No more 50fps/60fps videos? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 06:41:54 am
content: I haven't seen a 50fps Eevblog video in quite a while. 720p50/60 looks better to me than 1080p30.It has a "real" look to it that 30fps doesn't do.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 06:44:44 am
content: Dave's update rate for videos has definitely been getting a lot slower lately.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 09:09:07 am
content: Maybe the processing and upload is taking too long.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 09:14:57 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 20, 2016, 09:09:07 amYup.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 09:25:27 am
content: not surprised, 50fps takes ages to render and makes massive uploadsi'm selective with mine, only use 50fps when the content needs it

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 06:50:07 pm
content: Quote from: Stonent on January 20, 2016, 06:41:54 amI much prefer increased resolution at the expense of frame rate. Yes, 50 fps looks nice, but there have been many times where 1080 lines of resolution has come in handy. If you watch YouTube through most TVs these days, they have varying degrees of frame interpolation to make 25 fps video look like higher frame rate (called 'Clear Frame', MotionFlow, Digital Natural Motion etc...). Of course this digital image "enhancement" isn't better than the real thing, but on the lowest setting, it actually does quite a decent job on my Philips LCD (any higher and it starts get annoying and artificial).For the EEVblog, it was a nice experiment, but not necessary.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 12:48:49 am
content: +1Fluid motion isn't a priority. Resolutionis.I want to be able to see right down the throat of the vias, which means a steady camera and good focus. Sometimes I'll even freeze frame to have a longer look, so a basic framerate is more than good enough for me.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 01:21:15 am
content: I prefer surreal over real for most videos.24fps(23.976 on some playback systems) Is great for almost everything. Use the extra bandwidth for resolution and the images are sharper - easier to see details. Temporal resolution does not help. Spatial resolution does. Taking the temporal resolution away creates more of a surreal story telling look. This is why pretty much all features and TV shows are shot 24fps. If there was a lot of motion that was critical to the story being told, maybe 30fps. 60p is high resolution 60i and looks like the nightly news - blah! Too much information.I don't watch these videos for an immersive and realistic experience, I watch them for the education and the entertainment value.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 07:58:32 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 20, 2016, 06:50:07 pmAre you saying that 1080p30 on Youtube has better resolution that 1080p50?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 08:10:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 07:58:32 amNo. I meant in relation to the original post...Quote from: Stonent on January 20, 2016, 06:41:54 amSorry, I probably wasn't very clear.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 09:40:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 07:58:32 amIt certainly is. But probably it is not because of youtube but because of using your camera in limited lighting conditions. Probably it uses more noise reduction at 50 fps and therefore washes out the details.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 09:43:09 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2016, 09:40:01 amNope, sorry. I still shoot at 50fps. I just render at 30fps. So it's not the camera.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 09:44:46 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 21, 2016, 08:10:20 amI'm still a bit confused. All my content, be it 50fps or 25/30fps is and has always been 1080p resolution.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:00:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 09:43:09 amI didn't watch your newest videos. But it certainly dropped when you moved from 30 to 50. Will check them now.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:05:24 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2016, 10:00:05 amFYI I have never shot at 30, my main camera can only do 25 or 50.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:09:11 am
content: So I briefly watched your latest videos and the quality is about the same as previous 50 fps ones. Moreover they have some artifacts, like barely visible blocking which is especially noticeable on the uniform color of your bench. They are visible on 50 fps videos too but a bit less noticeable.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:10:54 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 10:05:24 amI just thought it was 30, didn't actually check what they have been. Lets say low fps.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:24:31 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2016, 10:09:11 amThat is likely Youtube. I believe the 50/60fps youtube videos are allocated more bandwidth than regular 25/30fps videos.Nothing has changed in my transcoding process. In fact I use constant quality mode in Handbrake transcoding, so both version should be the same in terms of compression. If anything 50fps should be a bit worse because I do render a more compressed version that I do with 25fps/30fps before transcoding.In both cases the quality you see on Youtube is lower quality (more compression/artefacts) than the version I upload.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:27:15 am
content: And those artifacts are actually just horrible on the black Astro compass in #839 - Mailbag starting from the 4th minute.QuoteDunno, my own camera shoots 50fps significantly worse that 25fps.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:41:17 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2016, 10:27:15 amI don't see any artefacts here.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:45:28 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2016, 10:27:15 amI don't see any artifacts either. 1080p or 720p

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 10:56:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 10:45:28 amI switched the monitor into sRGB color space (my monitors are wide color gamut) and it becomes much less noticeable but still is there.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 11:13:21 am
content: Is firefox able to play 50fps videos yet?

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 01:01:55 pm
content: 50/60fps for a bloke standing at a whiteboard or poking at a PCB is just daft. It really is pure technology snobbery for the sake of it...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 01:46:48 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 21, 2016, 01:01:55 pmWell, no. Many people say they like the look of it better. It's very tangible to them. There is a noticeable difference.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 01:47:15 pm
content: Quote from: george graves on January 21, 2016, 11:13:21 amMine does.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 03:22:23 pm
content: Quote from: george graves on January 21, 2016, 11:13:21 amThat seems to keep changing. Sometimes Firefox offers me an 1080/50p option. Sometimes it only offers me 1080/25p or even 720/25p for the same video. Firefox gets updated frequently. I haven't tracked if these changes relate to updates, or some more mysterious factor.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 01:01:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 01:46:48 pmTo me it looks like I'm watching something more in person than something pre-recorded.

author: Dubbie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:06:08 am
content: I like the 50 fps. My day job is in vfx and I'm always a bit suspicious about all this talk about "24 fps being better for storytelling". To me, juddery pans just look crap and headache inducing, not cinematic.I applaud Dave for making such an effort with his video production. It makes an enormous difference to his viewers having such nice clear, well lit and well composed images to look at. Don't stop what you're doing Dave.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:22:27 am
content: Yes, not questioning anybody's ability to perceive a difference.However I am questioning the practical value of burning up all that bandwith (and disk space) just to make people feel slightly "better?(?) And apparently Dave agrees that the "improvement"(?) isn't worth the resources.At NAB last year they were showing experimental 8K @ 120FPS cameras and large-screen displays. It was very much like looking down at the football (AmEnglish: soccer) field through a large picture window in an expensive sky-box at the arena. But with the possible exception of the Imax crowd, nobody was seeing anything remotely approaching a positive cost/benefit ratio.But I agree that the 24FPS folks are just suffering from senile demented nostalgia.OTOH, remember also that many people objected to the release of several theatrical films in 48 FPS.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate#Criticism_and_concerns

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:51:33 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 22, 2016, 06:22:27 amThat's a completely different issue. 48fps movies have a lot of critics because 48fps makes things a lot more realistic, and that makes scary bits a lot more scary. The artefacts of 24fps seem to keep people's minds constantly aware that they are not watching reality. It helps reduce the cost of clearing up vomit in cinemas.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:57:26 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 22, 2016, 06:22:27 amHmmmm.....so pretty much all feature films are 24fps. Peter Jackson experimented with 48fps but that never went anywhere. 24fps is the de-facto standard for feature films. Also, for TV 24fps is used on nearly all of the big shows and commercials. Soaps, parades, the news, sports all make use of higher frame rates that are almost always interlaced. So, 25fps is actually 50fps in low resolution. 30fps is actually 60fps in low resolution. You gain a whole lot of temporal resolution at the expense of resolution and for live TV, it works. It also fits the installed infrastructure.With YouTube, there is no standard. You can choose whatever frame rate/resolution combo from a long list of options. For a given bandwidth, you have to balance fps and resolution to suit the need. In the case of Dave's video, I have never had the slightest complaint. If I were going to analyze what to do with allowed bandwidth, I would prioritize spacial resolution over temporal resolution because the details of images are more important to me than the motion accuracy. If you have a fixed bandwidth, 1080/24fps will be sharper than 1080/60fps. As the compression ratio climbs, the sharpness falls. If there is a lot of motion, the resolution gained with 24fps will be lost as a temporal blur and higher frame rate may be a better option.While the vast majority of my work has been pursuing an artistic endeavor - movies, TV shows, documentaries. I can appreciate the core task of communicating, and Dave does that very well. (Good job Dave). I don't think 24fps should be considered for artistic flair (although I could come out and light the lab to look like Greys Anatomy), I was only mentioning it because the majority of shots are lock-offs and they would benefit by being a little sharper. It's splitting hairs a little bit but again I have spent many thousands of hours 'pixel peeping' and critically evaluating images for some of the biggest cinematographers in Hollywood.Quote from: Dubbie on January 22, 2016, 06:06:08 amI am guessing you are young. Well over a century of 24fps cinema material and it absolutely dominates the entertainment industry today and shows no sign of changing.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:02:12 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2016, 06:51:33 amI don't think it is about being scary, it's about having realistic imagery combined with a fictional story. The audience wants to feel like they are in a story, not a reality show. If a romantic comedy was shot and displayed at 48fps, the audience would feel like they are watching a soap opera on daytime TV.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:07:06 am
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on January 22, 2016, 07:02:12 amThere have been tests showing that a lot more people rate scary or violent scenes as over the top when they were shown the high frame rate version, so it seems to be an important factor. My main point was, though, that story telling and the needs of technical presentations are largely unrelated.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:37:52 am
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on January 22, 2016, 06:57:26 amYoutube doesnotgive you all the options, and from my viewpoint that is a major problem.If my browser supports 50fps (Chrome & Firefox do) then ionlyget the 50fps option for 720p and 1080p. I don't get the option for 25p or 30p to save bandwidth.use another browser that does not support high frame rate, and Youtube will then happily serve 25 or 30fps.This sucks, because it feels like I'm forcing people to watch 50fps.QuoteI agree. If I had to chose between uploading 4K 25fps and 1080p 60fps (assuming no edit/time/storage penalty), then I'd choose 4K 25fps.

author: Dubbie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:44:52 am
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on January 22, 2016, 06:57:26 amSorry, the 25fps was a typo, I meant 24 of course.I'm not that young, I have over 15 years experience making shots for film and advertising.I think different people perceive things differently. To me, the artifacts of moving image capture are just artifacts, not a desirable property to be fetishised, but I'm well aware that I share the minority opinion here.I can't wait till the day I can see something like The Revenant in 8K at 120fps!Anyway as far as Dave is concerned, I think for EEVblog, spatial resolution is more important than temporal. If we don't have to sacrifice one, even better!Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:47:47 am
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on January 22, 2016, 06:57:26 amWhy bother with that outdated form of "lossy compression"? It's not like the extra full frames actually use very much more bandwidth given they would compress very well. If there's still some reason to send half frames, a "checkerboard" split introduces less obvious artifacts.And while a Nvidia GPU works nicely to deinterlace, who actually wants more GPU load? Not to mention that mobile devices are inherently far less capable than modern PCs.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:48:47 am
content: Quote from: Dubbie on January 22, 2016, 07:44:52 amI agree.Although I am not the least bit convinced that 1080p 25fps offers any more resolution over 1080p 50fps.On my main camera 25fps (that I used for a long time) has a maximum bit rate of 17Mbps, and 50fps (that I use now) is 28Mbps.I still shoot in 50fps, but lately I've been lazy and rendering in 30fps instead.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:52:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 22, 2016, 07:37:52 amDoesn't that keep changing? Sometimes high and low frame rate options are offered in the selection box, and sometimes they aren't. I think its the NTSC system - Never Twice the Same Combination on offer.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 08:42:53 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2016, 07:52:09 amI've never seen an option for anything but 50fps since I made the switch. I use chrome almost exclusively.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 09:16:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 22, 2016, 08:42:53 amI mostly use Firefox. That's where I see the list on offer changing.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 10:08:15 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 22, 2016, 07:48:47 amYoutube usually(always?) offers a better compression to the higher res videos - I'm sure they up it for faster frame rate - to what extent - who knows. You can upscale a 480 video to 720 or 1080, it will look better even viewed at 480. (handy trick if you are stuck with 480 archival footage you want the best quality out of - say for a EEVBLOG back up channel??)As far as shooting at 50fps and rendering at 30 - that's leads to frame blending, and artifacts *usually*. I have no clue what the codec/method youtube is using, and most likely if you asked them they wouldn't tell you anyways. Not that I've noticed anything, so they have something sneakey going on. Not that I really pay attention to the video quality - I'm just here for the content and learning. I could care less if it was in 3D and surround sound.Quote from: Dubbie on January 22, 2016, 06:06:08 amI do to! But always room for improvement. If I was local to him, I would sneak into his lab and set up some hair lights when he wasn't looking. Just to give the talking head shots a less of a "flat as a pancake" look.Quote from: Delta on January 21, 2016, 01:01:55 pmTrue words have never been spoken. But hey, he's having fun - so I say let him do what he wants.Heheheheh I guess there is an argument for future proofing? But IIRC upload speed is a bottle neck.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 10:11:09 am
content: Quote from: george graves on January 22, 2016, 10:08:15 amI assume that also leads to horribly slow rendering times. Wouldn't 50fps->25fps involve a lot less crunching of the data, while also leading to slightly smaller files?

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 10:14:31 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2016, 10:11:09 amDepends on if you're doing it on your end or youtube's. They could toss a frame, or they could frame blend 2 frames for a 50 to 25 fps conversion. If it's 25 to 30, there is most likely frame blending going on, and that will increase render times on the "clients" side.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 11:26:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2016, 10:24:31 amout of interest Dave, what do you have the quality set to in handbrake?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 11:40:34 am
content: Quote from: dexters_lab on January 22, 2016, 11:26:27 amAn overly generous 19.Upoad speed isn't a concern for me any more, and file size is still small in comparison to the raw files I keep.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 11:42:06 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2016, 10:11:09 amNope, no difference doing 50->30 or 50->25

author: nowlan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 12:25:16 pm
content: I figured 50/60 fps would disappear once we moved away from pal/ntsc.To add insult i watch most of my youtube @ 360p for talking heads.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 01:49:22 pm
content: It's still a good idea to record in either 25fps or 50fps if you're in a country that uses 50 Hz mains frequency (like Australia is, or Europe). It helps prevent flicker caused by incandescent light bulbs, crt screens, anything that fluctuates with the mains frequency... here's an example:Cameras are getting smarter and auto detect these artefacts and reduce them a lot these days, but it still makes sense to use the proper framerate.As for what Youtube gives you... you'll get different video formats depending on the browser.On Chrome, Youtube should default to VP9, then fall back to h264. Firefox doesn't have VP9 decoder so you only get h264.Then, what resolution+fps combos you get will depend on whether you use the html5 player or the Flash player (you can force to use only HTML5 player from youtube options/preferences)50/60 fps options take much longer to encode so they may only appear much later.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 02:01:20 pm
content: Just pulled up a 1080 50fps video to see - indeed, Dave is correct, there is no option offered. I can select 1080 50fps or 720 50fps but cannot select any other HD resolution at a lesser frame rate. YouTube does not give the choice. Checked in a few browsers - same deal. If the video is uploaded in 50fps, that's your only viewing option if the browser supports 50fps. Your only bandwidth-saving options are to view is lesser resolutions.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 10:16:26 pm
content: What's your typical upload file size Dave? At 50fps on my channel I've never really had less than 5GB

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:19:31 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 22, 2016, 10:16:26 pmSounds like you aren't using constant quality like Handbrake x264 does?Although it depends highly upon the content. I have very little moving content, so compression is good.Only my big 1hr+ ones would be close to that size. Usually a few GB.Ones with screen capture are ridiculously small.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:20:50 am
content: Quote from: rrinker on January 22, 2016, 02:01:20 pmi don't know why this limitation exist, it's stupid. Youtube have obviously already transcoded the 25/30fps version, so why not make it an option?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:32:59 am
content: Quote from: mariush on January 22, 2016, 01:49:22 pmHe's using high quality LED lighting that does not flicker.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 05:47:21 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 22, 2016, 10:16:26 pmNote how ones with a lot of moving content like the Synchrotron one are much bigger than ones of the same length like Jack GanssleAnd screen capture ones like the MPLABX rant compress ridiculously well because the information on the screen is the same from frame to frame, no noise, no single pixel camera wobbles etc.That's the beauty of constant quality compression in x264.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:31:21 am
content: Thanks for the info, very interesting. I'm using the output straight from Adobe which says CBR 28 Mbps. Might have a play with some settings

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 09:18:51 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 23, 2016, 08:31:21 amYep, that's Constant Bit Rate. Great for rendering (best quality), but poor for upload or final distribution.When I render 50fps from Sony it's at 26Mbps CBRIf I render at 25/30fps I use XDCAM EX (because it's ridiculously fast) at a variable bit rate of 35Mbps.In both cases I do a final transcode with Handbrake.My problem with slow 50fps rendering is that XDCAM EX only support 50fps at 1280x720. So I'm forced to use the much much slower Sony AVC codec.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 09:45:18 am
content: Thanks again. I'll try running it through Handbrake as a final step

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 12:19:53 pm
content: If you have lots of disk space, you can install a lossless codec likeMagicYUV(freeware until 1.1, 1.2 is "pay what you want", even $1) and render the video to AVI using the Magicyuv codec. Then, run it through handbrake.MagicYUV will compress at faster than realtime when rendering but it will take a few GB of disk space per minute of video.. it's superfast when decoding so overall the export+re-compression is much faster and you don't lose quality by encoding the video 2 times through a lossy format (through at bitrates like 25-35mbps vbr the losses are minimal)

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 02:07:33 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 22, 2016, 11:40:34 amthanks, i'm much more aggressive at 24it's not so much the file size for me, it's the fact that youtube has no bandwidth limit when uploading so it just murders my entire home internet connection while its uploading. It would be nice to have some kind of upload bandwidth limiter on the upload page

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 02:53:12 pm
content: Quote from: dexters_lab on January 23, 2016, 02:07:33 pmDo you have QoS on your Internet gateway or router?

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 23, 2016, 02:53:12 pmyes i'm using dd-wrt, but it's not very flexible and i've never got it to work properly

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:34:49 pm
content: DD-WRT was pretty fully featured last time I used it. It should allow you to set bandwidth limits when you upload to certain hosts, or alternatively reserve traffic for other devices on the network.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 05:04:21 pm
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 23, 2016, 04:34:49 pmdoesn't appear to be the case on my build, which is quite old and they dont update it for my hardware anymore

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 05:39:39 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 23, 2016, 09:18:51 amNot always, if a scene requires a lot of bandwith the quality will be turned down until the rate is hit. Similarly if the scene requires little bandwidth the quality will be turned up - but possibly with little perceptual increase in quality.You can mitigate this with two pass but depending on the content you can't compensate all the time.CBR is very important for broadcast - you have a fixed bandwidth pipe and need to know that your stream will fit in it. Actually several streams are mormally multiplexed together so you can trade bandwidth between streams a bit - which is useful as the real time encoders used are single pass.Rendering is better using constant quality - which I think is, in fact, what Dave does when processing. Constant quality is also fine for download. For streaming the best choice is "mostly constrant quality" but with a cap on peak bandwidth.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 12:23:05 pm
content: At one point youtube was using VBR to send out to it's player for sure. As movie trailers would often studder/skip frames during complex parts (explosions and pans)While we're on the topic.......guess who had the (second) largest numbers of hours of video on youtube back in the day? Me and a client of mine! Woot. Some chick that did anime was number 1 at the time. A few months later our +200 hours were eclipsed by others.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 07:42:46 pm
content: I can't recall where I read it, but I believe it will depend on your internet speed at the time as to which format options you'll see. If Youtube thinks your connection won't sustain 50/60fps then it won't give you the option. My internet connection at my previous place was pretty ordinary at times and I wouldn't always get 50/60P or 4K options.Also, Youtube's recommendations for file formats/specs can be found here:https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 10:23:04 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 24, 2016, 09:41:24 pmBest practice in video production. Just avoids unnecessary processing and loss of quality (although to most users, it's not noticable or they don't care). When I was a lot more active in the field, it could take hours to set cameras up properly depending on what we were doing. If you can adjust it in-camera in the first instance, it saves time in post (especially stuff like white/black balancing).The only exception to that is to shoot in the highest resolution possible so you always have the best quality "master" (even if your end product ends up being 720P or DVD quality). The only time I've shot in 720P from the start was when we had a particularly long shoot, little opportunity to dump memory cards to a hard disk and the product was destined for live internet broadcasting with some DVD stuff later.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 10:28:37 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on January 23, 2016, 05:39:39 pmI can't control what Youtube does to the video after I upload it, Youtubealwaystranscodes it. So as a Youtuber it's best to simply use the quality setting that works best for me locally. In fact the Youtube quality you see (regardless of setting) is less than what I upload, so tweaking my settings is actually of no help unless Youtube increase their bandwidth and transcoding quality (which they often do and it goes unnoticed)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 10:37:39 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 24, 2016, 07:42:46 pmTo give you an idea of how crap Youtube's quality actually is, this is what thye recommend for constant bit rate:Quote8Mbps for full HD is crazy low!My cam (and almost all others) will shoot 24Mbps in best quality mode, 17Mbps in slightly reduced "standard" quality mode (which I shot at for many years to save file size), and 5Mbps for seriously low quality mode which I occasionally used for very long multi-hour live shows.And 12Mbps for 1080p 60 fps!Again, my camera shoots standard 28Mbps in 50fps mode.This is why no matter what you tweak in your render/transcode setting locally it always going to be streets ahead of what Youtube shows.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 10:41:12 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 24, 2016, 10:23:04 pmI do almost everything in-camera. Any Youtuber who produces a lot of regular content who does everything in editing is a fool, it's a such a time waster.

author: encryptededdy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 03:47:13 am
content: Depending on the camera, the 50/60fps mode can indeed be lower resolution than the 25/30fps mode. This is generally moreso the case with large sensor / high resolution cameras.eg. on my Sony a7s, in 25/30fps mode the camera does "full pixel readout" which means the entire 12 megapixel sensor is read out and downscaled to 1080p (2 megapixels) in the processor. However in 50/60fps mode, the camera cannot read out the full sensor fast enough. Instead it does "line skipping" where only 1080 lines of the sensor are read out in order to generate the 1080p image. While in both cases 2 megapixels of information is read out, when running in full pixel readout mode the camera delivers better quality because it's averaging multiple pixels, thus reducing noise and moire artefacts etc.While on the a7s is still good since it still reads out 1080 lines of resolution nomatter the frame rate, some cameras output 1080p images but don't readout all 1080 lines **cough cough CANON**Both the Canon C100 (left) and Canon 5Diii (right) are "1080p" cameras, however the C100 actually reads out 1080 lines from the sensor, whereas the 5Diii reads ~800-900 lines (IIRC), thereby creating a softer image.I believe the C100 also reads out <1080 lines when it's running at 60fps.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 11:32:21 am
content: Quote from: encryptededdy on January 26, 2016, 03:47:13 amMaybe the case for SLR type cameras which are not designed specifically for video, but this is not the case for a proper video camera.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 11:58:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 24, 2016, 10:41:12 pmThis applies to anything photographic. I do a lot of still work and it's the same deal. Get it right in the camera and save yourself a bucketload of effort in post production.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:10:10 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 24, 2016, 10:23:04 pmprobably also help prevent the awkward jitter you get when you change from 30fps to 25, though editing software is much better at fitting the frames and not just lopping out 5 consecutive frames every second which is how it used to work

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:20:41 pm
content: You really shouldn't mix frame rates. Temporal stuff is a bitch. Intelligent frame interpolation does cause a tax to the processing time. So if there is not processing time hit, it makes me think it's throwing out frames or just quickly blending them. Not that I've noticed.Quote from: EEVblog on January 24, 2016, 10:28:37 pmSorry if I mentioned this before (?) but if you're looking for a relatively cheap online back up method, you might get a Vimeo pro account. Yea, not as a way to distribute, just as a second, third or forth back up. I use it to upload 1080p content, and the nice thing is (I think you have to have a pro account for this) is that yes, they transcode your video for playback, but they give you a link to the original uploaded video for free(no compression - same as your upload). It's kinda win/win assuming you're not pinching pennies to pay for it. ($17 a month - blah - cheap as chips!)Reason being - I'm not sure if you've been following the horror stories of some you-tubers that have their account deleted - or put on probation. One guy recently had a two year old video flagged for "Community Guideline Strike", and with some of your rants about religion and kickstarter projects(batterizer/solar roadways), it could easily happen to you by some hater(s). All it would take is X number of complaints and you're screwed.This guy got his wrist slapped by ebay by just a few complaints for "hate speech" but they banished him from uploading videos longer then 15 mins - and missed out on a lot of money. Scary stuff if you're making a living on youtube. You might want to watch this:WARNING - lots of cussing in the video

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 01:28:23 pm
content: Vimeo is a far better platform in many ways when compared to Youtube. I guess the big question for Dave is, does having the videos hosted on Youtube bring in the dollars? Of course he'd get more hits from people who aren't members of his forum. Then again, I wonder if the guys at Vimeo would consider giving Dave a free pro account to get his business (and a large part of his viewers)?It might be an interesting experiment to compare the two. Upload videos to both platforms over the next few months and see what the stats say?

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 01:48:29 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 26, 2016, 01:28:23 pmA.) Vimeo studders all the time. They don't have the backbone youtube does.b.) Vimeo doesn't pay at all - unless you charge per video. And see how well that is working for AvE on youscrew. As far as I know, it's backfired - but he hasn't shared his income - I do love his videos. See a really awesome chanel like SV Seeker (if you haven't you should) - the guy is building a huge steal boat, and documenting it on youtube

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 02:15:09 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 26, 2016, 01:28:23 pmDave did a video a while back about using Dailymotion instead, most of the points are likely to be valid for Vimeo. I don't know anyone that looks at Dailymotion or Vimeo in all honesty.I'm pretty sure advertising in various forms and donations are Dave's back-up. No smart person would rely on YouTube for the majority of their income.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 06:26:13 pm
content: I watched the 'Eli The Computer Guy' rant, what a bummer but predictable. You Tube is not a democracy. Its a business that can do whatever they want. Whatever bitrate, whatever privacy policy, whatever content grading.What the world needs is a revenue platform that is not integrated into one video service. Dave can't do this for free and YouTube is a dangerous platform. Vimeo is a great video hosting service used primarily by creative professional to distribute entertainment content. Most of my entertainment business co-workers forgot about YouTube years ago. None of them, however, have any revenue tied to the views/likes of their videos. They are using the videos as online resumes to get other work. Not really practical for EEV Blog or any other channel like it - where the content is the final product.If YouTube continues a heavy handed approach to managing channels, A new solution will rise from it's ashes. A distributed platform that no one entity controls and back feeds the advertisers data for real revenue. If your ISP get angry, move to another. If your ad portal gets angry, move to another. Having the YouTube secret high court over my head all the time would be awful . There is no immediate solution today, but it's not far off. There is too much money in play for it to be ignored.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 12:18:56 am
content: Most of my youtube viewing I do on 720p at standard frame rates. Yeah the quality could be better, but it makes it much faster for skipping content, when I am looking for a particular part, or I am not interested in something and I want to skip. If I want to analyse something in detail I will bump it up but that's rare.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 12:46:23 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 26, 2016, 01:28:23 pmOf course it does, it's the only game in town.http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/eevblogTake the upper side of that figure.Name one person who makes a full time living on Vimeo.QuoteThat's the entire point of being on Youtube. Half of my daily views come from random searches.Move to vimeo and that drops to zero, and the number of remaining followers who keep watching would drop by probably 90%I'm probably in a unique position in that I would likely survive if Youtube booted me, at least for a good while. But it would be bad, Youtube is the only game in town.QuoteI used to have a Pro account.QuoteI guarantee you it won't even get 1% of the views.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 12:49:13 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 26, 2016, 02:15:09 pmYoutube has never been my only source of income (unlike maybe 95% of full time Youtubers). That's how I was able to go full time with only 10,000 subscribers.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 12:59:10 am
content: BTW, to upload my existing content to Vimeo would require the $529/year plan, otherwise it's a limit of around 8 videos (20GB) a weekBut I guess it is cheap insurance as a high quality backup and I've been meaning to do it for a long time.Dailymotion sucked arse. They offered to copy all my videos from Youtube, descriptions, keywords, everything, no work on my part, said they had an agreement in place with Youtube to do it. Sure enough it worked, but was 720p only and the quality sucked.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 12:26:26 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 27, 2016, 12:59:10 amYea, do the cheap plan, 20 GB a week is still worth it - unless they go belly up. How knows if they are making money.Quote from: rx8pilot on January 26, 2016, 06:26:13 pmOh sure, like there real competitor to ebay, amazon, facebook or paypal - unlike most businesses where there is a top 3 that battle for 90 percent of the market - there is a monopoly on the internet - for good or for bad - youtube it it. (And I'm speaking in the US - yes, I know all about Alibaba, asian version of FB and youtube , and yes, I know you can send money in other ways - that's not what I'm talking about)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 01:11:16 pm
content: Quote from: george graves on January 27, 2016, 12:26:26 pmThe "cheap" plan is $219/year

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 08:09:35 am
content: Ok, once again have Vimeo Pro account and all existing videos are being uploading.Well, #450-current as that's all that fitted on a portable hard drive to someone who has unlimited internet connectionhttps://vimeo.com/eevblogCould take days to process them all of course.So I will now have a high quality online backupNo descriptions, links, keywords etc though, just the original file name as the title.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 11:01:22 pm
content: Got this message on Vimeo:Seems it does like VBR using Handbrake (with RF=19), think the file isn't very high quality

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:50:17 am
content: 1920 x 1088 video?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:29:11 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on February 04, 2016, 08:50:17 amI missed that!Seems Vimeo is rather confused by industry standard video files

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:31:43 am
content: Anyway, 400+ videos uploaded and processed now.Got a few videos that had unknown video processing errors, will have the re-upload those.Another batch of the older video still to come, but otherwise looking pretty good:https://vimeo.com/eevblog/videos

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:40:26 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 04, 2016, 09:31:43 amWhy did you tag all the titles with "1920x1080" when vimeo is serving them at a variety of resolutions?

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:49:27 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 04, 2016, 09:40:26 amPresumably this is his local filename structure and Vimeo has just used these as the video titles.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 10:58:01 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 04, 2016, 09:40:26 amIt's in the file name. Vimeo just puts the filename as the title, unless you change it. I ain't going and changing 800+ titles

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 12:41:17 pm
content: I have used one calledThe Rename.A free utility with pattern matching replacement of filenames and a lot of other stuff that I haven't explored.and as far as I can tell, has not introduced anything nasty on my machine (and I do keep an eye out as well as using antivirus software.)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 12:44:42 pm
content: .... but the question is: Is a rename really necessary?

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 12:52:56 pm
content: Documenting the release resolution is an important tag for internal management purposes.But it just takes up valuable space as the public TITLE of the video.And if the distribution mechanism allows for multiple resolutions (like YouTube and Vimeo) it just causes confusion.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 01:09:17 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on February 04, 2016, 12:35:55 pmI'm not going to delete and reupload 400 videos.And even if I did, the filenames don't have spaces in them anyway, so it's still wouldn't be right.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 01:11:07 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on February 04, 2016, 12:58:53 pmI did not do it. Dailymotion said they would take care of everything and port everything across from Youtube (they did). But the quality and resolution sucked, that wasn't my fault.