Fraps to YouTube with H.264

Discussion in 'Video Encoding' started by raffriff, Jan 3, 2012.

  1. So the best option is to upscale the video to 1440p or i can directly render the video in Sony Vegas in 1440p?
  2. RobiePAX

    RobiePAX Site Contributor Well-Known Member

    The process when you import 1080p video into Sony Vegas, but export (render) it in 1440p is literally called upscaling. You don't need any other software to do it.
    Thalmor Wizard likes this.
  3. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Well-Known Member

    Thalmor: I uploaded a video in 25fps and it looked better than 30fps. same video

    Of course less fps look better - reason to this I mentioned already.

    The video gets way more compressable with motion blur and it actually helps A LOT.... 100% sharpness especially on movement = very much bitrate needed, especially at vegetation. Sharpness means more detail. And even if movement has no motion blur it is unlike a real camera even there 100% sharp and that makes it very sensitive to blockiness at low bitrate. Because the DCT block transitions need to be very fine to not be noticable by the eye. Thats technical logic.

    You mean 2048x1152. The 1080p isnt missing. Its a bit strange here. On HTML5 Player you will have 1080p 4000 kbit version and a 1440p as well - the 6000 kbit version.
    At Flash Player though the 1080p quality level is actually the 1440 version and the 1080 with 4000 kbit unavailable here.

    MOD Edit: Stop swearing when people pick up errors in your posts. Further swearing will lead to a warning.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2014
    RobiePAX likes this.
  4. RobiePAX

    RobiePAX Site Contributor Well-Known Member

    Yeah, since I use Opera browser I still use Flash Player. And that's what happens with 1152p videos.

    As for 25 fps. I heard somewhere too that reducing framerate makes decoding easier, hence less quality loss. But I will put the same argument as I give console players. I prefer to slightly intentionally ruin the quality, just to get that better higher performance to ease out motion sickness from my eyes :) 25 fps for me is... unbearable. I'm not one of those people who prefers quality over performance.
    raffriff and Thalmor Wizard like this.
  5. @Thalmor Wizard
    Could you please explain why? I do not understand why 25fps should not be used..
    I got told that on 25 fps every single frame gets a bigger part of bitrate which result in nicer frames (that sounds logical to me).
    Why exactly does it make more sense to use more frames and let the single frames look better (if I understood it right)?

    Could you please prove it? Are there any pictures or videos which prove this sentence? What problems are there and why?
  6. raffriff

    raffriff Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    Please continue @De-M-oN, you were making some good points. Please don't be insulted if people disagree sometimes, that is normal. However, swearing is not allowed. Thank you.
    Thalmor Wizard likes this.
  7. Thalmor Wizard

    Thalmor Wizard Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    Just because you get more frames in the bitrate doesn't make it right to record as though you are playing a DVD. Who would want to even record content at 25fps (just a little up from the standard of a DVD movie), when people build computers to play games at 1080p60, expecting to record games at an fps of at least 30? I'm not gonna go around buying components (or even suggesting to others) to play games at 1080p60 just to record at a pathetic 25fps. You do realise that YouTube supports 48fps and 60fps so people don't need to do this anymore, right? That's like saying "hey, you bought a nice £2000 computer, but you should really have bought a potato PC so you have to record at 25fps": people will simply throw the book at you and tell you that you are wrong.
    Why do I need to prove it? If you look around the forums here, and youtube, people with motion blur content actually have much worse pixellation caused by YouTube's re-encoding measures. I'll admit a tiny amount of motion blur is ok, but the majority of people who use it always use excessive amounts that simply make for crap output on YouTube.

    Not to sound insulting, but the fact that your only post on these forums is in this discussion and the fact that I took to looking at that German LP forum to find Demon insulting this community because I edited out a swear word and left a comment so he could see what I edited, makes me suspicious of why you are actually here. Please don't take offence to this.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2014
    RobiePAX likes this.
  8. @Thalmor Wizard
    No, you are totally right. I am a member of and I found encodingtalk, because Demon posted about this board.

    The reason why I am here is another. I do not really know much about video quality. I really like learning how to improve my audio quality, but I know almost nothing about video quality. In that German LP forum there are some people who have much knowledge about improving the quality, but I want to see different opinions to be able to make my own opinion what to use. For this I need examples and explanations, this is why I asked this two questions.

    I do not care about your argument with Demon. It is the reason why I found this board and nothing more.

    @ 25fps or not:
    I did not want to say that you should play the games in 25fps. I wanted to know if recording in 60 fps and changing them to 25 while encoding results in nicer looking frames than recording and uploading them in 60fps because of more bitrate for each single frame. As far as I think, the 25fps video will have nicer looking frames but will be less smooth than 60fps.
    Am I right or not? Did I understand it or not?

    @ Motion blur:
    The reason why I want you to prove your sentences about motion blur is because I do not think that it is smart to believe any random sentence in the internet. I could say that my sister was eaten by a dinosaur. This is not correct and there is no reason to believe me until I have proven this. Ok, saying that motion blur causes problems is much less extreme than my little sentence, but that is not the point. I am a newby in this board, I would have to scan all threads which were created since this board was opened. This sounds like really hard work and that is the reason why I wanted you to help me researching. Remember, I want to learn, and for this I need information, examples and explanations. I even do not know where to start searching. Could you please help me by posting a thread or something to prove this? I have never heard of someone getting a worse quality by using mb..
    Two pictures, one with a video with mb and a video with no mb, same parts and same seconds would totally do the job, but I searched and I did not find them until now..
    RobiePAX and Thalmor Wizard like this.
  9. Thalmor Wizard

    Thalmor Wizard Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    Thank you for being civil and not outright being rude and un-cooperative. :)
    No, don't do that. Never convert video footage to different FPS rates. If you recorded a video at 60fps, you should edit, render and upload at 60fps: converting FPS is a very bad idea and creates choppy output, let YouTube do the conversion as they can do it better and more efficiently (without causing choppy output). The only time you should convert FPS is if you recorded a video in interlaced scan format (eg 1080i60): in this case, you would render your video out so that it's 1080p30, as progressive scan is half interlaced scan (1080i60 is 1080p30).
    I can understand that, but the majority of regular contributors to the forum (myself, @raffriff, @billman, @RobiePAX) have been doing things for a long time, especially @raffriff, so they generally know what they're talking about. :)

    Here's most of the threads where motion blur was mentioned: blur

    For the most part, adding very small amounts of motion blur to videos with fast motion CAN help with compressability, but you should avoid its use unless you are recording content with lots of fast movement (eg Arma 3).
  10. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Well-Known Member

    A slight motion blur with mFlowBlur helps a lot too (especially if you dont like the ingame motion blur, because too aggressive motion blur or whatever. Or you have a game without motion blur).

    As resolution scaler = Spline100 and x264's 10bit Encoding helps as well.

    All my own videos look better this way as well. Not only fast movement ones. Of course it would be senseless on a point&click or tutorial to use motion blur, but I dont need a quake 3 arena to have a better compression with motion blur. Why you say its only better compressable with fast motion?

    Youtube doesnt do and isnt rocket science. They also only encode your video.
    There is no difference if you or youtube changes the fps rate. That even doesnt make any sense.

    But there are different methods to change the fps.

    one version would be not removing the frames, instead do blending them over. That makes that ugly ghosting effect. Sony products use this ugly method as default (resampling called there).
    other version would be - Removing the frames. -> This method uses youtube and it makes sense. It costs no extra time for interpolation and doesnt produce ghosting.
    there is even another possibility like mBlockFPS which would make a complex frame analysis and interpolate blended frames. reduces the visible ghosting a lot, but in my opinion still ugly.

    Then there is the thing: Change what to what.

    60 to 30fps would be changable perfectly. Just remove every 2nd frame.
    But of course: Easiest way is to just record at the fps rate you wish later to have as well.

    @ 25fps: With a slight motion blur it doesnt look that bad ..
    Youtubes video quality is also too bad. If they would encode better, I could use higher framerate.
    60fps will at least have 1000 kbit more at 1080p than the actual videos. But I fear it will be only similar quality to 30fps.

    oh and I dont use heavy motion blur. That would look ugly to me. I work with very slight motion blur as well. But this little blur improves compressability already.

    MOD Edit: Removing abuse from the post.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014
  11. Anyway thanks a lot, i've followed your advices and rendered the video at 1440p with hight birate, that works nicely and the 1080p is not so bad, but it's impossible to watch the video at 1440p, YT seems to bug or something, is it normal?
  12. Thalmor Wizard

    Thalmor Wizard Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    You need a pretty fast broadband connection to watch at 1440p. I believe it needs at least 8-10Mbps download speed (1080p needs around 4-5Mbps download speed). If your connection isn't very fast, then you'll just have to either let it buffer a little or simply accept that you can't watch 1440p video content. Personally, 1080p is normally good enough for most games, so as long as it's good quality for you, that's fine :)
  13. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Well-Known Member

    I think rather he meant he doesnt have the quality level available.

    Which resolution did you use? 2048x1152? If so at flash player you will have at 1080p level in fact the 1440 video (in that case 2048x1152 with 6000 kbit) and the real 4000 kbit 1080p inaccessible.
    But at html5 player you will have the real 4000 kbit 1080p quality level, but the 1440p level as well with in this case 2048x1152 6000 kbit.

    If its not that - it may also be that youtube is still encoding the 1440p encode.

    If you want the 1440p level and 1080p seperate also on flash player you would need at least 2080x1170.
  14. I've a fiber 300Mbp/s ! there is nothing to do with my connection or something else, the video doesn't even seem to load, that take me back to a lower resolution all the time, it's the same for all my friends i don't know why.
    Here the video in case if you can see it a 1440p

    At least the 1080p is good but only on static moments.
  15. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Well-Known Member

    Works perfectly fine to me:

    6 mbit is enough. The average bitrate of 1440 isnt higher.

    Why you dont use 3200x1800 then to further improve quality?
  16. I've rendered the video exactly at 2560x1440 as suggested, mediainfo confirm that resolution on my video file maybe something weird happened during the upload?
  17. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Well-Known Member

    nope, works. read my edit.

    But how said: For absolutely best results use 3200x1800 ; )
  18. Ok next time i'll try 3200x1800 but i thinking about change my monitor for recording directly in 1440p, and i don't know why i can't watch it in 1440p :(
  19. Thalmor Wizard

    Thalmor Wizard Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    There's no point recording directly at 1440p. Everything above 1080p requires SLI / Crossfire, which causes erratic frame rate in every recording tool (you could game @ 1440p and record half-size (aka 720p), or use Dxtory to arbitrarily scale to 1080p while gaming at 1440p). Sticking with a 1080p monitor and upscaling is our preferred method however. :)
  20. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Well-Known Member

    @Thalmor Wizard

    I record in 2560x1600 since I have a 30" monitor which has this as native resolution. I dont have SLI. I have just a simple Geforce GTX 680.

    All you need is much HDD writing speed and a decent cpu.

    I run for example Bulletstorm at 60 of max possible 60 fps while recording.

    I could even use 50fps recording fps, but I use 25 because of my reason to this mentioned above.

    So no. you dont need SLI. But I have a RAID 0 which writes 354 mbyte/s.

    But also a fast single HDD can handle 2560 with lagarith or utvideo codec. (lagarith uses more cpu, but more compression, while utvideo uses less cpu, but less compression. Depends on your hdd and cpu which is faster for you)

    The point of recording in 1440p can be:

    -> better game graphics
    -> native screen resolution
    -> smaller upscaling step to the new resolution

Share This Page