Yesterday I uploaded another small clip of the latest Brisbane city parkour jam. This is my first attempt at using Windows Movie Maker, and the first clip created with my new camera, a Canon PowerShot A710 IS [2].
The quality of the movie produced by the camera is outstanding, and about the best you will get in the compact, non-camcorder range. Unfortunately the quality of the clip on YouTube is terrible, even though I followed the advice of a tutorial on selecting the best bitrate for Windows Movie Maker clips on YouTube.
After reading a couple forums, it seems that YouTube only allots a certain amount of memory (disk space) per frame. As you may already know, compressed video often uses an algorithm that employs interframe compression, i.e. it stores the difference between two frames. If there's not much going on, where the two frames are similar, each frame requires little disk space. However, if there is a lot of detail or movement, it requires more memory/frame. Here in lies the problem with action movies on YouTube. Because YouTube sets a low value for disk space/frame, it has to then seriously downsample the video; the more movement, the more it lowers the quality. The result is that high-movement video often turns out looking pixelated, washed out, with frequent ghosting.
It may also be that YouTube doesn't like the .WMV format, with the YouTube guide recommending MPEG-4 DivX/Xvid, this is despite .WMV being a branch of MPEG-4. Below is a comparison between the various file formats and quality settings and how they appear on YouTube.
- .WMV - The original one-second clip encoded by Windows Movie Maker as "video for broad band" (512kbs, 25fps, 320x240), then re-encoded to MPEG-2 (2376kbs, 29.97fps, 320x240).
- .AVI MPEG-2 - Clip encoded by Windows Movie Maker as "video for broad band" (512kbs, 25fps, 320x240), then re-encoded with Boilsoft's ASF converter to MPEG-2 (2376kbs, 29.97fps, 320x240).
- .AVI MPEG-4 - Clip encoded by Windows Movie Maker as "video for local playback" (2.1Mbs, 25fps, 720x576). It was then re-encoded with VirtualDub using DivX 3.11 ;) (avi), 720x576, 25fps, 44100 KHz stereo. I followed the Doom9 tutorial for this.
As you can see, the final encode is quite a bit better than the first two, but still pretty poor. From this it's pretty clear that file format and quality settings do have some effect on how YouTube re-encodes video, but that there's clearly something else going on. Technically I should provide a fourth comparison in which the last option was originally encoded by Windows Movie Maker as "video for broadband" before being re-encoded by VirtualDub with similar settings, but it's unlikely to make any difference.
So what else could be the problem here? Returning now to my original video, compare this to that of my friend's The Toxorpion, who also used Windows Movie Maker .WMV. You'll notice straight away that Tox's clip is of a much higher quality. The difference? Tox is using a tripod; this significantly reduces the interframe motion caused by handshake.
Conclusion
If you're going to film video, especially high-motion subjects, use a tripod or rest the camera on a flat surface. This will reduce the amount of motion, restricting it to the subject only. This will lower the overall disk space/frame => higher quality YouTube clips.
Recent comments
46 weeks 5 days ago
1 year 1 week ago
1 year 10 weeks ago
1 year 10 weeks ago
1 year 11 weeks ago
1 year 11 weeks ago
1 year 18 weeks ago
1 year 19 weeks ago
1 year 20 weeks ago
1 year 20 weeks ago