Getting the best results from YouTube / Vimeo (1080, 4K etc...)

I just downloaded a 1080p HD clip from vimeo those are the settings

ID : 1 Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L4.0 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames Codec ID : avc1 Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding Duration : 5mn 33s Bit rate : 4 500 Kbps Width : 1 920 pixels Height : 1 080 pixels Display aspect ratio : 16:9 Frame rate mode : Constant Frame rate : 29.970 fps Color space : YUV Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 Bit depth : 8 bits Scan type : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072 Stream size : 178 MiB (95%) Writing library : x264 core 142 r11 24e4fed Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=48 / lookahead_threads=8 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / stitchable=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=infinite / keyint_min=29 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=4500 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=5 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / vbv_maxrate=4950 / vbv_bufsize=13500 / nal_hrd=none / filler=0 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00 Encoded date : UTC 2015-02-12 11:41:43 Tagged date : UTC 2015-02-12 11:41:43

This is a 720p clip

ID : 1 Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L3.1 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames Codec ID : avc1 Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding Duration : 4mn 24s Bit rate : 2 500 Kbps Width : 1 280 pixels Height : 720 pixels Display aspect ratio : 16:9 Frame rate mode : Constant Frame rate : 25.000 fps Color space : YUV Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 Bit depth : 8 bits Scan type : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.109 Stream size : 77.9 MiB (95%) Writing library : x264 core 142 r11 24e4fed Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=48 / lookahead_threads=5 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / stitchable=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=infinite / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=2500 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=5 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / vbv_maxrate=2750 / vbv_bufsize=7500 / nal_hrd=none / filler=0 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00 Encoded date : UTC 2015-01-29 19:31:53 Tagged date : UTC 2015-01-29 19:31:53 Color primaries : BT.709 Transfer characteristics : BT.709 Matrix coefficients : BT.709 Color range : Limited

For those people that don't understand anything of the gibberish up there those are the key points:

1. Vimeo uses 2 pass encoding
2. VImeo also uses max bit rates and buffer sizes vbv_maxrate=2750 / vbv_bufsize=7500 for 720p and vbv_maxrate=4950 / vbv_bufsize=13500 for 1080p which means
3. Average bitrates are 2500 for 720p and 4500 for 1080p
4. Motion estimation parameters are medium me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1
5. Vimeo uses plenty of B frames and P frames options bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2

So in short vimeo will encode anything you throw at it (actually using X264!) the bitrates and file sizes are on the small size however they push H264 compression pretty hard so the small size is not such a bit problem as it looks.

Motion estimation and other settings are not particularly great however as they use 2pass encoding the outcome is still OK

In short I give my blessing to Vimeo the compression is efficient and the files are small so will look decent on a computer screen, a bit less so on a large TV set but still pretty good

Download of the second 720p clip from youtube not a lot of information but still few key bits

ID : 1 Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L3.1 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame Codec ID : avc1 Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding Duration : 4mn 24s Bit rate : 2 383 Kbps Maximum bit rate : 6 694 Kbps Width : 1 280 pixels Height : 720 pixels Display aspect ratio : 16:9 Frame rate mode : Constant Frame rate : 25.000 fps Color space : YUV Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 Bit depth : 8 bits Scan type : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.103 Stream size : 75.1 MiB (92%) Encoded date : UTC 1904-01-01 00:00:00 Tagged date : UTC 2014-09-09 01:57:15

Key facts:

1. Only 1 reference frame which is low vs 4 of Vimeo. Also youtube does not use B frames

2. Bitrate is not fixed at 2383 but both average and max are lower than vimeo

3. Profile is still high

4. File size very similar to vimeo

Key conclusion at the same bit rate the equivalent Youtube file will look much worse than Vimeo due to inefficient compression settings of youtube

I'm glad someone makes sense of it all...

Thinking about it, I'm not surprised at youtube being worse than Vimeo, perhaps they know their key market (music videos, vblogs etc) so have decided to go that route, where as Vimeo is going down a better quality route?

Shame. So its back to Vimeo then for sharing our videos..

I'm glad someone makes sense of it all...

 

Thinking about it, I'm not surprised at youtube being worse than Vimeo, perhaps they know their key market (music videos, vblogs etc) so have decided to go that route, where as Vimeo is going down a better quality route?

 

Shame. So its back to Vimeo then for sharing our videos..

Between a free 720p from vimeo and a free 1080p from youtube the latter is better the point is do you pay for Vimeo plus account to get better quality? The pro even allows you to embed in your sites without showing its Vimeo.

Vimeo costs less than £50 per year if you are into this a semipro it makes sense to spend this money if not maybe youtube is the way forward?

I wonder if Vimeo will release 1080p as freebie when they get into 4K

You forgot Youtube is also good for the Cat videos people!

Generally Vimeo is more for professional, I also thing that if you put your video on Vimeo, it gets less exposure, its search function is just not as smart as Youtube. If you really want to hit all the audiences, but in both Vimeo and Youtube.

Personally I'm focusing on Youtube since it's free.

 

When you place a clip on the timeline within FCPX - all effects to that clip are in 444 32bit - and at the native resolution of the clip

(no need to optimise the clip to ProRes - as its doing that in the background)

 

However pre-optimizing your clips might make general use of FCPX quicker as its not doing the background rendering as much.

 

Thats what I understand anyway...

My tests show processing in 444 and 422 are indeed better than 420. In fact for FCPX, there's no 420 option for processing. On the other hand, iMovie uses Apple Intermediate Codec 420 and I stopped using the app a few years back because the rendering of the shadow areas was not acceptable and image quality falls apart too quickly when graded.

I think Apple software engineers chose 422 over 420 for FCPX for some very solid reasons.

 

My tests show processing in 444 and 422 are indeed better than 420. In fact for FCPX, there's no 420 option for processing. On the other hand, iMovie uses Apple Intermediate Codec 420 and I stopped using the app a few years back because the rendering of the shadow areas was not acceptable and image quality falls apart too quickly when graded.

 

I think Apple software engineers chose 422 over 420 for FCPX for some very solid reasons.

I have read a lot of material in and around the idea that downscaling 4:2:0 4K results in 4:2:2 1080p but it's just theoretical stuff as scaling also means information loss.

In both final cut and imovie you can work with source files. There is no reason and no benefit to convert. Even when you work in a so called 444 space in final cut there is no benefit at all once you finalise in h264 unless your footage was 444 or 422 to start with. This is based on the fact that you can't add in information that is not there in the first place. If you however do convert your footage to an intermediate format (should never do that unless your workstation is too slow) there is a mild benefit in case you want to do extensive grading

I have read a lot of material in and around the idea that downscaling 4:2:0 4K results in 4:2:2 1080p but it's just theoretical stuff as scaling also means information loss.

I don't convert the source files. I can see with my own eyes FCPX 422-444 produces noticeably better results than iMovie 420 whether the export is in ProRez or h264. The better codec allows much better grading and effects - the image quality simply hold up better.

In fact I don't know of any professional NLE that does not process in 422 or higher internally.

Codec and color subsampling are two completely different things.

If you have a capable recorder such as a atomos ninja or shogun or Gemini you can benefit from 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 because the lines are not skipped or are partially skipped (we are talking about chroma not luma that is always transferred)

if you record internally in camera the stream is captured 4:2:0 what final cut tells you makes no difference.

What you are seeing is the different bitrate of those options when you produce a file as the other options are much less compressed and bigger files. The imovie format you refer AIC has just less bitrate (70-100 Mbps) so the quality drops compared to prores 422 (up to 220 Mbps) or 444 (330 Mbps). Again nothing to do with color spaces. All those formats are all-I frames formats that are all very inefficient intermediate formats for grading not for streaming as you increase bitrate the quality increases this is not the same as H264 and H265 where you can achieve a better file using the same bitrate but different sub algorhytm for compression (H264 profiles specify what you can or not use)

So in short if you are recording off the camera a 4:2:0 chroma what you see with 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 is only higher bitrates nothing reappears by magic

All Intra codecs are inefficient so when you then recompress the same thing using H264 if you use advanced options (see compressor for final cut and X264) the file looks same and is much smaller

Another little info is that rendering always uses all intra as there is not enough power for real time compression in anything different than all intra
So when you play thing on screen you are seeing the effect of the higher bitrate of the render engine
This is what final cut does and so does premier pro and others

I thought of resurrecting this thread as I have done now some further tests on YouTube for 4K files.

The situation is pretty sad as mentioned earlier YouTube converts HD files to 3.5-4 Mbps H264 and also converts 4K files to 16-18 Mbps H264. The VP9 codec results in 10-12 Mbps files with no visual difference that I can see.

In short the best way to get good results with YouTube is to produce the best file you can manage in the first place in H264 as other codecs are not accelerated by your computer and you will be watching paint dry for a long time for no benefit anyway if you try VP9

The YouTube reccomended settings are

• Progressive scan (no interlacing)
• High Profile
• 2 consecutive B frames
• Closed GOP. GOP of half the frame rate.
• CABAC
• Variable bitrate. No bitrate limit required, though we offer recommended bit rates below for reference
• Chroma subsampling: 4:2:0

High profile and 2 consecutive B frames means effectively limiting your x264 to ref=3 for HD and ref=5 for 4K with Bframes=2

I would not limit the number of B frames unless you want to make YouTube happy I can see that it digests anything you upload anyway

For what concerns bitrate the table of suggested rates is

1.5 Mbps

However this is really not to kill yourself in the upload as there is no actual limit so if you manage to produce a super compressed mp4 in virtue of using a very slow preset your file will anyway be small

For reference the standard outputs produced witjh H264 by Final Cut Pro X or Adobe Premiere are NOT an example of a high quality compression. You need a third party x264 plug in to control all advanced settings and produce an optimal result

All considerations including optimised encoding settings on my last (long) blog post

Interceptor121 Underwater Photo & Video Blog | Tip & Tricks for Compact Cameras Users

http://interceptor121.com/