Upload to Youtube without losing quality?
 

So, everytime I upload to YouTube, it looks horrible. I use Lagarith for capture and ProRes 422 HQ for exporting for hybrid and it looks horrible. Any-way to get good quality by YouTube's encoding process?


Attached link is what the quality is straight from the .mov file.

Processing
Hybrid
QTGMC - Slower - Bob - Top field first
Upscale - 1440x1080
To make it look better I use mClean for de-noise and FineSharp for sharpening
Export:
Standard ProRes 422 HQ

https://youtu.be/9CVSCa2jT3Q?si=8px_qC6c5W6B5_C-

You get better results by uploading lossless which eats up some bandwidth if you are not on unlimited fiber, Anything encoded gets reprocessed by youtube and compressed even further. Another better option is resizing to 1920x1440 to get their "newest" codec called VP9 or something like that, But personally that's way beyond of what I go to try to slightly improve the already shity processing of youtube.

Looking at your sample, that's the harshest test you can put youtube on, Static drives youtube algorithm nuts, Try to test with a normal clip that has no tape problems.

After doing some digging, I found out if I encode as a .mp4 and 3200-9000 bitrate it would look somewhat better on youtube. Aside from that I will not keep this file after uploading as I normally encode ProRes.

Channels with less than 500 subscribers don't get VP9 encoding -- you just get AVC (h.264). You can tell by the lack of 480p resolution (unless the video was uploaded at that resolution). Channels with 500+ subscribers get VP9 encoding and 480p.

That is incorrect. Provided the source video has a height of at least 1440, VP9 will be used for ALL variants, right down to 144.

Channels with 500+ subscribers get VP9 encoding and 480p.
That is also incorrect in the case of around ~670 subs. The video must have a height of at least 1440.

I don't have info on channels which have thousands of subscribers.

YouTube doesn't admit the exact number of subscribers to get VP9 and 240p/480p. 500 is just what some users experienced. It may change over time.

I've never understood or agreed with this stance. All that is required is a high-bit/depth delivery format with bitrate that exceeds the final delivery. For Youtube, can that can be H.264, with a CRF of 15 or less, and 4:2:2 with a low GOP. Not quite "lossless" H.264, but light compression. Otherwise all you're doing is wasting time and bandwidth.

Also understand that Hybrid uses unofficial ProRes422. Sometimes that matters. side effects.

You're incorrect. And also correct. "Huh?", you ask? Well, Youtube does whatever they want. They change their mind like teenaged girls. So what you know now, or knew yesterday, may be wholly incorrect tomorrow.

When I worked with studios, I had to interact with streamer platforms, especially iTunes and Netflix. I could spend a week on an encode library, submit it, and then it'd get rejected. WTF? "Oh, we had to change that spec, now it's this. Just do that real quick." Real quick? SOB. Now, that was 10-15 years ago, when everything was more primordial, and things moved quickly (and on slower computers, grrr). But that mindset is still in those places. They do whatever they want, and do not care about who it affects, or the fallout. "They can just fix it real quick." The irony is they wanted crazy high submission specs -- sometimes even above the source, so you had to bloat pad encode it. Then they compress the snot out of it on their end, often with a final output that looked worse than my high compression. You still have to play their games for submission. But Youtube can pound sand, submitting lossless encodes is insane.

I do not miss this aspect of my old career. Such a PITA. :screwy:

Rubbish LS, I did a test immediately before I wrote that (just to confirm that what YT has been doing for at least 18 months hasn't changed). If you upload ANY 1440P video to YT, you'll get VP9. Try it.

Before people come on here making statements they should verify that what they say is correct. There's enough furphies floating around without DFaq containing them too.

I have no doubt that you're correct today, with your exact scenario. I cannot disprove it, and I really have no need to. So I accept what you say without question.

But it's well known that Alphabet/Google continues to screw around with Youtube. There's a reason Alphabet/Google does not publish detailed specs and encoding specifics. It's on purpose, not oversight. Feature, not bug. And yes. it sucks, it's confusing. To an extent, it's been gamified. Remember, when it comes to Youtube, you're the product. Google has always been this way, with everything. Literally everything. SEO, AdSense, etc. They don't tell you much in depth, it's all "need to know". So we all guess, try to read between the lines of their sparse documentation.

I've also noticed that if you upload an SD video (or one upscaled to HD) from a VHS capture in REC 601, youtube will re-encode it in REC 709. The video will be darker and there will be a loss of detail in the blacks. The trick is to include “--transfer bt709” in the encoding parameters. Youtube won't convert and you'll get REC 601 on viewing.