Are you happy with Youtube etc's video quality for game videos?
- Thread starter V4NT0M
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
tbh yes im all for this . i upload at highest possible normally 60 fps 1080p but youtube then messes it up lowers and for certain games like racing for eg it can make it look laggy and so on
with better internet speeds coming through hopefully they can raise the bar a bit soon
Youtube will do its thing and the outcome of the video will only be 30fps
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Jesus that looks bad (fullscreen), pretty far from what is seen in-game
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Last edited:
Who gives a **** if it's beneficial, you're not PLAYING the video, you're watching it. Also, if you upload at a high enough resolution you'll exceed the 1080 setting.
Don't blame youtube, blame the uploader.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm happy with YouTube
Is Onlive any better ?
Is Onlive any better ?
Although that example was a fail, you can get high quality 1080p on youtube.
Downloading a gig large trailer isn't totally unheard of either, I did for Battlefield 3, it was a gameplay trailer on Caspian Border, it was stunning. So sometimes they do it!
Downloading a gig large trailer isn't totally unheard of either, I did for Battlefield 3, it was a gameplay trailer on Caspian Border, it was stunning. So sometimes they do it!
So here is a case in point, I compared frames from the same videos uploaded in 720p to youtube (59MB) and the original file direct from ubisoft press at 720p (1GB), the difference is sometimes like night and day:
Youtube
Original
2x Youtube
2x Original
4x Youtube
4x Original
There's a few more if you want to check for yourself:
http://v4nt0m.com/bits/watchdogs_compare/?C=M;O=A
Best to download and open fullscreen and flick between the two.
Look at all that lost detail, It's just not good enough for me
Youtube
Original
2x Youtube
2x Original
4x Youtube
4x Original
There's a few more if you want to check for yourself:
http://v4nt0m.com/bits/watchdogs_compare/?C=M;O=A
Best to download and open fullscreen and flick between the two.
Look at all that lost detail, It's just not good enough for me
Last edited:
Online streaming services are fine for my needs in general, it isn't perfect but usually I'm only watching for walkthrough (guidance on how to tackle a particular section of a game) or amusement purposes. If I wanted to see impressive visuals, I'd play the game/demo.
There are a few vids I download if they are of particular interest, for example Quakeworld vids where you need 60fps and high quality to follow the fast action.
There are a few vids I download if they are of particular interest, for example Quakeworld vids where you need 60fps and high quality to follow the fast action.
So here is a case in point, I compared frames from the same videos uploaded in 720p to youtube (59MB) and the original file direct from ubisoft press at 720p (1GB), the difference is sometimes like night and day:
Look at all that lost detail, It's just not good enough for me
You're comparing a video, one at 59MB and another at 1GB and saying it looks better than the other. Could that be any more obvious?
You wouldn't say the same if they put the same (original quality) vid on youtube, it's the bitrate, not the player.
That's true, but you made it out to sound like it's inherently a problem with youtube, instead of it's users
I too wish they* would upload higher resolution/bitrate vids, it's not like everyone has an average PC and 768Kbps upload like I to limit that!
* Anyone.
They r ok, just very pixelated for 1080p
I'm pretty satisfied with YouTube's quality.
You can get some good quality video on there if you record using something like the Lagarith codec and then transcode the footage to x.264. 1 hour of footage at 1080P weighs in at around 1.7 - 2gb, which takes about an hour to upload to YouTube. The end result looks pretty decent.
I'm limited by the tools I have available, but I've found that encoding using Virtualdub/x.264 using high profile and Constant bit rate at 6000kbps results in much cleaner footage and smaller file size than, say, Windows Movie Maker 2012 h.264 output at 20,000kbps. The end result of which looks better once it's been processed b YouTube.
You can get some good quality video on there if you record using something like the Lagarith codec and then transcode the footage to x.264. 1 hour of footage at 1080P weighs in at around 1.7 - 2gb, which takes about an hour to upload to YouTube. The end result looks pretty decent.
I'm limited by the tools I have available, but I've found that encoding using Virtualdub/x.264 using high profile and Constant bit rate at 6000kbps results in much cleaner footage and smaller file size than, say, Windows Movie Maker 2012 h.264 output at 20,000kbps. The end result of which looks better once it's been processed b YouTube.
Last edited: