mpeg-4 options

[WFN2004]

Hi,

I've got VS11 trial downloaded, I think it's VS11+ (that's what the trial download said).

I'll soon buy the full version. But I'm just wondering about mpeg-4 output.

When it's time to share, you can select Custom. I like to fiddle with the options. But mpeg-4 doesn't appear. Is the only way to get at that through the separate mpeg-4 render, i.e. not via the custom option? So you have to select a specific mpeg-4 option rather than customise it?

Or maybe that's a trial version restriction?

Cheers.

[Ken Berry]

It could be a limitation in the trial version, though I doubt it.

In the full version of VS11+, however, when you go to Share > Create Video File, then in the drop down menu, there is a separate category for mpeg-4. If you select that, then you can get a half dozen or so separate mpeg-4 pre-set templates.

If, however, you choose Share > Create Video File, and then select Custom, a dialogue box appears. About half way down, there is a blank space where you assign a file name. Immediately below that is 'Save as File Type'. This will normally show 'Microsoft .AVI files' or 'mpeg files (*.mpg, *.m2t)'. But if you click on the downward pointing arrow to the right of this, then in the drop down menu which appears, there should be an mpeg-4 category. And you customise it by first selecting it, then selecting Options in the main dialogue box.

[sjj1805]

You get this in the full version

[WFN2004]

Thanks for the replies.

Yep, I can see the extra menu for MPEG-4, and I can now see how to get to further MPEG-4 options going through the Custom option and selecting Save type as. So it is all there in the trial version.

But now I'm a bit confused. I'm trying to make as good a quality video as possible to then put on YouTube. They recommend 320x240 and mpeg-4 (DivX, Xvid, SQV3), which is what they provide it back as (obviously 320x240 is a major compromise), so that way they don't have to recompress it. This supposedly produces the best quality that you can get on YouTube. I.e. do the sizing and crunching for them so they don't have to mess with it.

However, the MPEG-4 options on VS11+ produce mp4 output. Any idea why it's called than and not mpg still? I tried playing my mp4 output in Windows Media Player and it didn't recognise it. I changed the extension to mpg but then it basically didn't have the codec.

I'm using Win XP SP2 with the latest WMP. For now I've gone with mpeg2 but sure enough, when YouTube re-encoded it, artefacts were introduced.

[sjj1805]

Please view:
Making and Sharing VideoStudio Movie Templates

[WFN2004]

Ah, I followed that link to the tutorials thanks. So the bottom line was that I needed to download the latest DivX and I needed to set the project to AVI not mpeg, so that MPEG-4 would become an output option.

I uploaded my first video to YouTube with this method. It still seems like something happened - the quality wasn't the same as the version as uploaded (close, but a few new artefacts). Maybe they re-produced it anyway because the audio wasn't as recommended. But I can explore those issues further myself thanks.

Cheers.

[WFN2004]

Hmmmm.

I followed this tutorial:

http://www.takeoneflix.com/ulead-videos ... sing-divx/

http://www.takeoneflix.com/wp-content/U ... -divx.html

which is very helpful. However, I tried upping the quality in the DivX settings from 5 to 6, and I put the fps to 30 since that's what YouTube recommend, not 29.97.

I upped the bit rate to 1500 as I read somewhere that the more the better (obviously) but maybe YouTube taketh that away?

They also recommend 64k mono MP3, but the closest I could find was MPEG layer-3 32 kbps mono.

Having done all that under project properties, produced my video, and under Share done same as project settings.

The final file, though obviously the small 320x240 framesize, looks pretty good (and given there were some issues when getting it off the video a couple of years ago - another story).

So I uploaded 2 such video to YouTube, and while they look reasonable, there seems to be some blurring and the colours aren't quite as vibrant. I've played the YT version next to my PC to make sure I'm not imaging it.

So it seems to me YT are still re-encoding it. Thoughts anyone?

(Is it wrong to post links to your own work? Hope not.)

These are the 2 videos so far:

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=144F6DB1DD5B4ED2

BTW, I realise the footage is fairly poor regardless. It was in 2005 and my first lot I recorded at this amateur Aussie Rules tournament, no tripod, no elevated seating, and two of the lower sides playing. I've got better footage to come. It was on a cheap Panasonic. The heads died last year and now I've got a cheap JVC - which isn't a patch on the Panasonic I'm afraid despite much the same specs.

Anyway, any thoughts as to why I didn't get a crisp YT result?

[Clevo]

You're videos look pretty good to me.

I'm in the process of experimenting with youtube settings. One thing for sure is that I have decided to dispregard what you tube suggest.

Feel free to experiment with 640x480 frame sizes (double) too.

I'm always interested in other people results from experimenting.

[WFN2004]

Cheers.

Yeah, I'm going to keep trying things. I might wind back the bit rate - maybe I exceeded some limit they allow. I read elsewhere a theory that they allow about 200 to 300 kbps.

Amazing that it's so hard to find out all the exact facts.

Apparently their videos are viewed as FLV anyway, so surely that means they re-encode MPEG4 uploads anyway.

[WFN2004]

So the existing one I'm leaving up is:

0. 320 x 240, 1500 kbps

I've now uploaded 2 more versions (but I'll delete them in a second):

1. 320 x 240, 300 kbps
2. 640 x 480, 700 kbps
3. 640 x 480, 3000 kbps

The 300 kbps (1) was clearly (or should I say blurrily) worse than option 0 or 2 or 3.

0, 2 and 3 were similar - basically just a bit of difference in the noise here and there.

So from that very limited experiment, I'd say all versions were re-encoded, but there was nothing to be gained from going above 320x240. But > 300 kbps is better. I might test whether 1500 and 700 are much different.

[tommytucker]

I used VS10+ and just did an output to MP4 IPOD format. Then uploaded. I still see a jerking stuttering movement on Pan and Zoom keyframes. Not sure what causes that as it is not apparent in the VS project when I play it back on the computer. But visible when I view it on Veoh or Youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fSBjWALiY_U

[babdi]

Tommytucker
I watched the Youtube link you posted. The Stuttering is minimal and is not
obtrusive. Nice folks you have there

[tommytucker]

I know that there is a template you can make in movie manager using advice here and Divx. But was just looking for an easy preset to make Youtube type uploads. I have also used Share Online and output the file to a Fair, Good, Medium, etc wmv file. Seems like they all look about the samel. Yes, here in landlocked Oklahoma, Lake Hefner has great running trails and nice views.

[WFN2004]

I did experiment a bit more, trying keeping all the defaults exactly as per the tutorial, 780 bit rate and everything, and even lower field (also tried upper and frame based).

Bottom line was that no matter what I did, and contrary to what YouTube suggest, my videos were always re-encoded to a lesser quality. In the end they are Flash FLV anyway, so presumably the answer is "of course they are re-encoded", in which case, why the tutorials and effort to prepare it just right for YouTube when there is no such just right?

(The one exception from the tutorial was that when downloading DivX you get the latest version, which was slightly later than the tutorials.... shouldn't matter unless maybe YouTube are behind the times?)

I am more and more convinced that the fact that some other people's videos don't have artefacts is more about them not having as much detail in them. Mine are sport and so have grass fields - lots of detail, and so come out fairly average when re-encoded by YouTube, presumably with a lower bit rate etc.

[2Dogs]

Have you tried using the freeware Riva FLV encoder?

There's also another program called FFMPEG which you might try.

Even then, of course, there's no guarantee that YouTube won't re-encode it with a consequent degradation in picture quality, but it should be worth a try.