Youtube vs Vimeo...

[Lin Evans]

I uploaded the identical 1600x1200 MP4 to both Youtube and Vimeo as a test. This video has only one zoom and no pan or rotate but does use some fast sequences and some animation via mask movement.

The result was that Youtube displays it with full HD capabilities at 1600x1200 resolution. If given time to fully buffer or at least buffer half way through the less than 2 minute run time, the Youtube version looks nearly perfect. Vimeo, on the other hand, does not indicate that it is an HD video at all. At this time (more than an hour after conversion) Vimeo displays the file in the correct aspect ratio but only at low quality. Full screen version at Vimeo is not great at all.

Interestingly, none of my MP4 players will play the file correctly at 1600x1200 HD conversion. Media Player Classic Homecinema clips off the bottom one inch or so but renders the zoom correctly, however it totally looses sync with sound and picture on the second portion with the bullets, etc. Kantaris Media Player incorrectly "steps" the zoom in big "jumps" rather than smoothly zooming in. However it does render the proper timing on the bullet holes and sound.

The interesting thing is that apparently the MP4 itself is created correctly because the conversion to Flash at both Youtube and Vimeo renders the show correctly! So we are left with the issue than as of right now, there are things in our video creations which "may" confuse all current MP4 media players even though the actual MP4 file is created correctly - it may not play back correctly on our players. The fact that the conversion to Flash renders a file almost identical to the executable means that the original MP4 is "correct" even if we can't display it correctly!

Here are links to Youtube and Vimeo for those interested:

http://vimeo.com/3094970

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k67RtpsOc8

Lin

[Picsel]

The result was that Youtube displays it with full HD capabilities at 1600x1200 resolution. If given time to fully buffer or at least buffer half way through the less than 2 minute run time, the Youtube version looks nearly perfect. Vimeo, on the other hand, does not indicate that it is an HD video at all. At this time (more than an hour after conversion) Vimeo displays the file in the correct aspect ratio but only at low quality. Full screen version at Vimeo is not great at all.

Hi Lin,

very interesting comparison indeed. I can guess the result is depending on the transmission speed for downloading. On YouTube the quality of the picture is quite fine. However I do not succeed to view the first part of your video correctly, several stops during zooming part on the eagle, but no noticeable problem after, bullets and sounds are synchronised, etc... With Vimeo it seems very strange because after desabling the "upscaling" function which deteriorates the picture quality a lot, your video looks like a 480 x 360 original mp4 video which has nothing to see with your 1600 x 1200 original one. Is it a Vimeo problem for encoding such a video format?

abstract of Vimeo recommendation for upload video settings : " Size =

640x480 for standard definition 4:3 video, 872x480 for widescreen DV, or 1280x720 for high definition. It is also best to export 1920x1080 or 1440x1080 video as 1280x720 too."

There is no mention of 1600 x 1200 is that the reason of your problem?

I have already tried Vimeo with 1280x 720 and the result was not perfect but better than yours.

However another bad point I had already experienced with Vimeo : there are a lot of visible artefacts on the pictures at the boundary between clear and dark parts (for example at the top of eagle's head) which does not exist on YouTube video even with a full screen format. Those artefacts are more likely due to video mp4 to flv encoding process.

Daniel

[Lin Evans]

Hi Daniel,

I pulled (deleted) the Vimeo version because it wouldn't recognize it at all as an HD file even though the original MP4 was 1600x1200. It appears that Vimeo will not recognize HD unless in the 16:9 aspect ratio which for me is quite awkward because I don't generally create video files but convert stills made at 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio.

For this reason I've about given up on Vimeo and much prefer Youtube. Of course the issue with jerky movement in zooms is primarily hardware based on Youtube. That is, if your hardware, and primarily your video card, has sufficient resources and you give the file time to completely buffer, the playback even at 1600x1200 will be quite smooth. The issue with horizontal pans and jerkiness seems to be more complex. At HD resolutions, even when played back locally on any of my systems an MP4 simply isn't as smooth on horizontal pans as the executable. This makes it difficult to know with certainty just how much of an issue is Flash conversion and how much is MP4 creation.

I'm unsure why Youtube 1024x768 HD conversions are significantly worse in quality than 1600x1200 because on the original MP4 there appears to be very little difference between them. Something in the conversion to Flash takes its toll on the image quality so I prefer to stick with 1600x1200.

Best regards,

Lin

[Picsel]

Lin,

did you make some tests with 1440 x 1080? It seems that Vimeo will accept this 4/3 format which is compatible in height with HD. Could be interesting to make a comparison only on the video quality with the same video format for both Vimeo and YouTube.

Best regards

Daniel

[Gérard de Lux]

Lin,

I'm a bit suprised and confused by your 'conclusions' because I came to the opposite!

I have no experience at all with video, MP4 and the like, and my first recent trial has been done just using the 'automatic' functions/settings of PTE with an existing slideshow of less than 4'; this show had and still has no PZR effects; only dissolves and cuts.

I started by just converting the existing pte show; as it was in 3:2 format, I couldn't get the "HD" quality on Vimeo; then I cropped the images to 1280 x 720, letting PTE do the rest with Vimeo and YouTube.

I do prefer the output on Vimeo : here.

The result on YouTube is here

But I repeat that I don't know anything about video and didn't try any fancy animations, effects or sizes; I have only used the 'automatic' conversion features of PTE and I do think that the results are better as published on Vimeo than on YouTube from the same original images.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Gerard,

I can't see any real differences between the two for your show. With Vimeo, HD is enabled with full screen but with Youtube you need to also click on full screen as well as on "See in HD" to get the higher quality. It could be that what you see is the effect of some "sharpening" applied by Vimeo to their Flash FLV conversions. This works well for stills, but really messes up zooms and pans expecially if the originals are already quite sharp and there is no way to turn it off.

The differences though are quite apparent between Vimeo's HD and Youtube when you upload a 1600x1200 file. Vimeo only supports 720P while Youtube supports 1080p as well as 1600x1200. The differences in image quality between 720p and 1080p are quite apparent.

The thing I don't like about Vimeo is their inability to allow 3:2 or 4:3 HD format. Right now I'm testing by uploading a 1440x1080 to Vimeo as suggested by Daniel (above). We'll see how it looks.

In order to really get the quality with a 1600x12oo or a 1920x1080 you need some fairly serious video processing power in the video card. Unless you have at least a top of middle range video card such as the nVidia 8800 GT or the nVidia 8600 GT you probably won't appreciate the differences. In fact, without the video card power the higher resolution probably won't be as good. But when you do have the right video card and sufficient resources, the 1600x1200 images are virtually indistinguishable from the original executables except for horizontal pans.

Best regards,

Lin

[Lin Evans]

Hi Daniel,

I have uploaded my "jimmie bond" file to Vimeo at 1440x1080 to test it but it will be at least an hour or more before they have it converted.

Best regards.

Lin

[Lin Evans]

Note to readers: Video is now removed from Vimeo so link below to Vimeo slideshow is moot....

Lin

Hi Daniel,

I have uploaded my "jimmie bond" file to Vimeo at 1440x1080 to test it but it will be at least an hour or more before they have it converted.

It finally loaded and was converted. The result? Not good. With scaling on or off, the image is distorted and quite unlike the original MP4. Youtube wins by a landslide. Here's the links to each. Watch Youtube in full screen HD mode and let the show buffer completely before viewing. Just start it, then stop it and wait for buffering to start it again:

Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/3151550

Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k67RtpsOc8...re=channel_page

Best regards,

Lin

[Picsel]

I have uploaded my "jimmie bond" file to Vimeo at 1440x1080 to test it but it will be at least an hour or more before they have it converted.

It finally loaded and was converted. The result? Not good. With scaling on or off, the image is distorted and quite unlike the original MP4. Youtube wins by a landslide.

Hi Lin,

thanks for the exercise, Ive seen the results and I understand your conclusions however something is puzzling me :

1) it is clear there is a problem with the video format on Vimeo 4/3 converted in 16/9 why? Except this problem the video is quite smooth and the thunder sound is synchronized with the picture. With YouTube I do not succeed yet to get the first part of the video running smooth , several stops during zooming on the eagle, and thunder sound arrives with a delay at the end of the picture.

2) YouTube recommendation for video uploading format is 1280x720 for 16/9 and 640x480 for 4/3.

and Vimeo : 640x480 for standard definition 4:3 video, 872x480 for widescreen DV, or 1280x720 for high definition. It is also best to export 1920x1080 or 1440x1080 video as 1280x720 too. So we could think that Vimeo should have been the better choice for 1440 x1080!

Things are not yet very clear for me, so I have a couple of questions for you :

- In your case where is achieved the format conversion?

- Did you leave PTE transfer the video directly to Vimeo and YouTube using the Create Menu for those options or did you create an mp4 file before uploading it to either Vimeo or YouTube?

Best regards

Daniel

[Picsel]

I do not succeed yet to get the first part of the video running smooth , several stops during zooming on the eagle, and thunder sound arrives with a delay at the end of the picture.

Lin,

that was my fault, I had to wait a bit longer. When the buffer is full enough there is no more problem during zooming part.

Daniel.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Lin,

thanks for the exercise, Ive seen the results and I understand your conclusions however something is puzzling me :

1) it is clear there is a problem with the video format on Vimeo 4/3 converted in 16/9 why?

I can't answer this one. It just doesn't convert the 4:3 properly

Except this problem the video is quite smooth and the thunder sound is synchronized with the picture. With YouTube I do not succeed yet to get the first part of the video running smooth , several stops during zooming on the eagle, and thunder sound arrives with a delay at the end of the picture.

2) YouTube recommendation for video uploading format is 1280x720 for 16/9 and 640x480 for 4/3.

and Vimeo : 640x480 for standard definition 4:3 video, 872x480 for widescreen DV, or 1280x720 for high definition. It is also best to export 1920x1080 or 1440x1080 video as 1280x720 too. So we could think that Vimeo should have been the better choice for 1440 x1080!

I've tried 640x480 in the past with Vimeo and it works fine (they call it HD). But at anything larger it's apparently necessary to stay with 16:9 if you want Vimeo to convert it in HD without distortion.

Things are not yet very clear for me, so I have a couple of questions for you :

- In your case where is achieved the format conversion?

- Did you leave PTE transfer the video directly to Vimeo and YouTube using the Create Menu for those options or did you create an mp4 file before uploading it to either Vimeo or YouTube?

PTE outputs the Vimeo required 16:9 unless you create a custom then upload it. I created and uploaded the 1600x1200 for Youtube via the Publish on Youtube then choosing "custom". For Vimeo, there is no choice in aspect ratio unless you choose HD Video for PC and Mac then upload manually. Vimeo apparently just doesn't handle true HD in other than 16:9 aspect ratio and it distorts the image if you try to "fool" it by making one side equal to 1080 as if you were uploading a 1080P. I suspect that even if you did upload a 1920x1080 it would be downsampled by the Vimeo Flash converter to 1280x720.

Best regards,

Lin

Best regards

Daniel

[Picsel]

Thanks, Lin

for all your explanation. It is clear that Vimeo is not able to convert mp4 1440x1080 as it is but more likely convert it to 1280x720 with image distortion. You might be right concerning 1920 x 1080 conversion into 1280 x720 by Vimeo

We will have to take that into account for making the right choice.

Best regards

Daniel.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Daniel,

I removed the video from Vimeo since it's really not a good representation of what PTE can do there and was only an experiment. I think we can assume that if we don't want to use 16:9 aspect ratio, Vimeo is not a good place for our slideshows. Youtube offers much more in the way of quality for 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio shows.

Best regards,

Lin

[Conflow]

Lin, Picsel,Gerard,

I don't wish to 'barge-in' on this excellent discussion which I have followed with interest

because we here in Conflow Services are grappling with 'Motion-Vectored-Imaging' for

another professional purpose altogether apart from my interest in PTE, but I would like

to say as follows.viz:-

Lin you may not be aware that Sony Corp. and Microsoft Corp. are developing a new-system

of MVI (as above) to allow proper PZR Effect in Vista and Window-7 ~ this is all tied up with

'motion-vectoring' such as experienced in Pte PZR effects, and the problems users are having.

To be fair to the WnSoft Team the whole idea of PZR was to solely enhance the V.5.6 Program

but the sheer technical difficulties of trying to make this work on "so-so" Projectors of different

qualities is giving the 'Big-Boys' serious headaches never mind the WnSoft Team....

Somewhat similar problems are being experienced with You-Tube and Vimeo ~ but here when

we ignore PZR-effects users are having trouble converting from PTE Digital-Imagery to (Flash)

Digital-Video.

Because PTE/AVI is not in 'Video-Camcorder Format' which is the sole living purpose of

You-Tube and Vimeo ~ in comparison our PTE.Program relies on a Software-Codec such as

MPeg-4 (excellent) but one would have to know the 'Requirements' of that Codec for things to

work properly. We have been researching Monitor-Formats and Video-Formats and to say the

least very little meets in the middle except the HD-720 Video-Standard which offers the best

chance of getting PC.Monitor-Images somewhere near acceptabe requirements of Vimeo/UTube

in Hi-quality reproduction.

The 'Attachments' below may help Picsel, Gerald and yourself in the 'Testing' you are doing, if not,

at least it will show the wide 'Standards-Gaps' in the two Systems and somewhere there must be

a compromise between the two.

Best Regards,

Brian.Conflow.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Brian,

Thanks much for the updated information. It seems as if the industry is at odds with itself. As you correctly assert, Youtube and Vimeo are primarily video sites, and video is definitely the direction of the future.

The problem for we photographers and presentation slideshow fans is that most current video development runs counter to our interests in terms of both pixel shape (rectangular versus square) and aspect ratio. With the literally billions of photographs in the world which are either large, medium or small format (35mm), the photographer essentially needs either a "square" (large and many medium formats) or a 3:2 (35mm film and most dSLR) or 4:3 (most digicams) aspect ratio.

Without such a format readily available on these video sites, it forces the photographer to either choose among the minority of his existing frames which are amenable to cropping to 16:9 and ignore the majority of existing negative or captures or change his entire style of shooting and shoot everything very wide to make all new photos amenable to cropping to this 16:9 aspect ratio. Neither is a really satisfactory solution.

Fortunately, Youtube does convert a 4:3 properly in HD at 1600x1200 but then the difficulty of playing back this relatively huge file over the web poses its own set of unique problems for the hardware used by the masses.

On the bright side, in a few years this will all be water under the bridge because newer systems are being built to run the resource hog OS, "Vista". If it has done nothing else, it has forced manufacturers to build systems with higher hardware and video card standards which will ultimately be able to play back these large video files smoothly. For that I'm thankful because eventually we will want to have full 3D and video capabilities in our presentation slideshow software and that will tax the system even more.

Meanwhile, we will probably continue to struggle with compromise. MP4 seems to offer hope in that the image quality possible is superior if only we can solve the issues of smooth pans at higher resolutions. This may have to wait for even more hardware resources because even the middle top video cards like my nVidia 8800 GT are stressed to render smooth horizontal pans with a large MP4 playback locally.

Had I the means, I would test the very top-end video cards and system hardware and perhaps learn whether the issues are resource specific or whether the problems lie in the MP4 code itself, but I'm having problems avoiding foreclosure on my home right now and have no funds to devote to experiments so will have to continue to plod along by trial and error and hopefully discover a way to achieve a compromise between image size/quality and smooth performance over the web.

Best regards,

Lin

[Gérard de Lux]

Hello Brian,

Thank you for your info, very interesting indeed!

Together with the latest answer from Lin, this confirms (at least for me !) that .exe output is - for the time being - the best and most reliable format overall... and without headache.

This is good news as we, AV producers, aren't to be mixed down with video freaks... but this is another story and just a very personal nasty note! ... for which I apologize

[Conflow]

Gerald & Lin,

Gerald, I completely agree with you ~ If any Show is intended for Video ~ At the outset it should be formatted

for Video reproduction. You and Lin are of similar mind's on that point, its a pity others won't accept that fact.

Surely we have enough problems trying to project our Shows on to 'Big-Screens' in Hi-Resolution rather that messing

up a perfectly good AV-Production in retrograding it to Flv-Format to show on Vimeo & YouTube which to me seems to

attract a predominant 'Teenage-Audience' who haven't the least interest in Photographic-Artistry.

Lin, may I wish you some 'Irish Good Luck' with your problem.

Best regards,

Brian.

[Picsel]

Gerald & Lin,

Surely we have enough problems trying to project our Shows on to 'Big-Screens' in Hi-Resolution rather that messing

up a perfectly good AV-Production in retrograding it to Flv-Format to show on Vimeo & YouTube which to me seems to

attract a predominant 'Teenage-Audience' who haven't the least interest in Photographic-Artistry.

Brian.

Hi Brian, Lin, Gerald

I full agree with this point of view. Exactly what I wrote in a previous post answering to Igor question concerning Create Menu.

In my opinion, PTE market is clearly dedicated to photographic slideshows of best quality. If PTE developpers team wants to target YouTube or Vimeo market they will have to compete with common video production softwares like Studio, Vegas, Magix and others but more likely they will miss the train. Personnaly I did not buy PTE for video production. If I was interested by testing Vimeo or YouTube that was just to know and to use them as a preview for visitors on a website before they decide to download the exe file. But it is not very essential, just a bonus.

To be clear, I would prefer that all functions concerning slideshows be improved or cleaned up when necessary rather than to get more or better video outputs.

Daniel.