Youtube : Best ratio quality/weight setting with Nvenc and Hevc

  • After many tests and analyse about Handbrake's files, here what I get with what I think it's best setting ratio quality/weight for Youtube. Note that quality is enought for art like painting. The key value for QP is 27.

    So here is my EPR file to find these settings in Premiere. It must be placed in your folder:

    Windows: C:\Users\UserName\Documents\Adobe\Adobe Media Encoder\12.0\Presets

    Mac: Documents/Adobe/Adobe Media Encoder/12.0/Presets

    Note that you need a GTX 16x0 or a RTX card, otherwise file will be approximately 2.5 times larger (The reason is the availability of B-frames) that is almost the same size than with H264.

    A sample, I get a 207MB file for a 4mn17s video HD1080 at 25fps :

    and the original file from Voukoder uploaded to Youtube : (available for one week)

    Thanks for your feedback if you think there is still room for improvement

  • Youtube compresses your video, so the bestquality you can get is to upload original project output or give enough size of the file in a lossy compression, so the video would only be compressed once

    also qp27 is way too much quality drop, consider qp17

    for lossless, use cineform (not sure how to do that)

    for the smallest file size possible, use hevc yuv4:4:4, its in voukoder but for now you have to manually input a hundred settings in this post

    for the minimal lossy quality, use apple prores 422

    for speed/lossless, buy a RTX 2000 or higher series hard, use built in hardware encoder on the Turing/Amplere or higher chip

    for no visible lossy quality and convinience, use x264 yuv4:4:4, which is in voukoder

    for speed without concerning visible loss, buy a GTX 1000 card, use built in Pascal hardware encoder

  • Hello, I disagree with your message...

    I'm talking about the weight / quality ratio for Youtube destination, so by also considering upload time which is a problem for many people, therefore lossless formats are irrelevant.

    No, the GTX1000 series is not the most efficient for the quality / weight ratio since it does not support B-Frames for HEVC. The object of the discussion is not the encoding speed which I consider sufficient with Nvenc.

    GTX 16x0 and RTX cards have almost same performance and quality for encoding,


    GTX 1650 Super with GPU TU116 4Go GDDR6

    GTX1650 with GPU TU106 4Go GDDR6

    GTX1650 with GPU TU116 4Go GDDR6

    GTX 1650 Ultra with GPU TU106 6 Go GDDR6

    But not

    GTX1650 (original) with GPU TU117 4Go GDRR5

    GTX 1650 G6 with GPU TU117 4Go GDDR6


    for the smallest file size possible, use hevc yuv4:4:4, its in voukoder but for now you have to manually input a hundred settings in this post

    I do not see the point of doing 4:4:4 starting from 4:2:0 which is largely what is more popular on Youtube. The normal user is not going to do this, he will be content with the complexity of the settings of software like Handbrake.

    I think that you are lost in your settings and that you forget the main thing which is not to have fun with tons of parameters but to have an effective generic solution for the majority of users who want to quickly put a video on Youtube and get a good quality.

    Edited once, last by MyPOV ().

  • uh... yeah... but... there's no such thing to get good quality and concerning file size with a push of button, unless you are going lossless (and buy an enterprise SSD to spped things up:whistling:)

    (or watch video on a smaller mobile phone screen XD)

  • ??

    There are millions of people who want to upload videos created with Premiere to Youtube but have problems either because their file is too big or because final quality on Youtube is not enough good.

    What do you not understand in this simple concept of wanting to upload a video of a reasonable size to have a satisfactory rendering on Youtube?

    To say that there is no solution is not an acceptable answer; So I offer mine to the community,

    Edited once, last by MyPOV ().

  • because there is no such thing,

    if you want speed and quality, you get huge file size;

    if you want file size and quality, you get very low speed

    if you want high speed and file size, you get bad quality

    especially if you are using a budget computer

  • I've studied video encoding as a hobbit for 4 years, and unfortunately I've eventually found you get what you paid

    the best way to get small file size, decent quality and speed all together, you need bare minimum a ryzen 3600x or i7 8700k running x264 with low latency ram, and that's the baseline acceptible you are looking for

    but that may offer a good quality, it's not going to be the case on file size, if you dare want extra 40% size reduction, get 10 cups of coffee or upgrade your CPU

    how about x265? well, you can get 3fps on a 3800x / 9900ks for a 65% size reduction, but if you use is's potential for the best file size and quality, x265 will beat down a 3970x into a 6fps snail

    Disney had a house sized expensive video rendering supercomputer, and it take weeks to sqeeze out a clip movie, it's very difficult to compress and render video, you can't judt cheat through

    • Official Post

    You both are basically on the same side.

    It is all about finding the best compromise of quality, small file size and fast encoding time. Unfortunately this depends also on your source material and your encoding hardware.

    That's why x264 has dozens (x265 has about 200) options to configure. There are no universal "best" settings. As metioned the nvenc encoders work differently with different gpu generations (b-frames). Unfortunately users keep asking for the best settings over and over again.

    It is the same with encoder comparisons. The internet is full with stupid comparisons like "Is Voukoder better than <other encoder>?" What does better mean? Faster? Higher quality? With what encoder and what option? There a whole technical essays from professors about it.

    But we can find a compromise of settings for getting users a reasonable and satisfactory result, yes. That's what MyPOV did here and that's what iAvoe did with supplying the encoder presets.

    By the way: Unfortunately you have no control what quality you get from YouTube. It always transcodes your uploaded video. i.e. it is a huge difference if they transcoded your video to AVC (=h264) or VP9. AVC always has a worse quality and more artifacts. They also do a bitrate based transcode and you'll get the highest bitrate only if the frame size is >= 3200x1800 and the frame rate is >= 48 fps. That's why people asked for voukoder to have a spline based upscaler.

    Help to improve this plugin and support me on patreon or paypal. Thank you.

    Do you need a custom Voukoder build really fast? Click here.

    I also create custom encoder plugin solutions for Adobe products and DaVinci Resolve.

  • The resulting YouTube video looks fine to me. QP27 seems a bit high tho. AFIAK, it is recommended to stay in the range of QP17-QP23 for optimal quality/size ratio. Since your GPU has 7th Gen NVENC, it's justifiable for you to use H.265 instead of H.264. My current GPU has a 6th Gen NVENC, so there's no point for me to use H.265 (without B-frames), since H.264, even with only 2 consecutive B-frames outputs a bit smaller files with nearly the same quality.

    These are my main H.264 NVENC settings for Voukoder and HandBrake: bf=2 preset=slow profile=high qp=18 rc=constqp

    And these are the settings that YouTube recommends to be used for uploads: Recommended upload encoding settings

    Edited 2 times, last by dr0 ().

  • Hi,

    Range QP17 QP16 to QP23 is for H264 (AVC) not for H265 (HEVC) what I spoke about.

    This page Youtube's specifications are out of date, it speaks about H264 where as Youtube correctly handle H265 for a long time now.

    H265 with B-Frame is the main reason why i bought a GTX1660.