Need expert opinions about YouTube video resolution

[Russ51]

I’m preparing to release music videos on YouTube and want to shape them up (eliminate a few bad sections etc) using Shotcut.

I am starting with screen captures at odd resolutions (depending on where the box was drawn on the screen) but usually near 1280x720. That is worse than the usual HD YouTube resolution of 1920x1080, but the latter triples the file size of the mp4, and that does not seem desirable if I am not adding any information…

Should I ignore the increased file size and start (and export) my Shotcut project mp4s at a higher resolution?

[PoisonedSlice]

@Russ51

That is worse than the usual HD YouTube resolution of 1920x1080, but the latter triples the file size of the mp4, and that does not seem desirable if I am not adding any information…

What happens when someone is watching your 1280x720 video on a 4k or Full HD capable TV? It gets upscaled and still look good, but likely not as good as if you had uploaded at 1920x1080, right?

If you upload @ 1920x1080, then YT will automatically create the lesser resolutions with reduced file sizes, so there really isn’t a huge downside that I can see. Also, you can adjust your CRF (assuming you are using a constant rate factor) to reduce sizes even more, although it may result in quality loss (you will need to experiment with that).

More information can be found here:

Export Basics

They have a direct relationship, but it is not necessarily linear. There is no way to answer the what quality means without fully explaining video compression, which is very complex and depends on the codec. At a high level “quality” speaks for itself. Look up the meaning in a dictionary if you need to. Higher means better and bigger size; lower means less and smaller size. Whether 100% quality means lossless depends on the codec. For non-hardware H.264 in Shotcut, it does mean lossless, but t…

[Russ51]

Uhhh… why would 1920x1080 look better if it contains no more information? Keep in mind the original was close to 1280x720. It’s not like we are reducing size from a larger, higher resolution original. That is what led to the question. So I’m not seeing an argument for higher res there. Now, I learned when editing audio that working in 32 bit is better because your mixes etc. are performed at higher resolution, even if you end up in 16 bit on a CD. If there was something similar here, where Shotcut prefers the higher res for important editing functions, that would be relevant. But if the audio track is the main point and remains unchanged, and the video is captured at close to 1280x720, then…

[PoisonedSlice]

You are correct, my apologies. I saw screen capture and for some reason assumed that would be full HD because you mentioned 1920x1080 (so I mistakenly put the two together).

I think you answered your own question: I would export at the closest resolution to your screen captures (or use auto when importing into the shotcut project and after the export let YouTube decide.)

[RilosVideos]

I see no sense in artifically scaling up your Videos unless you could really improve the quality that way. If you just scale them up with no more information its just a waste of memory size imho. And YT will calculate it down anyway so you will probably use quality just by uploading it to YT. Keep it small and simple and pay more intention to content and music