What do you mean by
By the way, I would export to a computer folder at 1280x720 if that resolution was offered by PE11.
There are numerous opportunities for a Premiere Elements 11 export to a 1280 x 720 file at various frame rates. Where are you looking?
There are defaults but these can usually be customized under the Advanced Button/Video Tab and Audio Tab of the preset selected.
Have you gone the route of refreshing the Web Services in preferences? Let me ask you this, for troubleshooting purposes, can
you upload that same Timeline (from within the Premiere Elements project) if you selected YouTube or Vimeo?
I should have realized that you could customize settings under the Advanced tab for export to computer. I've now found the 1280x720 setting and exported the edit in that resolution as an H.264 file at 25fps with audio at 192kbps. My raw footage was .M2TS interlaced, but the preset for export in 1280x720 resolution seems to be de-interlaced. - This is appropriate for an eventual upload to Facebook, isn't it?
Yes ATR, I had already refreshed Web Services, saved and re-started Premiere Elements, but this didn't help. However, I've just done so again, as I'm about to try uploading to YouTube. I'll let you know how it goes, and welcome any other suggestions. Viewers shouldn't have to find and click on "HD" to play a high definition video in Facebook, should they? - The resolution if HD is not clicked is very poor.
Glad you suggested trying an upload to YouTube! The standard PE11 preset of 1440x1080 25fps worked flawlessly. The quality was preserved and the upload of the 3 minute video only took about 50 minutes, which isn’t bad with our local ADSL service. Sharing from my YouTube account to Facebook was successful and instantaneous, despite the ideal resolution for Facebook supposedly being 1280x720. The quality was preserved. So, this is a work-around that I’m happy to live with, because it’s nice to post videos to both Facebook and YouTube. I still don’t know why uploading SD material from PE10 and HD material from PE11 directly to Facebook has repeatedly failed. However, I found that uploading to YouTube and sharing from there achieved higher quality and worked much more quickly than exporting to computer and importing the file when within Facebook. This took more than double the time and the default SD resolution was very poor indeed unless viewers knew to play then click HD. So, in my experience, uploading to YouTube then sharing to Facebook is the way to go with PE11! As I have read that others have experienced problems, I hope that this helps them! (By the way, ATR, I have just received an answer from Sony re advisability of defragging a camcorder hard drive, and will post in that forum). – Regards, Phil
I just read your post regarding Sony's advice on formatting versus defrag for its camcorder hard drive. That too was great news to have.
Great news on your uploading to Facebook and YouTube. Your details on that will be useful to all.
Many thanks for taking the time to share your findings.
There is just a little jerkiness of movement in my video uploaded to YouTube and Facebook. I wonder whether this is because of our relatively slow wireless internet here in rural Tasmania? I think the ADSL2 download speed is just under 8Mbps. I wonder whether the jerkiness is because my Sony AVCHD PAL handycam produces interlaced video - 1920x1080i - whereas videos screened on YouTube and Facebook play as progressive rather than interlaced footage? The only PAL HD formats for exporting to YouTube from Premiere Elements 11 are 1440x1080 and1920x1080. These are not specified as "i" or "p". I'm guessing they are progressive. Is that right? Is there a conversion from "i" to "p" in rendering, and if so, could this cause the jerky movement in the final images? I keep my camera pans brief and very slow. People move through frame, however, with a little jerkiness - not on Blu-Ray or AVCHD discs that I burn, not on my hard drive, just on YouTube and Facebook videos that I have uploaded.
Also, one more question - although I'm happy with the clarity and sharpness when I upload to YouTube in 1440x1080 resolution, would anything be gained from uploading in the 1920x1080 resolution of my raw footage - given that YouTube and Facebook both indicate that 1280x720 is their preferred resolution for HD uploads? Perhaps I should stick with what I know works!
Grateful that you are here, ATR, kindly sharing your in-depth knowledge and so committed to this forum. I've been reading other threads on uploading problems and you sure have worked hard to help other people. I couldn't find any mention of jerkiness or the progressive/interlaced question. However, I tried exporting to hard drive, then uploading from there to Facebook, but as I've written, the video played on Facebook in very low resolution unless viewers knew to look for and click on "HD" - so that is why (so far) I prefer directly uploading from PE11 to YouTube, and sharing to Facebook from there - unless a format for exporting to hard drive can be suggested that won't create the need for viewers to click "HD" when that file is uploaded to Facebook.
Once again, like so many others, grateful for your help ATR! - Regards, Phil
I would stay clear of the 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9 for export. Use the 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic project preset if your source media are 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9, but when it comes to export go with the 1920 x 1080 16:9 which displays as 1920 x 1080 and does not depend on a 16:9 flag to stretch the 1440 x 1080 to 1920 x 1080 for display after encoding. Some players can have problems recognizing and dealing with a 16:9 flag.
I suspect that YouTube uses an automatic deinterlace method. And, I have seen recommendations to
a. deinterlace the video before upload
b. use progressive video, not interlaced
I have never looked at the following for interlaced video uploaded to YouTube using the Premiere Elements YouTube feature, but....
if you want to try it....what happens if you right click your interlaced video on the Timeline, select Field Options, and then, in the Field Options dialog, place a check mark next to "Always Deinterlace", and then do the upload of that Timeline to YouTube using the Premiere Elements YouTube feature....worse, same, better results? I wonder if YouTube will look at what you are uploading as deinterlaced video or try to apply its automatic deinterlacing on top of it???
Different computer players deal differently with interlace to deinterlace methods. Some players offer more control over on and off of the feature as well as the method of choice for the deinterlacing.
Please review and looking forward to your results.
I’ve steered away from uploading directly to YouTube from PE11 – because the 1280x720p format preferred by YouTube and Facebook is only available in Sharing to Computer – and the anamorphic 1440x1080 preset for YouTube results in pillars and letterboxing at the final destination.
I’m nearly there with optimal settings for exporting AVCHD projects to computer then uploading to YouTube. (I still find it quick, reliable and straight-forward sharing to Facebook from Youtube). - Just a couple more questions concerning the affect of bitrate on smoothness of movement.
I found a preset at the bottom of the PE11 list of options for sharing AVCHD projects to computer. This preset is “1280x720 deinterlaced, fps per source, 192kbps”. These settings match the ones suggested by YouTube and Facebook, and of course the screen resolution is 16:9 without the need for stretching.
So I exported to computer with this preset and uploaded through the YouTube website, and all went well, with great clarity and apparently smooth movement. However, the upload took 3 and a half hours, and the file for the 3 minute video was 900Mb!
So, I looked into bitrate under the Advanced tab (as I probably should have done in the first place). The default was a target bitrate of 20mbps and maximum bitrate of 21mbps. My handycam shoots in Full HD at a maximum of 16mbps. YouTube suggests a target bitrate of 5mbps when uploading AVCHD H264 videos. I compared this with the default bitrate of PE11’s “MP4 HD 720p 24” preset. The default target bitrate under the Advanced tab for this preset is 6mbps and maximum bitrate is 10mbps. So I compromised for a test upload, setting the target at 6.5mbps and maximum at 9mbps, and noticed that the file size shrunk from 900mb to just over 200mb.
In the event, the upload took about 80 minutes instead of 3 and a half hours, and the quality looks pretty similar to that of the exports previously at the high default bitrate of the “1280x720p deinterlaced” preset that created the 900mb file that I’ve mentioned.
So, the quality differences using high and lower bitrates are not obvious.
I think that the uploads using footage first deinterlaced by PE11 rather than by YouTube have resulted in less jerkiness, though I’m not certain.
At first I thought that the higher bitrate had also smoothed the movements in-frame and images panned.
But then, my internet connection slowed and suddenly it seemed that this might be causing jerky movement and perhaps dropped frames. My WIFI bars dropped from 5 to 3 out of 5. Comparing the uploads in which I had used targets of 6 versus 20 bitrates, the jerkiness seemed similar in each when the internet connection slowed. I had read somewhere (I think on YouTube) that slow internet could cause these problems. Our ADSL2 download slows to about 8mbps at best using WIFI in my room, which is 8m from our router.
Before asking specific questions, I want to stress that all movement in all of the footage that I’ve mentioned is smooth and free of any jerkiness when I just play computer files that I’ve saved on the hard drive – and the internet is not involved.
So, the questions…
Do you think that jerky movements– perhaps dropped frames - are likely to be caused mainly by slow internet?
Should I consider buying a long Ethernet cable to help with YouTube uploads and to smooth internet downloads? I’ll have to run the cable around 3 doorways via the passage at home - Amongst other videos, I upload monthly projects covering our market for the local community.
What do you think are reasonable target and maximum bitrates for those uploads, considering the other factors that I’ve mentioned? – 6, 8, 10 or more mbps for target? (My camera films in up to16mbps but our internet is much slower – if this is a meaningful comparison).
Would the difference in quality attributable to a target bitrate of 6mbps versus, say, 15 or 20mbps, be noticeable on the small viewing windows in YouTube and Facebook? (The quality seems much the same in that small format, to me).
Should I expect less smoothness or jerkiness of movement at lower bitrates such as 6mbps?
Should choosing the deinterlacing export preset that I’ve mentioned be as effective as combing through the clips captured and selecting “always deinterlace” in each shot in “field options” in the Expert workspace of PE11? (I hope the preset is just as efficient and reliable).
I will have a look at my YouTube and Facebook videos somewhere there is a faster internet connection.
- And I've just thought of a way to help you compare! I hope it is permissible to include links to the higher and lower bitrate videos on YouTube. The titles indicate the bitrates. If you can view the videos, you can tell me whether there is any jerkiness - presuming you have reasonably fast internet! Here is the video at the lower bitrates: Mkt test 1280x720p target bitrate 6 5mbps max 9mbps - YouTube. Here is the video at the higher bitrates:
So, I’ve been doing a lot of research and testing in response to your helpful suggestions, ATR
– Regards, Phil
Hi again ATR,
Sorry I was so long-winded in my last post! I hope the message didn't get lost. I'm mainly trying to find out whether lower bitrates or slow internet connections cause jerky/stuttering movements in-frame. More on that in a sec.
I realize that you must need breaks from your voluntary work on this forum and that you might be busy helping others. I'm hoping you get a chance to view both of those uploads to YouTube of same video at different bitrates - per the links in my last post. I actually should take them down soon, as one person has objected to being filmed at the local market, so I have taken the video down from Facebook, and although this person probably won't find my YouTube page, I should do the right thing as soon as you confirm that you've seen the 2 YouTube postings. (The footage is very respectful - I don't know the specific objection, and although I have the woman's name, I'm still trying to identify her visually so that I can perhaps remove the shot, re-edit and upload again).
So, just your initial reaction to the videos will help.
Meanwhile, I'm strongly suspecting that internet speed has a much bigger influence than bitrates on smoothness of movement in-frame! I've just noticed that movement looks pretty smooth in the low bitrate version on YouTube and stuttery when viewing the high bitrate version - possibly at slower internet speed! Without having heard from you, I'm guessing that 6mbps might be an adequate target bitrate for videos that will be seen by most people in small windows on YouTube and Facebook!
Hope you've been able to have a nice break and that you haven't been flat out helping people with more pressing problems! Once I resolve these optimal upload settings I won't be experimenting for the sake of it, as content and quality interest me rather than adventurous treatment. A few rough camera shots crept into this project, as I was a bit rushed getting stills as well.
Would be interested to see any material you've posted online.
See YouTube viewing setting underneath YouTube player screen.
Please see Add On at the bottom before reading all of this. If that is not your answer to all this, then please read the rest.
No break. I have been working on your questions since the first of your latest two posts, but was trying to think them through before posting.
Here is where I am at....
Referring to post 7 details....
I am assuming that you were working with Publish+Share/Computer/AVCHD with Presets = YouTube Widescreen HD. That would give you 1280 x 720 @ 24 progressive frames per second. If wanted, the frame rate could be changed to 25 frames per second under the Advanced Button of the preset. But, here is were I lost you. The default bitrate for that YouTube Widescreen HD is not
target 20 Mbps (megabits per second)
maximum 21 Mbps (megabits per second)
I found the default to be instead
target 8 Mbps
maximum 9 Mbps
For your purposes (for now), I would stay with YouTube Widescreen HD with the defaults with the exception being the frame rate. If the bitrate of your original is 16 Mbps I would prefer to see 16 Mbps, but...
Regarding the links to your YouTube videos....one with lower bitrate was 6.5/9...what was the other with higher bitrate, 20/21? Do you have the MediaInfo readout program to see what you actually obtained as the bitrate for the file? With the variable bitrate in effect, you might be surprised at the actual bitrate?
I have viewed your YouTube videos several times. This is my current interpretation of what I am seeing for what you uploaded to YouTube
You have two factors doing here.....bitrate for clarity/quality of the images, and deinterlacing to meet YouTube/computer use, that is, progressive.
I am not picking up on jerky/stuttering movements in what I viewed. What I see looks to me like interlacing, not bitrate, issue.
With bitrate you have the problem of higher bitrate, greater quality, but greater file size which hits the uploading/downloading times related to Intermet speed.
But after the upload/download is completed, the quality would be expected to be good.
Right now interlaced video is my target and the effectiveness of deinterlacing methods to take care of the conversion to the progressive scan used by the computer and YouTube. We could compare what deinterlaced video looks like when Premiere Elements 11 preset or YouTube does the deinterlacing. So...
Please remind me, what does an unedited video file from your camera (1440 x 1080i25) look like on YouTube where YouTube would be doing the de-interlacing and not a Premiere Elements preset? If the whole clip takes too long to upload, you could try for a smaller clip for the test.
Also, is it possible to record 1920 x 1080p25, 1920 x 1080i25, and 1440 x 1080i25 footage (about same file size), use each as a source for a project, and compare the results using Publish+Share/Computer/AVCHD/ YouTube Widescreen HD (bitrate 8/9). If these "jerky/stuttering" movements persist for progressive and interlaced versions, then I might suspect that the video you are watching at YouTube is not fully downloaded when being viewed. Now that would be a file size issue which would be traced back to the bitrate determined file size.
My computer includes a broadband connection characterized by Down/Up 1184 Kbits/sec by 448 Kbits/sec. I think it is the lowest of the DSL offerings.
I do not have a camera that records 1440 x 1080 HD Anamorphic 16:9, so I created such a video (jpgs with Position keyframed objects for movements). I then exported it from Premiere Elements 11 via Publish+Share/Computer/AVCHD with Presets = YouTube Widescreen HD (under the Advanced Button/Video Tab I left the default bitrates as is 8/9 and set the frame rate to 29.97 frames per second). Then I uploaded the AVCHD.mp4 (1280 x 720 p29.97) to YouTube at the YouTube web site. The upload looked OK with the exception of the moving red circle which I created as a moving object in one of the jpg photos. Crude test, but just wanted to see what I would obtain.
I still think the answer to you issue is increasing the bitrate for quality, but this is going to be counterproductive with higher bitrates and greater file size and slower Internet connections.
Right now I am uploading the source 1440 x 108 i29.97 HD Anamorphic 16:9 to YouTube at the YouTube web site to see what that is going to look like. On that one YouTube would be doing the deinterlacing not Premiere Elements preset. But, two variables there....bitrate for quality and deinterlacing by two different means.
Result....M2T - YouTube
Add On....After reading all of the above, the bottom line may be simple and overlooked.....when you are viewing your video at YouTube, what is YouTube setting for viewing 360p or a HD setting such as 720p? That may be the answer. When I used the HD viewing setting at YouTube and not its default 360p setting, my red circle issue disappeared for the video with the lower video bitrate. And, when I used the HD settings for the your YouTube sample video, they looked great and previously thought interlacing issues did not exist any longer.
Many, many thanks for taking such care in responding and even doing research, ATR! It's good that this discussion will help a lot of people confronted by similar issues! I'm sure that a lot of those people will be interested in the conclusions. I need time to absorb what you've written and conduct the research that you've suggested. I'm grateful that this is taking place, and will give it the best I've got, and come back, I hope, late today or tomorrow. Have to do the right thing as a carer right now. Have printed your reply to make sure that I absorb everything correctly. Talk soon, and thanks again.....
Thanks for the reply.
Right now I am focusing on that YouTube viewing set which is not at the resolution of the upload, but at a way lesser resolution. I knew that before this but did not factor it into this until I started my mini test runs.
That 720p YouTube viewing setting did wonders for your YouTube uploads as well as my mini test run YouTube uploads.
We will be looking forward to your observations when your schedule permits.
Hi ATR, I think I've absorbed your messages, but I'm just checking in with you before testing (brief) comparative uploads at the 8/9 bitrates in which I will let PE11 deinterlace in one test and YouTube deinterlace in the other.
I had been suspecting slow internet for the jittery, stuttery movements in-frame. This problem did not seem to be related to differing bitrates - but was persistent this evening, with 4 out of 5 bars indicated for the wifi connection with our ADSL2 router at home. Then I viewed your tests per the links in your second-last post. Well, your superimposed objects moved smoothly in both of your samples - at 360p, 480p and 720p viewing settings. By contrast, images of people moving through frame in both of my samples were stuttery. I couldn't see any definite difference at 360p, 480p and 720p viewing settings. My wifi speed remained 4 out of 5 bars.
The remaining factor begins to look like deinterlacing.
I want to clarify that I hadn't used the 1440x1080 preset since your first reply to me because you had explained the necessity for stretching the anamorphic resolution. Also, I want to explain how I accidentally used those high bitrates with one of the market uploads. The bottom preset in the Share to Computer/AVCHD options of PE11 reads “1280x720p deinterlaced fps per source”. The default bitrates here are – target 20mbps, maximum 21mbps.
The YouTube Widescreen HD option under Share to Computer changes from 1280x720p (NTSC) to 720x576 when you click PAL! This also happens when you click PAL with the MP4-HD 720p 24 and M2T-HD 720p options under Share to Computer in PE11! And having filmed at 1920x1080 I don’t want to go below 1280x720 – which is the recommended HD option for Facebook.
Now here are some brief comparisons of uploads directly to YouTube and following export to computer. Would you mind giving me your opinion on the smoothness of movement? Strangely, the direct uploads per the 1440x1080 preset seem to result in smoother movement as far as I can see – though the letterbox framing with pillars might be less desirable. The upload of our dog, Sammi, contains big camera movements and movements in frame – and the jerkiness in the 1280x720 upload via computer file is I think more obvious than in the uploads of the ducks (containing gentle movements).
That’s a bit verbose. What I’m asking is, can you see the comparative jerkiness in the 1280x720 upload of our dog Sammi? Do you think this is a more serious factor than the letterbox and pillars framing the 1440x1080 direct uploads from PE11?
1280x720 deinterlaced fps per source 8 target 9 maximum bitrates exported to computer before upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp7DQ9Vm9UU
PE11 Share to YouTube at preset 1440x1080i 25: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXVyE2Eht1I
1280x720p deinterlaced fps per source customized at target 8 bits, maximum 9 bits exported to computer - deinterlaced before upload:
Upload Ducks direct from PE11 preset to YouTube at 1440x1080i 25: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqV0FVbGdI
So far, I do tend to think that method of upload/deinterlacing seems more influential on smoothness of movement than bitrate, viewing resolution or even internet speed.
What do you think?
My partner and I will be away for the day tomorrow, but will catch you soon.
I watched all four of the YouTube videos at full screen and non full screen, and they all seem to share the same syndrome
a. automatic lower YouTube default viewing setting (240p, one time 144p, as compared to the original video resolution, giving mediocre quality at times (maybe best equates to periodic semi impressionistic art sprays)
b. excellent quality when the automatic YouTube player's default viewing setting was changed to the resolution of the upload (from 240p to either 720p or 1080p)
c. varying times for the downloading/stabilization of the video, which was more marked at the YouTube player's default HD viewing sets....and in spite of the fact that all these views had relatively short durations.
As for uploading 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9 video to YouTube, it is my belief that it is converted to either 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080, not sure
how that YouTube decision is made if I am right on that one.
Please remind me, what was the distinction between the first from the third of the links?
1280 x 710 deinterlaced fps per source 8 9 bitrate
1280x720p deinterlaced fps per source customized at target 8 bits, maximum 9 bits exported to computer - deinterlaced before upload:
Was it just the subject matter? Of them all, I sort of favorited the first, even watched at the YouTube default viewing setting 240p.
Was the upload per the following link the smoother one that you preferred?
This one was AVCHD shared to Computer, 1280x720p fps per source, 8,9 bitrates.
It is really hard to decide which settings and modes of upload are preferable, because jerkiness seems to vary, even when viewing the very same upload several times at the same viewing resolution – suggesting to me that vagaries of the internet connection are probably the biggest variant – more influential than slightly different settings including resolution and bitrate and even mode of upload and deinterlacing!
However, I don’t think the above underlined settings produced anything worse than other settings and modes, and possibly produced a slight edge of smoothness - subject to variance caused by internet download speeds ?
So, I think I’m agreeing with your preference. You mentioned that quality was quite nice when viewing at 720p. Is that right?
I’ve googled for advice and suggestions and info is surprisingly scarce!
Also, if you follow the above link, and you click on my YouTube profile picture I hope you will find a string of test uploads that I’ve tried over the past few days. I’ve learned to put the video settings used into the titles of the test files uploaded, and further info and opinions into comments accompanying them. As well as (I think) 3 uploads of the market video, there are two 20-second clips of our dog catching ball with my partner, two 20-sec clips of ducks, and more recently, 3 or 4 versions of a 20-sec sequence containing 3 brief pans at the local market. In these comparisons, the footage is common, but settings and modes of deinterlacing vary. The dog and ball-throwing contains the biggest camera movements, the gentle movements with the ducks seem to be accommodated quite well through all processes, and the movement in the sequence of brief pans at the market varies but is moderate.
The movement of people walking through the beginning and ending scenes of the 3 minute market video (of a week ago) is most revealing in comparing degrees of jerkiness.
I’ve been comparing smoothness of movement all the way. I hope you can find these comparative test uploads when you follow the above link and click my profile pic to give you my YouTube channel. As said, the market videos run 3 minutes, but the others about 20-odd seconds.
Please let me know if you have trouble finding these test uploads.
(The other earlier videos on my channel were shot with my previous standard definition camera and edited on PE10).
When you read the accompanying notes on the recent test uploads you’ll see that in the two most recent uploads (of the sequence of 3 shots at the market) “Always Deinterlace” was chosen in the field options in the edit workspace. I don’t think this achieved anything. I might be mistaken, but jerkiness does not appear to be reduced and might even increase. And I’m not just saying that because it would be tiresome deinterlacing all clips separately in a lengthy or complex edit!
480p Seems to be the default YouTube viewing setting here in regional Australia, and I find the definition quite nice in the default YouTube window and the movement (possibly) smoother than when viewing at 720p.
The 1280x720p fps per source, 8,9 bitrates favoured by you and me seems consistent with advice from YouTube. As it is not offered by Pe11 under uploads directly to YouTube, I am exporting to a computer file and uploading from within YouTube. File size and upload time seem quite reasonable at these bitrates. No improved smoothness was gained in my test upload at 20,21 bitrates – just a huge file size! These bitrates, however, are default when you click the Advanced tab in PE11under Share/Computer/AVCHD/1280x720p, fps per source. So, bitrates must be customized at target bitrate 8, maximum 9.
Would you be able to try these settings in a brief test upload (with some moderate movement)? I realize that you might be better off with Progressive rather than interlaced/ NTSC rather than PAL source footage that might better match standard presets.
Thanks again for your caring interest, ATR. I was hoping that other experienced people might join in our discussion. Some might pick up on it in times to come.
Just a couple of after-thoughts.
The only moderately strong movement in our samples that I’ve seen that has been perfectly smooth is the floating superimposed red circle in the sample per the link that you provided!
All of the movement in-frame and camera movement that I’ve uploaded has looked at least a little bit stuttery to me – except for the most subtle movements – eg. in the duck footage. And I can vouch that the original camera movements look perfectly smooth when playing from computer files. In any case, people walking through static camera shots look stuttery, jittery, jumping a few frames at a time – but then, not consistently! The exact same footage viewed a second time at the same screening resolution often looks noticeably more or less jittery on second viewing!
I wonder whether some of my footage looks better from your end because of better internet connection? This question reminds me that I should go somewhere with the strongest possible internet connection to view my sample uploads. Living out of town, this is not easy, but I must do it.
Also, I wonder whether the results of de-interlacing can be perfect ? And finally, I wonder whether YouTube shows video shot at NTSC frame-rates more smoothly than video shot at PAL frame-rates?
Lots to think about. In the morning, I am planning on putting some thoughts together on your two latest posts.
If necessary, we can do some cross checking where I create PAL projects for this discussion.
But, I would ask "Are you sure that you are allowing for a full download of the YouTube video that you want to watch?" And, "Are you using the YouTube HD player settings for HD?"
If I'm understanding you, I do wait until YouTube announce that processing has finished - and have been back maybe 4 or 5 times or more over several days to view each of the uploads again, trying to gauge whether the stuttering has increased, decreased or remained more or less constant. When doing this, I watch the uploads at YouTube's default 480p, then 720p HD, and occasionally at 1080p - though I have only uploaded one sample at that resolution.
In the next couple of hours I'll study the smoothness of comparable movements in HD videos uploaded by others to YouTube. That might tell me more about my internet connection and fair expectations.
I will never take your interest for granted, thanks ATR.
I've been studying my own sample uploads and some pro clips on YouTube over the past couple of hours. First, I would view one of my clips and then have another look, and jerkiness appeared or disappeared from one viewing to the next. Repeated viewings of each clip showed this variance.
Then I looked at professional travel clips. I think that pans and movements across frame looked about as jerky as in my footage. Just as in mine, jerkiness was more pronounced in movements across screen rather than in tilts or zooms.
Your eyes start playing tricks after a while, studying smoothness versus jerkiness. However, it looks increasingly likely to me that variance in internet viewing download speeds is likely to be a much more pronounced factor than video settings for uploads or levels of definition in determining smoothness of movement when finally viewing uploads on YouTube.
What do you think of this?
At first opportunity in the next week or so I'll view my samples on the fastest internet available in Tasmania at the online access centre in Launceston. It is connected to the new fibre-optic National Broadband Network. It will be interesting to see if the jerkiness disappears and see how smoothness of movement compares with that of the original material.
Just in case you've skipped down to here or forgotten the link that I provided way back, here it is again: 1280x720 deinterlaced fps per source 8 9 bitrates - YouTube
This option is among the AVCHD share to computer options of PE11 - with my custom bitrates. I think that you and I both tended to prefer the results of these settings. Once you bring up the clip you can click on my YouTube profile pic to see a number of comparative sample clips - mostly of about 20-odd seconds each, and accompanied by notes detailing video settings such as bitrates.
If you read this, you won't necessarily have to read all of my other posts. I overlooked the possible influence of my browser.
I've just discovered that there is no jerkiness or stuttering when using Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 11 - only when using Firefox! I stumbled on this when offered a Java update and researching which version to download. Although using 64 bit Windows 8.1, I'm using 32 bit Firefox 31 and IE11. Anyway, I thought I'd play a couple of my sample uploads in IE11 and they played fine! I played them all - at 480p, 720p and 1080p when that resolution had been uploaded. There was no jerkiness. All samples played smoothly in the default YouTube viewer and in the "Cinema" format as well. Same in Google Chrome. However, they all remained stuttery by fluctuating degrees when played in Firefox.
So, ATR, the default PE11 presets for HD uploads directly to YouTube are now working fine for me - when I view the footage using Chrome and IE11. So it's been a browser issue, rather than video settings all along! There is something stuttery for me viewing videos in Firefox! I'm not worried, because, my uploads and settings are now confirmed as fine, and I can use the other browsers to view my material - though I still like the supposed security of Firefox.
So, ATR, I guess there's no urgency to try out the fast internet at the access centre in town. There is nothing wrong with my settings or PE11 presets.
There is just one more favour I will ask: if you have Firefox, would you view my samples using that browser? You can find them per the link in my last post - then clicking on my profile pic for the offerings on my channel. I wonder which browser you have been using - and how things will look to you on Firefox?
Actually, I've just realized that I should uninstall, download and reinstall Firefox - just in case that improves video viewing. Professional clips by others are looking stuttery in Firefox too at the moment.
Just shows that one should think outside the box!
Referring to post 14...
"1280 x 720 deinterlaced fps per source 8 0 bitrate" is great if allowed to download fully from YouTube for viewing and if the YouTube player setting was user set to 720p HD rather than using the YouTube default of 240p. Comparing the results viewed from different computers with different resources should be very informative. You might also want to consider a sharing site to sharing site comparison as well as a computer to computer comparison, uploading the same video file to Facebook and Vimeo as well as YouTube at each of those web sites.
Referring to post 15
Great duck footage with duck movements (smooth flow and the paddle of their little feet) but again only after video was download fully from YouTube for viewing and if Your Tube player setting was user set to HD rather than using YouTube default with its lesser resolution. Still a good idea to look at comparative viewing related to sharing site to sharing site and computer to computer. But, in the end you have no control over the viewer choices. All you can do is do the best you can for worse case.
Referring to post 17
Based on what you wrote, you would seem to be taking into account the download fully and YouTube player default setting. Just in case note,
after you play the download the first time, do you do repeat playbacks without any spinning circle in the middle of the screen to indicate downloading?
If so, that is leaving us with comparative results related to sharing site to sharing site and computer to computer.
Referring to post 18
Were the pro clips progressive or interlaced footage? Did you ever say if you had the opportunity to shoot progressive and compare your own interlaced and progressive footage? Typically the your troubleshooting uploads to YouTube have been around 26 seconds. If you did one with a longer duration, did you find that what you are seeing in the way of stuttering disappeared as the footage moved beyond the 26 second mark? See looking forward to sharing site to sharing site and computer to computer comparisons on all this.
Referring to post 19
Good job finding the Firefox influence on what you are observing when you view your Premiere Elements video that was uploaded to YouTube.
Firefox is my default browser, and I have been using it throughout our discussions in this thread. The current version of Firefox appears to be
31.0. What Firefox version have you been using? After I post this reply, I will open Chrome and watch the your videos linked to in this thread.
But, you need to consider that you cannot control the browser preferences and Internet connect of your viewers. You might included an opening statement in your video about preferred browser.
But, let me how your videos present in Chrome and Internet Explorer.
I just did a look at the your linked to YouTube videos in this thread, using as the default browser
Firefox version 31.0 - (listed as up to date)
Chrome 36.0.1985.143m (listed as up to date)
Internet Explorer 8.0.7601.17514 64 bit (not up to date)
I saw no difference between using any of these 3 browsers for viewing the YouTube videos in discussion. This finding makes it even more interesting why you are seeing a difference in this regard.
We will be watching for further developments.
Thanks for the follow ups.
Thank you for the feedback.
Regarding your response to post 19, as mentioned playback is choppy in all instances on Firefox 31 , but smooth in all of my uploads when using IE11 and Google Chrome 36. (All of these are always kept up to date).
But I'm not alone:
In one of the many forums that I've just read concerning video playback in Firefox, it is mentioned that there have been 1.5 million Google search hits concerning this problem - and almost all people posting in forums are happy with playback using IE and Chrome! I certainly am - playback of all of my samples is smooth in those browsers at 480p, 720p and 1080p when I've uploaded at that resolution, and that is on the small default YouTube screen and in their "Cinema" screen format.
I wonder why playback of my videos is smooth for you in Firefox?
My Flashplayer and Java are up to date, as are Windows 8.1 and all of my programs and drivers, including nVidia.
As mentioned, I always check YouTube playback at HD settings of 720p and 1080p. I always wait for the busy circle to stop spinning and the grey buffer indication to extend before playing. I guess playback in Firefox has been even more choppy when I've played, then re-played the same video straight away.
Regarding your response to post 18, my camera doesn't shoot progressive footage, so I'm stuck with interlaced material - but as I've written, I've tried "Always Deinterlace" in PE11's clip field options, without any better response - in Firefox. The 3 minute video of the local market in which I first noticed the choppiness plays back badly in all instances in Firefox. Movement in it does not smooth out because it is a longer video.
Anyway, having checked playback of my samples in Chrome and IE, and having read a couple of forums concerning problems with Firefox, do you agree that the problem lies with the browser, rather than any of the other factors?
Based on my observations of your own YouTube videos and mine played back in my computer environment, I cannot commit to a generalized statement that videos uploaded to YouTube and viewed using the Firefox browser are any different than those viewed using other popular browsers. The details are in all the previous posts in this thread.
I would need to
1. review all the Google hits that target this type of question to gather details
2. look at videos recorded with an interlaced or progressive frame rate - look at these uploaded to sharing sites videos in more than one computer environment
3. look at other factors as well
4. find out what the YouTube Forum has to say about all this
Maybe at a later date, I can go get into all of the above in depth. But, for now, the bottom line is, if you are confident about your results, go with what works for you, and use whatever tools necessary to obtain the best results for you and your viewers. If you feel that there is a generalized real issue with using Firefox as the browser for viewing your YouTube uploads, then maybe put a notice at the beginning of each of your uploads...not recommended for viewing with Firefox.
Thanks for the follow ups.
Best wishes as you move forward with your projects.
I understand that you must have lots of pressing issues to address as moderator, and wouldn't ask you to spend more time on mine, but I'd just like to know your cpu and operating system because forum posters commonly identify problems with the combination of Intel Core i7 CPU - 3rd Generation Ivy Bridge, Windows 8.1, Flash Player since version 11.5 and Firefox versions concurrent with Flash Player 11.6 and beyond. Unfortunately, all of these specs coincide with my system!
There's a host of forums concerning choppy Flash video playback in Firefox, and as mentioned in my post #22 here, apparently 1.5 million hits on Google.You must be a bit puzzled with my experience because Firefox and Flash work smoothly for you. But here is the problem and "Correct Answer" according to an Adobe forum with 144 entries (bearing in mind that probs have since been solved with IE11):
This question has been Answered.
marbik Dec 8, 2013 2:26 AM
Problem is very weird. I have Mozilla Firefox, IE, latest flash (11.9), Win 8.1 All latest updates. Online video playback with flash player stutters in a very weird way - even if video is fully downloaded it stutters for a second irregulary and then continues normally as if nothing happen. This stutter is similar like someone just opened something on a slow hdd and thus makes the flash playback stutter for just a second (even though i have an ssd that is very fast; rest of computers is i7, r9 280x, so a fast and modern computer). This happens in irregular intervals on both browsers. Video is watchable but this is very annoying. I tried reinstalling just about everything except the OS itself. I disabled hardware acceleration and set cash to unlimited in flash settings, still nothing. This happens with youtube as well as all other flash video in both browsers. Ofcourse other video playback is fine (.avi, .mp4 etc). It can happen 5 times in 5 minutes, and than nothing for half an hour and then starts again.
Anyone else had a similar problem?
Correct Answer by TenshiTec on Dec 11, 2013 2:29 AM
I have the same problem. It just happen only with Windows 8.1. My System: Core i7-3770, 16 GB Ram, 256 GB SSD and a stable VDSL2 25 Mbit internet connection. System is up to date. Newest flash version is also installed: 11.9.900.170.
To temporary solve the problem, i go to task manager under details and set the cpu affinity for FlashPlayerPlugin_11_9_900_170.exe to 1 core.
With Flash Version 11.5 the problem is gone, but it's a old (unsave) version of flash.
Google Chrome is the only browser without this problem.
I tried all. No problems with Windows 7 and Windows 8.0. It's only under Windows 8.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, ATR, IE11 (with embedded Flash Player and regular Microsoft updates) now plays flash videos smoothly, so Firefox remains the odd one out, to the frustration of many, many forum posters who choose Firefox for other reasons (as I do).
Well, ATR, I am happy that the choppiness that has so bothered me in Firefox is simply not a problem when replaying on YouTube or Facebook in Chrome or IE11. Therefore, my deinterlacing and video settings surely must be OK. I wish that all Firefox users could view my material smoothly, but a percentage of people see choppiness in all videos on YouTube and Facebook in Firefox; not just mine - and there's nothing I can do about that.
Here is the link to the above forum: Flash player stutters for 1 second then continues normally
I will continue to follow this and other forums, looking for solutions, but otherwise view my videos (and others) using IE11 and Chrome, and I don't ask you to spend more time on this issue, except to let me know your computing environment - especially operating system and CPU.
Thanks again for the follow up.
I am not a moderator at the Adobe Forums, in the Adobe Premiere Elements Forum or other here at Adobe. I am just a visitor such as yourself and glad for the opportunity to be part of this sharing and learning interaction.
But, I do have a lot of opinions and experiences that I want to share on what works for me as well as from what I have read. The whys
are very important to me, not just some script of how to.
But whys with a lot of baggage (confirmed and non confirmed) need time and thought to try to answer apppropriately. Until I can do that, I will put this matter on a to do in the future list especially since you appear to be satisfied with your results and conclusions for your specific workflow.