Hi Wayne.

There is no one answer to your question and possibly no-one but yourself will be able to get the all the answers.

For the Blu-ray disc or TV I have no opinion or recommendations as I have no personal use for either.

As for uploading to YouTube. There are guidelines as to what can be used but again they are guidelines and can to some extent be cheated on for better results. Whatever you upload to YouTube will be re-encoded at their end anyway so some experimentation may be needed.

My personal settings may not work for you. My recording equipment (cameras etc) probably have different sensor sizes, apertures, colour profiles, Compression rates as well as use different codecs on the source files.

I may not see some problems you may notice due to my monitors not being as good as your monitors or TVs, so you may see banding in colour regions my setup can't display or 'blocking' in solid colour areas or within shadows at lower bit levels.

One thing is for sure. Producing one file to cover all needs will not work. Each use may require different compression rate or the use of a different codec unless you are extremely lucky.

You could produce a 'Master file' of the best quality you can and then produce other files from it that will then serve individual needs.

Mastering is another discipline in itself and a whole other subject.

There are some guidelines within the manual to get your head around regarding each setting for exporting in MEP or VPX and what they are for.

Just like photography there is an art to producing a finished file from a source file (or files).

It is not dependent on settings alone but how it interacts with your viewing components, recorded files, and possibly even choice of web browser when talking about how it is viewed from different net hosting services. Each of which will have their own guidelines that are not mutually transferable.

All this information is from my own personal viewpoint and experience. Other people's views and mileage may vary or may vehemently disagree with all my views on the topic.

There are certain things you can alter and some settings best left alone such as typing in your own bit rate settings as that can end up with a file with no content if you get the minimum to maximum bit rate ratio wrong.

Maximum GOP Length can be shortened but not exceeded but there should be solid reasons for wanting to do so. I suggest reading the manual on that topic for clear guidance as to why.

GOP structure is best left alone until you get to grips with the rest of the settings and understand the role of the GOP structure.

Profile can be set to High rather than Main.

The Level setting on Auto is possibly fine for most things but if there are alternatives available in the Drop-down box it will not do any real harm if you chose another option but the result may be better or worse than leaving it in auto.

Coding quality may be safely set to Best.

Hardware encoding set to GPU if possible but CPU if not.

I have never personally seen a difference if HRD is on or off. If your preferred settings don't give constantly good results possibly turn that on but expect longer render times as it double checks the encoding.

I personally would stick to a 48kHz sample rate with the highest bit rate available.

For a Master File stick to the resolution and frame rate of the source files.

My preferred encoding codec is MP-4. Despite the smaller files sizes from HEVC I think HEVC can produce a grainier looking result if not very careful.

The rest of the viewable perceived quality comes down to how you process (or not) the video content within the editing package and your own personal taste.

Ray.

@Wayne-McIlvaine

Hi,

For 4K, I would have Program Settings at UHD/UHD-2 (unless you filmed at 4K 4096x2160 17:9) which is Ultra HDTV 16:9 (3840x2160) and use the same settings for export to MP4. I would change nothing. Magix has optimized the parameters so that the file will work most everywhere.

For BluRay (BD), I would use the default parameters which would be Full HD. Forget 4K unless you really want to go there, have or want to get a 4K burner and pay a lot more for the disks. It would be better to just use a USB memory stick with the MP4 on it instead, and plug it into your TV.

As you can tell, I am not one who subscribes to changing export parameters to maybe get a better quality or smaller file size with the risk that it doesn't work everywhere.

John CB

@Wayne-McIlvaine, @CubeAce

Hi

. . . . Maximum GOP Length can be shortened but not exceeded but there should be solid reasons for wanting to do so. I suggest reading the manual on that topic for clear guidance as to why. . . . .

Here i would disagree - the minimum GOP length should be no lower than half the frame rate otherwise you may run into data transfer rate issues depending on the transfer medium, in many instances the GOP length is the same as the frame rate, or up to a maximum value of 60.

Long GOP video can be used and is often seen in streamed videos, and some cameras, however there are compromises eg random access is less accurate.

I am of the same mind as @browj2 - the export settings are already optimised for video and BD discs and should not be changed without an overwhelming technical reason. Doing so can lead you 'down the rabbit hole'. trying to figure out why changing a setting, for what should be better quality, actually has the opposite effect, eg produces discs that are unplayable or videos that are not viewable due to jerkiness etc.

John EB

Thanks everyone! The manual was not very explicit, but it did match what John EB says about GOP matching frame rate, so I went with that. For bit rate, AAProds' suggestion makes a lot of sense, so I went with that as well. No issues so far, and everything is nice and smooth. 😊👍🏼

Appreciate all the help! With your advice, and since upgrading to VPX13, my whole production experience is much smoother! 🙏🏼😁 Thanks!

Attribution Alert!

My suggestion:

The same "Average" bitrate as the source file

came from a post by CubeAce some time ago.

👍

@AAProds @Wayne-McIlvaine @browj2 @johnebaker

Thank you Al.

My response to this query was due to the use of the wording of 'max export quality' in the topic title.

While I agree with everyone that the presets on average do an excellent job does not to my mind mean they give the best results in all cases.

This is especially true when dealing with YouTube uploads that use two different encoding systems depending on the file used for the upload. Vp09 being the least compressed and best quality to the original upload and av01 which can reduce the quality of the video even when viewed back at maximum resolution on the system that created it.

We also talk a lot about 'perceived quality' here on the forums when talking about exporting and the ability to pick out differences in exported files.

What I look for personally is sharpness without adding grain speckles or introducing an thickening of edges or halo effects.

Natural graduation of tones without introducing banding

A lack of any 'blocking' within any reasonable amount of solid colour area, especially shadow areas.

Moire effect when looking at small repeating detail that is not present in the original file as it can't always be avoided without compromising any of the above requirements.

That can depend on if the person producing the files also uses addition methods of 'improving' the perceived quality of the original file via the use of addition manipulation of the video image as well as the export options.

I think it takes time to learn these things including the export settings if one is not satisfied with the results and everyone has their own ideas as to what is best and what they look for in their video exports.

That doesn't mean that any one person is wrong, just that an individual finds their work methods work best for them. It may not translate to another persons idea of best quality or work as well due to file resolutions and bit rates as well as many other possible differences.

I have found my own personal acceptable YouTube file export quality (for now) by going against most recommendations and a fair amount of experimentation.

Ray.

@AAProds @Wayne-McIlvaine @browj2 @johnebaker

This is especially true when dealing with YouTube uploads that use two different encoding systems depending on the file used for the upload. Vp09 being the least compressed and best quality to the original upload and av01 which can reduce the quality of the video even when viewed back at maximum resolution on the system that created it.

<RAY MENTIONS ALL OF THE EXACT SAME POTENTIAL NEGATIVE VIDEO QUALITY ARTIFACTS THAT I OBSESS ABOUT HERE>

I have found my own personal acceptable YouTube file export quality (for now) by going against most recommendations and a fair amount of experimentation.

Ray.

Thanks Ray!! I obsess over all of the exact things that you mentioned (and that I trimmed out for brevity). How do you know / how can you influence which algorithm YouTube will use to process / compress your video?

It wasn't clear, beyond experimentation and personal taste, what your specific export recommendations actually are. Do you go through the entire pipeline, experimenting with different settings for each video, comparing the end results on YouTube each time, before you make a video public? Do those settings differ greatly from video to video? Are there no hard and fast rules when max quality is all that matters?

Thanks!

@Wayne-McIlvaine

Hi Wayne.

All very good and relevant questions and the ones I asked myself when I first noticed the differences on others YouTube videos to my own.

Do you go through the entire pipeline, experimenting with different settings for each video, comparing the end results on YouTube each time, before you make a video public?

At first I did all of the above and still do every now and again as YouTube also changes it's requirements over time. The only good news is once a YouTube video is encoded it never seems to get changed despite any further changes YouTube initiate.

There is still some guesswork on my side of things involved in my methods as to what is important for the codec to be used and what is not.

What doesn't seem to be important are the following.

Colour profile:

Frame rate:

Resolutions of 1920 x 1080 and above:

Constant or variable bit rate.

Sharpness or any other in editing effects applied while working on the project as long as the finished file looks good and devoid of problems when played back with any player within Windows.

What does seem to matter but I could be wrong on any one or more of the following points. It just seems to work for me.

That the source files must have a minimum bit rate of at least 60Mb/s: On my cameras that can fall dramatically in some shooting conditions and I have had to learn various ways of keeping it high, including frame rate choices and ISO values which will vary the bit rate output depending on sensor size and how a particular manufacturer sets up their encoding within the camera.

That any exported file bit rate does not fall below 80Mb/s and the less variation between lowest and highest varies as little as possible. Changing the bit rate to constant doesn't help, doesn't always work and I have no idea why.

Export using MP-4 with an all I frame GOP structure seems to have the best chance of success.

Do those settings differ greatly from video to video?

They used to but I now try to shoot content with the above information in mind. That cuts down experimentation but occasionally means I have to think about alternatives or not using video that does not meet the previously mentioned specifications. An alternative would be for instance to use such footage as a Pip (picture in Picture) which could actually benefit a series of frames maintain a higher bit rate as just increasing bit rates without suitable content doesn't work.

Are there no hard and fast rules when max quality is all that matters?

I think there is but the goal posts seem to be changed from time to time by YouTube.

Ray.

@Wayne-McIlvaine

Hi

. . . . Are there no hard and fast rules when max quality is all that matters? . . . .

Unfortunately not - there is no 'one size fits all' and how would you define what is maximum quality?

From the technical viewpoint it is possible to produce the most technically perfect video, however, the viewer perception of the 'quality' is influenced by the huge variances in colour reproduction, resolution and viewing conditions of the various viewing devices/monitors/TV's, projectors, etc.

From the practical view point, I have no contol over the conditions the viewer sees my creations - only I can see that on the equipment the video/disc was created on and/or tuned for.

In this respect I have a few presets, gained over a long period of evolving techniques and tweaking both in software and hardware, eg colour calibrated monitors, that meet my needs for reproduction equipment I have, and for upload to the Internet.

HTH

John EB

@Wayne-McIlvaine @johnebaker

Sorry, John is correct.

I was answering as if I had found project export settings that worked within one of my own projects ready for uploading to YouTube while working with my own files with known settings. That would not include any processing done to any clip within the project that could vary from clip to clip depending on how I wanted that to look.

As John has correctly allured to, if others wish to see exactly what you see then they would probably have to view it on your system.

Even while editing, the preview monitor in the program (on my system at least) does not show the finished exported video in as much detail as when it is played back via a player within Windows.

Monitor view in Movie Edit Pro 2022......... View of finished file in Windows Film and TV player.

..........................

So even with known export settings and file properties, there is a lot of tweaking for me to do while working on the project.

I am uploading that short video to YouTube as I type and will add it to this comment once the 4K version has fully rendered. We will both see if the Vp09 codec gets used even though a lot of the clips in use as PiPs are actually 1920 x 1080. Only the main background 'head' is in 4K.

[Edit]

Added

It would appear there is more to do as I have noticed some over sharpening and moire effects on one or two clips that do not show on the exported file so there is still something going on at YouTube.

It did achieve a Vp09 encoding though.

Ray.

Export using MP-4 with an all I frame GOP structure seems to have the best chance of success.

Has the best chance of success for what? For quality? Compatibility? Getting YouTube to use the VP09 vs the AVC1 codec? (By the way, how can you get YouTube to use the new AV1 (not AVC1) codec?)

I can see that my test video upload to YouTube is using the VP09 codec. If my final one does as well, would I be better off re-exporting using I Frames only? If so, what benefit does that give me?

Also, I can't see any option to change from AVC1 (H.264) to VP09 or AV1 in the export settings of VPX13. I assume we don't have control over this, so is this our best and only option at export time?

Thanks!

Also, I can't see any option to change from AVC1 (H.264) to VP09 or AV1 in the export settings of VPX13.

Correct. I'm not aware of any readily available VP9 or AV1 encoders. Youtube determines. In my experience, you need a minimum of 1440P 50FPS to get VP9.

Funnily enough, I get VP9 on a 1920x1440 50FPS ex VHS video!

@Wayne-McIlvaine

Hi Wayne.

As you asked me about getting YouTube to process video to Vp09 I was referring to the chances of success to achieve that goal.

I use I frames because it gives me the least amount of variation between minimum and maximum bit rates on variable bit encoded clips within the project.

I think that at present AV1 is still in the assessment stage with YouTube and no-one at present has any influence as to who gets its use. It needs more processing power to play back at the user end so I'm thinking YouTube are seeing how it may change their viewing stats. If it has no detrimental effect I think it may eventually replace avc1.

The latter information is just speculation on my part though.

Ray.

@Wayne-McIlvaine @browj2 @johnebaker

Looking into AV1 it would seem this is not about improving quality as much as saving up to 30% of their server space over avc1 without losing quality. Also it means less internet traffic, reduced running costs, better experiences for those with lower bandwidth internet connections. It appears @AAProds is correct that the minimum resolution to be able to get Vp09 requires one dimension to be 1440 now. Whether there are financial gains to be had may depend on if their servers have to work harder or longer on converting the uploads or not and there may be other factors involved as the codec requires more powerful systems at the receiving end to view the videos. That could affect the amount of views YouTube has and subsequently advertising revenue. All these things has to be accounted for.

I tested an export I made that was avc1 once uploaded and a 1920 x 1080 resolution with a bit rate of 84Mb/s and again the difference between me playing it on my media player and the replay from YouTube were so close I cannot tell the difference.

The only rumoured difference I can find on the net is that when a given video is viewed at lower resolutions, the output from AV1 is supposed to be better than avc1.

Whether that is true or not I can't say. What I think is true is it has to benefit the company first.

Ray.