Jump to content
Gopher's Minions
OutandBack

Open Letter to YouTube : PLEASE Fix the 1440p Processing!

Recommended Posts

Instead of making microscopic changes and re-rendering the same video for hours, have you considered using an editor that operates on the already encoded stream?  Appending or prepending a couple of black I-frames at the end or beginning of the video stream would result in a visually identical video with a different hash, which hopefully gets around YouTube's identification of identical videos.

If it works, you'd only be limited by your upload bandwidth, and wouldn't tie up your rendering machine for hours.  It ought to be worth a try at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why YouTube says rendering "HD" when they could say rendering "720" or "1080" or "1440". It would seem like a really easy programming enhancement. If the rendering is sequential then I would think the lowest resolution would be processed almost instantly and the higher resolutions would follow. I know when I put a video on YouTube it doesn't tell me anything until the video suddenly appears finished. I have never tried to deal with high resolution videos.

BTW the rendering on YouTube is their own processing and does not involve Gopher's machines. You upload a video fairly quickly and then wait. Small videos are processed fairly quickly... like 15 minutes. Large videos take YouTube a lot of time to process. Hours to days.

When Gopher submits 1440 it goes into a que. YouTube does not tell you what is happening. The videos may just sit there with nothing happening for days. That is what Gopher is complaining about.

My suggestion is YouTube cannot handle 1440 so go back to 1080. YouTube may be having storage problems or processing problems. Either one would cause these delays. My company works with Google and Google is so diffuse and spread out right now that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

There is a major argument about what is the future of HD. Will 50" screens become the standard screen of the future? Will 1440p become the standard for large screen HD. No one knows. Right now YouTube uses MPEG-4 AVC which can support up to 8K video, which is video that can be projected in a movie theatre. And YouTube processing converts every video received into this format.

Edited by Cryzeteur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cryzeteur said:

BTW the rendering on YouTube is their own processing and does not involve Gopher's machines.

I know, but I was referring to the rendering that Gopher does on his side, before the upload.  When the video editing software (Gopher uses Sony Vegas, I think) outputs the final video — concatenating all separate source clips, applying all overlays and effects, downmixing the sound layers, etc. — and encodes it to a specific video standard (e.g. h.264), that's also called rendering, and that's what Gopher was referring to.  It ties up his dedicated rendering machine for hours, to produce several indistinguishable versions of the same video that YouTube will accept as "different" enough to upload side-by-side and process in parallel, all in the hope that one of them works properly.

My suggestion was to go through the costly render process only once, and then use a different type of video editing software — one that operates on already encoded video streams without decoding-and-re-encoding them — and produce the various different-but-indistinguishable versions that way, in a fraction of the time.

Another thing to try would be to re-multiplex the video and audio streams of the final video with slight variations, such as a single millisecond of audio delay in either direction, and hope that it's enough to get past YouTube's "identical videos" detector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JustTheBast said:

I know, but I was referring to the rendering that Gopher does on his side, before the upload.  When the video editing software (Gopher uses Sony Vegas, I think) outputs the final video — concatenating all separate source clips, applying all overlays and effects, downmixing the sound layers, etc. — and encodes it to a specific video standard (e.g. h.264), that's also called rendering, and that's what Gopher was referring to.  It ties up his dedicated rendering machine for hours, to produce several indistinguishable versions of the same video that YouTube will accept as "different" enough to upload side-by-side and process in parallel, all in the hope that one of them works properly.

My suggestion was to go through the costly render process only once, and then use a different type of video editing software — one that operates on already encoded video streams without decoding-and-re-encoding them — and produce the various different-but-indistinguishable versions that way, in a fraction of the time.

Another thing to try would be to re-multiplex the video and audio streams of the final video with slight variations, such as a single millisecond of audio delay in either direction, and hope that it's enough to get past YouTube's "identical videos" detector.

Oh. OK. I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes. This would save rerendering... however, Gopher's machine is pretty fast and no matter what program you use, making video of different lengths takes time. I keep wondering if Gopher should submit one version for 1080 and another for 1440. Let them both just run and ignore them. The 1080 should be up and running fairly quickly. The 1440 might never load.

As I recall YouTube 1440 is a Beta feature.

Gopher is an over achiever.  :)

Edited by Cryzeteur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, both take time, but vastly different amounts of it. ;)

Slightly altering the project file in Sony Vegas and re-rendering the video each time takes several hours per variation.

Rendering the video once with, for example, one second of black screen at the end only takes a couple hours once, and creating several variations by using a stream editor to chop of different lengths of those 60 black frames at the end would at worst take a couple of minutes — less, if source and output videos are on different physical discs or on a SSD.  Still technically "taking time", but a fraction of it. :)

The most amount of work would be in the beginning, finding a good stream editor that works well with the output of Sony Vegas, figuring out what variations will make YouTube say "Okay, that's a different video", and getting into a comfortable workflow.  And the sum of all that would likely still be less than the time he currently has to waste every week, working around YouTube's stupid problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Cryzeteur said:

Oh. OK. I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes. This would save rerendering... however, Gopher's machine is pretty fast and no matter what program you use, making video of different lengths takes time. I keep wondering if Gopher should submit one version for 1080 and another for 1440. Let them both just run and ignore them. The 1080 should be up and running fairly quickly. The 1440 might never load.

As I recall YouTube 1440 is a Beta feature.

Gopher is an over achiever.  :)

I've been uploading 1440p60 videos longer than Gopher, 4k has been a standard feature for 3 years on youtube.

These problems are much more recent less than 6 months in fact; it started when youtube decided to pull google+ coding out of youtube dispite ramming into the coding for years after they bought youtube.

I use premiere pro to edit and it's built in media encoder to render, my settings are not dissimilar to Gophers or anyone else's that, but I did recently switch from frame blending to optical flow in the time interpolation settings and I've not had the problem since.

Similar videos 45min-1hour modded Skyrim with colour correction/sharpening in post at VBR 40-60Mbs.

Usually taking 2-4 hours for youtube to complete it's processing from 360p (and saying processing completed) to actually being at 1440p60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Caloss2 said:

 

I've been uploading 1440p60 videos longer than Gopher, 4k has been a standard feature for 3 years on youtube.

These problems are much more recent less than 6 months in fact; it started when youtube decided to pull google+ coding out of youtube dispite ramming into the coding for years after they bought youtube.

I use premiere pro to edit and it's built in media encoder to render, my settings are not dissimilar to Gophers or anyone else's that, but I did recently switch from frame blending to optical flow in the time interpolation settings and I've not had the problem since.

Similar videos 45min-1hour modded Skyrim with colour correction/sharpening in post at VBR 40-60Mbs.

Usually taking 2-4 hours for youtube to complete it's processing from 360p (and saying processing completed) to actually being at 1440p60.

Thanks for the explanation. Very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Caloss2 said:

I use premiere pro to edit and it's built in media encoder to render, my settings are not dissimilar to Gophers or anyone else's that, but I did recently switch from frame blending to optical flow in the time interpolation settings and I've not had the problem since.

But wouldn't time interpolation only be relevant if you either used footage recorded at a different framerate from the target (e.g. a 30fps or 120fps clip amidst the 60fps footage) or used a slow-motion effect?

From the sounds of it, "frame blending" would happen before the motion analysis and lead to blurry frames (though that would be fine for soft transitions and fades), whereas "optical flow" sounds like it would happen post-analysis and distribute the found motion between the target frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JustTheBast said:

But wouldn't time interpolation only be relevant if you either used footage recorded at a different framerate from the target (e.g. a 30fps or 120fps clip amidst the 60fps footage) or used a slow-motion effect?

From the sounds of it, "frame blending" would happen before the motion analysis and lead to blurry frames (though that would be fine for soft transitions and fades), whereas "optical flow" sounds like it would happen post-analysis and distribute the found motion between the target frames.

It's an either or choice if you're rendering in H.264 with Adobe. There is no option to turn it on or off.

Interesting speculation though.

This is based on what youtube want your videos format to be when uploading.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en-GB

And here's why it's a youtube problem, check every box on their requirements and  sometimes the video will process correctly at their end. Then you publish .... Annnd all the hd options are gone the video has reset to 360p.

And it's not just Gopher, it happened to LTT one of their 4k videos did the exact same thing it was 4k and a second after publishing it.... pooof hd options vanish video is back at 360p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JustTheBast said:

But wouldn't time interpolation only be relevant if you either used footage recorded at a different framerate from the target (e.g. a 30fps or 120fps clip amidst the 60fps footage) or used a slow-motion effect?

From the sounds of it, "frame blending" would happen before the motion analysis and lead to blurry frames (though that would be fine for soft transitions and fades), whereas "optical flow" sounds like it would happen post-analysis and distribute the found motion between the target frames.

I think frame blending only occurs when the final product has more frames than the input, the blending occurs in the in-between frames that are created to match the end product.

I could be wrong, but I do not think it produces blurry images only smother flow. I think it is a sort of stutter fix.

Edited by Cryzeteur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cryzeteur said:

I think frame blending only occurs when the final product has more frames than the input, the blending occurs in the in-between frames that are created to match the end product.

Yes, frame interpolation happens when the output and input frame rates are different.  When reducing the frame rate, it can often be done by merely decimating existing frames from the source, without the need to interpolate — though not necessarily always.

Frame blending and optical flow are two different ways of interpolation.  Blending two frames at various ratios, depending on their relative position to the target frame, is fine for traditional film with natural motion blur due to the shutter speed.  Static parts of the image will remain crisp, and the blurred motions of both frames will overlay to form an okay approximation of the motion blur that would have been on the target frame, had it actually been shot at that time.  With digital animation, such as game footage, this isn't the case; Although some games attempt to simulate fake motion blur (badly, in my opinion), in most game footage moving objects have a clear, unblurred position in each frame (which is also why games need higher framerates to look good, and a "cinematic" 24fps looks and plays like crap).  If such frames are blended, you don't get a mixture of two blurs, but two distinct semitransparent pictures of the moving object overlaid on each other.  It doesn't look very good.

My best educated guess at what "optical flow" interpolation is, would be that it first performs the motion analysis that is part of the MPEG compression algorithm and then evenly divides the derived motion vectors into the frames of the target framerate.  That way only the I-frames have to be exactly aligned with frames of the source, and the P- and B-frames can be smoothly interpolated at any framerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After discussing all of this, I do not understand why YouTube would have no trouble processing 1440 that has previously gone through frame blending as opposed to Gopher's videos which I suppose have not. Caloss, are you changing the frame rate? I think Gopher is 60 fps.

I don't see how post processing would effect YouTube processing unless the frame rate is different.

O always submit videos in MPEG-4 AVC and the conversion is very quick.

Edited by Cryzeteur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cryzeteur said:

After discussing all of this, I do not understand why YouTube would have no trouble processing 1440 that has previously gone through frame blending as opposed to Gopher's videos which I suppose have not. Caloss, are you changing the frame rate? I think Gopher is 60 fps.

I don't see how post processing would effect YouTube processing unless the frame rate is different.

O always submit videos in MPEG-4 AVC and the conversion is very quick.

Not changing the Frame rate at all, recorded at 60 edited at 60 and rendered at 60, it's only that Adobe has it as a fixed option in the render settings available for mp4/H.264 that I use it at all

Share this post


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

×