Jump to content


Member Since 25 Jun 2011
Online Last Active Today, 04:33 AM

Posts I've Made

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

Today, 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

In Topic: Panasonic LX-100 Nauticam housing

Today, 01:50 AM

If you


i also like the camera but for me the port system is to complicated to work with so i am looking to the Sony RX series.

Smaller and with macro and wide inon lens you have a nice set thats capable of nice results. For me its just fun taking

underwater photos. And in video i am not interested. 


:clapping:  :lol2:  :dancing:

If your interest is still images and you do not want to use a port system then look into the Sony RX100 Mark II

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

Yesterday, 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

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

Yesterday, 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:



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

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

Yesterday, 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


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