Frage von AmateurProfi:
yes and here, despite some of schelchten quality videos on youtube
sooner was the resolution 640x480 then the video window to fit exactly
Now, the Resolution16: 9 format with what resolution do I upload movies that it fits exactly?
For helpful answers, I am very grateful
Antwort von deti:
Only on YouTube through the help, then ask:
Antwort von AmateurProfi:
thank you after I've searched but never found
Antwort von beiti:
Only on YouTube through the help, then ask:
Antwort von deti:
Now we come to the answerable questions:
- After the upload transcodes YouTube videos in a progressive format with a maximum of 1280x720 pixels at ~ 2.5 Mbps (encode in H.264 and AAC audio into the mov/mp4-Container).
-> The format is the best in Europe so 1280x720p25
- It must be coded according to the H.264 standard, and together with AAC or MP3 audio in Quicktime mov/mp4-Container uploaded.
- I use a bitrate of 5Mbit / s to a little reserve for the transcoding to have.
It looks like this (only the test material - no movies):
-
-
Deti
Antwort von Axel:
Only on YouTube through the help, then ask:
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=132460
Die Page enthält einen Fehler, dort heisst es "Recommended: 1290 x 720 (16x9 HD)", es muss natürlich 1280 x 720 heissen.
Unfortunately, the Page no concrete information on how to with interlaced video should bypass. Firstly, it states that one should minimize s.Format and convert the original format s.besten Upload (synonymous with respect to subsequent improvement in quality of YouTube). It is explicitly of progressive formats with 24 or 25 fps speech.
Eben, the 720 - auto option is the "p" variant, progressive natively or as subsequently deinterlaced of 1080i, and with square pixels.
The 720p format is ingenious chosen because, respect, now comes a provocative thesis, it is the only con-and prosumer-HD format.
In the end, at least. We have a 720p, 1080i and 1080p25 (of HDV 1440) compared to the big screen. 1080p is a bit sharper, but not the 1.7 times, as the pixel resolution suggests.
Conclusion: Everything below the SonyEX series effectively creates only 720th I realize that the FullHD AVCHD-Group aufschreit and now says: My pictures are much sharper! Gift. Schön ist, was gefällt. Be glad that it did not have large screens to Comparison hernehmt. It is a blanket statement that 720p is sufficient, and I can prove it is not.
To bitrate has "deti" was already written.
Antwort von beiti:
the 720 - auto option is the "p" variant, progressive natively or as subsequently deinterlaced of 1080i, and with square pixels. But the question remains in the room, what with YouTube the material in place, if you upload 1080i (ie whether the YouTube Converter the interlaced format correctly recognizes it or pictures with comb-Effect does).
I would be interested synonymous, what with 720p formats of above 25 fps happens also with 30, 50 or 60 fps.
Antwort von meawk:
[quote = "beiti"]
I would be interested synonymous, what with 720p formats of above 25 fps happens also with 30, 50 or 60 fps.
Lets look
Antwort von deti:
to be precise:
[code: 1: c4617b13b4]
ISO: File Type Major Brand: ISO / IEC 14496-1 (MPEG-4 system) v2
Quicktime / MOV file format detected.
VIDEO: [avc1] 1280x720 24bpp 25,000 fps
AUDIO: 44100 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 236.7 kbit/16.77% (ratio: 29584 -> 176400)
Selected audio codec: AAC (MPEG-2/MPEG-4 audio)
[/ code: 1: c4617b13b4]
10197114 bytes / 37s = 2.10 Mbit / s (Audio + Video)
Deti
Antwort von deti:
I still have a few more lessons about the differences between YouTube and Vimeo are concerned. These are, I have the same file is uploaded and compatriots, which, when trans-coding remains.
- Starting materials:
Time: 4:16
File: 180451563Bytes (172Mbytes)
Container: MOV / Quicktime
Video: H.264 AVC 1280x720p25 @ 5500Kbit / s
Audio: AAC @ 128Kbit / s
- If YouTube is to:
File: 70273794Bytes (67Mbytes)
Container: MOV / Quicktime
Video: H.264 AVC 1280x720p25 @ 1904Kbit / s
Audio: AAC @ 194Kbit / s
- If it arises Vimeo:
File: 16005822Bytes (15Mbytes)
Containers: FLV
Video: On6VP 1280x720p23.98 @ 364Kbit / s
Audio: MP3 @ 128Kbit / s
Vimeo When the image quality is often better - all the more astonishing is that this only 364Kbit / s in a proprietary Flash Video format suffice. This format also cost in the decoding is much less computing power. The only drawback is the unnecessary conversion of the refresh rate to 23.98 frames / s.
YouTube is certainly forward-looking, however, because the use of H.264 synonymous other player than the built-in Adobe Flash usable. In direct comparison, I personally find the picture quality much better on YouTube.
Here are the two videos:
... and ... That
Deti
Antwort von Axel:
Long deti!
That's what I call action!
Yes, I wanted to have first grumble because the asphalt at the first picture on YouTube is already a bit pixelt. When Vimeo pixelt but significantly stronger. Now we should know whether these data (1904 Kbit / s and 194 Kbit AAC) is not equal with several coding passes, before you upload it and then maybe something can rausquetschen quality.
Antwort von deti:
... your welcome. I only believe that the transcoding rumkommt not because the guys at YouTube are a real Sicherheitsleck otherwise would be trapped. I test the same times.
At least, the data in the original file again to be reordered to a faster start when streaming to reach. Learn More
Antwort von meawk:
Thank you Deti, have viewed the comparison, when `s it looks like you can not grumble so synonymous.
Antwort von Cocoa_Magazin:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFLxjkyWfI
I've recorded Trailer in HD
Antwort von deti:
That is really a refresh rate of 23.976 Hz, everything else, as always:
Length: 34,944,213 (33M) [video/mp4]
ISO: File Type Major Brand: ISO / IEC 14496-1 (MPEG-4 system) v2
Quicktime / MOV file format detected.
VIDEO: [avc1] 1280x720 24bpp 23,976 fps
AUDIO: 44100 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 186.8 kbit/13.24% (ratio: 23351 -> 176400)
Selected audio codec: AAC (MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio) decoder
Deti
Antwort von meawk:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFLxjkyWfI
I've recorded Trailer in HD
Very good done. The image quality synonymous super come across. With which program you render?
meawk
Antwort von deti:
As promised, I have further tests carried out on YouTube:
- A trans-coding is always held, regardless of the range and nature of the starting material (Test with 1.5 Mbit / s material).
- Frame rates> 30Bilder / s to be 30Bilder / s converted (test with 720p50 was 720p30).
- Resolutions> 720 will be transferred to 720p (test with 1920x1080p25).
Conclusion:
- HD material in 25p or 50i should be converted into 720p25.
- Accordingly: 30p or 60i after 720p30 and 720p24 after 24p.
Deti
