Frage von paipel:
Hi,
why youtube actually has a gb to upload up to 2 if they shrink the files anyway to infinity. Every time I upload a 1.7 gb large clips, which are then converted to about 300 mb.
What am I doing wrong or what do I have to do to keep large files / better quality reserve? The uploaded format is mpeg-4 + in 1280x720 h264
Antwort von dustdancer:
the files are getting smaller ...
think what would have to ask google for a server bandwidth available, and if everyone Hans Kunz, please do not take personally, 2 gig files would upload vids of his? exabyte how many will be made available for? the 2tb-files later simply give a "better" results in the recoding.
if you want to provide larger files, the rent webspace ...
Antwort von mann:
I am synonymous wonder if Youtube even then the files runtergoogelt if you have already coded it myself down appropriately. Example: I had a roughly 3GB file with Compressor is reduced to just under 200MB, which saw me with good from on yt but that's cheese.
Antwort von TheBubble:
One should assume that the files are rebuilt, everything else would be problematic.
Antwort von tommyb:
It is always "runtergegoogelt.
Antwort von paipel:
... and how would you upload it?
Why then offer ever so large file uploads?
Makes no sense!
How do you get for the best results when rendering and afterwards upload?
Antwort von Belize:
It is - regardless of the data rate and file size - useful with Google Video - to feed and audio signals of optimal quality. Those who refuse to upload, nothing gets better back.
Antwort von TheBubble:
Why then offer ever so large file uploads?
Makes no sense!
For several reasons:
1. It is easy to use as simply the DV - HDV file or upload to get of how the camera can.
2. Better starting material to enable a better quality of the generated files are synonymous if they have a lower resolution and compressed lossy Do more.
Antwort von Piers:
After many tests I've come to the conclusion that the videos look s.besten when I 1080p25, mp4 @ 5mbit from Finalcut out and expect high point. Higher bit rates will, of course, synonymous, but not beat down in a better YT video.
This the final video, which can be seen on YT, not the same quality as the original-and this has rendered file from FC should surely be clear.
After all, the service is free of Youtube. Better codecs are, for example at Vimeo, but with a smaller community and stricter requirements regarding the contents of the clip.
Antwort von Belize:
If a 1080p upload Youtube uses only half the lines.
Antwort von mann:
Better codecs are, for example on Vimeo .... What is not clear to me: Vimeo is yes to exact parameters of how to compress the file, eg data rate 3000 kbits / sec and for Resolution853x480 9:16 - DV, but it still seems to work again - then they could the clever but actually save Ratschäge.
Antwort von Piers:
What is not clear to me: Vimeo is yes to exact parameters of how to compress the file, eg data rate 3000 kbits / sec and for Resolution853x480 9:16 - DV, but it still seems to work again - then they could the clever but actually save Ratschäge. Now, Enter a resolution but reasonable. Not everyone knows how to addressed as the 9:16 DV, (meaning it actually 16:9?), Squeezed into square pixels.
It also specifies a data rate is synonymous sense. I now have no data of Vimeo, but if 1000 people each day as encode their videos with 6000kbit, they have twice as much traffic on the lines and twice finished in the short term storage. All this costs money NEN chunk, if we break that down to the mass of users.
