PS: Youtube's video player is a derivative of the JW Player.
Wouldn't that affect bandwidth requirements rather than the video decoding/rendering speed?
So what if YouTube's using the same player as everyone else? If their videos cause less CPU load than other videos, then that's a significant benefit to going with them.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. I do know that youtube causes a cpu load of about 30-50% on my system, while most other video sites hit 80% cpu load easily. (For comparison playing a video with mplayer takes something like 10%) My point was that while the youtube player is relatively lightweight, it's still heavy, and doubling the framerate is probably not going to help.
video = AVISource("video.avi") part1 = video.Trim(0,499).ChangeFPS(video.FrameRate / 2) part2 = video.Trim(500,1000).TASBlend() last = part1 + part 2
video = AVISource("video.avi")
normal = video.ChangeFPS(video.FrameRate / 2)
blend = video.TASBlend()
part1 = normal.Trim(0,499)
part2 = blend.Trim(500,1000)
last = part1 + part2
return lastTake into account that YouTube's player is the lightest flash-based video player I have encountered (playing a video consumes something like 30-50% CPU on my system with YouTube, while the video player of basically any other video sharing site consumes at least 80% of CPU), but it's still quite heavy. I'm pretty certain that if it tried to play a video at 60 FPS the system requirements would almost double, making it unplayable in most older systems. Not everybody has a 64-bit quad-core.(Another issue would be that the bandwidth requirement would also increase. Not everybody has a gigabit internet connection.)
ImageSource(file="1080lines.png", start=0, end=0, fps=60.0).ConvertToRGB32()
ConvertToYV24(chromaresample="point")
ConvertToYV12(chromaresample="lanczos")ImageSource(file="1080lines.png", start=0, end=0, fps=60.0).ConvertToRGB32()
ConvertToYV24(chromaresample="point")
ConvertToYV12(chromaresample="lanczos")
SeparateFields()
AssumeFrameBased()
SeparateFields()
SelectEven()
Weave()
LanczosResize(last.width, last.height * 2, taps=2)
Your video was uploaded on March 2nd, 2011. Maybe YouTube has improved since then.
I don't think so, my friend. I did a test. I've made this 1920x1080 picture (look closely), and I shoved it in a short uncompressed AVI file. The results are here. If you have a 1080p monitor/TV, set this video to 1080p and look closely. I can distinguish all the black lines from the pink ones. If you were right, I would've seen a single color. Am I right?
Just remembered something...
- Put an "info" at the end of your script to see if the clip is exactly 30 fps and not something like 30.050. Put an "AssumeFPS(30)" there if necessary.
- Also check at the end of the clip if the audio is still synchronized to the video.
You mean it erroneously determines the video to be interlaced and deinterlaces it? That's weird. I wonder what system it uses to determine that.
It also needs correct 1080p support. It destroyed the quality of a 1920×1080 video I uploaded. It also needs nearest neighbor scaling.
Are there any other video hosting sites that do allow finer control, though? I presume most of them just encode everything to conform to similar standards, with decent quality for most people, good quality for those who want it (480p) and the optional HD resolutions as well. I don't know any site that allows resolutions over 1080p.
But YT has the best video quality among the streaming services already. The only way to make it better is to do what you've been doing with Archive.org.
With regards to video quality/convenience/freedom of input/output formats, 30 fps is YouTube's one and only disadvantage by now. Everything else has been fixed.
Btw. Aktan did you solve the encode problems?
I mean, why youtube what's already youtubed & upload what's already uploaded (not vice versa).
