www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] Uploading DConf videos

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a few 
options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our reference 
upload site.

I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content I 
uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what processing youtube 
does?


Thanks,

Andrei
Jul 17 2014
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-07-17 20:54, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a few
 options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our reference
 upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content I
 uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what processing youtube
 does?


I don't know the details but it does quite a lot of processing. 
Splitting it up, makes it available in the different qualities and so on.

BTW, have you tried downloading it from youtube and not stream it? There 
are plugins for Firefox or tools [1] to do that. I can't see any 
difference compared to the download video from youtube.

[1] http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 17 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:54:20 -0700
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>:


 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a few 
 options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our reference 
 upload site.
 
 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:
 
 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com
 
 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content I 
 uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what processing
 youtube does?
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Andrei


I think youtube always recodes videos. Probably to a lower bitrate and
and with faster, but lower quality encoding (single pass vs multipass,
etc.). For youtube formats, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Quality_and_codecs
Jul 17 2014
parent reply "Israel Rodriguez" <tl12000 live.com> writes:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 20:10:36 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Am Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:54:20 -0700
 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>:


 I think youtube always recodes videos. Probably to a lower 
 bitrate and
 and with faster, but lower quality encoding (single pass vs 
 multipass,
 etc.). For youtube formats, see:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Quality_and_codecs


This man has it right. I dont think quality is a huge issue 
though unless youre watching something that needs to be sensitive 
to the eye in which case youtube will work just fine for these 
videos.
Jul 17 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 18/07/14 03:55, Israel Rodriguez wrote:


 This man has it right. I dont think quality is a huge issue though
 unless youre watching something that needs to be sensitive to the eye in
 which case youtube will work just fine for these videos.


Youtube supports resolutions of 4k, I don't see the problem with quality.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 17 2014
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/17/14, 11:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 18/07/14 03:55, Israel Rodriguez wrote:


 This man has it right. I dont think quality is a huge issue though
 unless youre watching something that needs to be sensitive to the eye in
 which case youtube will work just fine for these videos.


 Youtube supports resolutions of 4k, I don't see the problem with quality.


Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on archive.org than 
on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei
Jul 18 2014
next sibling parent reply "ponce" <contact gam3sfrommars.fr> writes:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 15:44:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/17/14, 11:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 18/07/14 03:55, Israel Rodriguez wrote:


 This man has it right. I dont think quality is a huge issue 
 though
 unless youre watching something that needs to be sensitive to 
 the eye in
 which case youtube will work just fine for these videos.


 Youtube supports resolutions of 4k, I don't see the problem 
 with quality.


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on 
 archive.org than on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- 
 Andrei


archive.org serves the same file you uploaded to Youtube, without 
change.

Youtube always re-encodes the video, for various reasons:
- sources are very heterogeneous
- multiple formats needed for various devices, various 
resolutions, and bandwidth adaptation
- insanely low bitrates (3000kbps for 1080p H.264 is scarce, yet 
it's not so bad with the encode Youtube does)

So while Youtube quality might be worse, the used bitrates are 
probably not the same. My opinion is that it's best to let 
Youtube serve the content for maximum reach.
Jul 18 2014
parent reply David Gileadi <gileadis NSPMgmail.com> writes:
On 7/18/14, 9:32 AM, ponce wrote:

 On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 15:44:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/17/14, 11:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 18/07/14 03:55, Israel Rodriguez wrote:


 This man has it right. I dont think quality is a huge issue though
 unless youre watching something that needs to be sensitive to the
 eye in
 which case youtube will work just fine for these videos.


 Youtube supports resolutions of 4k, I don't see the problem with
 quality.


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on archive.org
 than on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


 archive.org serves the same file you uploaded to Youtube, without change.

 Youtube always re-encodes the video, for various reasons:
 - sources are very heterogeneous
 - multiple formats needed for various devices, various resolutions, and
 bandwidth adaptation
 - insanely low bitrates (3000kbps for 1080p H.264 is scarce, yet it's
 not so bad with the encode Youtube does)

 So while Youtube quality might be worse, the used bitrates are probably
 not the same. My opinion is that it's best to let Youtube serve the
 content for maximum reach.


And you can always download a high-quality version from YouTube in 
various formats (including the original format) using something like 
ClipGrab.
Jul 18 2014
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 7/18/2014 12:40 PM, David Gileadi wrote:

 And you can always download a high-quality version from YouTube in
 various formats (including the original format) using something like
 ClipGrab.


But not the original non-re-encoded version.
Jul 18 2014
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/18/14, 10:46 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On 7/18/2014 12:40 PM, David Gileadi wrote:

 And you can always download a high-quality version from YouTube in
 various formats (including the original format) using something like
 ClipGrab.


 But not the original non-re-encoded version.


So I think what we're doing now (archive.org is the, well, archive, and 
youtube is a mirror) is what the doctor prescribed. -- Andrei
Jul 18 2014
parent reply "currysoup" <sam92cutler hotmail.co.uk> writes:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 21:26:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 10:46 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On 7/18/2014 12:40 PM, David Gileadi wrote:

 And you can always download a high-quality version from 
 YouTube in
 various formats (including the original format) using 
 something like
 ClipGrab.


 But not the original non-re-encoded version.


 So I think what we're doing now (archive.org is the, well, 
 archive, and youtube is a mirror) is what the doctor 
 prescribed. -- Andrei


That is a reasonable approach, I just think you should post the 
youtube links when you post on reddit since the lack of adaptive 
streaming (and decent CDNs) can make it a crappy experiance. Why 
add more barriers to entry?
Jul 18 2014
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/18/14, 5:58 PM, currysoup wrote:

 On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 21:26:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 10:46 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On 7/18/2014 12:40 PM, David Gileadi wrote:

 And you can always download a high-quality version from YouTube in
 various formats (including the original format) using something like
 ClipGrab.


 But not the original non-re-encoded version.


 So I think what we're doing now (archive.org is the, well, archive,
 and youtube is a mirror) is what the doctor prescribed. -- Andrei


 That is a reasonable approach, I just think you should post the youtube
 links when you post on reddit since the lack of adaptive streaming (and
 decent CDNs) can make it a crappy experiance. Why add more barriers to
 entry?


That's a good point, thanks. But I haven't seen complaints from people 
about archive.org, though I did see before about ustream.tv. -- Andrei
Jul 18 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-07-19 05:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 That's a good point, thanks. But I haven't seen complaints from people
 about archive.org, though I did see before about ustream.tv. -- Andrei


archive.org is extremely slow for compared with youtube. We're talking 
one _hour_ vs two minutes.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 19 2014
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-07-19 17:16, Jacob Carlborg wrote:


 archive.org is extremely slow for compared with youtube. We're talking
 one _hour_ vs two minutes.


*for me

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-07-18 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on archive.org than
 on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


You're streaming and not downloading from Youtube. I always download 
longer video clips from Youtube. I don't want any buffering while watching.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 18 2014
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/18/14, 12:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2014-07-18 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on archive.org than
 on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


 You're streaming and not downloading from Youtube. I always download
 longer video clips from Youtube. I don't want any buffering while watching.


Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf talks at 
the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei
Jul 18 2014
next sibling parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.airpost.net> writes:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 22:39:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 12:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2014-07-18 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on 
 archive.org than
 on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


 You're streaming and not downloading from Youtube. I always 
 download
 longer video clips from Youtube. I don't want any buffering 
 while watching.


 Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf 
 talks at the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei


Do you increase the resolution of your Youtube videos when you 
don't like the quality that it's streaming?  It's not clear if 
you are complaining about the quality because you're on a slow 
network and Youtube is giving you the low-quality encode, or if 
you don't like their higher-quality encodes also.

If you click on the Settings icon that looks like a gear below 
the video, you can force the quality as high as the original 
video uploaded, by changing the default "Auto" resolution mode.  
I can't complain about their HD encodes.  As for downloading from 
Youtube, that's not really officially supported, but scripts/apps 
like the one linked earlier will do it.

Have you looked at Vimeo?  They're probably the second-biggest 
video site after Youtube and are sticklers for quality 
resolution, as they used to focus on the indie filmmaker 
community, and they officially support downloading videos, if the 
uploader chooses to enable that option.
Jul 18 2014
next sibling parent reply "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 00:31:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 22:39:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 12:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2014-07-18 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on 
 archive.org than
 on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


 You're streaming and not downloading from Youtube. I always 
 download
 longer video clips from Youtube. I don't want any buffering 
 while watching.


 Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf 
 talks at the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei


 Do you increase the resolution of your Youtube videos when you 
 don't like the quality that it's streaming?  It's not clear if 
 you are complaining about the quality because you're on a slow 
 network and Youtube is giving you the low-quality encode, or if 
 you don't like their higher-quality encodes also.

 If you click on the Settings icon that looks like a gear below 
 the video, you can force the quality as high as the original 
 video uploaded, by changing the default "Auto" resolution mode.
  I can't complain about their HD encodes.  As for downloading 
 from Youtube, that's not really officially supported, but 
 scripts/apps like the one linked earlier will do it.

 Have you looked at Vimeo?  They're probably the second-biggest 
 video site after Youtube and are sticklers for quality 
 resolution, as they used to focus on the indie filmmaker 
 community, and they officially support downloading videos, if 
 the uploader chooses to enable that option.


This. Vimeo is quite popular, quality shouldn't be a problem and 
people aren't going to wait for an hour like with archive.org.

Andrei: I'm about 90% sure you're doing something wrong. I've 
never seen a HD youtube video with such low quality.

Either you didn't set the resolution higher (default is 360p or 
something), or you have a crappy connection and YouTube refuses 
to stream high-quality
(it happened to me a few times that I still got the low-quality 
video after setting it to HD - refresh (F5) after setting the 
resolution sometimes works),
or as said above you made that screen only a few seconds after 
starting/skipping a part of the video.
Jul 18 2014
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/18/14, 6:15 PM, Kiith-Sa wrote:

 This. Vimeo is quite popular, quality shouldn't be a problem and people
 aren't going to wait for an hour like with archive.org.


Awesome. Can you please volunteer to mirror all of dconf videos to 
vimeo? Thanks.


 Andrei: I'm about 90% sure you're doing something wrong. I've never seen
 a HD youtube video with such low quality.


Ask Dicebot, he's doing it.


Andrei
Jul 18 2014
next sibling parent "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 03:39:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 6:15 PM, Kiith-Sa wrote:

 This. Vimeo is quite popular, quality shouldn't be a problem 
 and people
 aren't going to wait for an hour like with archive.org.


 Awesome. Can you please volunteer to mirror all of dconf videos 
 to vimeo? Thanks.


 Andrei: I'm about 90% sure you're doing something wrong. I've 
 never seen
 a HD youtube video with such low quality.


 Ask Dicebot, he's doing it.


 Andrei


I'm trying it out.

I've probably hit your issue with Vimeo, though: Vimeo is 
impractical unless you pay them (~50€/year). With a free account 
you can only upload 1 HD video / week. I guess you pay for what 
you get with no ads.

I'm going to upload one video anyway just to test it.

My point, however, is that you need the video to be accessible 
before you post it somewhere to Reddit. Archive.org is *not* 
accessible, it's bandwidth is way too limited. You need to have 
it on Vimeo, or YouTube, or whatever *before* you post it. 
Dicebot uploading it an hour later and posting it in a comment 
that may or may not get noticed (or me uploading it a day later) 
is not going to help.
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 03:39:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Andrei: I'm about 90% sure you're doing something wrong. I've 
 never seen
 a HD youtube video with such low quality.


 Ask Dicebot, he's doing it.


All I did:

1) wget <archive.org link for largest available .mp4>
2) press "Upload" button on YouTube web page


no brain involved :(

First few videos may be different though because I got sources 
for them from ustream as .flv containers, archive.org appeared 
later.
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 03:39:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 6:15 PM, Kiith-Sa wrote:

 This. Vimeo is quite popular, quality shouldn't be a problem 
 and people
 aren't going to wait for an hour like with archive.org.


 Awesome. Can you please volunteer to mirror all of dconf videos 
 to vimeo? Thanks.


 Andrei: I'm about 90% sure you're doing something wrong. I've 
 never seen
 a HD youtube video with such low quality.


 Ask Dicebot, he's doing it.


 Andrei


I uploaded one DConf video to test Vimeo:
https://archive.org/details/dconf2014-day01-panel

Vimeo has a limit of 500MB/week so I actually had to reencode it 
myself (~734->~480MB). Then Vimeo reencoded it again after upload.
So quality with a paid account would likely be higher.

The top image is the original, middle is my reencode before 
uploading and bottom is the result at Vimeo:

http://imgur.com/a/2SXHx

There's a visible loss of detail, but it's not nearly evident as 
on the screens you have shown.

Here's the video:

https://vimeo.com/101179246
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
... and I did try YouTube now just to see if the quality is 
really that bad.

It isn't:
http://i.imgur.com/Cu1tUQl.png

That's about as good as the archive.org originals.

I took this with YouTube resolution set to 1280x720 on a 
1920x1080 monitor.


I really think you are doing something wrong. Or YouTube is 
serving lower resolution to you for some reason even if you have 
HD turned on. Maybe a crappy ISP?
Jul 19 2014
parent "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 22:42:40 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:

 ... and I did try YouTube now just to see if the quality is 
 really that bad.

 It isn't:
 http://i.imgur.com/Cu1tUQl.png

 That's about as good as the archive.org originals.

 I took this with YouTube resolution set to 1280x720 on a 
 1920x1080 monitor.


 I really think you are doing something wrong. Or YouTube is 
 serving lower resolution to you for some reason even if you 
 have HD turned on. Maybe a crappy ISP?


... and for completeness here's a screen of the same video with 
360p (480p actually looks better):

http://i.imgur.com/bE1ak5i.png

I think this is what YouTube is serving to you (even though 
colors seem different? - details are the same)
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/18/14, 5:31 PM, Joakim wrote:

 On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 22:39:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 12:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2014-07-18 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on archive.org than
 on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


 You're streaming and not downloading from Youtube. I always download
 longer video clips from Youtube. I don't want any buffering while
 watching.


 Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf talks at
 the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei


 Do you increase the resolution of your Youtube videos when you don't
 like the quality that it's streaming?


I streamed at maximum resolution (720p) when taking those screenshots.


 It's not clear if you are
 complaining about the quality because you're on a slow network and
 Youtube is giving you the low-quality encode, or if you don't like their
 higher-quality encodes also.


I'm not complaining about anything, just trying to find the best solution.


 If you click on the Settings icon that looks like a gear below the
 video, you can force the quality as high as the original video uploaded,
 by changing the default "Auto" resolution mode. I can't complain about
 their HD encodes.  As for downloading from Youtube, that's not really
 officially supported, but scripts/apps like the one linked earlier will
 do it.

 Have you looked at Vimeo?  They're probably the second-biggest video
 site after Youtube and are sticklers for quality resolution, as they
 used to focus on the indie filmmaker community, and they officially
 support downloading videos, if the uploader chooses to enable that option.


Yes, I have, and rejected it last year (forgot the reason why). Maybe 
the reason has disappeared in the meantime.


Andrei
Jul 18 2014
parent "Joakim" <dlang joakim.airpost.net> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 03:37:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 5:31 PM, Joakim wrote:

 Do you increase the resolution of your Youtube videos when you 
 don't
 like the quality that it's streaming?


 I streamed at maximum resolution (720p) when taking those 
 screenshots.


Sorry, I hadn't looked at the screenshots from your original post 
when I responded, I see that the HD icon is there.  As others 
have said, I have noticed that if the Youtube video is initially 
downloading as 360p/480p and then you change it to 720p, it will 
sometimes keep playing whatever it's buffered so far in the lower 
resolution before switching to the higher res, even though it 
says HD.  The other reason might be transcoding errors.


 Have you looked at Vimeo?  They're probably the second-biggest 
 video
 site after Youtube and are sticklers for quality resolution, 
 as they
 used to focus on the indie filmmaker community, and they 
 officially
 support downloading videos, if the uploader chooses to enable 
 that option.


 Yes, I have, and rejected it last year (forgot the reason why). 
 Maybe the reason has disappeared in the meantime.


They're pretty good but their flash video player has some weird 
behavior when buffering, sometimes pausing the video even when 
it's buffered way ahead.  Every video site has its own problems, 
but maybe you'll like the video quality better on Vimeo.
Jul 18 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 22:39:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:

 On 7/18/14, 12:53 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2014-07-18 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Somehow the same DConf videos are of better quality on 
 archive.org than
 on youtube.com. Could you explain that? -- Andrei


 You're streaming and not downloading from Youtube. I always 
 download
 longer video clips from Youtube. I don't want any buffering 
 while watching.


 Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf 
 talks at the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei


I don't think so.
Jul 18 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-07-19 00:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf talks at
 the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei


Here's a couple of alternatives:

* youtube-dl - command line tool, requires Python. Just run the tool 
with the URL as the argument [1]

* Flash Video Downloader - plugin for Firefox. Adds a button below each 
clip on youtube to download [2]

* 4K Video Downloader - standalone application for OS X. Past the URL in 
the application and it will start to download [3]

If think the plugin for Firefox is easiest to use.

[1] http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
[2] http://www.flashvideodownloader.org/
[3] http://www.4kdownload.com/products/product-videodownloader

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 7/18/2014 6:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Is there an easy way to download off of youtube one of DConf talks at
 the same quality as the archive.org content? -- Andrei


No, because of the re-encoding already mentioned. Re-encoding can never 
result in quality equal to the original source, unless you're 
re-encoding to a lossless format (which would almost always be pointless 
for various reasons).

That said though, YouTube's higher-qualities really aren't too bad, IME. 
Their encodings have come a good way since their horrible, horrible 
quality early years. Of course, I still think it's very good to offer 
the original non-reencoded version too.
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 7/18/2014 2:53 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 18/07/14 03:55, Israel Rodriguez wrote:


 This man has it right. I dont think quality is a huge issue though
 unless youre watching something that needs to be sensitive to the eye in
 which case youtube will work just fine for these videos.


 Youtube supports resolutions of 4k, I don't see the problem with quality.


Video quality is far, far more than just resolution.
Jul 18 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a 
 few options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our 
 reference upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


 Thanks,

 Andrei


My experience with youtbe is that they render the video in 
various resolutions. They then try to adapt the user connection 
speed by serving a lower or higher quality video.

When you upload the video, at first, only the low quality is 
available. Higher quality come later.
Jul 17 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Mike" <none none.com> writes:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a 
 few options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our 
 reference upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


 Thanks,

 Andrei


The DConf 2013 videos are streamed from YouTube in HD, and the 
quality is quite good, but the DConf 2014 are not streamed in HD, 
and can make it difficult to read some text on the slides.

I don't know why they are different.  Perhaps the DCOnf 2014 
videos were re-encoded at a lower quality before they were 
uploaded.

Mike
Jul 17 2014
parent reply "Mike" <none none.com> writes:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 00:33:35 UTC, Mike wrote:

 On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a 
 few options last year before deciding to use archive.org as 
 our reference upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


 Thanks,

 Andrei


 The DConf 2013 videos are streamed from YouTube in HD, and the 
 quality is quite good, but the DConf 2014 are not streamed in 
 HD, and can make it difficult to read some text on the slides.

 I don't know why they are different.  Perhaps the DCOnf 2014 
 videos were re-encoded at a lower quality before they were 
 uploaded.

 Mike


I take that back, this DConf 2014 video 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNvUIWFy02I) is streamed in HD.  
I'm not sure why the others aren't.
Jul 17 2014
parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 00:38:16 UTC, Mike wrote:

 I take that back, this DConf 2014 video 
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNvUIWFy02I) is streamed in HD.
  I'm not sure why the others aren't.


Most likely this is exactly the re-encoding thing that was 
mentioned - better qualities get added later eventually as they 
take more processing time. I always upload original mp4 of best 
quality from archive.org , no re-encoding from my side.
Jul 17 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jyxent" <jyxent example.com> writes:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


I think that Youtube starts streaming at a lower quality and 
finishes playing some amount of the lower quality buffer before 
switching to the higher quality stream.  If you kept watching the 
Youtube video, it should have gotten better.  If you switch to 
higher quality, then seek back to the beginning of the video, it 
will start in the higher quality.

http://i.imgur.com/ERjtI8h.jpg Youtube after seeking back to 
beginning
Jul 18 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Guillaume Chatelet" <chatelet.guillaume gmail.com> writes:
A few things to know :

- Bitrate is adaptive to accommodate for
   - slow to high speed transport layer
   - windowed to fullscreen image size (as for C++ you pay for what
you want :)
   - resolution can be forced ( click the bottom right gear )

- The original format you upload matters : see
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en

- YouTube quality can be very high :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5BF9E09ECEC8F88F (again,
go fullscreen with high speed connectivity or force the
resolution and possibily wait for data to come)

- As it's been stated a few times in this thread : YouTube
reencode the videos for various reasons, a particularly important
one being security. Some people use videos to do code injection
so they don't distribute a bit precise copy of the source. It
needs to be a valid video from start to finish with no hidden
data.

Guillaume

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a 
 few options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our 
 reference upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Jul 18 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a 
 few options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our 
 reference upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


 Thanks,

 Andrei


Meh. If you could send the videos to Dicebot before you announce 
them so that the YouTube link can be posted concurrently, that 
would be good.
Jul 19 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Tourist" <gravatar gravatar.com> writes:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I'm not an expert in videos but as I mentioned I've studied a 
 few options last year before deciding to use archive.org as our 
 reference upload site.

 I got curious just now, so I just uploaded two screenshots:

 http://i.imgur.com/x1bsTNf.jpg with archive.org
 http://i.imgur.com/CEFCgAi.jpg with youtube.com

 Indeed the archive.org resolutions looks visibly better; my 
 understanding is archive.org is streaming the very mp4 content 
 I uploaded to it. Could anyone give more detail on what 
 processing youtube does?


 Thanks,

 Andrei


My opinion: good quality is nice for fans, but if your goal is to 
target a large audience, go with the mainstream and post a link 
to YouTube, which can be played everywhere: mobile, tablet, you 
name it.
After all, it's not the Ironman movie, understanding what is 
being said and being able to read the slides is good enough, and 
streaming speed is more important than quality. I mean, what the 
high quality is good for if streaming is laggy and the video is 
not watchable?
Jul 19 2014
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 7/19/2014 7:51 AM, Tourist wrote:

 I mean, what the high quality is good for
 if streaming is laggy and the video is not watchable?


There's always actual downloading.
Jul 19 2014
parent "Tourist" <gravatar gravatar.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 18:52:34 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On 7/19/2014 7:51 AM, Tourist wrote:

 I mean, what the high quality is good for
 if streaming is laggy and the video is not watchable?


 There's always actual downloading.


Yeah, but I talk about casual audience here. Would you download a 
random 1GB video about SOMERANDOM programming language only to 
see what it's about for a couple of minutes?
Jul 19 2014