YouTube Video Quality

[RoofTops]

Since uploading my first videos to YouTube I have always wondered why the quality is pretty poor. I don't mean quality in terms of the complete absence of any cinematic skills (you can take that as read) but quality in terms of the actual video definition.

There are plenty of tips available on line but nothing seemed to radically improve things.

However, I now realise what the problem is - I need a very much better camera! I had suspected this was at the root of the problem but I am now convinced after downloading a film clip from the Sony website. The clip was shot on a very expense camera in true high definition - 1920 by 1080 lines which you can only get on cameras starting with price tags around £6K, there are cheaper cameras available which claim to be HD but they are not as good as they work at lower resolutions.

The first clip below was taken from the Sony website then rendered by me to MP4 then uploaded to YouTube. The other clip was shot by me on my cheapo JVC miniDV camera. Both clips can be watched in better quality by selecting the 1080p button rather than the standard 360p - but only if you have a reasonable connection.

So in summary, to make beekeeping videos the BBC would show is going to cost a lot of money. To get the quality shown by the car clip simply can't be done on a cheap camera. I knew that all along I suppose, but it would have been nice to have been proved wrong.

Of course, if anyone does know how to do it on the cheap - please let me know!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXxqP54tMSM[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLwwqwvHLDQ[/ame]

 

[drstitson]

Rooftops - were you planning on launching a Jeremy Hunt approved beekeeping channel for Totnes and the South Hams when the legislation goes through?

 

[RoofTops]

Having been on a few local radio shows I guess TV is the logical next step...

Except, I am very ugly!

 

[Brosville]

It's somewhat of a "dark art" to get reasonable quality out of Youtube (and Vimeo and the others) - there's screeds on their own sites - I've found by trial and error that "720HD" gives a watchable result - here's a short test I did using a simple Kodak Zi8 - I downloaded it into my computer, and edited it using "Openshot" on Ubuntu, and selected their default "HD for Youtube" setting, which produces an "Mp4" file for uploading - quality isn't perfect, but even full screen it's watchable, and I'm pretty chuffed for a cheapish camera and free software!
I think the more times it's processed, the more the quality will degrade

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EBFeRtoboI&hd=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EBFeRtoboI&hd=1[/ame]

 

[drstitson]

"I guess TV is the logical next step..."

having seen the "waxing of plastic frames" video (below) I was, for a while, convinced that you were using it as an audition tape in case Michael C Hall never recovered from his lymphoma and a replacement was urgently sought for the next series of Dexter!!!!

spot the difference:

 

[RoofTops]

Thanks BV - for YouTube that is excellent quality - and a decimal point cheaper than the camera I was looking at - and couldn't afford anyway.

I suppose another problem is for beekeeping videos the camera will need to focus very close, which I guess is more difficult on a small compact camera?

 

[Brosville]

You can get additional "close up" lenses to add to even simple video cameras - pukka "macro" lenses, and the camera for them to go on are going to be pricey!
I chose the Kodak because it has an external microphone socket - sadly only a digital zoom, but the camera works well at the price!

 

[alanf]

However, I now realise what the problem is - I need a very much better camera!...

So in summary, to make beekeeping videos the BBC would show is going to cost a lot of money. To get the quality shown by the car clip simply can't be done on a cheap camera. I knew that all along I suppose, but it would have been nice to have been proved wrong.

Of course, if anyone does know how to do it on the cheap - please let me know!

Most freelance camera operators hire by the day. Any specific camera or lens will only be used for a few days in a commercial setting. Setting up locations, models, directors, scripts and rehearsals and then post production takes far longer than the actual shooting days. The pace in development over the past few years means investing in a broadcast quality camera and set of lenses that will be obsolete in a year or two is not worthwhile.

If you hire you pick from a massive range of bodies and lenses to suit the project. Most have a favourite brand or range that they work with, so the learning curve is not so steep. Hire charges can be billed to the customer, which simplifies the accounts too.

If you do use a simple camera, always use it with a tripod. Avoid zooming because that's usually jerky. Pan if you must but for simple voice-overs or text over shots consider a stills SLR photo. There is software to pan across still shots, rostrum style but I can't say I've tried any myself.

 

[Poly Hive]

My last BBC shoot took nearly an hour of gaffertaping before they announced they felt secure enough to begin!!!!!!

Freelance maybe, but the issue is are they willing? LOL

PH

 

[Hombre]

The other necessity is good lighting, a bright sunny day is ideal and allows the camera to perform a lot better than a dull day or inside shot whithout a lot of very bright lights.

 

[Alabamaeee]

Yes, and all this talk of megapixels and line resolution is great but...

A good lens makes the difference when comparing cameras of the same spec.

Check out as may good reviews as possible before committing to buy

 

[Dlevanchuk]

YouTube uses terrible codec for video. Try Vimeo