Carl Karsten wrote: > Phil Ehrens wrote: > > Carl Karsten wrote: > >> I was given a 30 min 2gig .mov taken with a ntsc camera - taked to post to > >> youtube (don't worry about the time, I can post big stuff) > >> > >> I am not exactly sure what youtube does on there end, pretty sure they will > >> re-encode it or something. I want to get it to something that doesn't > >> take 10 > >> hours to upload. > >> > >> Anyone have a recommendation on encoding parameters? > >> > >> I hear h624 is 'best' for stuff like this. > > > > What would be best would be something that has the same > > resolution as the youtube content, and that has had the > > higher frequency components cut off. That said, I suspect > > that using lavc mpeg4 2-pass with nr just high enough so > > that things begin to soften would be best. That way there's > > nothing that will be a challenge for the awful encoder that > > youtube will throw at it... No scaling required and no > > wide peaks to get chopped off. > > Sounds reasonable. > > I can't find a good source, but I did find some 2nd hand info: > > youtube stuff: > 320x240. > bitrate for the video is 300 kbp/s. > bitrate for the audio is 64 kbp/s mono mp3. > if they use 320x240 then why the hell do they play it back at 425x350? > Videobitrates are around 260 kbps, Audio is encoded to around 56 kbps, > monophonic, 22050 Hz mpeg3. > The enconder they use is FLV1 Flash/Sorensen
According to a friend of mine, I'm totally wrong... He says that if you encode targeting the ipod/iphone that YouTube will not reencode it. He says that this is a new unstated policy. I have no idea whether he is 100% correct, but he is not prone to making the same kind of unsupported and unverifiable statements that I am ;^)
