Alright, guys, I'm a little stumped here. I've used the exact render settings that a lot of different sites claim are the best, but no matter what I do, I can't seem to get (mostly) flawless Youtube videos. So I've come here to ask you guys for some help understanding render settings directly. I need to know the best settings for rendering 1080p 60 fps / 1080p 30 fps videos on Youtube. I see videos with nearly flawless quality on Youtube all the time.
Also:
>Does the length of the video affect the optimal settings?
>Is the filesize of a video that looks crisp and clean (after uploaded to Youtube) generally enormous?
>Is H.264 a no-go?
Ask gentoo
>>288635
I'd rather just ask you guys.
>>288634
That's not how you use meme pointers you fucking retard.
>>288637
h264 + handbrake but it depends on lots of things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhEHCLdpI6Y
>>288634
media encoder. never render out directly from after effects.
Listen up lad, I'll tell you how it is.
The single most important setting that concerns video encoding is bitrate. It defines how much data is used to encode a 1 second worth of video. Bitrate's effectiveness depends on specific coding scheme used (MPEG2, H.264, etc.), video format and content matter.
Let me break down each of them for you.
Coding scheme is a video coding standard that defines the compression algorithms employed. Different standards have different compression effectiveness. Standards with low compression efficiency will require higher bitrate to achieve same image quality that a more efficient standard can. Currently the most suggested encoding standard for mainstream users is H.264. Each coding standard can have different implementations that are optimized in different ways. Less optimized solutions require higher bitrate even if the standard they are based on is already efficient.
Video format in its simplest form can be broken down into width, height and framerate. Videos that are recorded at high width or height have high detail. To preserve high detail high bitrate is required. Same goes for framerate too though to a slightly lesser extent.
Content matter here means basically what is being recorded, how much motion is there, how much video noise if any is there. If there's a lot of any of these higher bitrate will have to be involved to preserve detail.
Last bit, what settings you should use.
For your situation of "1080p 60 fps / 1080p 30 fps" go with H.264 set to 12Mbps for 30fps and 15-18Mbps for 60fps.
>>288669
Thanks for taking the time to explain all of that for me. That does make a lot more sense. I'm curious though, in regards to what the guy in the video that >>288661 linked, would you say that the suggested 60-120 Mbps is bad if I'm using another program to encode it after being rendered in AE?
The main issue I'm facing here happens between rendering it out of AE and uploading it to YouTube. Most of the time, the video looks way shittier on YouTube itself than it does in the actual video file on my PC.
>>288663
this
>this
this
>this
this
>this
OP, render it out as a raw file, maximum settings on every fucking nook and cranny. Once you have your raw 9001 GB file, then you can recompress it with either Media Encoder or third party tools.
I'm old-school and use Handbrake to spit out h264 AAC mp4s, but I'm sure there are many many other choices. If I need to do legacy shit I use ffmpeg.
>>288686
well youtube always convert the video and it end up losing quality no matter what also handbrake is for compressing the video without losing quality but if you want to upload 10 gb for a 3 min video go ahead
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en
>>288634
If you're using After Effects then you should also be using Adobe Media Encoder. It's the best way to properly encode edits for all kinds of hosting sites.
Just export your video in a lossless format and send it over to the media encoder.
>>289475
i second this.
These are my settings in after effects
These are my settings in after effects 2