YouTube vs. Vimeo, which presents best image quality

Which video platform / streming site is the better one, when one takes image quality into account? Vimeo or YouTube? Which one treats your DNxHD/DNxHR or ProRes files best, presenting a true and clean image, with minimal additional compression artefacts? Which one compresses the files the least? Which site gives you the most freedom in manipulating the image quality after upload?

I have uploaded my first movie clip (Quick Time with DNxHR SQ) on the Net, on YouTube, and I am not pleased with the way that YouTube handles low light shots. I'm wondering if Vimeo is better at doing that, and if it is worth the extra money?

Greatful for any suggestions based upon your experiences, and that of others.

Discussed countless times. Nothing what you can do about youtube quality. Youtube is for masses, quality is rather average and out of your control. Uploading PorRes, DNxHD master gives you the best you will ever get. If you are not happy you have to host your videos yourself.
Vimeo should be bit better than youtube, specially paid version.

Thank's for taking time to answer my query. Any suggestions on how to host your own videos?

Guided by suggestions made by forum members on BMCuser, I finally uploaded the Test Movie using the DNxHR HQ compression codec wrapped in QuickTime and Ultra HD 4K 3840×2160 resolution. Now finally YouTube does justice to the native CinemaDNG RAW 1080p footage coming from the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera and the LOMO Meteor 5-1 lens!

In 2K or 4K:

It took approximately 33 hours to upload a QuickTime DNxHR Hq in Ultra HD 4K resolution. But the image quality is superior, in particular in the night scenes which finally are bearable to watch, whereas the day scenes are stunning.

Compare this to the original version that I uploaded in DNxHR SQ compression codec wrapped in QuickTime and 1080p:

Not only is the 4K picture sharper and suffers from less compression artefacts, it has better contrast as well. Colour handling is equal and I have enhanced the Saturation +1 on YouTube.

If you have limited bandwidth then use ffmpeg and encode your DNxHR master to x264 MOV with eg. CRF=12. End result will be the same for the eye, but file to upload few times smaller.
This video is so hard to watch, you need some stabilisation.

Btw the best way to compare youtube vs vimeo is to upload a footage with added film grain. On vimeo the grain is very visible, on youtube its simply gone

This video is so hard to watch, you need some stabilisation.

I did use the stabilisation feature in DaVinci Resolve; this was the best that I could do.

Btw the best way to compare youtube vs vimeo is to upload a footage with added film grain. On vimeo the grain is very visible, on youtube its simply gone

Which result do you judge to be the better? I suppose that the lost grain can be due to a harder compression algorithm.

This video is so hard to watch, you need some stabilisation.

I did use the stabilisation feature in DaVinci Resolve; this was the best that I could do.

Looks like it made things worse

Btw the best way to compare youtube vs vimeo is to upload a footage with added film grain. On vimeo the grain is very visible, on youtube its simply gone

Which result do you judge to be the better? I suppose that the lost grain can be due to a harder compression algorithm.

By logic encoded file should look as close as possible to the master Youtube uses lower bitrate than Vimeo.

Looks like it made things worse

You should have seen the original footage, which would have made you think otherwise

Youtube uses lower bitrate than Vimeo.

What bitrate does YouTube use compared to Vimeo?

I've had good luck with Vimeo Pro, and they do give you higher bandwidth via this paid service. Note that it is not cheap at $17 a year (compared with free on YouTube).

https://vimeo.com/professionals

Looks like it made things worse

You should have seen the original footage, which would have made you think otherwise

This is from hand held Sony RX100 MK3 which was shot "on the go"+ Edius stabilisation



feels way more stable

Perhaps a bit OT but as I started this thread I guess it's o.k.

...was shot "on the go"+ Edius stabilisation

If you would recommend a OpenFX plug-in stabilizer that works better than Resolve's, which would that be? Preferable a freeware version.

Back on topic:

I've had good luck with Vimeo Pro, and they do give you higher bandwidth via this paid service. Note that it is not cheap at $17 a year (compared with free on YouTube).

https://vimeo.com/professionals

Buying Vimeo Pro would limit me to uploading 5 minutes video on 1080P. My camera test movie would have required the Business version which costs more than twice as much. Not an opition for me in either case.

This is from hand held Sony RX100 MK3 which was shot "on the go"+ Edius stabilisation

feels way more stable

It *should* feel way more stable. The RX100 has very good built in optical/digital stabilization. The BMPCC with a stabilized lens would also provide much stabler footage, without all the micro-jitters.

That aside, is the OP sure he actually applied Resolve stabilization? It doesn't look it, and you'd also see stabilization artifacts, which aren't present. You could also try to do it in Fusion, which has more precise tracking control.

That aside, is the OP sure he actually applied Resolve stabilization? It doesn't look it, and you'd also see stabilization artifacts, which aren't present. You could also try to do it in Fusion.

Yes, I did use it. But I tried to apply it moderately, to smooth out the picture. I find it a bit difficult to understand which settings to use in Strong and Smooth. Although I have studied the parts in the DaVinci Resolve 12.5 Reference Manual which deals with Strong and Smooth, and have understood that Strong controls camera movements and Smooth something like smoothness to the camera movement, such as wiggling or some sort of thing. To be honest, I have nor real clue yet what the actual difference is between Strong and Smooth, what the difference is between camera movement and camera wiggling. Shaky image varies tremendously so the manual doesn’t help much unfortunately. Some shots in my project have worked better with a higher Strong while others have worked only with a higher Smooth level, but I haven’t figuered out why yet.

I noticed that adjusting Strong and Smooth zooms in the picture (when checkmarking Zoom). I found out that the zooming is quite heavy sometimes and cropping a image makes shaky image appear enhanced in its shakiness, obviously. So, according to my experience, setting the levels to high can have the reversed effect. I sometimes had to lessen the settings to reduce the apparent shakiness to the image, until I found a optimal level between where stabilization worked fine and the picture wasn’t to cropped to prevent apparent shakiness. I suppose one could always start with Strong: 100 and Smooth: 0, and then change the settings gradually and compensatory, i.e. rasing Smooth as much as one lowers Strong, but that again isn’t always the optimal solution. I have searched for a pattern in vain. It’s to complicated and I wish I could find a working formula. On this forum the frequent advice was to experiment and find out for myself; not much of a help, unfortunately.

Perhaps you have some. Suggestions I mean.

You could also try to do it in Fusion, which has more precise tracking control.

That's a good pointer. Thanks.

This is from hand held Sony RX100 MK3 which was shot "on the go"+ Edius stabilisation

feels way more stable

It *should* feel way more stable. The RX100 has very good built in optical/digital stabilization. The BMPCC with a stabilized lens would also provide much stabler footage, without all the micro-jitters.

That aside, is the OP sure he actually applied Resolve stabilization? It doesn't look it, and you'd also see stabilization artifacts, which aren't present. You could also try to do it in Fusion, which has more precise tracking control.

I dont use digital one.
Those micro jitters in BMPCC are terrible.

I dont use digital one.

Not me either

Those micro jitters in BMPCC are terrible.

Don't blame the Camera man, blame the Operator