. . . . that second video is appalling quality. 1.5gb for 9 minutes should be great video; surely that isn't what all-intra (is that the all-iframe term?) is about. It looks to me as you'd have to triple the bitrate to go close to getting rid of those blocks. That'd be an insane 60,000kbps. . . . .
It is appalling, however at 60000 kps it is significantly better and viewable, though the file size jumps to ~ 4GB.
. . . . Why would anybody bother? Is the improvement in quality worth all that extra data if uploading to YT regularly? . . . .
The idea is to force the YT encoders to up their ante and re-encode at higher quality using the VP 9 encoder.
The idea is to force the YT encoders to up their ante and re-encode at higher quality using the VP 9 encoder.
But that's my point: the iframe setting, and the bitrate, for that matter, have no bearing on whether YT invokes the VP9 codec. The only trigger is 1440P. If you upload 1440P (or more), then you will get VP9 on all your videos.
Perhaps Ray has a niche issue with low light which all-iframes will cure/improve, but for general use, all-iframes looks unnecessary.
Funny you should say that - I have just finished reading an article which goes into how to force VP9 encoding, the conclusion was the video resolution needs to be 4K 2160p minimum. The older tricks, eg bitrate, All-Intra, brightness and a hack using the YT editor, for forcing VP9 no longer work.
Additionally in another article, YT are testing a newer encoder AV1 which is even better than, and a replacement for, VP9.
From the first article Rays issue is due to the random sensor noise in dark areas of video in night shots creating issues with the YT encoders resulting in blockiness and banding.
I have just finished reading an article which goes into how to force VP9 encoding, the conclusion was the video resolution needs to be 4K 2160p minimum.
John, It's wrong. I did one yesterday. 1440P, 6,000kbps. 25FPS. VP9 straight up. 👍