PDA

View Full Version : YouTube video quality (an experiment)


krosero
01-09-2008, 04:02 PM
I usually make my YouTube clips by pointing my camera at the TV and uploading the MPEG to YouTube directly (and if there's more than one MPEG, I edit them in Windows Movie Maker).

For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr7Zgsyv0FY

Recently I got the DVD-editing software, Nero. I noticed the ball does not come off as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMe1Lfr7o38

Nero is the only DVD-editing software I've tried; I'm guessing there are better ones because every once in a while I run across a tennis clip on YouTube where the quality is great.

The camera I'm using is an Olympus EZ550. Its great feature is the zoom on pictures. It does not advertise anything special as far as its video feature.

It's not a top of the line camera but it's not a cheaper model either.

Feedback, suggestions, thoughts, etc.?

OrangeOne
01-09-2008, 04:18 PM
I usually make my YouTube clips by pointing my camera at the TV and uploading the MPEG to YouTube directly (and if there's more than one MPEG, I edit them in Windows Movie Maker).

For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr7Zgsyv0FY

Recently I got the DVD-editing software, Nero. I noticed the ball does not come off as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMe1Lfr7o38

Nero is the only DVD-editing software I've tried; I'm guessing there are better ones because every once in a while I run across a tennis clip on YouTube where the quality is great.

The camera I'm using is an Olympus EZ550. Its great feature is the zoom on pictures. It does not advertise anything special as far as its video feature.

It's not a top of the line camera but it's not a cheaper model either.

Feedback, suggestions, thoughts, etc.?

(I've never, ever uploaded a clip to youtube, but I've viewed my share and I've used a fair few in my business too. My comments are therefore from the point of view of an inexperienced observer, that said, an inexperienced observer with a keen understanding of imaging when it comes to photography, and audio when it comes to hifi & PA systems).

I'm amazed the point-camera at TV even is anywhere near that good! The sound is as I'd expected (hollow), but yeah, amazing.

That said: I can't imagine that by direct-link you won't achieve much, much, much better quality. It just makes sense that with sets of imperfect optics (a TV and a camera), you're asking for - and will get - quality loss at each stage. I think your search, as here, for a better piece of software / settings / etc will without question give you better results.

For now, if you do what you've done again - I'd see if there's a 'constant exposure' setting on your camera (perhaps unlikely in movie mode, but you can hope), to stop it trying to adjust as it seems to be doing for lighter and darker images on the TV.

CyBorg
01-09-2008, 04:59 PM
Yup. The first clip was superior because you can see the ball much better.

Interesting.

krosero
01-10-2008, 10:45 AM
That said: I can't imagine that by direct-link you won't achieve much, much, much better quality. It just makes sense that with sets of imperfect optics (a TV and a camera), you're asking for - and will get - quality loss at each stage. I think your search, as here, for a better piece of software / settings / etc will without question give you better results.I'm sure you're right about this. I'll just need something better than Nero. And I'll have another look for the constant exposure setting; I haven't found it. Appreciate your comments.

BeHappy
01-10-2008, 11:09 AM
This is a website where you can download any software you want for free:

http://ddl2.com/

How it works is, software companies give out demos for free, which only work in a very limited way until you pay for a password/serial number/registration number that unlocks the full software package.On this site you download the demo along with that password or a program that will unlock it.

It's fantastic, I recently got some dvd ripping software that would otherwise have been very expensive!

ubel
01-10-2008, 11:12 AM
first video's sound is obviously awful, but i think the only reason the video is that good is due to the contrast. the court is mucher darker in the first one than the second, and thus provided a much better contrast for the YouTube encoder when it compared the color of the ball to the color of the court. the second video is much lighter, similar to the light color of the ball, thus the YouTube encoder is more likely to NOT pick up on the subtle difference of that moving object, and encoded the video in such a way as to blend the ball to the court.

the second video is wayyy smoother frame-rate wise and kinder on the ears. try tweaking the contrast of that second video's original file a little to make it as dark as the first, then re-upload it hopefully you'll have a video whose quality is by far the best of the three :)

krosero
01-10-2008, 11:38 AM
first video's sound is obviously awful, but i think the only reason the video is that good is due to the contrast. the court is mucher darker in the first one than the second, and thus provided a much better contrast for the YouTube encoder when it compared the color of the ball to the color of the court. the second video is much lighter, similar to the light color of the ball, thus the YouTube encoder is more likely to NOT pick up on the subtle difference of that moving object, and encoded the video in such a way as to blend the ball to the court.

the second video is wayyy smoother frame-rate wise and kinder on the ears. try tweaking the contrast of that second video's original file a little to make it as dark as the first, then re-upload it hopefully you'll have a video whose quality is by far the best of the three :)That's true about the contrast; I've even turned the exposure down below the automatic setting for some of my videos. It's a great way to make the ball show up, though at a certain point the court starts to look too dark.

I'd like to try what you suggested with Nero (or with other software at the link BeHappy just provided). I had to un-install Nero because it was interfering with MovieMaker (I'm running Vista, BTW), so I'll see what I can do about reinstalling Nero or getting something else.