Thread 106150396

THE SAME YOUTUBE VIDEO

COLUMN 1 IS RIGHT AFTER UPLOAD

COLUMN 2 IS 3 HOURS AFTER UPLOAD

WHAT IS THIS

HOW ARE THEY DOING THIS

I THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY BUT IT'S TRUE

VIDEO QUALITY DEGRADES LITERALLY HOURS AFTER UPLOAD

4K QUALITY IMPROVED THOUGH WTF

Are you sure that's a quality difference or that they have a second set of encoding that's higher quality but takes longer to encode

>>106150396 (OP)
>The free video hosting service that is run by jews is acting like a jew!

>>106150396 (OP)
Have you done any quality validation? Like no shit, a for-profit video streaming website isn't going to host your blu-ray 20Mbps mux.

GPU video compression might have gotten better even then you're delusional of you think youtube is going to give you anything better than VMAF scores higher than 70-80.

>>106150423
You can't even watch videos at high resolution right after upload, because it's still being processed. I assume it's just done with the player controls, which ytdlp doesn't care about, so it's grabbing a raw version of the video.

Since theres a thread about youtube, I'll ask here.

Whenever I try to watch a youtube video, the video just loads and loads but never starts. Been an issue now for an hour. Tried adblock, without adblock, incognito mode. Nothing works. Firefox btw.

>>106151821
>Firefox btw.
case closed

>>106150396 (OP)
>4k chad

not my problem

>>106151032
>a for-profit video streaming website isn't going to host your blu-ray 20Mbps mux
why not, tho?

>>106151821
reboot

>>106150476
Sundar Pichai is Indian, not Jewish.

>>106150396 (OP)
interesting OP

You didn't know that every single video uploaded has been transcoded or re-encoded with a loss of quality?
I mean maybe they always re-encoded videos when they were initially uploaded, but on top of that, they re-encoded all their video and for any specific video, the file they serve you now has less quality than the file they served you 10-15 years ago, for the same fucking video.

just watch at 4K plus there are different profiles/streams for different devices

>>106153099
>and for any specific video, the file they serve you now has less quality than the file they served you 10-15 years ago
I mean, Tom Scott's confetti video proves that's wrong, the video looks better now than when it was originally uploaded

>>106153099
>the file they serve you now has less quality than the file they served you 10-15 years ago, for the same fucking video.
I saw this for a music video I had downloaded in around 2010 years ago about 200MB 720p I went to go and look at it on youtube the other week and it and looked like total trash. I downloaded it, shit was like 80MB. Exact same link and channel reporting it the same upload from like 2010

>>106153190
I can't find that video but I checked another one

the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ijOe3sGEk

my old file
File size : 67.9 MiB
Duration : 5 min 34 s
Overall bit rate : 1 703 kb/s

the one on youtube now
File size : 29.0 MiB
Duration : 5 min 34 s
Overall bit rate : 728 kb/s

this is wild

even old ass videos like this they reencoded??

>>106152391
>for-profit
That's why. Their goal is to spend as little money as possible while leeching off you from ads/subscriptions as much as possible.

>>106150396 (OP)
Lower filesize doesn't necesarily mean lower quality. It could just be a better but slower compression algorithm.

>>106151821
>Firefox btw.
Youtube is run by Google who is trying to force you off Firefox to Chrome. This behavior has been known for a while.

>>106153180
kill yourself

>>106153190
Yes that's what I'm talking about.
>>106153317
>this is wild
>even old ass videos like this they reencoded??
Yes, all of them. This sucks even more for the old video because back then they already had mediocre quality for today's standards and because they are so old that's all we've got. It's fucking criminal.

It piss me even more because those videos were ridicuously small compared to the millions of 2h 1080p60fps twitch streams uploaded constantly today.

>>106153180
> tom scott
> the linguist larping as le epic science dude / wikipedia reader
i cringed so hard that my ancestors felt it. it's like getting tax advice from a florist.

>>106153446
>>106153484
>no actual refutation, just ad hom
I accept your concession.
All future fallacies will receive the response "I accept your concession".

Just use odysee. If you are a youtuber that's not using odysee you are pathetic and lost my respect if you aren't at least mirroring your content.
>b-b-buh youtube pays my paycheck so I can't switch platforms permanently!

So you're just going to bend over for the debt based censorship internet backed by jewSA's internet ID? LMAO

https://odysee.com/@NezahualDoomer:7/Asmongolggovernmentid:3

>>106153707
Sorry, I'm not using a platform that can't even spell Odyssey right.

>>106153555
what was the concession? this isn't reddit or some facebook group where we give blowjobs to the intellectually bankrupt corporate prostitutes on youtube that aren't even qualified to talk about any of this shit. when you do livestream your eventual suicide, post a link.

>>106151821
I’ve noticed that, I believe it’s a mechanism to make sure you’re attending to youtube and make you push buttons as a test.
It replaces the idiotic “are you human” cloudflare test to some degree.
Similarly so, google is probing your reaction times for hitting the “skip” button.
Who knows what the do with that information… i get cat food commercials constantly on youtube, I’ve never owned a cat and never looked up anything about cats nor clicked on a cat video, so their “AI” about me is just wrong it seems.

>>106153555
>born in 1984 or 1985
>or 1985
> graduated from the University of York with a degree in linguistics and English language
cringe. worse than i imagined. it's like asking a dog to build a nuclear reactor.

>>106153555
fuck you

>>106153317
check this out:

old file -> new file

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic5vxw3eijY
resolution: 480p
duration: 4min2s
file size: 32.64MB -> 18.87MB
video: 1000 kbps vp8 -> 518 kbps vp9
audio: 129 kbps vorbis -> 134 kbps opus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSkFygPCTwE
resolution: 480p
duration: 3m48s
file size: 25.30 MB -> 17.70 MB
video: 803 kbps h264 -> 519 kbps h264
audio: 123 kbps aac -> 131 kbps aac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M11SvDtPBhA
resolution: 548p -> 720p (black lines)
duration: 3m21s -> 3m27s (black screen with copyright line)
file size: 50.50MB -> 27.69MB
video: 1950 kbps vp8 -> 990 kbps h264
audio: 156 kbps vorbis -> 131 kbps aac

>checks only file size
Cool story bro. You didn't even bother checking what CODEC is used in each version. VP9 and AV1 will generally be smaller because they give better quality/bitrate versus obsolete h264/AVC.

>>106151821
Had a similar issue recently, I disabled a bunch of scripts and it sorted itself out.

>>106153800
I accept your concession
>>106153974
I accept your concession
>>106153885
Still an ad hom, but not against me, so I'll say this.
The confetti video has perfectly correct information. Your current fallacy however, is appeal to authority.
I accept your concession

>>106152488
Poo golems are spiritually jewish.

Any post being made without a vmaf number or at the bare minimum a side by side comparison attached to it is dogshit

>>106153974
then just stream the fucking vp9 version which is higher quality, retard.

>>106154145
https://files.catbox.moe/3uct1k.flv

>>106154110
loonix autists and conspiracy retards don't actually understand codecs or algorithms etc so they think lower number bad
they're the kind of morons who think a 256kbps AAC made from the original master is worse than a V0 MP3 made from a burnt CD, because the filesize is smaller.

>>106154145
>>106154197

>>106154213
>>106154197
frame number please

>>106154237
it's the 1st of this shot, at 5.130s

>>106154263
this frame?

>>106151821
Try the embed version

>>106154273
>>106154263
Slightly wrong, oops, this is the frame from the VP9 version

>>106154305
>>106154197
VP9 looks better than the before version.

>>106154273
no that's the frame just after the one I posted

>>106154322
it may looks smoother but that's an encoding artifact, it's not real. I'll take the noise.

nu-/g/ can't explain this
$ ffprobe source.mp4
bitrate: 23707 kb/s
Stream #0:0[0x1](und): Video: h264 (High)

$ ffprobe a.mp4
bitrate: 11336 kb/s
Stream #0:0[0x1](und): Video: h264 (High)

$ ffprobe b.mp4
bitrate: 9657 kb/s
Stream #0:0[0x1](und): Video: h264 (High)

$ compare_vmaf source.mp4 a.mp4
91.84%
$ compare_vmaf source.mp4 b.mp4
94.42%

>>106150396 (OP)
Just because the filesize improved it doesn't mean it has better quality, some transcode fuckup is more likely.

>>106154948
>compare_vmaf
link?

>>106155097
it's a fake shell function for illustration, to make it clear what it's actually doing. Here's how to check vmaf though.
ffmpeg -i "$reference" -i "$distorted" -lavfi libvmaf -f null -

>>106151032
> Like no shit, a for-profit video streaming website isn't going to host your blu-ray 20Mbps mux.
I downloaded like 2tb of 2k footage from yt last week and if it was encoded in vp9 20 Mbps was roughly the expected bitrate (av1 was roughly 60% of that)
Interesting that both 4k and 1440p have decent bitrates but 1080p are aggressively squashed on every codec used

>>106155202
thanks

>>106150396 (OP)
If they don't keep the original how do they ever change the encoding later when better encoders come out?

>>106153974
Some old videos are now available in worse wuality than in the past
Some old videos are now available in higher quality than in the past
I’ve been unable to make sense which videos get which treatment, but my sample size was maybe 200 videos total

on an interesting side note: out of 80 videos i had from 2012 and earlier only 15 were still available. So much for “internet doesn’t forget”

>>106155290
>If they don't keep the original
??? they do

>>106153180
>Tom Scott's confetti video proves that's wrong.
It did not.

>>106153484
>> the linguist larping as le epic science dude / wikipedia reader
Tom is literally just some guy who makes videos. What are you on about?

>>106155290
I'm not convinced they don't keep the original
I'm sure they keep every single thing

>>106155494
it did, you can even read the top comment on the video which further proves it

if vp9/AV1 is so good at lower bitrates/resolution
why is 2160p always given the most bitrate and filesize
won't those be the biggest files and benefit the most from shrinking the sizes

>>106155663
>why is 2160p always given the most bitrate and filesize
to not look like shit on a 4k screen?
absolute peak of 1440x900 core2duo DDR2 clitmouse arch linux tiling WM 4chan posts.

>>106152488
Poo golem answers to Sergay Brin

>>106150476
dubs and boogie dies in his sleep

>>106150396 (OP)
I heard it's related to videos' popularity.
>video gets x views per month
>reduce bitrate by y
>save x*y in monthly bandwidth

>>106155323
I've compared the new vp9 and the old h264 of the Kid Rock video and I'm not so sure the old has a higher quality anymore, but yes for a lot of videos, the old ones had better quality.
There are a bunch of old videos that had like 160kbps aac audio but now the maximum seems to be 128kbps or slightly more.
>on an interesting side note: out of 80 videos i had from 2012 and earlier only 15 were still available. So much for “internet doesn’t forget”
Yes.. I noticed too, it's a tragedy. We really need a website where people could upload old videos that disappeared and the website would serve the files as they were uploaded, no stupid re-encoding. Or at least this should be an option.

Do you have a few gems? I've got at least one, an old compilation that comes out regularly on wsg, but in better quality. (100 greatest hits of youtube in 4 minutes)

>>106155349
>>106155604
So I can just upload random noise to YouTube and they keep it in original quality? Why aren't more people doing this?

>>106152488
nice digits, indians are eastern jews

>>106150396 (OP)
Those are not the same formats. You're either disingenuous or retarded.

>>106151821
disable User-Agent switcher extensions, it breaks if you set it to Chrome.

now you're forced into the artificially cucked experience.

>>106155958
>older ones had better quality
Brain damage.
>audio bitrate
Newer encodes use Opus which is even better than AAC, no need to use higher bitrate on it.

>>106150396 (OP)
pornhub does this too. they even started removing frames from videos older than 2019. Videos from 2014 look 14fps now

>>106156567
What do you mean bro? The world was in 10 fps before 2018, like it was in black and white before they invented color.

What compels creators with millions of fucking subs upping 1080p videos to youtube when the bitrate is so terrible after the decimation?

cant they up 1440p?

>>106150423
Yeah it's been long known that YouTube periodically re-encodes popular videos but they're the same VMAF as before. Some people think old videos are lower quality than they used to be but that's just old CGI syndrome everyone was using terrible FRAPS settings back then. Even nowadays most YouTube videos get uploaded with dogshit encoding settings in the first place because for some reason the uploader thinks it's important that the video only takes 5 minutes to encode even though they only post once every 3 months. The existence of a single high-quality video on YouTube blows the schizos out of the water, and there are many.
>>106153707
Odysee meets any sane definition of a botnet, just like all other P2P services and "residential proxies"
>>106156610
Most people don't care about the quality of their work. This explains most of the state of the world.

>>106156415
Irrelevant. Anytime you re-encode you lose quality.
Have you forgotten that audio and video codecs are lossy compression schemes?

>>106156708
They keep the master upload they don't invoke generation loss every time. If they did old videos would have been re-encoded literaly hundreds of times by now and not look like videos at all.

>>106156721
Maybe and I hope so, but I've seen loss of quality.
For the audio bitrate I'm not convinced. The old videos that had 160kbps aac and higher now have 128kbps aac, so that's an objective loss for the aac stream. The opus streams generally have a lower bitrate than the aac ones and because opus is a better than aac, I assume that the new aac and opus streams are equivalent in quality.

>>106156663
>Some people think old videos are lower quality than they used to be
None of us had the bandwidth to watch older videos at above 240p quality without waiting 20 minutes. No one knows what they used to look like.

yeah, no difference whatsoever

https://files.catbox.moe/cqsi9j.png
old vp8 [UWb5Qc-fBvk] 00:04:45.875.png
old file: vp8 + vorbis, 822M 1080p

https://files.catbox.moe/o4sasp.png
new vp9 [UWb5Qc-fBvk] 00:04:45.875.png
new file: vp9 + opus, 313M 1080p

I have the Mike Acton talk and the audio stream is motherfucking 192 kbps AAC. The total file size difference is also huge.

>>106152488
He’s a McKinsey man so he is honorary, if not worse.

>>106155756
>Sergay Brin
>Go to his wiki page
>Early life and education
>tfw

>>106150396 (OP)
I did a Google takeout last week and a near-lossless video I uploaded 14 years ago was still there, all 43gb of it.
They keep everything forever it seems.

>>106157576
here's the file
https://gofile.io/d/nhgn3y

now tell me again that YouTube doesn't downgrade videos overtime

>>106157576
the Mike Acton talk
https://gofile.io/d/HGRmRi

>>106156663
I'm convinced they have fucked with displays to make them look worse.
I have a 13 year old BenQ monitor, OLED 4K display and my TV is an old Pioneer Kuro (1080p, plasma).
1080p YouTube looks great on the TV and the pretty good BenQ. 4K YouTube looks like shit on the OLED.
Running 480p is passable on the TV but awful on the monitors.
I remember memeing Windows 7 a few years back and even that was much clearer. Same thing happens with Linux.

>>106150396 (OP)
damn im too retarded to read this table

>>106157837
I don't know much about that but I know that on Samsung AMOLED screens 60 hz looks godawful while on LG AMOLED screens it looks fine just like on a LCD or CRT. They really want you to use 120hz.

>>106158162
the numbers with a "k" are the bitrates

They've been doing this for years. 4K uploads seem to stand out the most as the bitrate isn't affected that much. I stopped using the website cause videos are just low res with the multiple re encodes googles have done over the same video, eventually all videos will look like minecraft in 2050.

>>106150396 (OP)
It does a fast pass and a slow pass.
Dumb cunt.

>>106151677
>You can't even watch videos at high resolution right after upload,
Yes you can. It's basically instantly available unless you upload in av1 or something.

>>106156059
I can't imagine a mass campaign of uploading 5-10 second videos flooding youtube for the lulz getting very far

Maybe if it were 2009

>>106151821
I use firefox and I don't have that problem, but I don't live in the US, must be that.

>>106150396 (OP)
>Take a 300 mb HEVC video
>reencode as MPEG-2
>100 GB pristine quality video

>>106153555
based trip btfo. Most video codec fags are mentally ill trannies.

Is it safe to assume that any video platform website does this too? Dailymotion? Vimeo? TikTok? Instagram?

>>106161119
Most convert them to 264 so all devices can play it back, otherwise host your own youtube clone that accepts raw files.

>>106150396 (OP)
some kind of multi pass encoding, probably saves them millions in server space and bandwidth

still feels kinda insane how many videos get uploaded there every second and yet they keep 10+ versions of each and deliver them fairly quickly and reliably for free (i think the only limit is 15 mins max)

>>106150396 (OP)
>4K QUALITY IMPROVED THOUGH WTF
why did 4K go up

>>106150396 (OP)
>>106151821
learn how CDNs work

>>106153880
YouTube I think has actually quit giving as big a shit over targeted advertising and is now using ads to annoy people into buying YouTube premium. So it would actually make More sense to serve you ads for something they know you don't want.

>>106151821
either getting cucked by using firefox or you are being actively IP blocked for not being a good goy and using adblock and/or not logged in
likely the later, as it has happened to me many times now. It has become increasingly common for them to do it. Just use freetube and call it a day unless you are a retard that needs a jewgle account
there's no real telling of when you'll get unblocked so just use invidious or freetube
I started using freetube and haven't looked back. It straight up ignores/bypasses IP blocks most of the time it happens. It really is newpipe for desktop

>>106162415
the elephant in the room

youtube is a video hosting site not a file sharing site.

kys

>>106163045
t.

>>106150396 (OP)
What the fuck, are they also doing this for older videos on the website?

>>106162936
They definitely fingerprint you if you use adblockers or other privacy-enhancing extensions.

quality =/= bitrate
retard

>>106163174
and yet it goes up for the 4K
because

>>106150396 (OP)
They feed it to AI first to improve their Youtube Premium(TM) upscaling algorithm, then run more compression to save bandwidth.

>>106162415
what the fuck are they doing?

Well, they have like a thousand Indians behind making it as shitty as possible.
And trust me, those guys know how to make shit bad...

>>106166195
.t youtube employee
what are you hiding?

>>106166272
>.t youtube employee
The majority of people use the t. meme wrong.
Ignoring that you are using the new ".t" meme, the way you are using implies that you work for YouTube.
Which means your soul is likely drained.
But you meant to imply that I work for them?

>>106150396 (OP)
Looks more like they do a fast encode to get the video up quickly while the longer, more efficient encode is taking place.

>>106157047
You haven't. You've seen newer, higher resolution and higher bitrate videos that retroactively make old low res videos look like shit and are extrapolating from there. VHS used to look great, then DVD came along and VHS looked universally like shit. Then bluray came along and DVDs looked shitty and blurry.

>>106166554
Also, my penis is disturbingly long and I am rather adept at sexual intercourse.
However, this is not the matter at hand.

it has been known for a very long time that youtube is bleeding money and cant cope with cdn overhead

It's a private company and it's their private business and websiite, they can do whatever they want, you are just a user and have 0 rights, pay up or shut up

Also, what you have to keep in mind regarding OP, every time you recompress a already compressed file, you only male things worse.
Not that Google or YouTube ever would feel bad about that.
>we saved 2.23% on traffic!
We'll done!

>>106166745
Damn, there's so much auto correct gone wrong in that post.
I'm sitting right next to my lovely laptop, but made the message on my phone.

>>106166675
Yes I have and so have you
>>106157576
>>106157779
>>106157817

>>106166554
summerfags cant into meme arrows, please understand

>>106166927
It has been so many summers. I've been here since 2006.
You're here forever, I guess.

>>106166927
>summerfags cant into meme arrows, please understand
It's not that bad though, I have a pretty nice life... And so can you!

>>106166554
>mental gymnastics
You are the one defending YouTube so it's pretty clear who's who.

i think the most wild thing about this is that in order to get true 1080p resolution you actually have to switch it to 1440p resolution
this is bonkers

>>106167144
>You are the one defending YouTube so it's pretty clear who's who
I am saying that defending YouTube requires you to be mentally drained.

>>106156594
color was never a thing in the land of e pluribus unum before the wicked witches realized how easy it was to hop the border

>>106167169
>download the 4K version
>ffmpeg -vf "scale=-1:1080p" -b:v 2500k
simple as

>>106167266
>just reencode it

Anon discovers youtube reencoding and spergs out with capslock rant.

>>106167322
only for the videos that matters, like video clips you like or something
the 1080p output would be of better quality than the 1080p slop youtube gives you

>>106166620
THEN WHY DOES THE 4K BITRATE AND FILESIZE INCREASE

WHY WILL NOBODY ANSWER THIS

>>106167444
because 4KGODS WON you 1280x1024 stinkpad peasant

>>106150396 (OP)
good info. highly related:
>>106167222

is alphabet hiding losses?

>>106167347
investors may be interested to discover desperate cost savings measures.

>>106153707
>odysee
terrible laggy UI and iirc had a breaking up with one of their main monetary benefactors.

>>106166856
No you haven't.

>>106167830
The files are clearly of better quality than any audio (aac, opus) and video stream (h264, vp9, av1) that you could obtain for those specific videos today.

If you could prove me wrong you would have done it already.

>>106167830
find me a frame better than this one then
https://files.catbox.moe/cqsi9j.png >>106157576
for this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWb5Qc-fBvk

>>106168109
>>106168133
>do this autistic thing
No.

>>106168213
You words are cheap and I have posted an undeniable proof. You lost, deal with it.

YouTube DOES reencode and degrade videos over time.

>>106168292
*two proofs in fact, two videos

>>106153380
Very true, my CPU usage goes up to 100% and stays there on firefox just opening youtube's main page without watching any videos.

>>106155323
>out of 80 videos i had from 2012 and earlier only 15 were still available
It's insane to me that even popular shit like Vivziepop's Kesha music video are gone now and the only reuploads are garbage "4K AI upscale!!!"

>>106168109
NTA but can you define “quality” using any metric that doesn’t involve the size of the file (aka bitrate)?

>>106161775
I wonder what happens when a hard drive dies at google. Does it take down a ton of youtube videos with it or do they seriously have double or even triple redundancy for all of youtube?

>>106168772
bruh

>>106168772
There’s people in jewgle’s data centers whose entire job is walking around the server racks and replacing failed drives. You have no concept of the scale they operate on

>>106168738
I posted 2 picture here >>106157576
Use your eyes and be honnest.

>>106168952
so the
>metric that doesn’t involve the size of the file (aka bitrate)
you’re going with is “click on these catbox links and look at them?” I’m not doing that. Post a side-by-side comparison if it’s that obvious

>>106169067
IT'S RIGHT THERE MOTHERFUCKER, LOOK.
https://files.catbox.moe/cqsi9j.png
https://files.catbox.moe/cqsi9j.png

>>106169067
IT'S RIGHT THERE MOTHERFUCKER, LOOK.
https://files.catbox.moe/cqsi9j.png
https://files.catbox.moe/o4sasp.png

>>106169210
no

>>106169220
My proofs are undeniable wether you acknowledge them or not.
You asked >>106168738.

Google finally got hit by rotational velocidensity, I see.

>>106169266
pngs are lossless. Splice those two together and post them as an image here. I’m a lazy fuck who couldn’t care less, you’re the one who’s trying to convince me there’s a problem, so you need to put in the effort to spoonfeed me

>>106169294
>you need to put in the effort to spoonfeed me
I already did.
>pngs are lossless
which is perfect for comparing the quality of 2 frames of 2 videos

I posted undeniable proofs. You know it, I know it, anybody reading this knows it. I already posted enough, there is no point in posting more and you would find other excuses anyway. I wanted to convince anons here and I already did.

You are obviosuly here to defend the interests of YouTube and will invent anything to keep face. You lost.
But please, continue the obvious bad faith trolling. You're only confirming that you lost.

>>106168772
they use a CDN which means there's many copies of each video for local server in each country/region to deliver it faster locally.
i do think that is only for the more popular/recent videos. so if those videos are ever lost the server just fetches it from another regional server.

as for their 'low priority' videos id imagine they only appear on youtube servers once but ive never heard of them losing a video so i'd imagine there's an automated backup system like for every X drives there's a backup drive with a XOR of them so if one fails they can rebuild the data on it automatically.

>>106150396 (OP)
This isnt new. I have been using 1440p as the new 1080p for a while now. Also I have been noticing significantly more AV1 videos now.