Question regarding youtube quality.

[John Rofrano]

[cam Hintz] “I understand Youtube compresses and encodes files with H.264 and no matter what I will take a quality loss. But if the file uploaded is already encoded as H.264, will Youtube still double encode it? If so that doesnt make any sense to me.”

Yes they will. It makes sense to them because they want all files encoded with their encoder that is optimized for their streaming servers. You have no say in this.

[cam Hintz] “I read online that I can upload lossless HD to youtube and that it’s pretty much the best way to ensure true-HD. But what file type constitutes “lossless” and can I render it out from Vegas? If so, what media type is it? I know .mp4 is H.264 so it can’t be that.”

Lararith is lossless so you could always render back out to a Logarith AVI. I don’t know if YouTube accepts this codec. Uncompressed is lossless but the files will be huge. I believe YouTube accepts uncompressed. To do this render to AVI without a codec.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Cam Hintz]

Thank you for the quick reply Mr Rofrano! Wow.

So did I make a mistake by importing Lagarith encoded files directly into Vegas to start editing?

I have the total project finished and I just rendered the project (composed of lagarith encoded files) out as a lossless x264vfw .avi file, but If you can believe it It’s still not the quality Im looking for (on youtube). The rendered video is astonishingly beautiful but then I upload to Youtube and the overall quality looks the same as my previous x264vfw but at a much much much lower bitrate. (a 150kBps looks the same as a 50kBps. Same encoded files).

I feel like a conversion should have been made at some point along the line…

(Sorry if this sounds confusing I can take screen captures if that will help, or show you the videos directly from my accnt).

Appreciate any response from you

Edit: This is the video I would like to replicate

And this is my video (2nd), im trying to replicate the above videos quality.This is my video

My rendered, pre-uploaded video looks just as nice as his youtube video so Im certain its a codec thing.

The only possible explanation is that this guy recorded at 4k 60fps and downscaled to 1080…. but the machine needed to do that is just… I doubt thats what’s happening here.

[John Rofrano]

[cam Hintz] “So did I make a mistake by importing Lagarith encoded files directly into Vegas to start editing? “

No, that’s a perfectly valid workflow.

[cam Hintz] “I have the total project finished and I just rendered the project (composed of lagarith encoded files) out as a lossless x264vfw .avi file,”

First of all, that’s an oxymoron. x264vfw is a “lossy” codec. It is incapable of producing a lossless encode. Second, x264vfw is a hack. MPEG4 video doesn’t belong in an AVI container. This could be contributing to your problem.

I would use MainCopncept AVC or Sony AVC at a high bit-rate (16 – 20Mbps) and see how that looks. Start with the Internet template in MainConcept AVC. It is designed for YouTube encodes.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Matjaz Molnar]

I will tell you:
“””Is YouTube prioritising bigger YouTubers like PewDiePie, Markiplier and Jackspeticeye in terms of quality?”””
——
I think it is. I uploaded two colorful videos of racing to test this.
One had a bitrate of 12mb the other 40mb. That means 3x more bitrate.

Then I watched some peoples videos with millions of views and lots of ADS and comparing them to 10.000views videos.
Yes the quality is better in the first group.

Here are the results of a video BEFORE and AFTER upload:
https://shrani.si/f/2q/y1/3VpEvcNe/beforeafteruploadyoutube.png

I think that it is obvious enough, that youtube prefers the bitrate to viewers with ADS and profit with millions of viewers.

Youtube should make an official statement about this, that they are worsening the quality of cristal clear uploaded videos for small youtubers.