Additionally, looking again, the Youtube stream is noticeably softer when I play it. One of the areas I paid attention to was the fellow sitting in the chair at 00:14 in the video. There's not a lot of chroma or luma contrast on his face, particularly the more subtle details in his cheeks and under his eyes. YT wants to smear together these goldish and pinkish areas so that you get the contrasty areas defining his nose but the planes of his face are more smoothly rendered whereas I can more easily see the highlight details in the Vimeo.
Swapping between the following scene of the juggler on the unicycle I see the same issue in his face. I can read fine detail in his brow, in the pattern of his jacket, the wooden planks on the floor, the texture on the red table cloth, etc., on Vimeo, that just get mushed over on the YT stream (HTML5). His face is mostly a pink blob on YT. I get the distinct appearance of macroblocking on YT as well which is less noticeable on Vimeo.
I think my playback issue on Vimeo had more to do with the 2k 80mbps original file I uploaded than with Vimeo.
I also saw the fairly decent amount of color correction options available to correct footage on youtube. But, I didn't want to have to color correct footage again after already getting it to a point I liked in post, well actually what I already got in-camera..
For several years now, the audio has drifted out of sync. They blame everyone but themselves, and they don't fix it. IMHO, this is just amateurish.
Burnet, you pretty much nailed it. That's what YT does sometimes for me. Wish Vimeo would playback consistently though.
@bleach551 Yeah, I hear you. I do my adjustments in editing/color grading software and then export to YT. If not good, I go back into editing/grading software again to tweak and re-export. It's a pain, but I just have to do it.
Yep, Dr D right on with audio.
...I do my adjustments in editing/color grading software and then export to YT. If not good, I go back into editing/grading software again to tweak and re-export. It's a pain, but I just have to do it.
I really wish Vimeo gave you the ability to organize your uploads, like you can on YT, and I wish YT gave you the ability to swap in a new source file like you can with Vimeo. It's so inefficient and painful deleting and re-uploading to YT when trying solve a compression problem or if you need to change audio, tweak an edit, etc.
At what "Profile" and "Level" are you rendering your H.264 files. I always use "Profile-(High)" "Level-(5.1)" and render at max bit depth and with "Target" and "Max" Mbps at "80". I always use the Standard H.264 instead of H.264 for Blu-ray.
H.264 High Profile, Level 4.2 @ 20Mbps avg, 24Mbps max. This is comparable to Blu-ray quality, which I consider good enough for 1080p delivery to clients. I don't really see this as relevent, however, since the issue is Vimeo's re-encoded low-bitrate quality degradation, rather than the quality or bitrate of the original uploaded video.
After reading this discussion, I'm not sure whether the crucial issue is clear to all posters. I'm not complaining about the quality of 1080p videos downloaded from Vimeo, they are adequate for review purposes. What I find unacceptable is the visual quality of 1080p videos streamed off Vimeo's web pages, whether on their site or embedded in other pages. As displayed by Firefox on my Win7 workstation at 1080p, these look much worse than they do on either YouTube or played locally on my PC.
Does anyone here NOT see how much worse my sample video looks streamed off Vimeo?
I find that if I use "Compressor" to transcode my out-of-camera files, that they stay true to color in the Compressor ProRes files. However, I have found from using a lot of other third-party Prores transcoding programs that they seem to not deliver true to the original colors of the original out-of-camera clips.
I understand what you are saying. But I think your workflow and how you transcode your footage for Vimeo is at the root of your displeasure with the way it looks to you. Vimeo is going to heavily compress the files you upload anyway, so upload the highest bitrate, highest profile and level that they will accept and see if that changes the quality of the 1080p streaming video.
I see that you are uploading around about the max bitrate for Vimeo for 1080p footage, 20mbps. How about something like 40mbps or higher. The clip I recently uploaded was at 80mbps and it looked great. I mean F**K Vimeos max settings for 1080p.Try "level" "5.1" and see if that makes a difference.
What I find unacceptable is the visual quality of 1080p videos streamed off Vimeo's web pages, whether on their site or embedded in other pages. As displayed by Firefox on my Win7 workstation at 1080p, these look much worse than they do on either YouTube or played locally on my PC.
And what I find necessary is to do things as sane developed monkeys (aka humans) are doing them and not bunch of Meerkats who made a meeting and discuss their visual expiriences.
Even if you so want to avoid any analyzing. At least - download all streamed versions using tools and play them, including source file, in one video player (preferably with all postprocessing turned off in decoder and with MagVR renderer).
Otherwise it can be anything. HTML5 video player realization in browser. Fact that one can use flash player in your case and other not. Just weird behavior of decoder/postprocessing. Anything.
For important stuff, I check how final version looks on different browsers and different devices (computer, tablet, and phone). Then pick which is best overall. At end of day, you're left with imperfect result, but you can do best possible.
And regarding best target and max settings etc., I've heard YT and Vimeo change their algorithm/system fairly regularly, so what worked great 12 months ago, might not be optimal now.
Bottom line is experiment to find secret sauce for yourself.
At least - download all streamed versions using tools and play them...
As I replied above, I have done so and ALL downloaded versions of the video play back in acceptable quality. It was only the version streamed directly from Vimeo's website via Firefox that looked bad.
However, I also tried installing Chrome and the quality streaming playback from Vimeo's website looks much better in Chrome than in Firefox on my Win7 workstation. Now checking to see if I can track down the discrepancy...
As I replied above, I have done so and ALL downloaded versions of the video play back in acceptable quality. It was only the version streamed directly from Vimeo's website via Firefox that looked bad.
I really do not know that you are talking about. I talk about tools that store streamed version in file.
No one cares about how it looks in your FireFox or Chrome. As it depends on huge number of things, even your graphics card, drivers and moon phase (here I mean huge number of versions and updates of this bloated buggy browsers).
If you discuss Vimeo and Youtube and how their video looks - you do so analyzing actual footage that they stream. All else is discussion about browsers and million other variables.
No one cares about how it looks in your FireFox or Chrome.
Yes, but I care how it looks to my clients on their browsers. If it looks bad in Vimeo on my workstation, I want to know why and take whatever steps I can to insure it doesn't look bad to my clients.
Yes, but I care how it looks to my clients on their browsers. If it looks bad in Vimeo on my workstation, I want to know why and take whatever steps I can to insure it doesn't look bad to my clients.
Well, it is Sisyphean task.
This is how it looks (simplified slightly):
Stream->Splitter->Video decoder(with decoder post processing most of the time)->Video renderer (with its own post processing and "enchancements")->Image buffer
You can't control video renderer behavior (on random viewer computer) used during browser playback at all. As not only it is dependent of graphics card, but also on drivers version and actual settings.
You also can't control decoder as it can be either build in Windows (Mac OSX) one or one made by browser authors (needs good research). Usually here no one tell you about settings.
@LPowell Only "reasonable" solution to make sure it looks good on client's computer is to do the following: after you finish editing and color grading, you break and enter the client's building at 2 in the morning. Then you watch video on their computer. If it looks bad, go home and change color grade and come back at 3 am to see if it finally looks good. Comtinue until it looks great. You can also benefit here from bringing a laptop editing station with you as you break into client's building, to avoid driving back home to do any changes.
And pray that your client is pretty young girl :-)
You can't control video renderer used during browser playback at all. As not only it is dependent of graphics card, but also on drivers version and actual settings.
Goddammit, I found the problem lurking in Firefox's Advanced Options, "Use hardware acceleration when available". When this is on, Vimeo 1080p playback is totally smooth, but the details look like crap. After turning it off, Vimeo's choppy but looks at least as good as YouTube. Maybe it's something to do with running my Nvidia Quadro card in 10-bit color mode...
When this is on, Vimeo 1080p playback is totally smooth, but the details look like crap. After turning it off, Vimeo's choppy but looks at least as good as YouTube. Maybe it's something to do with running my Nvidia Quadro card in 10-bit color mode...
No, it is driver behavior and settings :-) Turn off all enhancements related to video (in drivers settings).
Crap you see originate in "smart" idea to "enhance" overcompressed or noisy videos.
Not that's night from day but in my precarious testing I found that quality improvement is visually perceptible (like a little palpable extra tit... or is it cancer? oh shit oh shit ) when uploading x265 10 bit video to vimeo.
I've been hyper critical of their new damn default setting to "AUTO". They absolutely should offer higher quality renders to Pro users. They keep adding stupid free additions that are useless. All most of us want is higher quality.
As far as what the hell they do to uploads when they re-render, they must provide us more info, or their actually render engine. Plus if I upload with their "ideal" setting parameters, they should leave that upload the hell alone and just post it.
I think they're doing a terrible job. Just because youtube is worse in many ways, does not Vimeo gets to just get away with eroding support. Too few of us complain. I'm looking seriously at moving my 100 videos to youtube. I hate youtube.
I could do a better job programming their web site as well as youtubes and I'm not all that great at it anymore. Vimeo's on the way out it seems.
They keep adding stupid free additions that are useless. All most of us want is higher quality.
You can keep waiting till death.
As all you ask is to increase their expanses, as increasing bitrate means that they need more HDD storage and that is more important - pay for better channels. In return you will say to them - "thanks".
Youtube and Vimeo will soon be very very similar and will implement best optimizations so each video can be compressed so much so most people can barely see that they are seeing. :-)
If vimeo becomes more like youtube they won't survive. YouTube has much bigger user base and way more established. Majority of people don't even know what vimeo is. Their entire identity was to be a higher quality outlet. They lose that they're gone.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!