Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Getting the best results from YouTube / Vimeo (1080, 4K etc...)


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#21 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 26 January 2015 - 09:08 AM

I know it's talking about Samsung Note Tablets and there is no mention of 8bit or 10bit. but this video has really reinforced (to me) what's happening when you use a 4k file on a 1080 timeline.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by thetrickster, 26 January 2015 - 11:22 AM.

Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com


#22 kc_moses

kc_moses

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Cooking, baking, diving, videography, landscape and food photography.

Posted 26 January 2015 - 11:35 AM

Both GH4 and LX-100 record 4K at 4:2:0 8-bit in camera. The Shogun record 4K at 4:2:2 10-bit.

 

However, 4K 4:2:0 8-bit can be turned into 1080p 4:4:4: 10-bit. In the sense that this should beat any dSLR out there that only shoot 1080p except for Canon 1Dc and may be 5D Mark3 with Magic Lantern (RAW).

 

Here is a better explanation:

http://www.eoshd.com...080p-10bit-444/



#23 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 26 January 2015 - 11:59 AM

This is exactly what I was planning to do
However I then came across this link that you guys may want to have a look at

http://cheesycam.com...p-ex-tele-mode/

The ex tele mode is available on the GX7 and works a treat

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#24 kc_moses

kc_moses

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Cooking, baking, diving, videography, landscape and food photography.

Posted 26 January 2015 - 12:52 PM

That feature is available on GH4 but only work on 1080P mode, essential turned the crop factor to 5.22. It make sense on the GH4 because it records 1080P up to 200Mbps. On the LX100, if you shoot 4K and zoom at post to 1080p, you get the same result as the GX7, just not the same as GH4 because of the bit rate. That feature is indeed useful for the GX7.



#25 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 26 January 2015 - 12:55 PM

That feature is available on GH4 but only work on 1080P mode, essential turned the crop factor to 5.22. It make sense on the GH4 because it records 1080P up to 200Mbps. On the LX100, if you shoot 4K and zoom at post to 1080p, you get the same result as the GX7, just not the same as GH4 because of the bit rate. That feature is indeed useful for the GX7.

I would not bother with the all intra mode 200 mbps IPB at 100 Mbps is probably better

So the LX100 does not have this feature anymore? 


Edited by Interceptor121, 26 January 2015 - 01:13 PM.

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#26 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 26 January 2015 - 01:19 PM

So I have tried converting 4K footage into Prores 4444 in order to see how it would resist to grading but quicktime crashes

Converting it to prores 422 instead works whilst downscaling to 1080p at 220 mbps

Not sure if this has anything to do with my set up but the theory 4:2:0 4K into 4444 1080p seems not to work

Still 4:2:2 is an improvement for grading purposes as this is what you would get with a Ninja 2 am just not sure all of this is actually worth doing. If I do limited grading I can keep the file as is and let the display scale down 4K to 1080p after all the human eye has no visual acuity to resolve 4K unless you are really really close (which is another thing I have realised with my 55" TV is basically good for 1080p at 10 feet but for 4K I need to be at 3 feet to see any benefit)


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#27 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 26 January 2015 - 01:54 PM

I don't think you need to convert the footage if using FCPX (apart from relieving CPU stress) for grading, as the timeline is 32bit 444


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com


#28 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 26 January 2015 - 02:15 PM

I don't think you need to convert the footage if using FCPX (apart from relieving CPU stress) for grading, as the timeline is 32bit 444


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have some more reading which makes sense to me
Although you have more colour those are actually still recreated not real so this whole 444 is a waste of energy
Convecting can't add information that is not there, yes you downscale and the machine interpolates but this is a guess not real information. So I think the shogun 4:2:2 500 Mbps is a step forward the other alchemy not really

http://www.fcp.co/fo...a-1080-timeline

Finally on YouTube you go back to 4:2:0 anyway so all of this looks like a lot of energy spent for very little

I would think touching the footage as little as possible and converting it right at the end seems the most logical approach, more conversion more errors it's just the way it is as all codecs used are lossy

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#29 kc_moses

kc_moses

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Cooking, baking, diving, videography, landscape and food photography.

Posted 26 January 2015 - 02:16 PM

For living room, 65" is the minimum size for 4K TV. I have a 39" TV as computer monitor and I'm sitting like arm length away from it.

 

 

The LX100 doesn't have the Ex Tele Convert feature, I searched in the PDF manual and there is no reference to it. It's no big deal because 4K crop will give the same result.

 

I don't know how painful it is to grade in FCPX, but it's unpleasant in Premier Pro with "Colorista" plug in, which is another popular grading tool.  You might want to take a look at Davinci Resolve Lite 11, it's free and has lots of features:

https://www.blackmag...resolve/compare

 

Davinci Resolve basically is the industry standard for color grading and it should integrate well and provide good quality.



#30 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 26 January 2015 - 02:44 PM

For living room, 65" is the minimum size for 4K TV. I have a 39" TV as computer monitor and I'm sitting like arm length away from it.

 

 

The LX100 doesn't have the Ex Tele Convert feature, I searched in the PDF manual and there is no reference to it. It's no big deal because 4K crop will give the same result.

 

I don't know how painful it is to grade in FCPX, but it's unpleasant in Premier Pro with "Colorista" plug in, which is another popular grading tool.  You might want to take a look at Davinci Resolve Lite 11, it's free and has lots of features:

https://www.blackmag...resolve/compare

 

Davinci Resolve basically is the industry standard for color grading and it should integrate well and provide good quality.

That is simply not true it entirely depends on the distance

 

Assuming you want to have all pixels visible you need 1.3 meters on a 65" and 1.1 on a 55" that makes for a very small lounge

 

Assuming 6 feet or 1.8 meters you need a 90" diagonal projector. Realistically you need physical space to sit in front of your TV and 1.1 or 1.3 meters is a bit too close

 

Which explains a little about the current issues of 4K and why although picking up is not going to become mainstream for Tv programs. I watched some macro stuff on netflix and I can see the benefits on the close ups however when I watch house of cards or marco polo I have to say there is very little in it if I am not right in the Tv

 

I think the key consideration is that a lens resolves around 2300-2800 lines per picture width which in 1080p means around 800 lw/ph 4K is double at 1600 lw/ph which is more realistic number so what you are actually comparing is 1440p to 800p so your 65" Tv at 6 feet makes sense but get at 5 feet and the difference will be visible also on a 55"

 

How big is your lounge is the question and who watches videos on a computer screen anyway? I don't except when I edit them


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#31 kc_moses

kc_moses

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Cooking, baking, diving, videography, landscape and food photography.

Posted 26 January 2015 - 04:58 PM

My 39" 4K TV is being use as computer monitor for now while my living room has a 55" 1080p TV. I'm going to move out of state and when the price of 4K TV comes down, I plan to get a 65" or 75" to put in the living room. Generally for an apartment, 6 feet between the seat and TV is common.

 

Back to the discussion, this is worth to check out without getting into the technical detail:

 

If you read the comment, the caption on the video is wrong in the beginning but is correct during the "zoomed test", the sharper part is 4K to 1080p. Without getting into 4:4:4 1080p vs 4:2:0 4K, in real life I think people would still appreciate a 4K downscale to 1080p video instead of a 1080p video straight out of the camera.

 

The big question moving forward is, what to do with the video so that Youtube/vimeo would leave it alone?



#32 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 26 January 2015 - 11:30 PM

4K=2K 1080p=720p when you shoot with a consumer grade set up. If you have 6 feet it will be ideal for 65" as it is the resolution that covers 2K at that distance. For what concerns youtube and vimeo you need to encode with specifications. Using final cut and compressor together with x264 is possible to produce compliant files that are not re-encoded. To be honest I don't know why apple doesn't update their youtube upload settings it is still the same as when you export 1080p for a computer which in turn is a poor export. From my own experience 1080p encoded at crf=21 achieves youtube settings for 4K it will probably be something around 18 but I can't test it as I don't want to buy compressor right now as my final cut is a demo version. If anyone has final cut and compressor I can tell them how to set up x264 for 4K

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#33 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 27 January 2015 - 01:06 AM

For what concerns youtube and vimeo you need to encode with specifications. Using final cut and compressor together with x264 is possible to produce compliant files that are not re-encoded.

 

But if YouTube are now using the VP9 codec for delivery - your file will be re-encoded anyway? - even if you supply a file within spec? 

 

Or am i confusing the VP9 aspect?

 

I don't have enough spare time to sit and upload test files! The wife thinks I spend enough of my spare time diving, let know in front of the PC at weekends! LOL


Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com


#34 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 27 January 2015 - 01:56 AM

 

But if YouTube are now using the VP9 codec for delivery - your file will be re-encoded anyway? - even if you supply a file within spec? 

 

Or am i confusing the VP9 aspect?

 

I don't have enough spare time to sit and upload test files! The wife thinks I spend enough of my spare time diving, let know in front of the PC at weekends! LOL

VP9 is google codec for 4K which they use for their own content. H264 is a supported codec and as long as you limit bitrate and settings it will not be re-encoded by youtube

H265 and VP9 achieve the same quality of H264 with a lower bitrate so Netflix uses H265 and Youtube uses VP9, I am not sure what amazon uses but the reality is that netflix works at 25 mbps and amazon at 15 mbps. So amazon is targeting high speed broadband and netflix the low end of fiber and cable and so will youtube with vp9

If you want to go and upload H264 at 30-35 mbps on youtube it will be fine but for most users this will mean buffering

 

This is the reason why am not investing in a 4K recording device just yet I want to see the codecs moving forward in camera meanwhile I am doing some practice on micro 4:3 as I believe the next Panasonic release to implement H265 will come at some point maybe not this year or they will blow off their own GH4 and LX100 sales most likely next year so underwater early 2017


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#35 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 29 January 2015 - 12:45 PM

So I managed to compress the two clips from Moses actually using iMovie that with great surprise can process 4K files just fine as long as you output them 1080p

 

This is using the standard functionality the file created was 186 Mb at 20 Mbps

 

 

This is the same with x264 encoder preset medium as it was crashing otherwise the file is around 64 Mb at 6.9 mbps

 

See if you can see any difference other than of course the source file is much smaller in the second case.


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#36 kc_moses

kc_moses

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Cooking, baking, diving, videography, landscape and food photography.

Posted 29 January 2015 - 02:27 PM

It seems the x264 version is a bit sharper. Could it be because that the size is small and H.264, so Youtube didn't bother to re-encode it? And the iMovie is 20Mbps so Youtube re-encoded it? I read some where that the prefer bitrate if 8 Mbps for 1080p video.

 

I'm looking into Handbrake, you might want to give it a try as it's freeware and available for Mac as well. There is a feature for "Optimize for web" and seems like a lot people use that to encode for videos to be uploaded to Youtube.



#37 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 29 January 2015 - 02:32 PM

Pretty much the smaller file does not get re-encoded but actually even the full size was worse. 

Handbrake is a good tool for DVDs but you don't want to encode again the output of your first software that is why I use the X264 plug in

However for final cut pro you also need the compressor plug in on top so cost goes up


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#38 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 31 January 2015 - 12:44 AM

I did more tests yesterday and actually despite youtube says they take 2 by frames it did re-encode. My sony didn't produce b frames so all was good but with panasonic it's different so it may be better to push the settings as far as possible. Will do another test later today to see if youtube still accepts the file

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#39 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 31 January 2015 - 12:17 PM

I also tried Youtube 50p this is the original version of a clip from few years go


Edited by Interceptor121, 31 January 2015 - 02:30 PM.

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#40 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 31 January 2015 - 02:38 PM

Video removed on YouTube ?

As a side note. Thanks for spending the time doing this Interceptor!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com