In my tests of the program, I have created one short video for Facebook. This was done directly in PD9 which automatically logged into Facebook and uploaded the file. I have no idea what the format was of the uploaded file but the final result was a streaming flash video on Facebook.

Have you tried rendering for Facebook directly?

Gary.

As a Facebook user I can't see the point of loading directly to Facebook, unless you want to "tag" people in the video, as there are no different quality settings on Facebook. Most of the "HQ" stuff I see ain't HQ, so I'm baffled why people load it as such, or Facebook decides it's HQ .

Much better to have a YouTube (or similar) account and just post a link on Facebook, for people to view it. You also get the YouTube stats, which show how many people viewed it, and from what parts of the world, etc. YouTube has different quality settings, right up to full Hi-Def 1080 which is fabulous when viewed in full-screen mode.

I always save to hard-drive first, then upload to YouTube, so I have control over the file-quality. Mostly I save in the H264 file, as it gives the best quality for file-size. Some I save as mp4, if video-quality is not too important.

I would suggest you make a short 30 second test video, and save it using different file formats. Look at the file-sizes and view from double-clicking in 'Windows Explorer' and you'll soon get an idea of how good various files work. Trevor . . My YouTube site . . (Bristol, UK) . . My JVC GZ-HM1 Camcorder

I take your point Trevor, but both Facebook and Youtube are going to recompress the file to Flash for their own purposes, which seems to lose a lot of quality, so I'm not sure how important the upload format is. If I'm uploading something for my Facebook friends I think it's better to do so directly as a lot of people won't bother to follow the link.

My other objection to Youtube is that they have rejected two of my videos for supposedly containing copyright material, with no right of appeal.

Gary.

With my HD Hanggliding videos I must say Youtube is finally getting to about 95% of the quality I send them. I produce to H.264 AVC 15-20K.

I hear what you are saying about links, this is one of the advantages for my youtube videos in that they can be embedded on my hanggliding forums so you can view them right in the forum.

You can appeal the rejection of your videos, I have not had to use it but I have heard it is pretty easy. My youtube channel====> http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn

I've yet to see a Facebook video, viewed full-screen which makes me go "Wow", but I've seen plenty of Hi-Def YouTube vids which do that, including Robert's Hang-Gliding videos, linked below

Here's some of his for example.
Make sure you click the Hi-Def setting (1080 or 720) then watch it Full-Screen -> http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn#g/u

You're flying right there with him

I also had a copyright issue with YouTube, but they responded quickly and sorted it out for me. Trevor . . My YouTube site . . (Bristol, UK) . . My JVC GZ-HM1 Camcorder

Thanks for the kind words Trevor.

One thing in case people think my latest hanggliding videos are distorted. It is because I am recording them in 4:3 aspect ratio at 1280X920 at 12Kbits/sec as it gives me the widest coverage with the camera one foot off my left elbow.....BUT I absolutely hate the black bars on my 16:9 screen so I change the aspect ratio to 16:9 in PD.

I then produce it at 15-20 Kbit/sec at 1920X1080 so I think PD is doing an amazing job stretching and pulling my video in all directions while keeping decent video quality.

Cheers


Robert2 S My youtube channel====> http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn

Stunning videos, I wish I had something that good to upload!

However I can see some of the characteristic artifacts of Flash Video on that, as I can on the few videos that I've uploaded to Youtube. The one video that I uploaded to Facebook looks pretty clean, but as it was only taken with an iPhone it's not that good in the first place. Neither look to me to be as good as the original.

I may upload another to both just for comparison.

Gary.

Many thanks for the replies and the advice. I'm very new to this (but not to digital photography) so the advice to output the same video in different formats and see relative file size and quality is a good one. I have done some of this already keeping a constant 1280 x 720 on a 24second video I found the following

WMV (HD Standard Quality) - 18 Meg
MPEG 4 - 27 Meg
H.264AVC - 54 Meg

WMV -I notice that this is the format that PD9 uses to upload directly facebook. I can see why. Good compression and pretty decent picture quality. A little bit blocky in places and loses detail in darker areas. Certainly good enough for facebook / friends and family

MP4 - Better picture quality. Colour more natural and more detail in shadows but 50% increase in file size on WMV.

H.264AVC - Big file size and i'm struggling to see a better picture. I suspect this where I Would benefit from upload to You Tube rather than Facebook

I notice that MPEG4 and H.264 use the same video codec (MPEG-4 AVC) so dont understand why such a bigger file size

Great hangliding videos by the way

Paul

Hi Paulie,

Regarding bigger file size with H.264 AVC, you would need to make a custom profile and lower the bit-rate to find the balance between picture quality and file size. You can do this on the produce page.

One last thing my videos really respond well to the video/enhance button in the edit window, which automatically tweaks colour, sharpness etc.

Glad you liked my flying videos.

Cheers

Robert2 S My youtube channel====> http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn

Robert

Got it - thank you. I really was comparing Apples with Pears (sorry awful expression) The bit rate of the H.264 preset is way way higher then the MPEG4 and so is the frame rate which i'm sure as you say explains the file size differences

Do you ever change anything other than the bit rate from the preset ? All of those options - wow

I've looked all over the edit window for the video/enhance button but can't find it. Do you mean the x.v.Color option in produce window ?

thanks again
Paulie

For reference I have just done a test of uploading the the same video directly from PD9 to both Facebook and Youtube.

The URLs are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bHQqv1OYeH4

http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=189424707740522&comments

Make up your mind, but I personally think the Facebook copy has the edge provided you select HD rather than normal.

Unfortunately there is a problem with interlace to progressive conversion on both, which suggests that the problem is with PD9. Also the Youtube upload took a LOT longer than the one to Facebook.

Gary.

Paulie,

Regarding my settings in the custom profile page of H.264 AVC:-

1. I move the slider to maximum, just because it is the maximum.

2. I choose High profile, just because it is higher than main.

3. If I want the maximum quality for my GoPro 12 K-bit videos regardless of file size I choose 15-20K-bits and 1080. If I want a smaller file size I choose 12-15 K-bits but still 1080. I have found that youtube seems to give a better quality 720p video when it starts with 1080.

The video/enhance option is on the main editing page after you click on a video on the timeline.

Cheers

Robert2 S My youtube channel====> http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn

Thanks again for the help

Gary - it was nice to have a throwback to summer watching you videos (its snowing heavily here in manchester at the moment). Do you know I cant really see much difference between youtube and facebook vids, which is quite reassuring. I dont really want to have to have a youtube and facebook account.

How do you recognise there is an interlace problem ?

Robert - I tried creating a new profile and yes the file sizes came down dramatically. The H.264 AVC file was only slightly larger than WMV and better quality too. Found the enhance option - thanks

This is great i'm learning fast
Paulie

Paulie,

Interlaced is when the screen only shows every second row of pixels at any one time, but shows them that fast that your brain can't see the difference.

In fast moving action sometimes interlaced video shows a combing effect.

On a technical note though I don't know why anyone uses interlaced any more as old CRT tv's are the only screens using interlaced all LCD and plasmas are progressive, that is it displays a full screen of pixels at a time like a movie film. Plus editing interlaced video is so much harder on your computer. My youtube channel====> http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn

Just more rain here I'm afraid

Do you know I cant really see much difference between youtube and facebook vids, which is quite reassuring. I dont really want to have to have a youtube and facebook account.

If you watch the very start of the video, the fade up at the beginning is far smoother on Facebook than it is on Youtube. Youtube's compression seems to fade up the video in patches. Apart from that, as you say, there's not a lot of difference.

How do you recognise there is an interlace problem ?

Basically, because I was trying to hold the camera still in a high wind, there's a lot of camera shake.

In converting from interlace to progressive for online use, PD9 has mis-aligned the upper and lower fields so the you get a double image in a frame. This is partly due to the camera shake, partly due to the fast shutter speed on the camera, and partly because PD9 combines two interlaced fields to generate a single progressive frame. But in places I'm sure that the misalignment is greater than would be produced by the camera shake alone.



Robert, I tend to agree with you about interlace, but I still think that a 50Hz (or 60Hz) flicker rate is needed if the video is to look like video rather than pseudo-film. That leaves 720p50 as an option rather than 1080p25. Unfortunately my camera does not support 720p50 or 1080p50, so 1080i50 is my only option. 1080p50 of course would require double the bandwidth.

Gary.

Gary - I notice on the screenshot the ball/buoy on the left is two distinct shapes one is below the other which according to the description dosent sound like interlace (i'm no expert but thought i'd mention)

Checked out my Camcorder spec, it's the same as Garys, 1920X1080@ 50i for all the quality modes.

So when rendering for computer viewing i.e. progressive there is no point in going for a higher frame rate than 25 even though facebook says the maximum is 30.

Each of the cameras quality modes though is a different "Transfer rate". I have been (unknowingly) shooting at 13 Mbps VBR I assume this is perfect for Roberts recommendation for bit rate / vs file size i,e, rendering at greater than 13Mbps would be a waste

My final challenge is to get my privacy settings sorted on Facebook. in the meantime i gave up and created a You Tube account. So many thanks to you both. I'm really pleased with the results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCLLumPdOiA

Paul

I think it would be better to record your video higher than 13MBPS if you can. Your not really wasting it.

You will definitely lose quality in the encode and re-encoding done by Powerdirector and youtube,
but starting out with higher bit rate and quality in the Powerdirector editor should get you a better end result because your working in the editing environment with more information in your videos.