You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
Deleted member 330497
Ah, I see, thanks for explanation! Thankfully my current streaming settings don't impact in-game framerate in any significant way.If you have the GPU to spare, enabling will give higher quality. Some prefer it disabled so it has less of an impact on game FPS.
By the way, what is this all about with YouTube stream keys? I use the default variable stream key but I can create additional ones for specific resolution/framerate/bitrate. Is there any point in using other than the default variable one? For what reason were they introduced? I'm trying to understand if they might be of any use for me. After reading the official entry page the only reason behind their introduction that comes to my mind is to make it possible for other users (let's say some friends) to stream at (as) my YT channel. Unless there's other reason I'm not aware of.
konsolenritter
Active Member
How does that matter at all for the streamer? Like why bring it even up? It is not in your controll. Also you won't stream in a lower resolution because of it.
Please read it in the context of the whole thread. On a former post it was asked wether it makes sense to upscale and send 1080p material encoded as 2160p (the idea seemed to be that yt allows/reserves more bandwidth for that). I argued that the additional bandwidth merely compensates for the risen resolution of the envelope, not for better encoding of the 1080p message within that 2160p hull.
Finally i argued that (as you said) we don't have control over screen resolution and algorithm on the player/client side. So the whole question and chain of arguments was if it makes sense to upscale and downscale for the hope that the encapsulated 1080p material would benefit in any way.
I don't think so.
- every up- and downscale brings in noise and degradation of the material,
- benefit from more bandwidth that way is - at least - doubtful.
I agree to a certain degree that there may be a benefit when YT switches to VP9. But if that prevails all the downside of the artificial complicated process? Finally i don't know.
konsolenritter
Active Member
So it turns out that the theory about video buffering issue is more of a myth than an actual thing?
In the case of Youtube and the downlink from YT's Content Delivery Network to the viewers: YES. A myth.
But there may be buffering issues on your side regarding your upstream capabilities, of course.
Recently i managed to stream over an self-managed RTMP server with no re-encoding, just re-distributing to the viewers. Then its totally up to you, because exactly the bandwidth you choose is the bandwidth the viewer must provide, too. If you send video with 4 or 8 mbps, every of your viewers must be capable to downstream the same amount. If some viewers have weak links, they will suffer from your "great" bandwidth.
So i experimented with (additional) on-the-fly downscaling and re-encoding (from 1080p to 720p with lower bandwidth) on my server (thus providing a second stream for weak viewers). The outcome is viewable for normal purposes (church transmission), but definitely not for fast gaming (where people tend to be unhappy with framerate below 60) . ^^ **grin**
I don't think you understand how youtube works. With increasing the resolution to atleast 1440p you get vp9 for all resolution that youtube delivers + that the stream that youtube delivers at 1440p and 2160 gives you not only more bitrate in total but higher bits per pixel ratio.Please read it in the context of the whole thread. On a former post it was asked wether it makes sense to upscale and send 1080p material encoded as 2160p (the idea seemed to be that yt allows/reserves more bandwidth for that). I argued that the additional bandwidth merely compensates for the risen resolution of the envelope, not for better encoding of the 1080p message within that 2160p hull.
Finally i argued that (as you said) we don't have control over screen resolution and algorithm on the player/client side. So the whole question and chain of arguments was if it makes sense to upscale and downscale for the hope that the encapsulated 1080p material would benefit in any way.
I don't think so.
- every up- and downscale brings in noise and degradation of the material,
- benefit from more bandwidth that way is - at least - doubtful.
I agree to a certain degree that there may be a benefit when YT switches to VP9. But if that prevails all the downside of the artificial complicated process? Finally i don't know.
So your thinking is wrong because of lack of information.
konsolenritter
Active Member
By the way, what is this all about with YouTube stream keys? I use the default variable stream key but I can create additional ones for specific resolution/framerate/bitrate. Is there any point in using other than the default variable one? For what reason were they introduced?
They were mainly introduced due to some (former) faulty encoders. There is a world outside OBS. ^^ For instance i choosed to stream from a chinese drone a while ago. And some of the exotic encoders make false assumptions about resolution, bitrate aso. YT ingestion servers then may have problems to detect the right stream settings from the stream itself. With the specific streamkeys you could/can bind specific settings. In practice it only worked for the resolution for me, not even the framerate. Well then...
konsolenritter
Active Member
That is exactly what i admitted in former posts regarding inner secrets of VP9 (that i don't know). All other said should be right.I don't think you understand how youtube works.
Thank you anyway. Do you have web resources/links regarding these background information? I would be pleased to...
Not really, I simply tested that stuff myself and that is what I observed.Thank you anyway. Do you have web resources/links regarding these background information? I would be pleased to...
For high popularity channels youtube enables vp9 codec for all resolutions. I am at 4.5k subs and still have to upscale from 1080p to 1440p to get good video quality, otherwise high motion + detail scenes become "pixelated".
While upscaling makes video blurry (i use lanczos 32 samples), when downscaled in web video player image becomes very sharp, while native 1080p videos become blurry due to low bitrate avc1 codec.
While upscaling makes video blurry (i use lanczos 32 samples), when downscaled in web video player image becomes very sharp, while native 1080p videos become blurry due to low bitrate avc1 codec.
D
Deleted member 330497
I don't know what content you stream but is it some gaming streams? If so, wouldn't Bicubic filter be more appropriate for it? I have already mentioned the matter of the downscale/upscale filters on the previous page. Since that time i have done some more reading across the forum (and outside of it) and I've found out that Bicubic filter is more suitable for gaming streams than Lanczos. I'm curious what are opinions about it. I've done some comparison of Bicubic and Lanczos on my own stream but I can't make a decision which one is 'better' as I don't see much difference.While upscaling makes video blurry (i use lanczos 32 samples)