Raw file (.mov) vs. Movie Maker file (.wmv) vs. You Tube processed file (.?)

[Module 79L]

As you probably know, I used a G1W from February up until May and from then on I've been using a G1W-H. Both cameras came stock with 12Mbps firmwares but I changed it on the G1W-H to a 15Mbps one.
I use Movie Maker to make the videos and I render them in full HD, 30fps, 24,19Mbps, wmv file format.

At first I thought the video quality was ok, both on VLC and YT, for the type of camera I had but it wasn't until I started uploading the .MOV files directly to YT that I noticed that the video quality of the .wmv files was much better than that of the original files, even after YT is done screwing them up.

Is it possible that MM's file rendering at 24Mbps can improve the quality of the 12 or 15 MBps original files to a point that they can withstand YT's quality destruction? Or, to put it in another way, is it possible to improve the video file's quality by increasing its bitrate, even though the original one is lower?

 

[KeithChesterfield]

I've tried a test with a video that was originally around 20000Kbps and using a converter upped the bit rate to 50000Kbps

The resulting pictures taken from the two videos are not identical but to the naked eye are very close.

The higher bitrate picture is a fraction lighter (brighter) in colour and shows a gnat's c*ck more definition than the original one.

99% of people wouldn't notice the difference unless each picture was side by side.

There is a difference but unless you saw them together you'd struggle to tell.

Going from a very low bitrate to a much higher bitrate might improve some videos but probably isn't worth the hassle with Videos that are already good or HD quality.

My test is only based on what I can see and, having had 35 years experience of being a Lithographic printer, I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't notice any difference.

Perhaps others can offer a different perspective.