Quite a bit of macroblocking Davinci Resolve delivered video

If you look at this video I have created here:

You can see there is quite a bit of macroblocking in a few areas.

Here are my export settings:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vJPT ... -07-05.png

I also tried restricting the frame rate and I put in different values such as 30000 and 50000 but the video was not any better and the file sizes were smaller (looks like it will restrict but you still get a variable bitrate?)

In this video here, this person talks about using a fixed bitrate and goes through other options:

But this is in Adobe Premiere Pro CC

Are there settings I can adjust to correct this and re-export in Davinci Resolve or do I need to export in a different manner and then get Adobe Premiere Pro CC, import into there and then render from there?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Areas where there's a lot of movement will still often show some macroblocking on YouTube because they squeeze the bitrate down even further after you upload your file.

I would export ProRes from Resolve just to reduce the amount of times the image is compressed, but as you're on PC then maybe try a DNxHD Quicktime version instead. Be prepared for a long upload time though, or give it a test first with a small section. It's likely you'll still see macroblocking though, but you should see some improvement.

Areas where there's a lot of movement will still often show some macroblocking on YouTube because they squeeze the bitrate down even further after you upload your file.

I would export ProRes from Resolve just to reduce the amount of times the image is compressed, but as you're on PC then maybe try a DNxHD Quicktime version instead. Be prepared for a long upload time though, or give it a test first with a small section. It's likely you'll still see macroblocking though, but you should see some improvement.

Paul, please correct me if I am wrong but I am on a windows based system and therefor do not have the option to export to ProRes?

Thanks

Areas where there's a lot of movement will still often show some macroblocking on YouTube because they squeeze the bitrate down even further after you upload your file.

I would export ProRes from Resolve just to reduce the amount of times the image is compressed, but as you're on PC then maybe try a DNxHD Quicktime version instead. Be prepared for a long upload time though, or give it a test first with a small section. It's likely you'll still see macroblocking though, but you should see some improvement.

Paul,

My bad I didn't read your response as closely as I should have.

I can export to DNxHD. Which should I choose?
For DNxHD 1080p it has following options:

220/185/175 10-bit
220/185/175 8-bit
145/120/115 8-bit
36 8-bit
444
100/85/80 8-bit

Thanks I really appreciate the assistance.

I ended up exporting using DNxHD 1080p 444
It created an almost 30GB file for a 4 minute clip which I am in the process of uploading youtube now.
I will post the result here.

Thanks

That's overkill
You could go with 220/185/175 8-bit, which would make way smaller file. 4:4:4 is overkill as youtube will make it 4:2:0.
Other thing which you can do is to use your DNxHD master to feed Handbrake and than create h264 master, but with very high bitrate. You can use CRF mode at e.g. 10 or set VBR and e.g. 75Mbit. It will be very good quality way smaller than DNxHD.
If you do have fast internet than you may as well upload DNxHD, just next time don't use 444 option

That's overkill
You could go with 220/185/175 8-bit, which would make way smaller file. 4:4:4 is overkill as youtube will make it 4:2:0.
Other thing which you can do is to use your DNxHD master to feed Handbrake and than create h264 master, but with very high bitrate. You can use CRF mode at e.g. 10 or set VBR and e.g. 75Mbit. It will be very good quality way smaller than DNxHD.
If you do have fast internet than you may as well upload DNxHD, just next time don't use 444 option

I'm not gonna lie, most of this is greek to me. I am around 25% into uploading my 30GB 4 minute file so I will just let it roll. I will check tomorrow and see how it looks. The only handbrake I know about is in a car I used to have I will need to do some researching. I am guessing what I did is overkill but should work? But with handbrake I can have the high bitrate but with a smaller file size? It is a shame that Resolve doesn't have a constant high bit rate youtube render option. I really appreciate the feedback. So many knowledgeable and helpful folks here

Yes, Resolve is more about high-end finish than heavily compressed formats, so not all options are there.

Handbrake is a free transcoding tool: https://handbrake.fr
Make sure you use: fps: As source, Constant Framerate, h264 Profile=high, Tune=film, h264 level=Auto. Audio: stereo, AC3 and high bitrate, e.g. 384Kbs.

Yes, Resolve is more about high-end finish than heavily compressed formats, so not all options are there.

Handbrake is a free transcoding tool: https://handbrake.fr
Make sure you use: fps: As source, Constant Framerate, h264 Profile=high, Tune=film, h264 level=Auto. Audio: stereo, AC3 and high bitrate, e.g. 384Kbs.

Thanks Andrew I will def do that.
Let me ask you this, for now should I just let my upload continue.
If I am understanding correctly this will decrease my file size without sacrificing YouTube quality.
If that is the case I think I will use this info for the future and let me current upload continue.
I have fast internet and no usage caps.

Up to you. What you have done should be fine, just takes long time to upload.

Maybe I will give handbrake a shot.

My issues now is that YouTube never finishes processing the DNxHD version.
I have one that has been processing for over 30 hours and it moves back and forth between 94 and 95 percent. Luckily I have a very good uncapped internet plan and I am able to upload a 30gb file in just a couple of hours. I have now uploaded 3 copies and none of them will finish processing. I have also opened a ticket with YouTube for this issue.

Over the weekend I will try handbrake, hopefully it will not decrease the quality to the point that the macro blocking is view-able. Thanks

Handbrake is a free transcoding tool: https://handbrake.fr
Make sure you use: fps: As source, Constant Framerate, h264 ...

that's definitely not the recommended way to use libffmpeg/libx264 (i.e. the components used in handbrake to do the actual encoding). using Constant Rate Factor (CRF) is the much more advisable way to specify the bandwidth / image quality.

see: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.264

This is exactly what I said, but if you want to have an idea about size of the file you may as well use VBR mode with some high bitrate. 75Mbit average should be plenty for file to be a youtube master.

With CRF you have no direct idea what bitrate your file will end up. Use CRF=15 on clean file and you will end up with e.g. 25Mbit average bitrate. Do the same on noisy file it will be e.g. 60Mbit. Fairly low (<15) CRF values are very sensitive to the source nature.

This is exactly what I said, ...

right! -- i just didn't want to accept a CBR advise in bold letters uncontradicted as the final conclusion here in the thread. it's bad enough, that resolve doesn't give us anything better...

I definitely appreciate the feedback .

Let me know if you think I should adjust any of these settings or I am missing anything.
This is shot at 59fps by my phantom 3 (well most of it is)
Should I leave it at 59fps or change it (just wondering now and for the future what is the best for youtube)?

But overall please let me know what I should adjust here for the best results, Thanks!

But overall please let me know what I should adjust here for the best results, Thanks!

AAC audio should use 192k if you want to take advantage of youtubes delivery quality.

you could also use even lower CRF values. i think, youtube even accepts lossless h.264 x264 encoding, which is very incompatible otherwise...

AAC in handbrake on PC is terrible quality due to outdated code, so use very high bitrate.

I definitely appreciate the feedback .

Let me know if you think I should adjust any of these settings or I am missing anything.
This is shot at 59fps by my phantom 3 (well most of it is)
Should I leave it at 59fps or change it (just wondering now and for the future what is the best for youtube)?

But overall please let me know what I should adjust here for the best results, Thanks!

You can keep 59.94fps if this is your source fps.
Slide RF setting to e.g. 15.

Delete 2nd audio entry. Change bitrate in the AAC to 320 and Dolby ProLogic to Stereo.

This is exactly what I said, ...

right! -- i just didn't want to accept a CBR advise in bold letters uncontradicted as the final conclusion here in the thread. it's bad enough, that resolve doesn't give us anything better...

Where does it say about CBR bitrate? (handbrake doesn't even have setting for it- you have to know how to achieve it).

Constant Framerate, not bitrate.

...Constant Framerate, not bitrate.

sorry, it was a mix-up on my side.

Danny,

Just a note: regrades if you send pristine master to youtube it will re-encode it to quite low bitrate, so macroblocking in final youtube video is very likely to happen for difficult sources (yours looks difficult).

One thing which you don't want to do is to send master which already has macroblocking. I assume this is your problem.

Danny,

Just a note: regrades if you send pristine master to youtube it will re-encode it to quite low bitrate, so macroblocking in final youtube video is very likely to happen for difficult sources (yours looks difficult).
One thing which you don't want to do is to send master which already has macroblocking. I assume this is your problem.

Guy’s, first thank you for your patience and helping me limp my way through this.

The source plays smooth as butter on my PC, zero artifacts or macroblocking, I am very happy with how it looks.

Regarding deleting the 2nd audio track.
Would that delete the interview that is at the end?
I have two different audio sources (and tracks), one being the music that plays throughout the video and the other is the audio from a canon camera for the interview at the end.

I have changed the audio to AC3 320 Bitrate and the mixdown to Stereo for both audio sources.

I am guessing the Quality is the bitrate?
It is strange to me that when you over the slider it recommends moving the slider more towards the higher quality side for standard def and lower quality for high def. Perhaps the standard def needs it more then the high def?

Also I guess 2-pass encoding would be better for a variable bitrate but doesn't apply to a constant bitrate?

I have 2 video separate sources used that provided clips for this video.
A Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Frame rate 29.97 (used for my kid holding the drone near the beginning and the interview at the end)
A DJI Phantom 3 Advanced, Frame rate 59.94 (used for the rest of the video)

The frame rate out of Resolve is 59fps.
Here are my current settings, please let me know if you recommend any additional tweaking.

Regarding deleting the 2nd audio track.
Would that delete the interview that is at the end?
I have two different audio sources (and tracks), one being the music that plays throughout the video and the other is the audio from a canon camera for the interview at the end.

hard to say? i would test it in practice.

ffmpeg is able to mixdown a few audio sources to a final stereo pair, but i don't know how this is handled in handbrake.

I have changed the audio to AC3 320 Bitrate and the mixdown to Stereo for both audio sources.

you should not use "AC3" (it's an older type of codec). "AAC" is better.

It is strange to me that when you over the slider it recommends moving the slider more towards the higher quality side for standard def and lower quality for high def. Perhaps the standard def needs it more then the high def?

it's indeed very confusing. that's why i don't like all this GUI helpers for ffmpeg. you have to know a whole lot about the values it will set magicly and what they mean to ffmpeg. if you do it yourself on the command line, you usually have more control whats finally going on...

Also I guess 2-pass encoding would be better for a variable bitrate but doesn't apply to a constant bitrate?

i think, you will get a a basic constant bitrate, if you set a value in the "average bitrate" field of the gui form, but don't set the check mark on "2-pass encoding"

on two pass it will measure the amount of movements, noise etc. of the different passages of your file in a first run and estimate how well they can be compressed, and in a second run it will distribute the set file size / bandwidth in the most useful way over the whole file based on this gathered numbers.

i would prefer to use this very simple command for transcoding:

Code: Select all

ffmpeg -i INPUTFILE -c:v libx264 -crf 15 -c:a aac -b:a 192k OUTPUT.mp4

it does just the same as all this complicated settings in handbrake, but you really know, what it will do!

Can you have 2 audio tracks on youtube? These are not channels but audio tracks. If you have some stereo mix then use 1x stereo track on export in Resolve not 2x mono.

CRF can be simplified to: how much to compress video. 20 means compresses 20 times and is worse than e.g. 15. Lower setting=higher final bitrate and quality.

You can also use VBR with e.g. 50Mbit or 75Mbit which would give you very good quality (no way you will get mackroblocking at the bitrate). There is really no need for 2 pass. 2 pass is good when you're trying to target specific file size exactly (average bitrate).

it's indeed very confusing. that's why i don't like all this GUI helpers for ffmpeg. you have to know a whole lot about the values it will set magicly and what they mean to ffmpeg. if you do it yourself on the command line, you usually have more control whats finally going on...

You will be one of few- 99% people prefer GUI than cmd tools
You need the same knowledge (+more) to use ffmpeg. Handbrake should be easier for most people.

Regarding the audio I will just try to delete the 2nd one and see what happens.
In resolve it is 2 different tracks and pulls into handbrake as 2 as well.
I will have to just delete one and see what happens. I am guessing I will lose the audio in the interview at the end.

After processing one of my videos for 30 hours (they uploaded after 2 hours), youtube gave an error.
YouTube support was utterly useless, they asked me what macroblocking was and to reboot my computer.
I have to wonder if they even really looked into my issue.
I hate it when you get people that just don't care . Okay rant over.

I will try some of your suggestions over the weekend and post my results.
Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

All 1s line support these days is useless.
They just there to read your email and send some templates replay. Don't expect much, specially when you don't pay for the service.

You have to do proper mix of your audio to 1 stereo track.

All 1s line support these days is useless.
They just there to read your email and send some templates replay. Don't expect much, specially when you don't pay for the service.

You have to do proper mix of your audio to 1 stereo track.

Yeah it is pretty bad.
I actually do pay for the YouTube red service and they are escalating the issue.
Not holding my breath though. I am hoping to sort this out with the information I have acquired here.

I am rendering it a few different ways using handbrake gui and ffmpeg command line right now.
My machine renders it pretty quickly but I am accessing it remotely now so I can't really evaluate the quality until I get home.

You will be one of few- 99% people prefer GUI than cmd tools

and people of our days don't like to read books or manuals anymore, i know!

You need the same knowledge (+more) to use ffmpeg. Handbrake should be easier for most people.

it's just a matter of luck. if you really want to understand, what's going on behind the surface, it's just another layer of complexity to understand and retrace. i really like graphical assistance for other tasks, but for simple operations like this, it isn't always the most efficient choice.

YouTube support was utterly useless, they asked me what macroblocking was and to reboot my computer.
I have to wonder if they even really looked into my issue.

yes -- that sounds really disappointing. it's very useful for customers, if they get competent help and find sources of advanced technical background information (like at netflix tech blog) to understand and utilize services in a more adequate way.

My machine renders it pretty quickly but I am accessing it remotely now...

just another welcome argument, why this stupid old fashioned keyboard typing way can be seen as useful in our days as well! ok. -- long term linux users usually got used to it...

I have encoded this video everyone possible under the sun. I literly tried probably 50 different combinations.
In the end they all played beautifly on my computer and show pixelation on youtube.

I am chalking this up to how youtube re-encodes my video and the fact that in some scenes there is so much movement and changing light conditions.

When playing locally on my computer there is ZERO macroblocking/pixelation etc

Facebook looks much worse, I guess they compress it even more and the version I have on Vimeo here:

Doesn't do any better

There are options if I want to pay money. Also if I had a popular channel or a corporation (like redbull, they have videos that get encoded without as much compression) then it might be possible. But as it is I have spent more time messing with this then any sane person should.

Here is an updated version (the macroblocking is still there, depending on the screen size you view it on)

Your exercise is pointless. Youtube will re-encode your file to low bitrate (which as far as I understand is out of your control) and this may introduce mackroblocking depending on the source nature. Making 50 versions makes no difference at all.

Youtube is for "masses", it's rather poor quality. Try Vimeo, they use higher bitrates.

In the end they all played beautifly on my computer and show pixelation on youtube.
...
I am chalking this up to how youtube re-encodes my video and the fact that in some scenes there is so much movement and changing light conditions.

that's the real problem; you don't have much control about the recompression done by youtube and similar mass audience services.

your invested efforts, to find out the necessary bandwidth and encoding settings, could be useful anyhow to distribute the content by other means (btw. if you managed the encoding yourself by ffmpeg, you could also use this tool to calculate objective PSNR and SSIM metrics, to compare different results and find out insufficient settings for particular passages...)

by using DASH, videos can by hosted as simple static content on usual web servers and CDNs -- just like ordinary html web pages --, and played by clients in a bandwidth adaptive manner, very similar to youtube and vimeo.

the preparation and segmentation of video footage for DASH delivery isn't trivial. it can be manged by a couple of free tools available (e.g.: MP4box), but there are also some specialized services in the cloud available for this kind of job (see: http://bitmovin.com). at the end you can embed the content by DASH capable html5 video players (bitmovin player, shaka, dash.js etc.) in your web page.

but there are lots of incompatibilities concerning different browsers and operating systems to consider in real live. in fact you will have to support fallback to apples HLS etc. to support a realistic share of common devices used by your audience. there are really nice [but very complicated and hard to manage] solutions available to solve this requirements (e.g. the on the fly dash-repacker from the kaltura project, etc.), but all the practical experiences and RD work done by services like youtube and vimeo fighting this issues shouldn't be underestimated.

it's not easy, to work around all this obstacles yourself in a more satisfying way, instead of just using one of the well known services, but if you really need surpassing image quality, there is often no other resort, than hosting the data yourself by customized uncommon means.

My advice is to avoid YouTube and post them to a Vimeo Pro account, where you can control the bitrate more precisely.

I did put a copy on Vimeo (link provided in my post above) and the quality is not any better, granted it is not Vimeo pro.
To be honest I did look into Vimeo pro and I found out that not everyone is happy with the quality there either.
Also I would have to get a pro membership, for me it just isn't worth the 200 bucks it would cost for what my intentions are.

At the end of the day I just created a link for friends and family that can download a high quality copy from here:
https://goo.gl/xU5sr9

This version plays beautifully on my 60" TV

Some of the other ways around it to deliver it in the high quality to not seem straight forward to me, so I am done.
I do appreciate the help and feedback very much.

I may leave feedback with youtube and/or vimeo suggesting that they allow one-off high quality copy of a video for small one time fee of 5 or 10 bucks to encode that one video at a higher bitrate, that is something I think I would have done and others would be interested in doing as well.

It's just the way how it works now. Everyone squeezes bandwidth/space to save money. The problem is that you can't put e.g. 60Mbit file on the web neither as many won't be able to watch it without freezes.

If you want to deliver high quality files then you have done right thing There is not much else what you can do atm.
For way less money you can get unlimited google drive account, where you can store high quality files and you will also get youtube version for free created for you

It's just the way how it works now. Everyone squeezes bandwidth/space to save money. The problem is that you can't put e.g. 60Mbit file on the web neither as many won't be able to watch it without freezes.

If you want to deliver high quality files then you have done right thing There is not much else what you can do atm.

right now it became very common to speak of "netflix"-quality, if you want refer to more satisfying levels of quality. a form of high quality distribution, that can be consumed by many users in a useful way. it's definitely beyond the offers from youtube and vimeo, but it's IMHO achievable for anybody with reasonable additional expenditure by using the services from bitmovin.com and others.

anybody has to choose for himself, what level of quality he wants to archive and how much efforts he is willing to invest.

glorifying the actual services and image quality offered by vimeo or youtube, sounds to me like arguing, that it doesn't make any sense to seek for color related improvements and refinement and learn to master the necessary tools -- just purchase a cheap camera from sony or canon, and you will always get pleasant colors out of the box!

@ Danny Deutsch

I did put a copy on Vimeo (link provided in my post above) and the quality is not any better, granted it is not Vimeo pro.

did you use the same upload source for vimeo and youtube (the 491MB file)?

To be honest it was an unfair comparison to vimeo because with my free account I am limited to 500MB per week upload, so therefor it is not an apples to apples comparison.

If it made sense I would put down the 200 bucks and get a vimeo pro account or explore https://bitmovin.com/ (doesn't look straightforward to me) a little more, but I have ran this course.

I am out of my comfort zone here on this forum, I won't lie.
I just wanted to fart around and make a cool family video with my drone
I accomplished my goal and need to move on.

Again thanks for the feedback and I will once again reiterate that if I could do I one time payment of 5 or 10 bucks for a short 4 minute clip to be super quality online (that was easy like youtube) I would bite on that. I would not be surprised if something like this exists in another 5 or 10 years.

To be honest it was an unfair comparison to vimeo because with my free account I am limited to 500MB per week upload, so therefor it is not an apples to apples comparison.

you are right, vimeo is very restrictive in this respect and the image quality is only marginal better than on youtube. in some technical aspects it actually seems to be even worse than youtubes free service.

I accomplished my goal and need to move on.

yes -- i agree. it doesn't make much sense to discuss this kind of topics here in the forum.