Comparing original footage with the Youtube output

[chicksoup]

I was wondering how bad the youtube compression really is. When I watch videos from Linus and Slick the colors always seem to be off, but not with all videos and some scenes are different, but my main request would be to see a thread of screenshots that the @LinusTech team could make of their videos in their headquarters and then taking a screenshot of the same scene on youtube and comparing the two. I think most of the youtube videos out there look terrible when it comes to color and I would rather watch uncompressed 720p videos than really bad 1080p videos

[Askew]

There is no such thing as uncompressed video on YouTube. It compresses almost everything into H.264/AVC in the mp4 container.

 

Yes it messes with the colour, yes it messes with the bitrate, please view this official information.

[wjdobie]

Uncompressed video, even at 720p takes up massive amounts of space,

 

720p HDTV uncompressed:

8 bit @ 1280 x 720 @ 59.94fps = 105 MB per/sec, or 370 GB per/hr.
10 bit @ 1280 x 720 @ 59.94fps = 140 MB per/sec, or 494 GB per/hr.

If we were looking at 30fps video then it might be half that, but it's still 50MB every second, and Nobody (Certainly in the UK) has a 50MB (400Mbps) connection

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncompressed_video

[Murdoch]

Their compression is completely fine. As stated above it uses standard h.264 presets. Considering how much video they process and to how many people. What else could they use? It's the best thing on offer.

[chicksoup]

There is no such thing as uncompressed video on YouTube. It compresses almost everything into H.264/AVC in the mp4 container.

 

Yes it messes with the colour, yes it messes with the bitrate, please view this official information.

 

Uncompressed video, even at 720p takes up massive amounts of space,

 

720p HDTV uncompressed:

8 bit @ 1280 x 720 @ 59.94fps = 105 MB per/sec, or 370 GB per/hr.

10 bit @ 1280 x 720 @ 59.94fps = 140 MB per/sec, or 494 GB per/hr.

If we were looking at 30fps video then it might be half that, but it's still 50MB every second, and Nobody (Certainly in the UK) has a 50MB (400Mbps) connection

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncompressed_video

 

Their compression is completely fine. As stated above it uses standard h.264 presets. Considering how much video they process and to how many people. What else could they use? It's the best thing on offer.

 

ok, I didn't mean totally uncompressed, but I would like to see better colors in a 720p video than bad and washed out colors in 1080p

[wjdobie]

ok, I didn't mean totally uncompressed, but I would like to see better colors in a 720p video than bad and washed out colors in 1080p

Meh, I don't particularly like youtube compression either but for the most part it doesn't bother me - Besides, they probably save millions in Server bandwidth because of the sheer amout of videos that are streamed each day

[Askew]

ok, I didn't mean totally uncompressed, but I would like to see better colors in a 720p video than bad and washed out colors in 1080p

 

It is possible to manipulate colours in your editing software to compensate for the behaviour of youtube's encoding.

[xrex64]

Think about how massive the storage space for millions of people's videos would be. 

[Recon-UK]

To be fair, YT is pretty fookin epic.... Download your uPloaded video, 1.2gb turns into 100mb.

[JohnnyGrey]

Why would you want to download your uploaded video if you have the original? I would never ever delete my source video for the compressed version from YouTube.  

 

There are different quality presets for h.264, I think YouTube uses a highly-compressed, small file size preset. But I agree, some YT videos look pretty shitty.