New invention of motion less generation of electric power

[Earl]

Winson,

edit:  home page for Super Video Converter is:
http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html
Current version SUPER © v2010.build.37 (Jan 2, 2010)
one download location:
http://www.filehippo.com/download_super/

here are some comments from another thread:

I use Super like Stefan has suggested:
http://download.cnet.com/3001-2194_4-10277613.html?spi=9c02d478042d76a42f60c92869355434

Capture Full DV to computer, after edit (if needed) use Super to convert for Youtube upload. Make sure video is not more than 10 minutes.

Settings for Super, "output container" select: avi, "output video codec" select: H.264/AVC, "output audio codec" select: mp3.

Video scale size select: 320 x 240, [correction 720x576 for PAL]
aspect: 4:3,
frame/sec: 23.976, [correction: 25 frames/sec]
bitrate: 1008, [correction: 5000 to 8000 KBits/sec]
options: check mark in Hi quality box

Audio sampling Feq: 22050, Channels: 1, Bitrate: 96

Right click where you drop video and select where you want the converted file to be saved before you start and then drop or right click to select the video to be converted.

This will make a great quality file that will be just under 100mb and very compatible with Youtube codec so not too much loss will happen when they convert it.

Hope this helps. Luc

Luc,
it is 25 frames/sec in Europe, but 23,976 is for cinema movies only taken (shot) with old real film cameras.

For NTSC DV video source (interlaced TV video) keep 29.97 frames/sec, if you are in a PAL country like Europe keep 25 frames/sec.

Keep the original video frame size like 720x480 for NTSC or 720x576 for PAL and better go with about 5000 to 8000 KBits/sec for the videobitrate.
Then the video will be much clearer...
Youtube will Re-encode it anyway again to FLV format with their own settings, so it is important to upload the video already with a high quality.
Many thanks.  Looking to see the real deal.  Regards, Stefan.

Regards, Earl

[gotoluc]

gotoluc

may be the reply address is ali@wintrac.co.uk
please send me emails at winsonali@yahoo.com
i am no more using wintrac domain

Yes Ali, that is the problem.

I'll resend to the yahoo account.

Luc

[gotoluc]

Hi Earl,

the only correction that is needed in my suggested specifications is to use 25 frames/sec if you are in a country that is 220vac/50Hz grid. Other than that the other parameters will give a very good result for the file size. Using larger formats as others has suggested will make a very large file and take 5 or more times to upload and in the end the quality difference would be hardly noticeable.

I've been doing videos for years now on Youtube and tried it both ways and never saw a quality advantages of uploading a huge file. However they have recently made some changes for HD so it could be possible to obtain a slightly better quality then what I have been using but this would need to be tested. I was thinking of starting a topic to do these tests and compare the result in order to help new users use the best video settings to get a quality video without using a huge amount of upload bandwidth.

Anyways, Ali has already done videos so I don't think it will be a problem for him.

Luc

[Earl]

Hi Luc,

using the resolution as suggested by Harti results in 4 times the number of pixels, which makes a big difference in quality when watching the video on a local copy.

The quality of what Utube shows on the Web is of no importance.  What is important is how the video looks after downloading and watching a *local* copy.

The only reason to be concerned about file size is if you have a modem connection, or have a very long line to the ADSL DSLAM.  An average ADSL or cable connection can handle large video uploads.  Codecs like DivX, mp4, and h.264 have qood quality and high compression factors.  The upload runs in the background and the computer can still be used for other things.  Tony, as a computer programmer, might have half a dozen computers, so upload time may not play any role at all.

Without having high quality videos, the Mylow saga would have lasted much longer.  Lower quality videos simply do not show the details.  As we know, a video is worth a million words and the replicators need as high a quality as reasonably possible.

I am confident that Tony knows his stuff and can provide quality videos.

One other aspect to consider is not letting Utube transcode to another format by uploading to mediafire.com where the video file can be downloaded without any conversions.  Mediafire is an excellent site to store videos and easy to download from.

An additional advantage of using mediafire.com is that it forces people to download the file to a local copy in order to watch it.  There is no single-point failure and having the video spread around the globe to local copies is a definite advantage in getting the word out.

Regards, Earl

[gotoluc]

For anyone believing that you can better video quality on YouTube by using lager video size and bitrate then I recommended you please have a look at this topic: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8628.msg221312#new

The results will surprise you and maybe help save bandwidth for your next video.

I took the time to make this topic to help people save time, so please don't post your personal opinions.

Luc