Solved My MS13 renders look terrible once uploaded to Youtube

I realise this may actually be a Youtube issue rather than a problem with MS13 renders. The MP4's I create look great when played on my PC but once uploaded it suffers badly after being processed by Youtube. I've been experimenting with 4k timelapse which when uploaded to YT even the 1080p stream, which should look great, looks more like a 360p stream. I don't recall ever having this problem previously and I know it's been possible to achieve great looking content on YT as I have viewed numerous other 4k clips on YT rendered with MS13 that look absolutely fantastic.

I've tried a variety of render options but the one that was recommended to me is Sony XAVC 4K 3540x2160 Long-GOP 23.97p.
This creates quite a large MP4 which as mentioned previously looks excellent on playback.

Here's the unpublished link to my wee test clip using the above render setting. I think you'll agree it looks pretty awful - particularly in the skies where there is a lot of cloud movement:



Just wondered if anyone had any similar experiences / thoughts on this?

Ta

Hi BlackSands

How are you creating your time-lapse ?
Are you taking a series of Still Images and then importing as a time-lapse ?
OR
Are you just speeding up a video ?

Regards
Derek.

I'm shooting a sequence of images (on a Nikon DSLR). These are processed in Adobe Lightroom and then exported as full res JPG (16:9 crop). There I load the sequence of images into VirtualDub where they pass through both a resize filter (4k res) and deflicker. The sequence is saved as an .AVI file @24fps using the lossless lagareth CODEC. The subsequent AVI's are then imported into MS13 for final editing and rendering etc.

Have you considered doing an experiment and using Movie Studio to do most of the work ?

By-pass using Virtual Dub and creating an .avi version, and instead import the non-cropped .jpg's from Lightroom directly into Movie Studio as an image sequence.
I would imagine that your original still images from Nikon DSLR are already using 4K or above resolution.

Start a new project in Movie Studio using 4K Project Property settings.
Import image sequence to create time-lapse video and make sure when you import the image sequence, that you set the Frame Rate to be exactly the same as Project Properties.
Then use Event Pan/Crop tool, to crop time-lapse to 16:9 Widescreen Aspect Ratio.
Edit your project and then render to XAVC.

I made a tutorial about how to create time-lapse with Movie Studio here:
Creating a Timelapse with Movie Studio Platinum 12

What you are doing is exactly what I have planned to experiment with myself in the New Year. I have been too busy to work on my own projects and am busting to do some creative work with time-lapse. So what I have suggested is just a basic starting point before I get into this myself.

The YouTube compressor always down grades everything that people upload. It seems to do different things to different types of video.
Most people who do high quality work, prefer to use Vimeo instead, because they compress differently and create better video.

Blue Sky is one of the most difficult things to get compress, due to the infinite gradations of blue.

Well, I'll give that a shot. It would certainly be ideal to be able to do the whole process in MS BUT there is one very important reason why I'm using Virtualdub and that is the deflicker plugin. Deflicker is absolutely essential and unfortunately I'm not aware of any such tool for Movie Studio... and if there is one, I suspect it's likely a 3rd party plugin that probably costs $. Virtualdub and plugins are free.

I have a free Vimeo acc, but of course to upload FHD and UHD requires a subscription account. And it's because I see great looking examples on Youtube I know it must be possible to get the same result... unless something changed with YT's processing quite recently.


Anyway... it'll be interesting to see if excluding the Virtualdub process makes any difference as far as Youtube goes.

Cheers,
Ian

I understand why you are talking about de-flicker now. I was tired from Christmas when I replied and thinking about Interlace Flicker, not time-lapse flicker.
All Sony programs have always had Interlace De-Flicker for years, which you access on the timeline by right-clicking and going to Switches, however this can't help with your problem.

Whenever I have created time-lapse's in the past, I have made sure to set all my camera controls to full manual operation, to stop variation in images.
When filming electric light sources, I make sure to set Shutter Rate to level that cancels out power line flicker.

If you don't want to spend money, obviously what you have already being doing is another workflow you can use.

There are some paid plugins you can buy that will do the de-flickering for you in Sony software.
Boris FX is one that I know of.
www.borisfx.com/products/continuum-units/image-restoration/#features

I also found:
www.revisionfx.com/products/deflicker/overview/
www.digitalanarchy.com/Flicker/specs.html

Sadly, it's still no good:


With regard to flicker - I have my camera set to manual on everything when I shoot - manual W/B, focus, shutter and aperature, but slight exposure variations from one shot to the next seem to be the norm for DSLR's. Covered in detail here: www.diyphotography.net/preventing-time-lapse-flicker-caused-mechanical-inconsistencies/

As I suspected those plugins are quite pricey, especially considering VirtualDub and plugin is free! It's an extra step in the processing chain but Virtualdub renders the image sequence fairly quickly and I figured by using a lossless CODEC all would be fine... perhaps just a little extra time involved, though I must admit a lot of extra storage space is used! My 10sec AVI clips are around 2.4Gb each! :ohmy:

Finally got this first attempts at a 4k Timelapse finished. Working in 4k really pushed my tired PC to and often beyond its limits! :ohmy:
Rendered to XAVC and then converted via Handbrake to a more 'web optimised' format. I'd read somewhere that was preferred not just because the XAVC file is quite large, but for other reasons as well. It would be interesting I guess to compare the Handbrake re-encoded file with the XAVC rendered file uploaded to YT directly and see if that makes any difference to the way it looks on YT.


Summer In The City Of Sales

Youtube's 1080p stream (and below) don't look great (particularly when there are moving clouds) but 1440p and 4k look good, but still not as good as the original. Took a bit longer than expected as I decided to do my own music track as well.

Hi Ian,

I like your video, especially the music, great job. Unfortunately I can only watch it in 1k with my wireless connection speed, but still it looks great.

The only suggestion I have (and it is really nitpick), is to either change the title from 4K/UHD or explain in the comments that it has been reduced to 2K. 2K is the largest resolution option I see. But, again for me, it doesn't make much difference, because of my slow connection speed, although if I downloaded the video, then I could watch it on my PC at normal speed.....but then I don't have a 4K monitor......so, please take this comment with a grain of salt from someone who is stuck in the 1080 world.

Nonetheless, I applaud your grit to get to the outcome you desire. Reading through this thread, it appears you have struggled and are now reaping the benefits. Great Job.

Thanks George.
It's curious that you don't see a 4k option for playback? It's definitely available for viewing in 4k! Streaming at 4k is problematic though, and while I have ultra-fast fibre BB which has adequate bandwidth there is no guarantee that Youtube can deliver a smooth stream at 4k. On a good day I can stream 4k but most times it steps down to 1440p or lower!

And yes, it's certainly been an interesting learning curve on several levels!

Eagle Six wrote: Hi Ian,

I like your video, especially the music, great job. Unfortunately I can only watch it in 1k with my wireless connection speed, but still it looks great.

The only suggestion I have (and it is really nitpick), is to either change the title from 4K/UHD or explain in the comments that it has been reduced to 2K. 2K is the largest resolution option I see. But, again for me, it doesn't make much difference, because of my slow connection speed, although if I downloaded the video, then I could watch it on my PC at normal speed.....but then I don't have a 4K monitor......so, please take this comment with a grain of salt from someone who is stuck in the 1080 world.

Nonetheless, I applaud your grit to get to the outcome you desire. Reading through this thread, it appears you have struggled and are now reaping the benefits. Great Job.