Yesterday I posted a video and the quality was appalling. YouTube seems to be very hit and miss. It must be me as other folk seem to get acceptable results.
These are the settings I used to render the video. I didn’t sharpen it as when I’ve tried that in the past it has been much worse after uploading. The only grading I did was to boost saturation to 18 and adjust levels to add contrast.
I don’t post many videos but sometimes they are fine and other times they are awful. As usual all images will enlarge with a click.
Any ideas or help will be appreciated.
I've just watched yesterdays video Adrian, and it looked OK to me.
ReplyDeleteI don't own a HD TV or anything, just my computer and monitor.
Maybe you are expecting too much from what you have? I imagine the equipment used to shoot modern films runs into a few bob; more than most people have.
When I shoot video, I just use a simple camera capable of HD results, edit it in an old Serif movie programme, and upload to YouTube in the highest quality.
Having said all that, I enjoyed the shots from the harvester, looking down at the blades.
Keith, good to hear from you. I hope all is well.
DeleteI am still using the Canon 5D II for video. I would like a Blackmagic Baby Ursa but don't do enough video to warrant the £2K price tag.
It could be just me. I am doing a long DVD for the farmer so am editing and posting bits as I go.
Hmm, it looks pretty good for me on YouTube. Are you on a slow connection? If so it could be that by default YouTube are dropping the resolution they are serving the video at for you so it doesn't buffer horribly. Mine picks the HD 720p option by default but if I drop to 360p then it looks less sharp just like your first screenshot.
ReplyDeleteMark, slow to very slow best describes the internet here.
DeleteI'll try uploading in the early hours when the speed is better.
I'll check what I'm viewing at and report back.
When I first started I used to just guess at formats and codecs now I is Heducated. I know they are important. They must be there are dozens to choose from.
Just checked Mark it was on 320. I am a Muppet.
DeleteI find it can get switched down to lower quality here if the connection wobbles at all, and annoyingly it never seems to go back up on it's own
DeleteIt looks fine to me, Adrian. I have a lot of trouble making videos..I have about given up on getting any kind of quality out of one...I just don't understand the process well enough. I agree with Mark above- you may be watching on a slower connection.
ReplyDeleteTerri, problem solved yes it was on 320.
DeleteEditing video is a nightmare. I use the non linear editor that came with CS6 Extended. I am slowly trying to switch to Fusion and Blender. They are very flexible but Node editors require weeks of practise. At the end of the day the video doesn't have to be brilliant for the internet.
Well, you seem to have it sorted -- 720 vs 320. You can probably post in even higher res too, but as long as it's okay now ...
ReplyDeleteJohn, I live and learn. It isn't the sending but the receiving.
DeleteIf things are hit or miss that explains why some things look good and some not so good so you are doing well. as always you can find things to tweak.
ReplyDeleteRed, if the internet connection falters or slows then YouTube reduce the video from 720HD to 320. I didn't realize they did that.
DeleteOn 720p it looks fine, the face is clear and the numbers on the trailer are sharp, as i said yesterday ,good work
ReplyDeletepeter
Peter, yes it is good enough on 720. I was watching it at 320. It explains why some videos look fine and others crap. I always upload at 720.
DeleteAdrian I just use Windows Movie Maker.. I am still on Windows 7. simple to use but not supported on 10
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I had a quick look at W 10 but am still using W.7. I would use a linear editor but for the fact I enjoy playing with video layers and shouting abuse at the computer.
DeleteJust playing catch up Adrian. Looked at the video - brilliant. Great set of sequences. Most is sharp, just the odd semi-close shot where the trees are the part in focus.
ReplyDeleteIt may have depended how soon you checked the YouTube copy. They show it soon after it has been uploaded but their processing can continue after that so you may not have seen the finished version. Anyway I watched it full screen on the laptop and it looks fine.
I don't get the 'render options' 3D Quality bit in the settings. Is there an OFF choice which may be worth trying as you are not making a 3D movie - just a thought.
John, it is sorted thanks. I didn't realise that you tube drop the video you are watching to 320 if the broadband is not very good. That explains why sometimes all is reasonable and others it is not. I had to guess focus as the sun was shining on the screen and the bit of card I a have round it blew away.
Delete3D Interactive seems best the other options are ray traced draft and ray traced final. No idea what they mean I'll look it up as it may give a quick render like fusion and Blender do. Adobe do have some strange names for things and there doesn't seem to be any standardisation in video or very little.
When the auger is running there is a lot of vibration and I had to wait and ask him to stop the machine. I kept falling off my perch. I have two programmes that will stabilise video but I've not yet mastered them.
I see that Black Magic have just announced the URSA MINOR for about £2K plus another £500.00p for bits. I wish I had some work for it and a computer that could handle the file sizes.
Well I have read the comments and know now you have worked it out.
ReplyDeleteMargaret, many thanks. It was me being a Muppet as usual.
DeleteAnnoying when these things perplex for a while.. but nice to get it all sorted out.
ReplyDeleteHilary, just me being silly. No worries my videos are far from good butt I am trying to get better.
Delete