3 ms·
> that's probably the best quality version in the wild Probably not, would be my guess. Uploading the very same source video to somewhere else than YouTube (an
by diggan 2y ago
> that's probably the best quality version in the wild
Probably not, would be my guess. Uploading the very same source video to somewhere else than YouTube (and ideally a place that doesn't do heavy compression at all) would lead to an higher quality version easily, someone somewhere must have done just that.
- jsheard 2y agoThat's what I meant, that the source video for that YouTube upload is probably the best version out there, as you say the second-hand re-encoded version served by YouTube is inferior. I didn't word that clearly, sorry.