher 15MB compressed movie, so I guess that Youtube a fixed target bit rate for different resolutions has.
How can you say yes of course like to experiment and some nights you to beat your ears. I think you will return to the same conclusions.
@ Skorbert: Please tell me the times Resolutionvon your clip!
Thanks and nice greetings!
Knieschi
Antwort von Chrissigorn:
Yes, nicely done. Especially the facial expressions:)
Antwort von PowerMac:
Na!
Compress will always be, because with his Youtube On2 encoder everything at about 300 kbit / s in flash (for video in fullscreen) brings. But rescaled is of course not always. Therefore differentiate between scale and compress. When you see the Youtube video, which was uploaded was 640x480, so in 320x240 with Youtube only reason better, because you're bad resize. Youtube scaled simply better than you with your software. That's logical! Everything is 320x240. Your 640x480 was just better scaled. That's why it looks better. There is still that H.264 for the best time. The codec has the highest efficiency. Therefore, you have create the best possible with H.264 and good bitrate settings (2xVBR, frame control, codec-specific settings ...) and make it just under 100 MB. Next time save yourself the 20 attempts in the night and take advantage of better software ...
Antwort von Knieschi:
@ powermac:
... Youtube scaled better than me? Well, I think the first is unlikely ... but PP Pro CS3 and the Media Encoder is a really pretty miserable software, since I give you right!
I still can not understand why some videos are extremely grainy and others still look reasonably acceptable, which can not be subject to scaling s.der ...
Knieschi
Antwort von PowerMac:
Look, it is quite logical.
1) Youtube is 320x240. Youtube always has 330 kbits / s.
2) You can upload what you want.
3) You load s.320x240 and b) 640x480 high.
4) Your video is then 320x240.
5) The video, which consists of b) is concerned, looks better than that from a). Both have the same data rates.
Logical consequence: Youtube scaled better than you
Antwort von Knieschi:
@ powermac:
Thanks again for your statements, which with the scaling, I already understood synonymous and that would be a logical explanation. Nevertheless, I believe that Youtube for larger Framesize higher bandwidth services. Well just for "marketing reasons" so that the user upload HD material not be totally disappointed if s.Ende 330KB / s get out.
Look at times following clips:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=hiZiHqNRgSI
By comparison:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Eq3UaScEk
Both clips have a lot of static images and the difference is significant, especially when the colors are at the last the typical mosaic-block artifacts high compression ratios can be seen.
Unfortunately, my material is not highly scalable, as does the Media Encoder in Premiere CS3 somehow rubbish.
Consequently, one would have two clips download times and then compare the bitrate to be sure ... is always something Frickel the runtergeladen to get. Let's see if this works!
Ciao!
Knieschi
Antwort von Knieschi:
@ powermac:
I have just the video data rates of both views and you were right! They are both almost identical 316 and 320 kB / s .... hmmm, the optical is very different! Why is this just? The scale alone may not be what these artifacts as in the color mosaic causes ...
Perhaps yes, you have a tip how I export from PPCS3 can improve?
Schöne Grüße!
Knieschi
Antwort von PowerMac:
So, clip number two has strong artifacts, because he krasse (postprocessed) brightness fluctuations and has the raw material is sauschlecht. VHS or 8mm or something! There is a strong intervening Umkopiererei or the material was often changed.
Clip number 1 is synonymous not much better. The data is the same ... Only the starting material is a lot of quality. Noise-free, solid.
Antwort von Skorbert:
Hello,
I forgot my video in 640 * 480 30 fps uploaded. (DivX5)
Starting material is 720 * 404 25 fps.
Schönen Gruss
Norbert
Antwort von Knieschi:
Hello Norbert!
Yes, that's interesting! So it seems not only the scaler to be well in your film is so synonymous little exercise is a good prerequisite for a compression process. Maybe I should synonymous again the Divx codec to try ...
Class work, incidentally, (although I do not quite understand why the protagonist at the end with the male Mars abhaut :-))
Schöne Grüße!
Knieschi
Antwort von Skorbert:
Hello,
to Grösseskalieren I use Virtual Dub.
(preciese bilinear).
If the source material is interlaced, I would
deinterlace it.
I have of my video 2
Silent "remixes" made and 2 unused
Short sequences (synonymous with no sound)
processed.
Schönen Gruss
Norbert
Antwort von robbie:
Is it because youtube is no longer directly 320kBit with flash and upload 320x240, where he will no longer be re-compressed? there was something ...
Incidentally, the change of 25fps to 30fps is synonymous not just the yellow from the egg ... and the encoder of Premiere Pro works very well in principle, it is vorrausgesetzt him synonymous correctly;)
