File format for web delivery

[FranciscoB]

Hello all. 

What's your advice for delivering a solid picture quality for YouTube? I'm delivering in fhd.

I usually export a dnxhd 10bit file for a master and use handbrake with x264 compression for uploading. I tried x265 but the loss of clarity is huge. 

Also, do you export a 16:9 file with bars or do you export it without the bars? I have a large project for delivery in 1:33 and altought is going to be available on YouTube, I kinda want to disincentivize people to watch it on phones and smaller screens. 

What's your take? 

Thanks. 

[androidlad]

Export H.264 directly from the timeline, with a x264 based plug-in (for example, Aftercodecs), and use the highest quality encoding parameters, and bitrate 12-15Mbps for 1080p depending on the length of your deliverables.

YouTube is resolution agnostic now, so do not add any bars, export the picture in its native aspect ratio/resolution.

If you want to disincentivize people to watch it on phones and smaller screens, then maybe don't upload it on YouTube.

[Geoff CB]

What are your export settings in handbrake?

Use H265 at a much higher setting, if you export properly a H265 file compared to a similar size H264 file will always have higher quality. UNLESS you are using hardware encoding on AMD GPU's or older Nvidia cards, which give awful quality. 
 

1 hour ago, FranciscoB said:

disincentivize people to watch it on phones and smaller screens. 

 

This may be your intent, but in reality it will just annoy those who want to watch it on a phone.
I would export without black bars because your video will fit to the largest axis of the screen it's being viewed on. 

[FranciscoB]

I did a slow encoding with 18 on the quality bar. From a 50gb master file I got a 700mb x265 one. The quality is OK but compared with the master, you notice the difference right away. 

I'll need to up the quality for better final file. 

Do mobile phones display 4:3 correctly on a vertical display? Or you always need to rotate to get a better view? I agree with you. If that decision will turn away viewers, might as well do that and increase the chances for views. 

[androidlad]

YouTube re-compresses all uploads into H.264.

For popular channels, YouTube uses better quality compression.

[KnightsFan]

You can read YouTube's upload guidelines here.

1 hour ago, FranciscoB said:

I did a slow encoding with 18 on the quality bar. From a 50gb master file I got a 700mb x265 one. The quality is OK but compared with the master, you notice the difference right away. 

I'll need to up the quality for better final file. 

YouTube reencodes everything to a very low bitrate (~8mbps for HD). So while you do want to maximize the quality that you upload, keep in mind that viewers watching on YouTube will see worse quality than the file you created. So for example, if you are worried about a quality difference between 50 mbps and 25 mbps on your HD file before uploading, well, that's a moot point since the actual stream will be much lower than either of them.
 

I always upload in H.265. I haven't uploaded much to YouTube in the past year or two, but when I did I couldn't see any benefit or downside between H.264, H.265, and DNxHD uploads. So I picked the one that was easiest for me, which is a high quality H.265 file.

[FranciscoB]

Is there a x264 plug in for resolve? 

I'm aware of the YouTube and vimeo guidelines for awhile. I've got better results from x264 than h264 so that's why I've kept doing it. Maybe now I will start with x265. 

I know YouTube compression will always deteriorate video quality. I asked this because of differences on quality by uploading 4k instead of 1080p. Does that still make a difference? 

And yes... I can't control where people see their videos so I'll just upload the best file I can get. 

[rawshooter]

With Resolve, you'll get the best h264 quality if you

• first export to a high-quality format like DNxHR, ProRes or Cineform and then
• re-encode that exported file with Handbrake/ffmpeg, using the x264 quality level 18, preset "veryslow" and tuning parameter "film" or (if you want to preserve grain in the video) "grain".

If you use Handbrake, make sure that no deinterlace or noise filters will be applied and that the frame rate will stay (a) the same as in the original and (b) remain constant.  

This workflow will also give you a high quality h264 file to play back on smart tvs and other devices that support the h264 codec. (Resolve's built-in h264 codecs, both the software codec and the Nvidia/AMD hardware codecs, unfortunately result in much worse image quality than x264.)

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, FranciscoB said:

What's your advice for delivering a solid picture quality for YouTube? I'm delivering in fhd.

What's your YouTube channel? Can we have a look?

[KnightsFan]

@FranciscoB x264 is a specific set of libraries that encodes h.264 files, it's not an either or. I'm not sure what library Resolve uses under the hood to encode h.264 if you use the internal encoder. You can also use Nvidia's NVENC. To clarify, NVENC and x264 are different algorithms that both end up with an H.264 video. I haven't compared them myself.

In the past, I have seen better results from ffmpeg compared to Resolve when exporting to h.264 and h.265. One thing that I have noticed is that Resolve does much better if you give it a quality preset rather than a max bitrate. Use the dropdown instead of a number and you'll have fewer artifacts even at comparable bitrates.

Yes, you can still get better quality up upscaling to 4k and uploading that instead of HD--but only if the user watches in 4k. I never watch YouTube in 4k so if I was your target audience then it wouldn't make any difference. My phone doesn't even stream 1080p most of the time, and honestly I watch as much on my phone as a PC.

[rawshooter]

Oh yeah, and another tip to @FranciscoB: If you really want to tune video quality, blow up your video to 4K in Resolve, and export, transcode and upload in 4K because YouTube will play 4K video with higher bitrates/less compression artefacts (even when it's just fake 4K).

(EDIT: @KnightsFan was faster.)

[FranciscoB]

25 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

What's your YouTube channel? Can we have a look?

Off course you can, why wouldn't you?

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/franciscobfroes/

 

Judge away 😄

21 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

Oh yeah, and another tip to @FranciscoB: If you really want to tune video quality, blow up your video to 4K in Resolve, and export, transcode and upload in 4K because YouTube will play 4K video with higher bitrates/less compression artefacts (even when it's just fake 4K).

(EDIT: @KnightsFan was faster.)

That was one of my questions about youtube uploading. So it's definitily worth the extra step?

[Emanuel]

Parabéns Francisco, my compliments! Very well written trailer, meu patrício : ) Just wondering, what capture device(s) have you used for those two works there? And why that 4:3 option route BTW, today?

Emanuel : -)

[FranciscoB]

Obrigado @Emanuel 👍

 

I used a sony a7s ii with canon yellow ring lenses. I like the 4:3 aspect ratio and it seemed appropriate for the subject and feel of the documentary. Luckily, filmconvert nitrate was release and I got a few more lessons on resolve so now I'm much happier with the final images.

I did a new test with handbrake and with quality to 15, x265 and medium speed ( was pretty slow ) I got a 3gb files from a 53gb. Much better quality.

[Emanuel]

32 minutes ago, FranciscoB said:

Obrigado @Emanuel 👍

 

I used a sony a7s ii with canon yellow ring lenses. I like the 4:3 aspect ratio and it seemed appropriate for the subject and feel of the documentary. (...)

Well, that reflection sounds to me to directly associate to cinemascope versus TV stuff... Strictly narrative dream-like domain opposed to a real window over the world, right in the centre of our living room in the place of the cross of before. The history of the second half of the precedent century we all are.

Food for thought indeed... I see, Portuguese legacy rocks! ; -)

[FranciscoB]

Yes, it was based on how the aspect ratio is perceived, on how it could help with the sensation of people being left behind and the conversation about wildfires in our country being the same for the last decades. 

It's an old subject that keeps getting worse.

Its very much a subjective choice but I'm happy I went with it.

I'm releasing the first two episodes in a few weeks but if you want a sneak peek, I can send you the links in exchange for your honest opinion.

I would offer the same to everyone on the forum but I havent't developed the subtitles.

[Emanuel]

Very promising stuff... Really : ) You're welcome! I am even now nationally proud for you : -)

Ideas are all subjective made, no doubts there... That's the confluence with reality to result in something eminently true and effective. So-called objective, as well, why not? ; )

Maybe time to post it there in the corner Andrew has opened for all of us?

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/forum/21-footage/

 

PS: Sent you PM : -)

[FranciscoB]

Off course, you're right. When the episodes are released, I'll share with everyone 👍

[kye]

On 6/6/2020 at 12:59 AM, KnightsFan said:

@FranciscoB x264 is a specific set of libraries that encodes h.264 files, it's not an either or. I'm not sure what library Resolve uses under the hood to encode h.264 if you use the internal encoder. You can also use Nvidia's NVENC. To clarify, NVENC and x264 are different algorithms that both end up with an H.264 video. I haven't compared them myself.

In the past, I have seen better results from ffmpeg compared to Resolve when exporting to h.264 and h.265. One thing that I have noticed is that Resolve does much better if you give it a quality preset rather than a max bitrate. Use the dropdown instead of a number and you'll have fewer artifacts even at comparable bitrates.

Yes, you can still get better quality up upscaling to 4k and uploading that instead of HD--but only if the user watches in 4k. I never watch YouTube in 4k so if I was your target audience then it wouldn't make any difference. My phone doesn't even stream 1080p most of the time, and honestly I watch as much on my phone as a PC.

I did some tests myself previously and confirmed that 4k was better, but one test I never did was to upload the same video in 1080 and 4k but then compare the quality when the viewer watches them in 1080.

To be thorough, if anyone actually does this test they should do it twice, once where the video is a 4k video exported in 1080 and also in 4k, and the other time when a 1080 video is exported in 1080 and also 4k.

These two might be the same result but you never know.