Jump to content

A Guide to How All ShadowPlay Bit Rates 10-50Mb look on YouTube @1080p

I have completed a small set out run for the Battlefield 4 Test Range map on all 5 settings, it is approximately 1 minute per video. I used the helicopter with the bars across the window because you can see the effect the different rates have on the way the edges are shown.

 

The purpose of this was to record the set run on all 5 10Mb bit rate increments of encoding for Nvidia Shadowplay's H.264 codec, and to showcase exactly how each raw video will look when uploaded directly to YouTube.

 

The resolution of gameplay and capture is 1080p, all Ultra settings with 4XMSAA and HBAO, captured with Nvidia ShadowPlay (30fps) at 10Mb, 20Mb, 30Mb, 40Mb and 50Mb bit rates for comparison.

 

I hope this helps people who are potentially looking at using ShadowPlay to record gameplay for upload to YouTube and would like to see what each bit rate looks like once the YouTube compression/encoding has gotten a hold of it before choosing one or having to spend a long time to upload their own clips, maybe you don't have a ShadowPlay compatible card and would like to see if the results of its use are what you require and if it's worth investing in one to use ShadowPlay specifically for YouTube.

 

All clips are uploaded direct without any alteration or editing for a more pure comparison scenario.

 

 

10Mb ShadowPlay encode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIJSM974Pjw

 

20Mb ShadowPlay encode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_xTAxXgLB4

 

30Mb ShadowPlay encode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfY-GZYOGZM

 

40Mb ShadowPlay encode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKTyZQXxKR8

 

50Mb ShadowPlay encode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26pwtJuaXUE

 

As can be seen, for ~5x the file size it is not worth using 50Mb if you are going to upload the footage specifically to YouTube because the compression greatly erodes the benefits. However if viewed before upload, the difference between 10Mb and 50Mb is massive and if you were uploading footage to another service the results could be very different.

 

Overall though, Shadowplay is lossy, it provides low file sizes with low performance hit, but the likes of DXtory produces a big step up in capture quality.

 

 

Added Witcher 2 videos for 10 and 50Mb.

 

10Mb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmC84UMoJlg

 

50Mb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqEYTtUK-OM

 

Please do not subscribe to this channel, it is a utility channel I use from time to time for things such as this, it is not partnered/monetized, nor does it link to any of my other channels or any other material, this is here purely for educational/guidance purposes and not any kind of promotion or reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice videos, But I can't even notice a difference between 10mb and 50mb. lol.

New PC Build - Build Log - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/276039-project-swift-force/

[spoiler=]

  • Case: Phanteks Enthoo Primo
  • Motherboard: Asus Maximus VII Hero
  • CPU: Intel i7-4790K
  • GPU1: GIGABYTE G1 GAMING GTX 970 4GB
  • GPU2: GIGABYTE G1 GAMING GTX 970 4GB
  • RAM: Corsair Vengeance Pro Red, 16gb (2x8GB) @1600mhz
  • PSU: EVGA SuperNova 850W 80+ Gold
  • CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X61
  • HDD: Seagate Barracuda - 2TB 7200RPM
  • SSD: Samsung 840 EVO - 250GB
  • Monitor: Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 27" 144hz G-Sync
  • Headphones: Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro 600 OHM
  • DAC/AMP: Mayflower Objective2 + ODAC Combo
  • Mouse: ROCCAT Kone Pure Optical
  • Keyboard: KBP V60 - Cherry MX Brown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice videos, But I can't even notice a difference between 10mb and 50mb. lol.

For me it just looks a little bit fuzzy. (Watching in 1080p)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick 10 for YT because most people won't notice.

 

If you had used Vimeo, that would be something as Vimeo tends not to kill with compression 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice videos, But I can't even notice a difference between 10mb and 50mb. lol.

 

Look at the sky and fhe floor at the beginning, on 10Mb the floor is muddy/blocky and on 50 it is sharper and less muddy looking, the differences become more apparent the larger screen you view them on of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick 10 for YT because most people won't notice.

 

If you had used Vimeo, that would be something as Vimeo tends not to kill with compression 

 

I deliberately used YouTube because it is more popular, I also performed these tests for myself as well as to share, perhaps I will also upload the clips to Vimeo and add the results to this thread for comparison.

Thank you for the recommendation, I have not uploaded to any other site other than YouTube.

 

I concur that the YouTube compression has extreme effect on the quality of these videos, the 10Mb vs 50Mb viewed in VLC are like night and day, where as here it's more like afternoon and early evening. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowplay looks pretty good. Too bad i have AMD. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Huge difference was Youtube alone....

 

 

They used to enforce/transcode to 8000kbps bitrates for 1080p, they are currently and have been 4000kbps @ 1080p for quite some time now...

Such quality loss!!!

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Huge difference was Youtube alone....

 

 

They used to enforce/transcode to 8000kbps bitrates for 1080p, they are currently and have been 4000kbps @ 1080p for quite some time now...

Such quality loss!!!

 

Yeah I can see that the compression is very heavy, I didn't know it was quite that heavy.

 

Is this why some youtubers are rendering their content to 4K? To get more bitrate for their 1080p content?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can see that the compression is very heavy, I didn't know it was quite that heavy.

 

Is this why some youtubers are rendering their content to 4K? To get more bitrate for their 1080p content?

Exactly, the profiles youtube uses makes those super high resolution video's worthwhile, if only for their bitrate allowances.

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the profiles youtube uses makes those super high resolution video's worthwhile, if only for their bitrate allowances.

 

That seems counter intuitive to me in terms of saving bandwidth, if you lower the 1080p bit rate but allow people to just render to 4K and beat it that rendering time could potentially have been spent encoding more content to get more views and more ad revenue for Google.

 

However, there is such an immense volume of gaming content on YouTube, and I doubt a large percentage of those users uploading it have the equipment or time for factoring in 4K rendering to their workflow, if I had a second PC for production then that'd be fine but as it stands here I am using shadowplay to reduce the overhead of just encoding. :lol:

 

To be honest ShadowPlay's file sizes and low overhead are great, but the resulting quality is not up to my standards because of this compression so I will most likely be experimenting with DXtory next because I've seen that other users have posted comparitively superior end results when using that software to encode despite the YouTube compression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems counter intuitive to me in terms of saving bandwidth, if you lower the 1080p bit rate but allow people to just render to 4K and beat it that rendering time could potentially have been spent encoding more content to get more views and more ad revenue for Google.

 

However, there is such an immense volume of gaming content on YouTube, and I doubt a large percentage of those users uploading it have the equipment or time for factoring in 4K rendering to their workflow, if I had a second PC for production then that'd be fine but as it stands here I am using shadowplay to reduce the overhead of just encoding. :lol:

 

To be honest ShadowPlay's file sizes and low overhead are great, but the resulting quality is not up to my standards because of this compression so I will most likely be experimenting with DXtory next because I've seen that other users have posted comparitively superior end results when using that software to encode despite the YouTube compression.

I capture using DXtory/MSI using a custom vfw codec @ average of 40-50Mbps directly to a secondary disk using the CPU to encode on the fly.

 

Performance is the same when either program when recording. When making a video I would rather higher quality source files than lower quality space saving video files too, especially the users who do multiple passes via multiple video programs.

 

Youtube should have kept 1080p @ 8Mbps instead of lowering to 4Mbps, before 8Mbps it was 12Mbps!! <-- don't think they let anyone know this either......

Maybe yahoo-tube will allow greater bitrates, or use highly efficient codecs to transcode into their final product.

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Youtube should have kept 1080p @ 8Mbps instead of lowering to 4Mbps, before 8Mbps it was 12Mbps!! <-- don't think they let anyone know this either......

Maybe yahoo-tube will allow greater bitrates, or use highly efficient codecs to transcode into their final product.

 

So despite Afterburner being free, it allows you to use custom codecs? How does the featureset compare with DXtory? I have heard unanimous recommendations for DXtory over software like Fraps and Afterburner until what you have just said.

 

40-50Mbps is an acceptable bitrate for me, if you're telling me that the quality is superior to what I'm seeing with ShadowPlay then I'm all for looking more into this.

 

See now a super efficient proprietary codec would make a great launch perk for users, but as far as allowing high bit rates with existing common codecs immediately I'm not so sure how big of an ask that is, if you are going to try and compete with YouTube you best prepare your servers for an astronomical influx of data.

 

I am very interested in Yahoo's project, competition will hopefully help to control the way Google forces things onto people (looking at you G+) and if there were to be a bit rate/video quality disparity this would perhaps encourage Google to do something for the benefit of YouTube content creators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So despite Afterburner being free, it allows you to use custom codecs? How does the featureset compare with DXtory? I have heard unanimous recommendations for DXtory over software like Fraps and Afterburner until what you have just said.

 

40-50Mbps is an acceptable bitrate for me, if you're telling me that the quality is superior to what I'm seeing with ShadowPlay then I'm all for looking more into this.

 

See now a super efficient proprietary codec would make a great launch perk for users, but as far as allowing high bit rates with existing common codecs immediately I'm not so sure how big of an ask that is, if you are going to try and compete with YouTube you best prepare your servers for an astronomical influx of data.

Afterburner (depending on the codec) can also record the desktop area, you can also record multiple audio streams.

You can tell MSI's on screen display to both stay on screen or hide when recording. Also you can Separate or MIX those audio streams.

You can now set up x64 bit capturing with MSI AB, not just sticking with 32bit x86 programs, which is great.

It's no more power hungry than DXtory, as the work being done is through the codecs still, the program doesn't get it the way for any reason.

Here is my drop down list of codecs to choose, selectable from hitting the button to the right of that Video Format list.

I choose my intended codec and configure to my needs (35-50Mbps constant or variable to my 7200Rpm D:)

(Some codecs do now allow setting this specific number and provide a slider bar left to right for quality,.. finding your own quality>performance ratio is important.

The one I'm currently selected on is a lossless codec, but much faster than the lagorith codec. Before that I was using the x264/h264 codec with "fast" profiles.

Untitled.png

 

Scrolling down under this is where the audio options are.

Enjoy tweaking :)

 

*About SP - Is the 50Mbps quality that bad?, is it variable?? Wouldn't you use this 24/7, and/if only to quickly re-encode to another format if your video editor/app doesnt play nice.

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SkilledRebuilds

 

If you upload what you have captured to a YouTube channel that is public, could you link it to me in a PM so I could see the outcome of your method?

 

I have set up various software now (Vegas/DXtory/Afterburner) and I've been experimenting and I've rendered a few things, but before I start to publish anything to YT I'm trying to get a look at some outcomes from people who use different methods because my upload speed is not amazing.

 

If that's cool I'd much appreciate it, if your YT vids are unlisted/private then no worries just ignore the request or say no.

 

BTW thank you for your previous posting it was very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SkilledRebuilds

 

If you upload what you have captured to a YouTube channel that is public, could you link it to me in a PM so I could see the outcome of your method?

BTW thank you for your previous posting it was very helpful.

Done, and thanks.

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if this is the case, I should turn down my Dxtorys write speed? right now its at 80 mb/s. is that just a waste for youtube? massive files for no reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Done, and thanks.

 

I've read and watched all you posted, I've done a lot of renders with a lot of different settings, the quality of my footage is improving quickly, here is my latest 1080p render, tell me what you think. It is still a bit blocky in the darker areas but I've got the overal look reasonable.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soFRUOLDRY4

 

I think that was just under 300MB prior to upload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if this is the case, I should turn down my Dxtorys write speed? right now its at 80 mb/s. is that just a waste for youtube? massive files for no reason?

If you intend of keeping your output for whatever reason but youtube, then its still a great place to start for later on, if you can manage the file sizes.

 

 

I've read and watched all you posted, I've done a lot of renders with a lot of different settings, the quality of my footage is improving quickly, here is my latest 1080p render, tell me what you think. It is still a bit blocky in the darker areas but I've got the overal look reasonable.

 

/watch?v=soFRUOLDRY4

 

I think that was just under 300MB prior to upload.

Looks damn good for 300MB for near 7 mins @ 1080p.

Being a pretty dark game overall, unless you really amped up your settings and spent a lot of time rendering it out it may be too long for your worth.

When its viable,.. I totally agree with the concept of "rendering overnight, with a projected finish time and a shutdown timer, is easily managed", or find something to do or light-multitasking if I'm awake.

 

But youtube crippling quality really changes how you may or may not now do things... 3000kbps for 720p and 4000kbps 1080p is a far cry from perfection for the video's you put work into, but there are alternatives you can use (Vimeo) and such that you can make a YT placeholder video with a link to your Vimeo(or alternative) video.

Still showing your YT fans new video's, and a different crowd on Video/others, and their communities.

 

Video looks good, multiple renders of 300/400/450MB and have a look at them, if your aiming for that low, sometimes a tiny bit higher can make a bit of a difference.

The more you put into youtube the better the end result especially with their progressive "processing" system that quickly double pass re-encodes it to those numbers above.

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you intend of keeping your output for whatever reason but youtube, then its still a great place to start for later on, if you can manage the file sizes.

 

 

Looks damn good for 300MB for near 7 mins @ 1080p.

Being a pretty dark game overall, unless you really amped up your settings and spent a lot of time rendering it out it may be too long for your worth.

When its viable,.. I totally agree with the concept of "rendering overnight, with a projected finish time and a shutdown timer, is easily managed", or find something to do or light-multitasking if I'm awake.

 

But youtube crippling quality really changes how you may or may not now do things... 3000kbps for 720p and 4000kbps 1080p is a far cry from perfection for the video's you put work into, but there are alternatives you can use (Vimeo) and such that you can make a YT placeholder video with a link to your Vimeo(or alternative) video.

Still showing your YT fans new video's, and a different crowd on Video/others, and their communities.

 

Video looks good, multiple renders of 300/400/450MB and have a look at them, if your aiming for that low, sometimes a tiny bit higher can make a bit of a difference.

The more you put into youtube the better the end result especially with their progressive "processing" system that quickly double pass re-encodes it to those numbers above.

 

Yeah, I'm currently in the process of encoding a small library of multiple bitrates for a couple of particular clips, when the queue is done I will upload them all and view the results on a larger 1080p display (TV) to inspect them and see the difference between various bitrates.

 

I started by using Vegas to convert the capture into an uncompressed .avi and then moved on to experimenting with various methods of compression.

 

That particular clip was encoded into h.264 using Handbrake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be surprised by the difference of "settings needed vs different looking source material"

Cartoons/dark edged cel shading,... and such VS real life looking graphics and video with more 3D depth to it.

Using a few different output settings on each type of source and you'll find the right way to go about it I'm sure... quality>filesize is more important for a Youtube channel and slower uploading capabilities.

If your one of those Super Duper Youtubers with "special" access to higher bitrate allowances then yeah, go nuts.

 

Also Quality>Filesize doesnt really play a part when your not putting it online.

If it can fit on a Data driven DVD or a separate HDD and its the near lossless quality but....... isn't too big to not be kept anywhere then great.

Usually the results speak for themselves. I don't use Vegas so I'm not familiar (although I probably should get on that too..)

 

I'm no big producer of content, but I have loved codec tweaking for a LONG long time. No one has to use or take on my advice, just sharing personals ;)

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SkilledRebuilds

 

Check out this footage that I have rendered, it's looking pretty good just select 4K.

 

File is 530MB, rendered 3200x1800 with Sony Vegas using Lagarith YV12 capture, with a bit of plugin tweaking and it's H.264/AVC in mp4 container 50/60 VBR.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4I8JtYsR0E

 

I'm going to render it again with slightly higher brightness and constant BR to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

so can someone just tell me what i should use for 720 on youtube? :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm currently in the process of encoding a small library of multiple bitrates for a couple of particular clips, when the queue is done I will upload them all and view the results on a larger 1080p display (TV) to inspect them and see the difference between various bitrates.

 

I started by using Vegas to convert the capture into an uncompressed .avi and then moved on to experimenting with various methods of compression.

 

That particular clip was encoded into h.264 using Handbrake.

so which one should i use for youtube than for 720 30fps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×