YouTube downloading MP4, Webm and FLV? |
  |
YouTube downloading MP4, Webm and FLV? |
 Jan 15 2013, 18:25
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 15-January 13 Member No.: 105909  |
Hi I am new here and I don't know much about codecs and stuff so I came here to get somethings straight.
So I am downloading couple of videos from youtube via keepvid and I have a couple of option I don't know which to choose from, one of the videos I am downloading is available in FLV 480p, MP4(480p Max) and Webm 480p... The MP4 one is about (173MB), the FLV (240MB) and Webm about (330MB) my question is webm best since Webm has the largest file size? Accourding to Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Video_technology , the webm has the highest video bitrate which is 1 and FLV is 0.8-1... I want to know which has the highest quality in terms of video and audio. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 17 2013, 21:51
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 31-May 05 From: Netherlands Member No.: 22417 |
Between MP4 and FLV: FLV for 360p and 480p (there's no MP4 at 480p). MP4 for 720p and up.
For MP4 vs. Webm it all comes down to codecs. H.264 vs. VP8 to be precise. Numerous tests have shown VP8 to be inferior to H.264. But in your case, the 330MB Webm file might even be the one of highest video quality due to the higher bitrate. Although AAC has a slight edge, 128Kbps AAC and 128Kbps Vorbis are quite on par with eachother according to recent listeningtests. Webm[VP9+Opus] would be really interesting in the near future. -------------------- DC-Bass Source Mod: http://reino.degeelebosch.nl
|
|
|
|
|
May 6 2013, 05:18
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 9-April 12 Member No.: 98589 |
QUOTE (CoRoNe @ Jan 18 2013, 09:51)  Although AAC has a slight edge, 128Kbps AAC and 128Kbps Vorbis are quite on par with eachother according to recent listeningtests. Webm[VP9+Opus] would be really interesting in the near future. I have reason to believe that youtube doesn't use the good encoders (iTunes or Nero), I think they use libfaac since their backend is using ffmpeg. (can anyone confirm?) general listening of Youtube has always been less than desirable for me, so I would highly recommend not to download from youtube and acquire your files from something else. Consider that most stuff is probably converted about 3-4 times before it gets to you. but if you have to acquire them from youtube, I would put my bets on H.264/flv for video and webm/vorbis for audio, and remux the files together. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2013, 09:01
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1466 Joined: 30-November 06 Member No.: 38207 |
QUOTE (YellowOnion @ May 6 2013, 06:18) I have reason to believe that youtube doesn't use the good encoders TOS#8 aside, there are some videos out there that are really full of artifacts, but that may be due to the original user uploading a lossy which is then transcoded. Two encoders are not better than one. YouTube is the place to go if you miss the generation loss of good'ole tapetrading. -------------------- geocities.com/hydrogenaudio: http://goo.gl/tqYZj
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th May 2013 - 09:05 |
