Shotcut gop 1080p#

In addition, YouTube may take the following actions to interpret the colour space values: When Or, BT.601 NTSC and PAL have functionally similar colour matrices and YouTube unifies them to BT.601 NTSC.

For example, BT.601 and BT.709 TRC are identical, and YouTube unifies them to BT.709. I use 'Keyframes > Automatic' because I'm afraid to select 'Keyframes > Every 15 frames' to comply with YouTube's guidelines (half the framerate) since that might disable creating a new keyframe (I-frame) automatically at scene changes.YouTube standardises functionally similar colour matrices and primaries before processing the video. I always turn off/uncheck 'Frame reordering' 'Network optimization' should be checked/on if you're thinking about uploading to a streaming service like YouTube that's the 'fast start' parameter for H.264. But keep in mind that DaVinci's compression is less efficient without B-frames (as is the case with 'Custom' or 'H.264 Master' presets), so maybe more like 80,000 Kbit/s minimum for 4K UHD. If you want a smaller file size then you might get away with between 60,000 and 80,000 Kbit/s for 4K UHD renders while maintaining decent quality. Even 'LEAST' quality is 120Mbps with that preset, so that should suffice for most purposes short of archiving. When using the 'Custom' or 'H.264 Master' presets DaVinci apparently doesn't use B-frames (only uses larger I-frames and P-frames) for rendering presumably because DaVinci targets high-end studio work. See the graphic below or this post for more information on appropriate 'Delivery/Export' settings for YouTube upload from DaVinci. DaVinci Resolve v16.2.2 evidently hates YouTube because the preset is unusable, yielding 10Mbit/s output at 4K UHD. You're most important job becomes selecting the proper output framerate to match your clips/timeline.īelow are screenshots from Shotcut and DaVinci Resolve.

Shotcut gop 1080p#

So I'm an advocate of 1080p publishing due to human eye limitations at normal viewing distances, but I'll make an exception for YouTube until they change their bitrate allocation practices with native 1080p uploads.īut don't worry with the technical details because most video editors offer a dedicated YouTube export-preset that complies with all these guidelines. That gives the end-user a wider choice of playback resolutions, while the 1080p re-render will continue to look better than uploading the same video at mere 1080p. If you have higher res source material/timeline, it's probably better to simply publish to 2.7K or 4K for YouTube. That's the conventional wisdom when you only have a 1080p source.

So here's a chart of 19:6 aspect resolutions to choose from when employing this tactic. You can literally 'upscale' 1080p source video to '2K' (2048x1152) before uploading to YouTube and you'll get a noticeably higher quality 1080p stream through increased bitrate. I've also experienced the lack of bitrate associated with 1080p uploads on YouTube. That should easily provide the suggested bitrate at whatever resolution you choose while ensuring that YouTube has a quality source for re-rendering purposes. That's a relatively high-quality frame sequence with a corresponding increased file size. So technically each half-second would have the following frame sequence at 30fps: I-BB-P-BB-P-BB-P-BB-P-BB. The YouTube guidelines suggest H.264 (or H.265) with maximum 2 consecutive B-frames while setting the GOP length to approximately half the framerate (GOP=15 for 30fps). Stick with YouTube's upload guidelines while gaming the system to atain the best streaming bitrate. Incidentally, I don't think VP9 is inherently that bad but it does struggle with temporal compression relative to AVC/HEVC at a given bitrate from what I read. All I can say is that I've never seen such severe motion artifacts with any MPEG codec at any bitrate including MPEG1/2/4/AVC/HEVC, but perhaps I've never pushed the parameters as hard as YouTube apparently does with VP9. YouTube apparently finds the tradeoff in motion-quality acceptable based on their decision to use the VP9 codec (saving on MPEG royalties), while trying to balance smooth playback with bandwidth. Technically speaking, it's as if YouTube's encoding parameters starve the VP9 codec of P-frames leaving only an extended sequence of B-frames in the GOP that just can't keep up with the motion sufficiently, resulting in a visible shift every half-second as a new I-frame (JPEG picture frame) is encountered. Color is scarcely affected unless you're uploading better than 4:2:0 chroma for some reason. The main problem I see with YouTube's compression is motion jitter.