If the video is long then it takes more time to process the HD content while the low resolution content is generated first. Using IE will not get you a full HD viewing experience when it is ready. It may take a few hours.

Thanks, I appreciate the input. I uploaded a video yesterday, so it's had at least overnight to 'finish'. It still looks like crap to be honest.
Here, take a look; https://youtu.be/CBfE_tVQkK8

Is there something that I really shoud be doing via PowerDirector?

Thanks very much for the link to the video.

You've done everything right in producing the clip, but you just haven't made sure that YT is giving you the full resolution stream. All you need to do is click on the gear icon (that actually has the red HD tag) and choose 1080p HD:



YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Thanks again for the reply. I did try this (selected 1080p HD), but at least on my screen the playback is blocky and less than ideal.
If that's not the case for you when viewed, then it's obviously a playback issue at my end, rather than an upload issue.
Good to know.

If I look carefully, there are sections that seem quite blocky. Remember that YT has to convert everything into a streamable format, and sometimes that results in low quality parts of the vid.

This FAQ shows the recommended bitrates for various video resolutions, and note that the 12Mbps value for your clip is only 30% of what your GoPro is probably recording at. PD will produce 1080/50p clips to MP4 @ 40Mbps, so a good amount of detail will necessarily be lost when streaming.

If you wanted to post your produced clip, you can upload it to a cloud folder on OneDrive, Google Drive, DropBox, etc. and paste the link here. We can then compare apples to apples and see if there are any adjustments you can make when producing to get a better online viewing result.

You haven't mentioned if your clip was produced to H.264 (AVC) or H.265 (HEVC), and in my experience, YT handles H.264 better. Vids take much less time to convert and look cleaner even though the produced clips take a little longer to upload in the first place.

YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Thanks, again I do appreciate your advice. As I'm brand new to this, I'm more or less completely unaware of the different output file types, so have taken your advice and re-produced the video using the H.264 codec & matched the 1980x1080 50p file format (@ a bitrate of 40mbps).
The corresponding outputfile (.mp4) is significantly larger (circa 1 to 2+ gb) and surprise, surprise, a heck of a lot clearer.
I was using the H.265 output type and I think it was only at a bitrate of 11mbps.

I'll play around with this a bit more and try again to upload to YT.

Cheers,
Dan

HEVC is a much more efficient codec, meaning that it can carry the same amount of detail/information at a lower bitrate, OR contain much more detail at the same bitrate, as AVC. HEVC also takes tons more computing power due to the intense math involved, but as long as the camera, editing PC and viewer all support HEVC, in theory, you should see excellent results.

I don't know why it is that YT doesn't seem to do as good a job converting HEVC clips to VP9 streaming format as it does AVC clips. It my be that it's only really noticeable in scenes with a lot of movement, but that's exactly what your racing vid and many of my vids are.

I got a 4K/60p camera and seriously upgraded my editing PC last year and was excited to use HEVC for the first time, and I was dissappointed enough in the YT initial results that I've stuck with AVC, even when the file size is 25GB for a 45 minute lacrosse game. I even upgraded to Gigabit internet to help get the huge videos uploaded quicker

YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Here's a sample of the newly processed clip;
https://youtu.be/gyG88o9dR2w

As you can see, far better resolution.
(sorry, I've now deleted the original file, so the link above no longer works)

I appreciate the help,
Dan

Quote Thanks, again I do appreciate your advice. As I'm brand new to this, I'm more or less completely unaware of the different output file types, so have taken your advice and re-produced the video using the H.264 codec & matched the 1980x1080 50p file format (@ a bitrate of 40mbps).
Cheers,
Dan

You realize that every laptop or PC monitor and every tablet or phone in the world will render that video at 60p? And any HDTV is more than able to process the 60p too, since they are nothing more than huge screen tablets, running a version or another of Android-derived OS.

I don't understand why peope are still hang up on shooting in 50Hz standard. Unless you're technical backwards like BBC, you should use 60Hz today. Especially on fast moving subjects like the one above.

Quote

You realize that every laptop or PC monitor and every tablet or phone in the world will render that video at 60p? And any HDTV is more than able to process the 60p too, since they are nothing more than huge screen tablets, running a version or another of Android-derived OS.

I don't understand why peope are still hang up on shooting in 50Hz standard. Unless you're technical backwards like BBC, you should use 60Hz today. Especially on fast moving subjects like the one above.

...And if you're wanting to have a file that can be displayed on the old equipment that grannie likes in her front room ??

I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is falling behind in its broadcasting of HD content to several areas of the UK - Though I am in a position to actually experience the frustration !

So the BBC is technically backwards, they still produce some decent looking TV though ('Peaky Blinders' would be a visual example.)

Just this Sunday, I almost fell foul of the sin of assuming "Everything is compatible" When I went to the wife's parents and tried to play some 4K USB content on their 60 inch Samsung... It didn't handle h265 ! - Luckily I had some h264 HD versions with me...

I suppose it's easy to say we should all finally change to 60fps, since the electronics and standards are independent of mains frequency. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that years of having to put up with NTSC makes the USA able to shout "Now, you should use our standard !"

I actually notice very little between 60 and 50 fps on my home TVs, if indeed anything.
(As long as I keep everything the same throughout production.)

Though, just don't get me started on having people tell me that 24fps is more 'Cinematic' !
Argh !

I'm in the UK and have recently decided that all my future projects will be shot at 50fps rather than my former 'Mostly 25fps' stance. I may well double this for action shots. This move has just followed the price of memory and the fact that I can carry multiple spare batteries / power-packs very easily. The argument for 25fps is fading away as its cost benefit declines.

Why multiples of 25 and not 30 ? ? ?
- First line of the comment... Let's keep grannie happy ! - If I was living in the USA I'd run at 60fps without hesitation.

Analog TV standards are dead. There is no more NTSC in US and no more PAL in UK. Any Grannie TV will have analog inputs that can't be found on modern equipment.
And would not be connected to YouTube.

We all are using digital computers basically and the 60 Hz is defacto standard for their display for technical reasons. Sure, there are some high end displays that can go to 75, 90 Hz, but there are none to offer only 50 Hz.