The main thing I am learning here is that methods I thought were sound were not. I edited above posts for clarity and to try and not spread wrong info. I think @alexmitchellmus was on the right track!
(Even though I have had pretty good luck with my approach, I haven’t pushed it in a while… I’ll have to try some tests and see exactly what shakes for me at this point in time.)
Yes, @Bodysoulspirit, the body of knowledge surrounding digital video gets complicated pretty fast… personally, I like how Apple has limited the scope with AVFoundation.
To clear the path, here’s Google’s recommendation for encoding, hopefully it’s up to date: YouTube recommended upload encoding settings - YouTube Help
And… that page somewhat contradicts what a Google representative says at the bottom of this page (even though it is from 2012, maybe their methods changed?):
That article with the Google rep pretty much backs up @alexmitchellmus
So I must check :
The codec, h.264 seems the best for youtube.
If you go by Google’s posted recommendation I included for consumers, yes.(Edit: But @alexmitchellmus’s Google link trumps this.) Our info now suggests that it’s the fastest encode, but not necessarily the best. The Google rep post from 2012 suggests that you could upload the highest quality available to you, and Youtube will reference this “golden master” for years to come as streaming technology gets better. (This is the new idea most interesting to me, btw.)
The container, they seem to like mp4.
The VBR.
The passes.
The resolution and the pixel size format.
More than anything, the container suggests what software was used to export the file. So Adobe Media Encoder exports mp4, and has Adobe’s proprietary method. (Compressor sends .mov, using Apple’s method). It’s all H.264 (as @alexmitchellmus also says). High res = more compression. VBR, passes, apparently all can be handled by Youtube, so in general use highest quality settings. (Pixel size? You mean pixel AR? If so, square pixels, but doesn’t sound like this even comes up for you).
Just a dumb question here, but so actually what the Vuo export dialogue means with “image format” is the codec right ? And then exports in .mov container. So when I use Handbrake to convert that mov to a mp4, what does it do ? It reencodes the video with the same coded in another container ? It decodes and recodes it again or what ? Won’t there always be a quality drop then ? Wouldn’t the original Vuo export with Apple’s H264 be better ?
Yes, “image format” = codec. Yes, .mov is the container. Handbrake will transcode your file to mp4 (container for H.264). I’d have to check back with Handbrake – it could compress it a lot or a little, depending on its settings. (Here bitrate comes in). I trust Handbrake.
The funny thing is that all the exported .mov from Vuo look great on the computer, both in 422 and H.264. They still look good if I reencode them in MP4 H264 with Handbrake, but look crappy on Youtube and Vimeo whatever of those I upload and in all qualities, even HD.
Some comments in the linked post suggested a couple things that haven’t been mentioned here:
- Wait a day for Youtube to process your clips, they may improve.
- Your footage will better the more traffic you get. (Not sure I believe this, but it’s an interesting thought…)
But if the amount of stuff in the video was the problem, shouldn’t it already look crap when exported from Vuo ? As it is already encoded ?
No – AVFoundation/Apple encoding is keeping it high-ish quality on your computer, even with H.264.
