[ABT]Higher quality than Youtube HD - Overclock.net

wolf2009 · 06-15-09

Quote:

Ever since Youtube came on to the scene, online video sharing has taken off. Youtube is so popular that the name is synonymous with online sharing the world over. It’s one of those things that has invaded our lives. People constantly talk about it in real life like other things that the internet has put into our day to day lingo like e-mail and chat.

For a while Youtube was good enough. But as the nature dictates that everything must evolve, people started to feel limited by the quality of Youtube videos. With the arrival of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD onto the scene, everyone wondered what if our beloved Youtube could offer that kind of quality. What if ? The question hung in the air, with the world waiting for Youtube to answer it. But that question was first answered by Vimeo. Vimeo became the first site to offer HD (High-Definition) video streaming.

Youtube was under pressure to deliver HD so as not to lose users to Vimeo. Now Youtube has also implemented HD and so have many other sites. But HD videos have a caveat attached to them. Playing HD content requires a powerful CPU and a fast internet connection. The videos on Youtube are generally encoded with a bitrate of 2100 KiloBits/Second (Kbps, audio + video) which equates to nearly 263 KiloBytes/Second. This means that your internet connection should be faster than 2 Mbps if you want to be able to play HD content on Youtube without waiting for the video to load and then being played (known as buffering).
Even if you let the video load and then play it, you would still need a powerful CPU to be able to play the video smoothly. This is because the HD videos are encoded in H.264 format. H.264 or MPEG-4 AVC (for Advanced Video Coding) as it is also known as is a standard for video compression similar to other popular video compression formats such as DivX and Xvid. H.264 generally offers better quality at the same bitrate when compared to DivX and Xvid especially at lower bitrates. Decoding H.264 is a much more CPU intensive task than DivX or Xvid. Generally, dual cores CPUs are capable of playing back Youtube HD videos smoothly.

Have you ever wondered that sometimes Youtube HD is not enough. You want more quality, you want something better. Now the question is “How to get better quality than Youtube HD”. That is the point of this article.

Interesting TUTORIAL.

READ ON and let the higher quality uploads commence !

zacbrain · 06-15-09

O_o i have super in my sig. lol.

bumsoil · 06-15-09

stage 6 shall always be the best!
RIP stage 6

PeePs · 06-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by bumsoil

stage 6 shall always be the best!
RIP stage 6

amen

Pooping^fish · 06-15-09

It doesnt matter what your download bandwidth is if the ****ING YOUTUBE SERVERS ARE SLOW AS HELL.

I still prefer vimeo, and yes stage6 was win.

low strife · 06-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by bumsoil

stage 6 shall always be the best!
RIP stage 6

This. I was in shock when it got pulled.

Such a good site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooping^fish

It doesnt matter what your download bandwidth is if the ****ING YOUTUBE SERVERS ARE SLOW AS HELL.

I still prefer vimeo, and yes stage6 was win.

100kb\s burst for a slight buffer, then 60kb\s for the rest of the video. I suppose it has to be like that, serving millions per hour...

nepas · 06-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeePs

amen

x2

Coma · 06-15-09

Quote:

Even if you let the video load and then play it, you would still need a powerful CPU to be able to play the video smoothly. This is because the HD videos are encoded in H.264 format.

Not really. YouTube turns off certain features that make it about 50% faster to decode than a typical H.264 video at an equivalent resolution and bitrate (e.g. CABAC is turned off). It also reduces compression efficiency by 20-30%.

Quote:

[..] everyone wondered what if our beloved Youtube could offer that kind of quality. What if ? The question hung in the air, with the world waiting for Youtube to answer it. But that question was first answered by Vimeo.

YouTube HD is superior to Vimeo HD. Vimeo uses VP6 (Flash can play H.263, VP6 and H.264. H.263 is the old, bad quality YouTube format. VP6 is the "still-crappy" middle ground). The only difference is the bitrate is 5Mbps instead of 2Mbps (YouTube).

Vreel will also, for some inexplicable reason, change the FPS of any video to 25, either by removing frames or duping frames. Any clip which isn't 25 FPS will become choppy. YouTube will only change the FPS if it's higher than 30.

Quote:

As you can see the size of this file is only 22.7 MB and quality is almost the same as the source, while the source was 811 MB. Now I uploaded the same video to Youtube and Blip. See the difference for yourself.

Am I missing something? I don't see any screenshots from the source. And uh, wat. I can make OCN's small logo be 1TB big, in H.264 and all, and then re-encode it to a low bitrate and brag my amazing feat of compression. Comparing sizes with FRAPS is silly.

I'm betting a lot of money it doesn't look anything like the source. I even saw some blocks, which is really strange. SUPER must have disabled deblocking (read: doing it wrong), which is built-in to H.264. H.264 videos should blur, not block.

Quote:

There is massive difference in the above screens in the tank and the screens.

Well, doh. That's what happens when you use twice the bitrate and pre-encode with slow settings.

Even though it's better, it's horrifying for 720p at 4Mbps, especially because there were dupe frames (when the FPS dropped <25).

low strife · 06-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coma

Not really. YouTube turns off certain features that make it about 50% faster to decode than a typical H.264 video at an equivalent resolution and bitrate (e.g. CABAC is turned off). It also reduces compression efficiency by 20-30%.

YouTube HD is superior to Vimeo HD. Vimeo uses VP6 (Flash can play H.263, VP6 and H.264. H.263 is the old, bad quality YouTube format. VP6 is the "still-crappy" middle ground). The only difference is the bitrate is 5Mbps instead of 2Mbps (YouTube).

Vreel will also, for some inexplicable reason, change the FPS of any video to 25, either by removing frames or duping frames. Any clip which isn't 25 FPS will become choppy. YouTube will only change the FPS if it's higher than 30.

Am I missing something? I don't see any screenshots from the source. And uh, wat. I can make OCN's small logo be 1TB big, in H.264 and all, and then re-encode it to a low bitrate and brag my amazing feat of compression. Comparing sizes with FRAPS is silly.

I'm betting a lot of money it doesn't look anything like the source. I even saw some blocks, which is really strange. SUPER must have disabled deblocking (read: doing it wrong), which is built-in to H.264. H.264 videos should blur, not block.

Well, doh. That's what happens when you use twice the bitrate and pre-encode with slow settings.

Even though it's better, it's horrifying for 720p at 4Mbps, especially because there were dupe frames (when the FPS dropped <25).

Even when compressing 1080P footage at 20mBit, you still loose "quality" when comparing to the source. Usually it's only in the color space (significantly less brilliant reds, as I think x264 doesn't like red), as everything else is crystal clear.

Even when I encode 720P at ~7000kbps, there is SIGNIFICANT quality loss in both some sharpness, and color "depth".

Coma · 06-15-09

It depends on motion, too. The reds/blues is just because the colorspace of 99% of video today is YV12, and preserving those colors takes a lot of bits. The quality loss at high bitrates seems to be off, though. I can't help but think something else is wrong.

I thought by lose "quality" you meant some detail is very slightly faded, but you say significantly less brilliant reds. At 20Mbps? I don't habeeb it :E Something must be doing colorspace conversions before it gets to the encoder.

Anyway, it would be easier to take this (badly written) article more seriously if he didn't use SUPER, or actually manage to produce a high medium quality video.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Software News
[ABT]Higher quality than Youtube HD

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)