New vid upload in HD

[Rock Doctor]

OK, this is not really HD, I don't have an HD camera, but I was tinkering and wanted to see if it would be better.

This was from a trip into my cabin on Sunday. I decided to try to run up the creek on the way in, just to check out the snow. Managed to bury my Mtn Max in a snowdrift. Notice how many of the guys came to help me out

I have no idea how this is going to work, but the link I posted below is supposed to be the HD version (1280x720). It may take a while to load, before it plays. It can also be viewed in High Quality.

Lets check it out, I havn't even tried it yet.

I think it looks alot better if you go to Youtube, and watch it in HD there. It's bigger and more clear.

[Mike]

RD, if you post the link and add &fmt=18 to the end it should show up in HD here. Still not the same as watching it on youtube in widescreen but a little better none-the-less

Since you mentioned the HD camera, have you shopped around for them at all? I'm in the market for one at the low end of the $$$ spectrum but there are so many different format / compression problems with different cameras that I'm having a hard time researching them. I finally find one I like and then I read something about the compression or problems with editing the files that it scares me away.

[Rock Doctor]

RD, if you post the link and add &fmt=18 to the end it should show up in HD here. Still not the same as watching it on youtube in widescreen but a little better none-the-less


Since you mentioned the HD camera, have you shopped around for them at all? I'm in the market for one at the low end of the $$$ spectrum but there are so many different format / compression problems with different cameras that I'm having a hard time researching them. I finally find one I like and then I read something about the compression or problems with editing the files that it scares me away.

Thanks Mike, I didn't know the "&fmt=18" thing worked for the HD vids.

As for the HD cameras, I think I'm in the same boat as you, I've looked at a few. Either the price scared me away, or the reviews of problems.
I'm happy with what I have right now, and will stick with it for a while


RD

[mudbug3]

Mike ,


To veiw this Utube video in " HD " you need to type &fmt=22 at the end of the URL , and that will make the " LARGE HD " screen appear. But ,this will only work on Utube video,s that have been uploaded in HD , but the HD icon does not appear on the bottom right of the screen.

[mudbug3]

Rock Doctor ,


When I typed &fmt=22 at the end of the " URL " of your Utube video, it looked REALLY GOOD! I,m using Movavi Video Suite6 to make all of my Flip video,s uploaded to Utube in HD also. What program are you using to upload your VIO-POV1 video,s in HD?

[Mike]

Let's try that with &fmt=22

edit: Sorry, I just reread the thread and see that this is not technically an HD video so it doesn't work in this case.

[Roger S]

RD's videos appear in a 1.5 aspect ratio, instead of 1.77 (16x9). I'm guessing it's his editing software that causes this.. but seems all his videos have the black borders. Not that it's a big deal, but that's why they don't fill the screen.

The old youtube display window was 480x360 (4x3 squarish). The new one is 640x360 (16x9) which is 1280x720 cut in half. A 4x3 video will show in the middle of it as a 480x360. RD's came out at 540x360.

On Cougar's widescreen sony footage, I used VirtualDub to resize it to 640x360 and compressed it with divx codec. That made the file size about 10 times smaller than the original camera file, and allows a quick upload to youtube. It doesn't allow a HD screen option, but is my best looking SQ or HQ video so far.

We probably don't want to post anything in &fmt=22, if it does open a HD window, that'll be a problem for slow internet connections. Also, I think the HD playback is mp4 and requires the cpu to decode and enhance the pic, which older computers won't like. Might be a better to link normally or with &fmt=18, then choose HD on the youtube page.

[Mike]

Also, you can choose HD on the embedded video after it starts playing, in the lower right corner.

[mudbug3]

( QUOTE ) " We probably don't want to post anything in &fmt=22, if it does open a HD window, that'll be a problem for slow internet connections. Also, I think the HD playback is mp4 and requires the cpu to decode and enhance the pic, which older computers won't like. Might be a better to link normally or with &fmt=18, then choose HD on the youtube page."



I clicked on the URL link that Mike posted on the forum , using &fmt=22 and watched it in HD. My computer has a dual quad processer , a good video graffics card , and it uploads fast.


A computer tech told me this:

With broad band , your computers graffics card and its " upload speed " will determine how fast a HD video uploads , and also how vivid the colours look.

[Rock Doctor]

Thanks for all the info
Some of it is a little over my head, but I think I will just do the best I can. The HD uploads take a long time, so I am going to just stick with High Quality, it's pretty good that way.

RD

[Roger S]

RD, I looked at your Samsung cam specs.. 720x480 is a 1.5 aspect ratio. I assumed those #'s were 16x9, but.. not! So your vids not filling the youtube window is normal. And I learned something.

Great videos, by the way, the 2008 Review and all.

[mudbug3]

Rock Doctor ,


I guess it all depends on the HD video camcorder that you own. My Kodak ZI6 shoots video in H.264 codec , and will upload an HD video to Utube in about 2 minutes , and can be watched in HD in about 3-4 minutes top! I payed $179.99 for it, but its now on sale for $159.00.

[Rock Doctor]

RD, I looked at your Samsung cam specs.. 720x480 is a 1.5 aspect ratio. I assumed those #'s were 16x9, but.. not! So your vids not filling the youtube window is normal. And I learned something.

Great videos, by the way, the 2008 Review and all.

Thanks Roger,
I checked the VIO as well, and it is also 720x480.
For some reason, I was given the option of saving the vid as a 1280x720 (I never noticed this before). So, I tried it to see if it was better. Turns out that you only get out what you put in
I thought I could get the vid better becouse the VIO is a true digital signal to the recorder, where as the Samsung gets converted from digital to analog and back to digital (if I understand correctly).


RD

[Rock Doctor]

Rock Doctor ,


I guess it all depends on the HD video camcorder that you own. My Kodak ZI6 shoots video in H.264 codec , and will upload an HD video to Utube in about 2 minutes , and can be watched in HD in about 3-4 minutes top! I payed $179.99 for it, but its now on sale for $159.00.

Thats alot less than I would have thought..........can you put a "Headcam" on it?

RD

[Roger S]

No head cam plug in on it

Prices are very low these days for what you get. Mudbug's kodak takes a nice picture but I think he says it doesn't like fast motion very well. Just like the ATC2K thingy I bought. These Mpeg4 camcorders take an image, and have to compress it into data and store it, on the fly, and do it 30 times a second. The more motion in a scene, the more the image changes from frame to frame, = more data crunching in real time to compress and store the data. So, there's some real differences in the hardware of these camcorders between a cheap one like mine that drops frames in high motion, and one that maintains frame rate and picture quality.