So I have these 2 time lapse videos I created, posted them on youtube. I am 98% certain that the format, size, etc. are the same but for some reason the 2nd video looks like crap, much pixelation. Of course it looks great on my pc! Does anyone have a good idea what the best possible settings are to use for videos that you upload to YT? should it be mpeg, mpeg2, avi, mov, etc. resolution, 640x480, 320x240,...
well, no one? tough question I know! I sorta found the answer why I was having so much trouble with my particular video, check out my newest blog entry as to why: Blockbuster Blitzkrieg / Why YouTube's Transcoding sucks Butt! in my mind it came down to two things: 1) Motion in YouTube videos is a very bad thing to have 2) Youtube's transcoding sucks butt, that is to say antiquated and outdated.
320x240, more sharp colors instead of blurred ones, less motion plus static background (plain background is perfect) i.e. no movement in the background
pretty funny right....movement in video??? BAD! everyone should just start posting still picture slide shows seriously though, go to my blog and hit play on both at the same time http://timsdd-timelapse.blogspot.com/ and you'll see huge difference...myspace must have a newer version of flash or a higher bit rate or something.
yes and no. after all the research I did, while I found lots of "best ways", ultimately none of them helped me much. What I lack and what might be the best was the MOV file format...my video SW is old and only has version 5. anyway long story short it came down to myspace having the better transcoding engine.
sorry i was not clear and complete in my reply. Actually, what i wanted to tell u that, when a bitstream is encoded in some encoder (maybe mpeg2, divx3.1/4/5/6.x, WMV.x, or even H.264), there is a feature thats called motion compensation (LINK), that says, the more your consecutive frames of images (also called video in layman language) have differences the less is the chance for stream optimization . I have been doing this stuff for quite sometime, thats why i shared it with u. And by no means at all i wanted to give u the impression that less motion picture would be compressed more.
that makes sense, I understand you better now, thanks for the info. & link the next video I did came out much better, less motion and I made sure I used AVI all the way up to when I did the final render...not sure if I did that last time.