So much for my self-imposed hiatus. πŸ™‚

As I’ve not been making videos this month I’ve been paying more attention to the videos that are out there. And there have been a LOT of comments on a video I made on the last day of 2013. It would be an understatement to say that things have changed when it comes to video compression, and many people are struggling to keep pace.

And while my favorite free program, Handbrake, has done a pretty good job of keeping up with the changes, too many people haven’t caught on to them yet.

Add to this YouTube’s ability to deliver in 4K, with file sizes approaching Everest heights, and you have the makings of a real train wreck.

Let’s do something about that.

Here’s a tutorial I hope you can use for at least another year or two. πŸ™‚

By the way, if you’re on a Mac with a really nice display, please watch this video in Safari and not Chrome or Firefox. Both make our faces look like we have very unfortunate sunburns.

Here’s where to get your free copy of FunnelVision.

    17 replies to "The “Crystal Clear Upload” Tutorial for 2016"

    • Jaime Espiritu

      When rendering in our editing program, could we pick and choose our settings as well or would handbrake be a better solution?

      • Steven

        Sure. You can use your editing program if you know what the options are and can approximate these ones.

    • Michael

      WTG Steven, you’ve really upped your game over the years! Excellent set, lighting, pacing, background audio and content… and always with your benevolent, sincere and fun-loving brand. Kudos to Mr Brainy πŸ˜‰

      • Steven

        Thanks Michael!

    • Lucien Vaillancourt

      Hi Steve, great video as always. One question I have ever since seeing this in your Yuvid instructions is, how do you get the picture settings showing file size to appear aty the bottom of the handbrake screen? My version of Handbrake ( does not even show the same options at the top of the screen such as the picture settings TV. My TV icon says “Preview” beside it. I don’t see an option to display the file size before processing the file.

    • Stephen Byrne

      Thank you so much for this update: I really appreciate it. May I ask: do you think there are significant differences between YouTube and Vimeo e.g. regarding their compression algorithms and also the power of their own servers? Or is my choice of hosting platform pretty much irrelevant when it comes to using the Handbrake compressions settings you recommend? I hope this makes sense: I’m just always a bit anxious about taking such pains to get the highest quality in my video equipment/settings and then … eliminating some of it. Thanks again!

      • Steven Washer

        I think they are quite comparable except that YouTube allows 4K uploads while Vimeo does not. So that might be your answer if you are looking for the best possible quality.

    • Violet

      Hi Steve –

      For those of us living in regions with kind of sketchy bandwidth (like me, in the Yukon) – is it better to stick with the settings (for videos for YouTube) that you showed in your 2015 video about how to digitize and convert videos?

      Or should I upload to YouTube using what you show now, and then YouTube adjusts what people access based on the bandwidth the viewer has?

      I presume this also depends on what camera I am using, eh …

      thanks for your help to understand this a wee bit more –

      • Steven

        Yes, you could use those earlier instructions. There’s nothing wrong with them. But for YouTube or Vimeo or now Yuvid, these are best, as these properties now serve up the appropriate video for the bandwidth.

    • Edward Rapka

      I’m always puzzled when you (and other video advisers, as well) so emphatically promote HD or other hires modes. Even if bandwidth is less of an issue in 2016 for some people, it’s still somewhat irresponsible and not “green” to consume more resources than necessary. And considering the fact that most web viewing activity these days takes place on micro-sized screens (principally smartcoms and pads) and not full-size monitors, it smacks of wasteful to create and transmit uber-pixel frames that just have to be squashed down to display locally. Personally, whenever I DL video I choose the 640×480 size because it’s perfectly adequate for viewing on my monitor, and uses only half the local storage allocation. 

Quite frankly, there’s very few occasions when a video needs super-high resolution; most of what I see is either a talking head (and your complexion really benefits from LESS detail, male or female), simple 2D animation, or fast-action stuff that flashes by so fast you can’t enjoy any benefit from 4K unless you have Superman’s microscopic vision.

      • Steven

        Thanks for your perspective, Edward. I’m dealing with the reality of this video landscape and showing people how to GREATLY cut down on pixel usage. 4K is going to happen anyway, so why not do it in the most economical and elegant way possible?

        By the way, I agree with your 640 x 360 size. It’s the size I choose for all the videos you see on the blog. YouTube then serves up what your bandwidth can handle.

        It’s really astounding to think about what has happened in online video since 2009. Back then, SD video looked perfectly sharp to the eye. Now it looks like mud. I wonder how long it will be before HD looks the same way.

        • Lucien Vaillancourt

          I’m going to have to disagree with Edward. Maybe I’m old fashioned but I watch more online video on my desktop monitor than I do on my smart phone. I also have been watching more and more youtube video on my big screen TV. As long as youtube adjust’s their stream to match the viewers device then I see no reason not to upload the highest quality possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.