Video editors, editing WMM, VSDC ect - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 01:33:58 pm
content: Since I started my YouTube channel I got hooked on Windows Movie maker.As we all know, I am still a noob to all this video making editing and YouTube stuff.So when I started I ran into a guy that showed a lot of cool stuff (The Meejah channel) and it sort of stuck with me since he had a nice tutorial on WMM.But I think it is time to upgrade to something better. One reason is when I upload a video to YouTube I always see a message that says this:"Your videos will process faster if you encode them into a streamable file format."But WMM gives no other file format to save and upload with. Yes I have researched this but may have missed something.I have a decent upload speed here but sometimes it takes my videos longer to upload than what I think it should. One of my last videos I did yesterday is still in the process of uploading. I started it last night and it appears to have just stopped. (Large video) I had to restart it and now at 65% 103 minutes remaining.I have searched the internet but as we all know there is a lot of bias on what editors to use. But I know a lot of you good folks are also video bloggers and I trust your knowledge.Not ready to purchase anything yet (got no money) so like to hear what others are using, how you like it, and why you use it.I did download VSDC free editor from Meejah this morning but have not tried it yet.

author: IanJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 02:19:51 pm
content: I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD V11.0 (not free).I have tried upgrading to Sony Movie Studio Platinum V13.0 (same or similar to what Dave uses) but prefer V11.0 as the desktop player is a lot smoother in V11 for some reason.The cheapest in the range is £32.95http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegassoftwareIan.

author: vinicius.jlantunes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 02:45:40 pm
content: I use blender, as WMM does not work well in Windows 10 so I was forced to find an alternative. Blender is not exactly a video editing software, it's much more than that; video editing is just one of its "modules".It's free.https://www.blender.org/It was a bit complicated at first as it is not as intuitive as WMM, but then I watched this guy videos' (Mikeycal) and now I can do all I need. Here is the playlist on youtube:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjyuVPBuorqIhlqZtoIvnAVQ3x18sNev4The only thing I find missing for my use is ability to add text captions more easily / with more control. It does have a "add text" option but it doesn't allow you to choose fonts etc...Other than that it's good enough.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 02:55:27 pm
content: While at the same time throwing a recommendation forhttp://www.openshot.org/I've got to ask if WMM does everything you need except for outputting the right video formats why not just stick with that and find a video converter you like?

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 03:07:12 pm
content: I'm also using Sony Vegas to edit my videos.Cheaper (yet very similar to Vegas) software would be Sony's Movie Studio :http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/homestudioThe latest version (13) is around $50 but the previous versions (v12 or v11) are still available on sites like Amazon :http://amzn.to/1od4wv3(v11 retail / box is $12 .. seriously cheap)v11 is new enough to work quite well with hd content but you can see for yourself how different they are if you want, you can download trial versions from the sony link above.

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 03:39:19 pm
content: Wow, lots of cool replies. thanks all. I will look into each one. Perhaps a paid program is the way to go since my channel is growing.Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 14, 2016, 02:55:27 pmSee, that right there is the stuff I have to learn. like I said I am still a noob when it comes to this stuff. Going to look into converters and see what I can find.Thanks very much for all the great comments folks.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 03:59:03 pm
content: If you are willing to go through a 2 part process use Handbrake.fr to convert to a YT format, as they have a built in conversion to the YT MKV format. Takes pretty much any video file and converts it, and works well.

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 04:06:00 pm
content: Thanks Seanb I will look into that also. I know there are betters ways than the way I am used to. Just have to learn more

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 11:30:51 pm
content: I personally use Adobe Premiere and very occasionally Avid, but I don't suggest you run out and buy either of those for a YouTube channel.You could try OpenShot Video Editor which is free and open source. It originally started as a Kickstarter project a few years ago. It's quite powerful for a free program:http://www.openshot.org/. It's interface is very similar to other bigger non-linear editing packages so it's also a great way to learn.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 11:37:30 pm
content: I ran across a few web postings that indicated WMM could export to formats other than .wmv, are you sure you don't just need to change some options?If that's not the case, then Handbrake (free) can convert just about anything to x.264 (AVC/AAC) in either .mp4 or .mkv container format. The original will have to be re-encoded in the process.

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 12:15:27 am
content: Halcyon. thanks, I will look at that also.Yes I do not want to spend major bucks at the moment to do this. Mu last video was over 5gb. Biggest one yet. Seems it times out before it finishes the upload. Thinking a better format would be the choice.rdl,I looked but every posting I found said no. So think the converter may be the way to go.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 12:36:08 am
content: It may not have the extensive tutorials of other software but the price is right:https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/products/davinciresolveThe editing is only recent but already very capable, text/captions/image overlays are all simple enough (not drag and drop). What impressed me was the speed of the output rendering, having waited hours for Final Cut to render outputs it was a surprise to see it all happen realtime or faster.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:13:34 am
content: I may be out of the price bracket with the product I use - Cyberlink's PowerDirector. Lots of features. Lots of tracks. I've used hardly any of the features, but I feel I've got my money's worth. You can get it packaged with other companion software or on its own for around $US80, I think.Multiple formats - and it can publish direct to Youtube.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:21:05 am
content: I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio, because at the time when I switched to HD it was the quickest editor out there in terms of playback and rendering (if you chose the right format) on the machine I had.Not perfect, no package is, but it's what I'm familiar with.I used to use Corel VideoStudio for my first few hundred videos, it was a decent cheap package.Have also used NCH Video Pad a few times, and I think it's really good for basic editing work. I had format corruption problems though, A bug they never seemed to fix last I checked. But worth a look for the price, the interface is easy-peasy.Have also tried almost every other video editor on the planet, including the fanboy favourite Adobe Premiere. I found the usability of Premiere horrible for the workflow I'm used to.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:22:54 am
content: Quote from: Radio Tech on February 15, 2016, 12:15:27 amYou should not be uploading 5GB video to Youtube.Use Handbrake (x264) to compress the video using Constant Quality mode first:https://www.eevblog.com/2013/04/16/designing-a-silent-cheap-video-editing-pc/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:25:51 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 15, 2016, 12:36:08 amOn Sony Movie Studio I get about x4-x5 real-time rendering speed to XDCAM EX at 30fps. 50fps is horribly slow because it has to use the Sony AVC codec.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:41:50 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 01:25:51 amThe comparison was rendering to industry standard H.264 (prores) on consumer computers while running colour correction, no doubt there are faster options with other considerations or just exporting without any processing.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:51:17 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 15, 2016, 01:41:50 amYes, huge difference is you have to do any processing.But if you have to do any colour, whitebalance, or other processing for youtube videos, then I must say that you are doing it wrong. You shouldn't have to do these things, get it all right in-camera.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 02:56:33 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 01:51:17 amYou say its wrong, others disagree, manipulation of video is just another option for producing video. Only the very high end production cameras have enough in camera controls to produce broadcast deliverables straight up (TV uses these extensively to reduce expenses in the workflow) and you can improve the information in a video by utilising its possibilities rather than presenting "auto" from a camera.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 03:32:55 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 15, 2016, 02:56:33 amYou mentioned producing Youtube videos, I know a thing or two about thatLooking at your Youtube channel there is nothing that can't be done in-camera, just like I do it.If you are talking commercial TV video production etc, then I know nothing about that, but yes, plenty of reason to do stuff in editing.I do practically everything in-camera, and you don't need a high end camera to do so. At least not for Youtube video.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 04:11:45 am
content: I dont recall making any link to any youtube channels, unless you've got some backend access to link google accounts?Lots of different people work in different ways, its arrogant to claim yours is the one true way and every other possibility is wrong.

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:22:20 am
content: Great stuff everyone.Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 01:22:54 amUntil this thread. I never even heard of Handbrake. Told ya I was still a noob.Interesting stuff and gives me a lot of research to do. Most of my videos are short, around 2GB, This one was the longest one I ever done.Now I know I can find better options.Thanks Mate

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:25:56 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 15, 2016, 04:11:45 amThe OP mentioned Youtube.Sorry I confused you with the OP.QuoteI claimed no such thing. Just saying that I know a thing or two about Youtube video production.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:35:58 am
content: Quote from: Radio Tech on February 15, 2016, 10:22:20 amBasically it comes down to the quality available on youtube.Even if you have the world's best video camera, and you render to 1TB of uncompressed raw video (some of my videos could be!) and upload that to youtube, the playback quality will be no better than a version heavily compressed (that is 1/100th the files size) with Handbrake and uploaded.Handbrake is so good, even the standard quality factor, it's almost impossible to tell the difference from the original footage. More than good enough for Youtube and almots any other platform.The standard constant quality factor on Handbrake is 21 or 22, and I use 19 which is really guilding the lilly, for no good reason than because I can.The final file size will depend upon how much moving content is in your videos. My screen capture videos for example compress down to ridiculously small files sizes, with no loss in quality. On the other hand, one of my outdoors video with tons of motion and tress and whatnot won't compress well at all, in which case I usually don't even bother with Handbrake, I just upload the rendered version.But most of my videos though get maybe a 5 fold decrease in file size by using Handbrake over what I render in.I do not archive the rendered version, only the Handbrake version I upload.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:39:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 01:51:17 amThere is a simple principle involved in ANY photographic pursuit: Get your raw shoot material as close as possible to finished quality as you can. Post production processing is an inordinate waste of time if you have to correct for things you could have (and should have) captured properly at the shoot. Getting it right straight into the camera will produce a better quality result, too. I believe THIS is what Dave is saying.Editing and adding special effects are different - but even then, less is more - IMHO.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 11:32:43 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on February 15, 2016, 10:39:20 amThat's exactly what I'm saying.Anothermassivelyimportant thing to do is to shoot your clipsin order. No messing about ordering stuff in editing.

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 11:39:18 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 10:35:58 amGood information Dave.So with everything said then I think I may have a plan in place. My videos have very little action shots. Not a lot of movement unless I pan from the unit under test to a shot of the test gear, but even then I would like to use a separate camera to capture that shot and overlay that onto the video. See you do that a lot and the results look great.So my plan is to continue using WMM. ( since I like the way it works)Get a converter to change the format.Study up on handbrake.ThoughtsThanks for all this information.

author: madalf71
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 12:09:07 pm
content: A newbie to video editing as well.I was recently shown Camtasia, seems user friendly.Anyone used it, have any thoughts?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:48:11 pm
content: Quote from: madalf71 on February 15, 2016, 12:09:07 pmI haven't dipped my toe into that pond yet, but I am interested in what responses you get....

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 07:07:42 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 11:32:43 amTo add to Brumby and Dave's excellent advice:I've been using Womble for years to prepare videos for my YouTube channel. It will do DIRECT STREAM COPY editing which means no wasted time transcoding/re-encoding raw edits, saving a huge amount of time.http://www.womble.com/. I believe it can handle MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 direct streamcopy editing, but will let you edit other formats as well since it just uses the system's codecs (but will need to re-encode).My Sony camcorder outputs MPEG-1 directly to the built-in hard drive. With Womble, I can take all the videos and do chops and edits and transitions and I output to the same MPEG format/bitrate (Womble detects input and automatically lets you choose output to be same). The only re-encoding going on are the transitions (fades, edits, effects), or if you are playing with the audio (volume boosting or editing) it will re-encode audio but that is fast. Like this...Meanwhile, all the video bits in-between gets copied unmodified. This is tremendously fast and also no change in quality from the source. At that point, you need to ask yourself this....1. is it worth compressing it down to MP4 using Handbrake or FFMPEG before uploading... or....2. is my bandwidth and DL/UL limits big enough to just upload the original MPG and let YouTube handle itI find most of the time #2... I would waste more time trying to re-encode or compress down my MPG files than just uploading the entire thing to YouTube. And I have enough bandwidth and monthly limits that I didn't care to upload a file that was 2x the size. YouTube would then do all the necessary compressions if needed. In fact, in the time it took for me to convert my video to MP4 and upload it, I could upload my original MPG video and re-download the resulting MP4 file from YouTube using a YouTube downloader!Bottom line.... Your camera may output MP4, MOV or other format. Try to get an editor that does direct video stream editing if possible for that format to avoid wasting time transcoding/re-encoding, and upload the resulting file to YouTube without bothering to shrink it down if your bandwidth is faster than your computer (which is my case). If your computer is a speed-demon and have crappy slow bandwidth, it may be worth compressing it locally. I prefer using YouTube to do it.Now.... I have several cameras I use besides the Sony. Some output AVI, some output MP4, some output MOV... I still find myself converting my files with "ffmpeg" to MPEG-1 at a very high bitrate (same or higher than the source) so that I could use Womble to edit the MPEGs. I know MPEG-1 is not particularly good compression-wise, but if you use a high quality factor it shouldn't lead to any degradation of the video. Then I let Womble do all the streamcopy editing at blazingly fast speeds, add my transitions and so on, and then upload the resulting MPEG.I still come out ahead this way than trying to use an editor that can handle AVI, MP4, MOV, MPG and other formats using the system codecs and transcoding/re-encoding everything, without telling me that direct streamcopy is available. At least Womble tells me before I hit "Process" a complete timeline showing me what portions of the video are going to be re-encoded, what portions are streamcopied for both audio and video. Streamcopy is just incredible if you can get away with it and get your sources all lined up to the same parameters...No issue if using output from same camera, but if you have to combine videos from various cameras/sources with different resolutions, formats, etc... best to create some batch over-night conversion of all your raw project data into the same common stream so you can do all your editing that way. Just pick the largest bitrate and resolution of your intended output and get everything to be common.Another reason this is important is because sometimes you spend 20 minutes rendering your video and you notice you have a glitch or you forgot to snip something.... Now you have to waste another 20 minutes to reprocess your video. With streamcopy editing, you fix up your glitch and within a few seconds the output is done again because it is just COPYING blazingly fast. No re-encoding!

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 08:53:13 pm
content: MPEG-1 is really ancient, above 352x288 it shouldn't be used.You probably mean MPEG-2, it was normal for cameras to record SD content in MPEG-2. Nowadays higher end cameras still record HD in MPEG-2 but at high bitrates (60-100mbps) and with uncompressed PCM stereo sound. However, for Youtube and other not so sensitive material, it's easier to record in h264 at up to 20-25 mbps, especially if you want to keep the original footage besides the edited video.h264 is much more complex compared to mpeg-2, and without knowing the exact encoding parameters, it's difficult if not impossible to direct copy a section of the stream and re-encode a segment.If your editing software renders the project once to a file with h264, it would know the exact encoding settings and would be able to render a second output file by copying content from the original rendered file and re-compressing what changed (but this implies keeping previous rendered files just in case user wants to render again, which is not guaranteed).Most editing products don't do this though, because to be able to do this, the encoding settings have to be... "looser", basically you get less quality per bits if you want to make it possible to do this.x264.exe (the open source codec) has a specific command line parameter to allow this (besides API commands) : --stitchable ... basically you can encode several segments and output to raw bytestream .264 file (not packaged in a container) and then you can just do COPY /B file1.264+file2.264 output.264 and the file will just work as if it was encoded in one shot. An editing application could use the x264 API to render 1-5 minute long segments of the project and only re-render segments that have changed due to editing.If the rendering takes a long time, you can always render the project using a lossless but fast codec like MagicYUV (renders in Vegas at 2-4x real time at 1080p) and then recompress to h264 using handbrake or command line x264.exe ... the only problem is that such lossless codecs need a lot of disk space, gigabytes per minute of video.If you use x264.exe, you can then choose on using higher quality encoding settings and slower re-compression if you have a slow upload speed (for example, encode 1h of video in 50 minutes at 1080p and 4-6mbps), or you could just use some fast encoding settings (like --preset superfast for example coupled with --crf) and you'll get larger files but compressed fast (for example, encode 1h of video in 20 minutes at 1080p with bitrate varying between 8 and 16 mbps, depending on scene complexity)(Handbrake exposes fewer options but it should still work quite well to recompress huge

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 11:31:00 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on February 15, 2016, 08:53:13 pmI'm using some old hardware so I think by now everything has completely changed.We're talking computer and Sony camera from about 8 years ago, all meant to work with DVD resolution sources (480p or 720x480 NTSC). Womble is DVD-era software and perhaps ideal for that, but will suffer same issues dealing with newer formats requiring heavy processing.But I've been importing also SJCAM footage (h.264 MOV 1080p) and downloaded MP4 files, etc... Usually when I work with non-MPEG1/2 I would batch convert everything to MPEG2 using "ffmpeg" , then use Womble to edit and add transitions/effects, and output in the same MPEG2 format so it doesn't need to re-encode the whole stream... only transitions.The total time for all of that is probably LONGER than someone just working on the original MP4 files, on a faster computer. I thought perhaps streamcopying was still available in the newer formats and that there were editors that could handle it on the native file. Otherwise from what I know "ffmpeg" prefers to copy stuff over to ".ts" files and then you concatenate them:Convert the files to TS intermediate file first like this:"c:\program files\winff\ffmpeg" -i 1.mp4 -c copy -bsf:v h264_mp4toannexb -f mpegts 1.ts"c:\program files\winff\ffmpeg" -i 2.mp4 -c copy -bsf:v h264_mp4toannexb -f mpegts 2.ts"c:\program files\winff\ffmpeg" -i 3.mp4 -c copy -bsf:v h264_mp4toannexb -f mpegts 3.tsThen join them like so:"c:\program files\winff\ffmpeg" -i "concat:1.ts|2.ts|3.ts" -c copy -bsf:a aac_adtstoasc output.mp4I need a new laptop!

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 05:06:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 10:25:56 amStill, a little time spent adjusting each clip could further improve the quality of your videos. Even in your purpose built and well lit space there are still exposure and balance problems.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 05:40:08 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 15, 2016, 02:56:33 amI do everything from low-end, single camera capture/streaming all the way up to my HD digital flight-pack with six cameras, live switching/effects, etc.There is a place for BOTH types of production. But if you are making the typical YouTube channel, Dave is absolutely correct. There is NO REASON to have to do extensive video processing. If you have to do ANY kind of post-processing manipulation of the video or audio then you are doing something wrong.If you LIGHT the "set"well, you can use a $300 camera and make videos as good as anybody on YT, and WITHOUT post-processing the video. And likewise for audio. If you use the proper mic in the properplaceand set levels properly, etc, you can produce decent audio with a <$50 microphone.Some photos of my rig back when I had only 4 cameras. For this event we used 3 of the cameras on remote-control pan/tilt heads. Along with full camera/lens remote control.http://www.rcrowley.com/rojas.htm

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 07:50:44 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on February 19, 2016, 05:40:08 amSayingShouting thatanyvideo manipulation is doing it wrong is just the same thing. Adjustments and looks are quick to add and improve the communication of the video, the above example flattening the content could be achieved with studio lighting and time spent setting that up for the shot or it could be achieved as above with a channel curve in editing. Which would be quicker and easier for the average YouTube producer?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:00:40 am
content: Quote from: Radio Tech on February 15, 2016, 11:39:18 amNo, I very rarely use a 2nd camera. I simply use the same camera and move position etc. Same with the closeup shot, I screw and unscrew my macro lens as needed.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:06:34 am
content: Quote from: edy on February 15, 2016, 07:07:42 pmYou also have to think about archiving the footage. Rendered versions can be very large, that what Handbrake is good for. It saves archive space and speeds your upload time.Transcoding with Handbrake for me is literally a few seconds work. I have script and I just drag my rendered video on that desktop icon.Speed is typically 150fps or something, so 10's of minutes later at most I have a finished video ready to upload and archive.QuoteI've never had the need to do that. My video editor handles anything I throw at it.If you have to transcode video before you edit then once again, I'd day you are doing more work than you have to.QuoteI've never had an issue.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:08:00 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 19, 2016, 05:06:20 amThat zero people complain about.It's not worth the effort, really. It will bring inzeroextra viewers, and just takes time away from either producing more content, running my business, or having a life.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:14:09 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on February 19, 2016, 05:40:08 amIndeed.My studio lighting is still pretty poor in the scheme of things. But the wide range and styles of video I make make it really difficult to get consistent lighting. So I just pretty much make do with what I have. Studio lights on stands etc are a real PITA. Fine if you do the exact same video in the exact same spot every time. But if you don't then they are more trouble than they are worth. There is a reason why I relegated them down to the bunker.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:20:35 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 19, 2016, 07:50:44 amYou don't quite get it. The point isneitherof those options is good for a Youtuber who produces a lot of content regularly.People simply don't carehow perfect the look of your video is provided it's framed well, in focus, and exposed reasonably well enough.Your correction above is fine, but it's a tweak that no one will care about.Some of my videos have overone hundreddifferent shots (50-70 average), often with each shot exposed differently etc. Should I really go and tweak them to get it perfect? Half of them? even 10 of them? No, that's just silly.If you want to do that, then hey, go for it, more power to you. But as a youtube who has produced over a 1000 videos and hasn't gone insane doing it, my opinion is it's a waste of time.

author: VEGETA
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:33:47 am
content: If you want a professional method, here it is:1- when you finish editing, produce it using a lossless video codec like Lagarith (or uncompressed if you can handle it). this will give you a huge file size but quality loss is exactly 0.2- use the best encoder of all times, x264, to encode it. Of course, you have to learn its commands (I do). Something like this will do most jobs (assuming you have the t-mod version of it):x264.exe --preset veryslow --bframes 10 --ref 16 --crf 16 --aq-mode 3 --aq-strength 0.8 --qcomp 0.6 --b-adapt 2 --b-pyramid 2 --deblock -1:-1 --subme 10 --trellis 2 --psy-rd 0.75:0.05 --direct auto --output "your_output_file.mp4" "your_input_file.avi"^ it is CLI, so stuff like handbrake doesn't do a damn thing at all! it is just a GUI no more and maybe less. so the line "handbrake is good and produces quality videos" is wrong because it doesn't do it, x264 does.of course there is the 10-bit version of it that I don't recommend for youtube, at least for now. There is also the HEVC new codec with its x265 encoder (based on x264 code) going around and it is already giving quality results near x264 or maybe better.the settings above can be modified and there are more, but no need to dig deep.3- the left thing is audio... assuming you chose "PCM" or uncompressed WAV in step 1 (which you should), then you should use a quality encoder for AAC like QAAC (it requires itune to work), or even Nero AAC... nearly all of them work fine and all of them are CLI applications... so no GUI. it is not hard, just a very simple line that you can copy and paste all the time.4- now you have an H.264 quality video with no audio (x264 doesn't encode audio, some mods have some options), and an AAC audio... you must mux them. use YAMB to do it which is free GUI for a tool called "MP4 box". The output is MP4 video with audio.5- upload to youtube.I plan to use this method in my next videos, because I didn't have some space in my hard drive to use lagarith codec.____Notes:1- I am sure there are options in handbrake to use the x264 encoder directly without handbrake's silly presets, where you post the command line you want. Search for it.2- Of course, HB must has the x264.exe in its folder, u can replace it with the current version of x264 or any mod (like tmod that I use), just keep the naming right. the option "aq-mode 3" doesn't work with normal x264, if you don't have the tmod, choose aq-mode 2 instead.3- Blender, Camtasia studios,... etc don't support CLI encoders, but VFW versions of it... there is one for x264! just be sure to update the x264.exe in it to the latest version or mod then you can use it directly with your video editing software without the need of Lagarith and step 1!!! it allows command line stuff too!!I hope this long post did help... Now I have these requests from you guys:1- a good (preferably free) screen recording software other than Camtasia studio.2- Is Canon Ixus 160 good enough? it is the absolute cheapest option in my country.3- for recording the desk where I describe stuff or solder or breadboard... what is the tripod to be used? I think the normal one is just too big.thanks!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:47:49 am
content: Quote from: VEGETA on February 19, 2016, 09:33:47 amYou don't have the use the commands, that's what Handbrake is, it's a nice shell around the x264 encoder.I do however use a command line script, just drag'n'drop my rendered file onto it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:50:56 am
content: There is also an x264 plugin for Video For Windows that allows you to use it with video editor to render directly.https://sourceforge.net/projects/x264vfw/But I've been able to get ti working properly, I have audio sync issues. Seems buggy.

author: VEGETA
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 09:55:25 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 19, 2016, 09:47:49 amI know, but not all of its stuff is good. For example you said "Constant quality". There is no such thing.. it is "constant quantizer" which is the "crf 16" that I wrote. people will chose constant bitrate most of the time which is a bad method.For me, all x264 guis are just pointless. I use t-mod x264 which has some more good options like "aq-mode 3" and MixAQ. If you really really insist on a gui... You must then use x264 VFW that is usable in all packages once you install it. It allows writing command lines and also way much better than any other GUI. Here you won't need to render the video then encode it... it happens in one step.audio sync problems doesn't have anything to do with x264 or any of its guis. if you use genuine tools (away from guis and "converters") you won't face any problems at all as I have never been able to during all my encoding journey.thanks

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 10:08:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 19, 2016, 09:20:35 amYou both have said straight up that its doing it wrong, it really isnt. If you dont want to spend the extra seconds per clip to improve the visual content then thats fine, its not wrong either, but you end up with a video that has the look of an amateur videographer or someone who doesn't care much about the visual content. You put a lot of effort into the audio and content which really comes through well, so much so that I usually "watch" your videos without even following the imagery and just tab to the window when there is something that needs to be seen. You come across really well in the podcast format and this is reflected with your priorities and decisions in putting together videos. Play to your strengths but don't claim its the one true path and everyone else is doing it wrong.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 10:29:21 am
content: Vegeta, Youtube will recompress the video anyway, so it makes no sense to use such slow options, you can just use a faster preset coupled with a higher crfLet's analyze.. x264.exe --preset veryslow --bframes 10 --ref 16 --crf 16 --aq-mode 3 --aq-strength 0.8 --qcomp 0.6 --b-adapt 2 --b-pyramid 2 --deblock -1:-1 --subme 10 --trellis 2 --psy-rd 0.75:0.05 --direct auto --output "your_output_file.mp4" "your_input_file.avi"--bframes 10 forces clip to be encoded with level high 4.0 or 4.1 (depending on resolution) which makes the video potentially unplayable on some devices ( preset veryslow configures bframes to 8 which is more than enough for youtube videos, and you're overriding it to 10)--ref 16 is redundant, because it's set by --preset veryslow. If you use better crf and faster preset (like --preset slow with --ref 5) you'd be fine and get pretty much same quality after youtube recompresses everything . Raising the --ref to 8 is basically the major difference between this profile and --profile "slower".--deblock -1:-1 is potentially a bad choice because it lets x264 slightly blur the image which may be bad if your Youtube videos have lots of screen capture... not to mention that you get the same result just using --tune film ...psy-rd 0.75 changed from the default of 1 is again something that makes sense for cinema movies... you're basically telling x264 that it's ok to blur some more and drop grain if it improves compression in frames that are really bitrate starved, which again may not be smart for youtube videos (and pointless because most youtube content is static scenes with Dave talking or showing up something in the case of EEVblog).-aq-mode 3 is overkill for youtube videos, the default 1 is good enough... youtube videos don't have transitions to dark scenes and the other way around, so that you'd want x264 to take bits from some frames and allocate more to fade outs or darker scenes and so on.. that's what basically aq-mode 2 or 3 does, tweaks the adaptive .--direct auto is redundant, it's included in all presets higher than mediumso basically the command can be shrinked tox264.exe --preset slow --tune film --crf 16 --output film.h264 input.aviwhich I'm sure you'll find in Handbrake with no issues, then mux audio with this file into a .mkv file using MKVToolnix (or just mux using handbrake).For youtube, you can just use --crf as low as you can afford , basically it's up to you and your internet connection, how much you're willing to upload for each minute of encoded video.and PS. avoid Lagarith, since it's Windows only and relies on floating point implementation which is x86 dependant, some future processors may be different enough that you won't be able to decode your files or your encoded files won't be playable by people using older computers or ARM based systems. MagicYUV (and other lossless codecs like UTVideo or Huffyuv) are much much faster than Lagarith.QuoteNo, --crf is short for constant rate factor, which is pretty much "constant quality", in a super simplified way it's constant quantizer on steroids... constant quantizer is sort of like treating each frame of the video as a jpeg picture and trying to compress each frame at a fixed quality preset (like jpeg 85%), ignoring how much space that frame will take. Constant Rate Factor also does some psycho-visual stuff, it analyzes each frame and sequences of frames to see where there's darker areas in the frames or stuff that your eyes won't notice easily and moves the saved bits towards the other.. and plays with the underlying qp varying in small steps the quantizer when needed to preserve qualityQuote--aq-mode 2 and 3 are built into the default x264.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 10:35:12 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 19, 2016, 10:08:23 amI'm claiming no such thing. I'm just pointing out what I do as a professional Youtuber, and what I suggest other Youtubers who produce similar content should do as well. Just like the OP is asking.If you produce different type of content to me and you have different goals, then YMMV.I have never heard of a single instance where someone has said they didn't subscribe or didn't want to watch my videos any more because I didn't tweak every clip to adjust the brightness and contrast etc, and trust me, I get alotof feedback.I'm serious when I sayno one cares, because they don't, it's a fact, so why even spend "seconds" doing yet another step that won't really gain you any benefit?BTW, it's not just "seconds", it's usually a but more than that. And like I asked before, what do you do when you have a hundred clips with different brightness and contrast? Tweak them all? Come on. It's a Youtube video, not a National Geographic documentary.Can some of my clips do with some tweaking? Sure, I just shot a video today that had some horrible fixed exposure issues (again, white paper, dark meter), but did I bother to fix it? No, it's juts not worth it, no one cares.Even if it's only a few seconds per clip, every added step adds to annoyance. Make 1000 videos and you'll understand that it's the little things that matter to keep your sanity and keep you enthusiastic about continuing to produce content.BTW, you said "You put a lot of effort into the audio". If you are fussed over how I don't tweak my video quality during editing, you'd be shocked to learn howlittleeffort I put into the audio, bordering on zero. Again, my audio is "good enough", so I rarely bother to tweak it.Audio is however more important than video, because poor audio really stands out to people.I getzerocomplaints about my video quality (ignoring hand held site footage), in fact, I only praise. I do occasionally get some complaints about audio though, that matters to people alotmore than video quality does.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 10:57:33 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 19, 2016, 10:35:12 amAn array of microphones to pick from, carefully positioned, pop filters etc, you do put effort into your audio and there are obvious edits and adjustments in the final video that aren't matched with similar detail in the imagery, we haven't seen you using bounces or fills in lighting for example. If you were going to get it right first time in camera you would probably spend a lot of time adjusting a lighting rig.Quote from: EEVblog on February 19, 2016, 10:35:12 amLets see,Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 01:51:17 amThere is that wordanyagain, not just using zero qualifiers but trying to extend the statement toanyYouTube video. You've found a balance of effort you're happy with and thats great but tone down the condescending attitude. You're not getting it right in camera, you're getting it good enough to "print".Even without any interest in the content people will watch beautiful or interesting imagery, there is some of that going on with links into your content from people mesmerised by the details of teardowns, no interest in the electronics at all just the imagery.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 11:29:13 am
content: Quote from: Someone on February 19, 2016, 10:57:33 amAn array of mics, yeah, but I mostly use the internal mics on the cameras.Carefully positioned, hardly.Pop filters, only on the podcasting mic, which of course anyone should do, basic stuff.Edits? I tweak the manual level of maybe a few clips in every video, tops. That's out of 50-70 clips average, so down in the few percent range. No auto leveling, no filtering, I just eye ball the levels and go "meh, near enough".I get complaints about the audio on my Mailbag because I use the internal shotgun mic on the camera and it's a bit "distant". I have a super high quality expensive wireless mic, but I don't use it for that, why? Because I couldn't be bothered, I think the shotgun audio is good enough.QuoteI continually get people asking me how I get such good shots.Are they perfect, no, but good enough to get me praise for them and virtually no complaints.QuoteI explained that lighting rigs are a huge PITA, I can't image a bigger PITA during filming. I get by just fine without them.Quote from: EEVblog on February 19, 2016, 10:35:12 amLets see,Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 01:51:17 amThere is that wordanyagain, not just using zero qualifiers but trying to extend the statement toanyYouTube video.Jeeze, get over it. I qualified it several time you have snipped out, and you know I was talking about people producing similar material to me on Youtube.QuoteOf course that's what I meantI'm done on this, I'm not playing pedantics with you any more.

author: VEGETA
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2016, 11:55:43 am
content: QuoteI know, but if I am making an encode, I make it as best as I can afford. TBH, these settings I use them mainly for encoding anime BDs in my server... I put them here as an example and clearly said that.QuoteI think 10 is good and playable by all current devices, even my very old bad laptop. Again, this is something you can modify to suite you... I might choose 8 for faster encodes but there is nothing wrong with 10 and surely I don't go below 8.setting a preset doesn't mean I want everything from it... it is just a starting point then I modify what I want.QuoteAs I said before, I put the slowest accepted preset then put my settings... If one of them is in the preset, it won't be a problem. for youtube to recompress everything, first you should get a very good quality HD video... then when youtube does its thing on it, it will be better than if you posted a medium quality video in the first place. Ref values helps in that alot.I can use your suggestion by making it high crf and mid-high ref to make it a very good quality video (IF I CAN AFFORD IT). If not, I stick to ref 8 or something similar.putting crf 16 is enough for real world videos (as it is perfect for anime). I bet if you choose crf 20 it will also be great but I can afford uploading a big sized video so I go with best settings.Quotethis is weird, are you sure? what I know is + deblock blurs the details while - one doesn't. I don't use tunes at all and will never do.QuoteI think you are right here, but the value 1 will produce big size video for no gained quality I guess... psych enhancements are not required for youtube videos like you just explained but I can not put it to 0, so yeah, I will make it 1.Quotethis is your own personal choice to have aq-mode 1, but it is better to have it 2 here. 1 will give you huge file size for nothing gained but 2 will give smaller size with nearly the same quality as there are no motion no grain in it. 1 is not adaptive and only recommended to be used in a high grain video where mode 2 will fail (at least for me).it is not a crime nor wrong to use it too.about mode 3, it is the same mode 2 with better handling of dark scenes, so using it all the time instead of 2 is safe (i think) because if it is not a dark scene, it works like 2 or nearly the same. I also said you can replace it by 2 with no problems as I will do.I didn't check the official build of x264 for a long time, so I will check about this mode 3. last time I checked doom9 about it the posts said that mode 3 and 4 are experimental and won't go in the official build until they aren't.this is not the only reason I use tmod, it is the mixaq oreaq thing with other patches.QuotexDQuotefor me it is not like that, I do want a perfect result as much as I can... at least for archiving purposes.BTW, did you try 10-bit videos for youtube? I know it is bad but I want to try it xD. It will be a very long journey until we can use HEVC in youtube, even I still have a bad laptop that can not handle it properly.Quotegood info, thanks!for me I will use x264 lossless, it is the best for me. I will just install x264 vfw for it with updated tmod version manually put in it.Quotethe term "constant quality" is not achievable through crf only. it is constat rate factor as you pointed out and to get the exact same quality for all frames you have to use "qcomp 1" which is bad. so quality is not gonna be "constant" at all. As you said, the encoder will analyze the video frames and pick the right bits to each frame while not caring about final size.. unlike "bitrate" mode.So if you call it constant quality, it can be accepted as a simplified term which these guis made it an official name, and people think it is gonna be that simple as their guis tell them.Actually, the term constant quality applies to using "QP" option rather than "CRF"!If you choose qp 20 it will always be 20 for all frames but crf 20 is not! it will vary depending on your settings!_______________Quoteyou must be one of doom9 members like me xD. I just know that.We had a good discussion, but let's not spam the post with x264 battles xD.

author: Radio Tech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2016, 01:25:52 am
content: Well,I down loaded handbrake. That did the job.Thanks for that recommendation. I watched a few YT videos and think I have it working right. Took a 7.5 GB down to 2 GB.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2016, 05:49:35 am
content: Quote from: Radio Tech on February 27, 2016, 01:25:52 amFYI Handbrake has a batch mode if you need it. Put files in a folder then load the folder and all files in that folder get processed.Dave seems to me years ago I asked if you had made any videos on making videos and the answer was no. So again - have you made any videos on how you make your YT videos?Some of the responses on this subject are so overboard, I do not know if they are joking or not. I like the KISS approach and what works - works. Not 1,000 settings to make a YT video (unless they are jokes)Vegas - what I do not like about it - it locks to your computer ID so you cannot install on another computer without Sony's permission (I lost my copy this way)I like Power Director - seems they did not lock me in and they just added a screen capture featureSo I can keep a backup copy.If you need to edit much and find it hard to find the edit points - try a clicker, it is easy to find an audio spike on the audio line. You can hold the clicker off camera view and click it at the edit points.