-
You would think so. Even big Hollywood movies are made in Full HD and upscaled later. Like the new Avengers movie. Billions of dollars spent on it. CGI is rendered in Full HD. And they made a breakdown of it, 96% of the movie is CGI.
Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure that's not correct. Looks like 2K and 2.8K were common standards and 4K is quickly becoming a new standard. The last Avengers movies seem to have been filmed on Arri cameras, which I think are 2.8K but possibly the new models are higher resolution cameras. Note that I just Googled all of this, so I may be way off the mark.
They used a custom 6K IMAX camera:
https://www.popsci.com/camera-avengers-imax/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_of_Avengers:_Infinity_War_and_Avengers:_Endgame
If you watch it in IMAX you get more in the frame using a 1.90:1 aspect ratio
-
The advantage of a quality created 4k youtube upload is if you watch that video downsampled to 1080p, it looks almost as good as an authentic 25-50mbit bluray. 1080p youtube uploads are smeary and the difference is clearly visible on my 90 inch 1080p video projector.
Now, at that size, youtube 4k video played at 4k is actually smeary compared to an authentic 4k UHD Bluray (which was filmed in at least 4K which most Hollywood productions aren't), so, if you want true 4K quality, once again you might need to watch an 8k youtube video downsampled to 4k. However, with any display below 60 inches, I rarely see a use for true full 50mbit 4k video.
at 90" that is just shy of 1p/mm at 1080p. Obviously you would be standing a good distance away like 3m. But essentially what you are saying is that at any resolution the bitrate for that resolution is too low so you have to use a resolution that gets you the datarate you need because fuzzy 4K is as good as sharp 1080p which is what i have been trying to explain. As 4K is already more resoltution than the eye can see particularly in a moving image even if it's not pin sharp it does not matter, so why use 8K or 32Mp frames, I mean that is insane. It won't help on youtube if the limit is 4K and as 4K is more than the eye can see then do it in 4K. again, we are only talking about talking head shooting here not filming the lsat example of a natural landscape before it is destroyed forever. -
You would think so. Even big Hollywood movies are made in Full HD and upscaled later. Like the new Avengers movie. Billions of dollars spent on it. CGI is rendered in Full HD. And they made a breakdown of it, 96% of the movie is CGI.
Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure that's not correct. Looks like 2K and 2.8K were common standards and 4K is quickly becoming a new standard. The last Avengers movies seem to have been filmed on Arri cameras, which I think are 2.8K but possibly the new models are higher resolution cameras. Note that I just Googled all of this, so I may be way off the mark.
They used a custom 6K IMAX camera:
https://www.popsci.com/camera-avengers-imax/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_of_Avengers:_Infinity_War_and_Avengers:_Endgame
If you watch it in IMAX you get more in the frame using a 1.90:1 aspect ratio
So they are pretty much filming in what would be 4K at 6:9 and using the extra resolution for the wide screen format? -
There is a channel on youtube called TLDR news, they do 4K yet the vast majority of the imagery is animation and pictures and i doubt the footage they use from say the BBC comes to them in 4K, but as there is no need to actually buy a 4K camera as they produce everything inside a computer, meh, why not if it keeps the viewers engaged who think they are getting more out of cartoon images. I expect tha data footprint is low as the range of colours is small and the frames don't differ much from each other.
-
The advantage of a quality created 4k youtube upload is if you watch that video downsampled to 1080p, it looks almost as good as an authentic 25-50mbit bluray. 1080p youtube uploads are smeary and the difference is clearly visible on my 90 inch 1080p video projector.
Now, at that size, youtube 4k video played at 4k is actually smeary compared to an authentic 4k UHD Bluray (which was filmed in at least 4K which most Hollywood productions aren't), so, if you want true 4K quality, once again you might need to watch an 8k youtube video downsampled to 4k. However, with any display below 60 inches, I rarely see a use for true full 50mbit 4k video.
at 90" that is just shy of 1p/mm at 1080p. Obviously you would be standing a good distance away like 3m. But essentially what you are saying is that at any resolution the bitrate for that resolution is too low so you have to use a resolution that gets you the datarate you need because fuzzy 4K is as good as sharp 1080p which is what i have been trying to explain. As 4K is already more resoltution than the eye can see particularly in a moving image even if it's not pin sharp it does not matter, so why use 8K or 32Mp frames, I mean that is insane. It won't help on youtube if the limit is 4K and as 4K is more than the eye can see then do it in 4K. again, we are only talking about talking head shooting here not filming the lsat example of a natural landscape before it is destroyed forever.
I shoot my stuff in a mix of 4K (60Mbps) and 1080p (28Mbps).
4K for teardown and other detailed stuff like my Apollo 50th outside talking head shots.
But things like the Apollo 50th panel discussions were 1080p for the lower file sizes and the uselessness of it for low light indoor talking head from a distance shots.
Recent scope bench tutorial videos like 1228 and 1223 for example are only 1080p worthy.
-
I shoot my stuff in a mix of 4K (60Mbps) and 1080p (28Mbps).
4K for teardown and other detailed stuff like my Apollo 50th outside talking head shots.
But things like the Apollo 50th panel discussions were 1080p for the lower file sizes and the uselessness of it for low light indoor talking head from a distance shots.
Recent scope bench tutorial videos like 1228 and 1223 for example are only 1080p worthy.
and that makes perfect sense. If you suddenly announced you were filming in 8K and putting everything out in 4K it would not make me want to watch stuff more. -
I shoot my stuff in a mix of 4K (60Mbps) and 1080p (28Mbps).
4K for teardown and other detailed stuff like my Apollo 50th outside talking head shots.
But things like the Apollo 50th panel discussions were 1080p for the lower file sizes and the uselessness of it for low light indoor talking head from a distance shots.
Recent scope bench tutorial videos like 1228 and 1223 for example are only 1080p worthy.
and that makes perfect sense. If you suddenly announced you were filming in 8K and putting everything out in 4K it would not make me want to watch stuff more.
For both I also shoot at the lowest bitrate possible (60Mbps 4K 30fps, 28Mbps 1080p 60fps), higher bitrates have no advantage for any of the footage I shoot, and at an average of say 30min of footage per video, at 60Mbps that's 13.5GB per 30min video. When you shoot hundreds of videos that stuff adds up. 8k is just totally stupid, let alone the data rates those RED cameras do. No wonder they were forced to build these insane servers to handle it all. It's just creating huge problems for practically no benefit. Quite frankly is doe NOT show in the final product, they could get the same results with 4k consumer cameras.
-
oh but the results show in the viewer numbers
-
oh but the results show in the viewer numbers
I have better gear than PewDiePie, where's my Diamond Youtube award?
https://www.looxcie.com/pewdiepie-setup/ -
well do gaming videos and you will get one
-
well do gaming videos and you will get one
Gaming Videos, Stupid trendy things and you will be soon in the Diamond plaque. What sells is not knowledge... -
Ok, we have a little misunderstanding here. The quality issue is with, how and the quality of how youtube compresses the 4k and 1080p video.The advantage of a quality created 4k youtube upload is if you watch that video downsampled to 1080p, it looks almost as good as an authentic 25-50mbit bluray. 1080p youtube uploads are smeary and the difference is clearly visible on my 90 inch 1080p video projector.
Now, at that size, youtube 4k video played at 4k is actually smeary compared to an authentic 4k UHD Bluray (which was filmed in at least 4K which most Hollywood productions aren't), so, if you want true 4K quality, once again you might need to watch an 8k youtube video downsampled to 4k. However, with any display below 60 inches, I rarely see a use for true full 50mbit 4k video.
at 90" that is just shy of 1p/mm at 1080p. Obviously you would be standing a good distance away like 3m. But essentially what you are saying is that at any resolution the bitrate for that resolution is too low so you have to use a resolution that gets you the datarate you need because fuzzy 4K is as good as sharp 1080p which is what i have been trying to explain. As 4K is already more resoltution than the eye can see particularly in a moving image even if it's not pin sharp it does not matter, so why use 8K or 32Mp frames, I mean that is insane. It won't help on youtube if the limit is 4K and as 4K is more than the eye can see then do it in 4K. again, we are only talking about talking head shooting here not filming the lsat example of a natural landscape before it is destroyed forever.
I shoot my stuff in a mix of 4K (60Mbps) and 1080p (28Mbps).
4K for teardown and other detailed stuff like my Apollo 50th outside talking head shots.
But things like the Apollo 50th panel discussions were 1080p for the lower file sizes and the uselessness of it for low light indoor talking head from a distance shots.
Recent scope bench tutorial videos like 1228 and 1223 for example are only 1080p worthy.
@Simon, you are assuming that when youtube provides you a 1080p video that it is pixel accurate without smearing anything. It is far from it. Youtube's 1080p smears a box of pixels of around 3x3, even 4x4 when the details are soft or there is motion. Yes, Youtube will compress sharp black on white text relatively down to a pixel, but it has trouble with fine textures like skin of smooth objects.
Now, it looks like I need to put my money where my mouth is, so, I will grab a screenshot of the same video with my desktop set to 1920x1080, but I'll grab the same frame with youtube set to 1080p and 4k.
Here you go: ((this is where I got this frame from) https://youtu.be/A9J1gkw9BI0?t=181 )
I assure you no trickery, These are the same frame in the video which is why I included the original source frames and youtube time stamp. Yes, if you check side by side, there are other details in the sand on the table which are all smeared up, but, I used the black glove since the smearing is clearly chunks over hundreds of pixels.
Original Youtube video set to 1080p snapshot in .png which was played on my desktop which is set to 1920x1080:
Same original Youtube video set to 4k snapshot in .png which was played on my desktop which is set to 1920x1080:
Side by side close up of the glove. notice how youtube's 1080p version is smeared with a fraction, if any, of the black rubber texture, stretch marks, pores and some sand grains which are not there which are present in the 4k version which was played on a 1080p desktop.
All these details are easy to be represented on a 1080p display and large enough to see at a distance since they are HUGE, like 20x20 pixels, or on a 45 degree angle, 20x60 pixels.
I know how mentally when looking at people bodies, faces, clothing, how our mind can mentally fill in the blanks ignoring this smearing effect, especially how you may be used to cable/satellite crap 1080p tv, but the same smearing effect is present there as well. A simple 1080p blueray at 1080p has better definition than youtube's 4k video and it has nothing to do with fine the dots are. A normal bluray would have not trouble capturing that black glove's subtle texture's shading and stress lines. In fact, I seen 720p recordings outperform youtube's 1080p mode on a regular basis.
-
Ok, finally go the new picture attachment system to do what I want. It has a few bugs with multiple attachments...
There is no cheating in my above comparison. That scene was relatively still without motion.
Youtube's 1080p sucks crap just looking at a latex gloved finger which was videoed so close, it was as large as most of the screen.
Youtube's 4k by comparison also sucks crap considering a normal 1080p bluray would have done a better job at 1080p native with that latex glove.
Imagine how much better an authentic UHD 4k Bluray at 4k must be beyond youtube's crummy 4k mode which only comes close to a bluray 1080p when down sampled to 1080p.
@Simon, it's not the pixel resolution that's important here, it that youtube allows 4x the bandwidth for a 4k upload. This leads to less compression smearing, however, bluray allows for up to 50megabit/second burst during rapid scene changes with a sustained 35megabit per second. This is why even the youtube 4k down sampled to 1080p is still said to be worse than a 1080p bluray with that 50megabit per second bandwidth which would even reveal the background noise grain of the camera's CCD in that scene, not to mention some of compression smearing which is still present in the demo image I uploaded.
-
Surely the major point of 8K is not what it does now but what it does for tomorrow. Wouldn't you have liked to see the moon landing stuff in a decent res with HDR? The kind of quality that their static photos gave? So in 10 years time when someone views these youtube videos, don't you want them to look decent instead of 'state-of-the-ark' from a decade ago? We are limited now mostly in bandwidht, online and OTA. Maybe next year they improve massively and the thing that's going to fill 'em up is hi-res video (probably porn). You want to reshoot all your videos to take advantage?
I scan all paperwork that comes in, and regardless of the use it's going to be put to right now I scan at the highest resolution I can. You can always make things look worse; improving quality takes foresight.
-
Wouldn't you have liked to see the moon landing stuff in a decent res with HDR?
Are you seriously comparing videos of people babbling about hardware to a moon landing?
Not everything is worth the storage costs. I'm pretty sure you don't scan advertisements and spam, for example. -
Are you seriously comparing videos of people babbling about hardware to a moon landing?
Not everything is worth the storage costs.
Irrelevant, this is not taxpayer money here, its his own money so if its worth it to him thats all that matters.
The server was using seagate X10 drives, ~$27/TB. Thats enough for an hour or two of footage, hardly a lavish expense. -
Quote
Not everything is worth the storage costs.
We're talking shooting, not uploading. Shoot it hi-res and you can upload in lo-res, then mid-res, then hi-res as the whim takes you. The storage is all yours so it's your decision and no-one elses.
Or shoot in lo-res and then upload in, well, what you got?
I am reminded of looking as SD video and wondering WTF this 4K rubbish is about - surely HD is easily good enough. Who would need some fancy pie in the sky like 4k? And yet not long after it's the minimal spec for just about everything. Why do you think 8k won't follow the same path? Gosh, the way things are looking it's even too late to be an early adopter now!
[edit: typos. keyboard must be stuck in the MDA era] -
I am reminded of looking as SD video and wondering WTF this 4K rubbish is about
No, that's completely different to what I was talking about. I was countering your argument that "we should use 4K for everything because it might be the standard in the future".
Sure, anything unique or important, you should shoot and store in the highest resolution and best quality you are able to. I do so myself. That does not mean you should do everything that way, just because most of the content is not worth it. And, before you upgrade your camera to a higher resolution, you should ensure that you have everything else well in hand, that it is truly the camera that is the quality bottleneck, and not something else.
Right now, because I have a 1920x1080 display, I prefer 1080p content. That may change in the future. It definitely will, if I get a larger than 22" display -- however, as I mentioned before, color reproduction etc. are more important to me, so I tend to look at the panel quality instead of resolution first. Sometimes, when I watch videos, I drop the resolution because I want to drop the bandwidth used; usually because I'm doing something else (say, downloading large software packages or whatever) and not really watching the video. It annoys the heck out of me that I cannot keep the audio quality high, while dropping the video quality. I especially like technical stuff where I can switch to looking at a very high resolution photo of the thing at hand (outside Youtube, of course), while still listening. (I do not like looking at talking heads at all, btw; they annoy me.)
I would be surprised if that kind of quality jumping is not common among other viewers with max. 20 Mbit/s net connections.
In practice, my stance means that one should consider stuff like lighting, high-res photos of the details (on a forum or a separate article associated with the video), audio quality, and so on, much before worrying about whether to use 1080p or 4K resolution right now. If you have the hardware, sure; use it. But, first ensure that you have the lighting, mics, suitable stage (non-echoy, suitable background), still photography equipment etc. at hand, or you're putting the cart before the horse. Priorities.
Even then, the bit rate (or more precisely, compression quality, as compression efficiency varies between formats) is more important than the resolution. For example, if you have poor lighting, so your camera sensor is struggling to get the necessary dynamic range, you'll have a noisy image, no matter the bit rate. That poses a huge problem for compression, especially DCT-based ones (all we use right now are), as the compression algorithms cannot really distinguish noise components from details. So, if you use a 4K camera with poor lighting, you can get worse visual results than using a 1080p camera with good lighting.
Resolution just isn't that important: it does not override the other stuff you need to get good visual quality.
Some think that color correction can handle lighting deficiencies, but that's just not true. Old-style fluorescent lights are notorious for this, because their spectrum is spiky and not smooth, we humans just happen to perceive it as white. However, different materials -- even skin -- reflect that light in different ways, because the light spectrum only contains spikes, instead of being continuous. It can happen that a pigment on the surface happens to absorb some particular frequencies well (absorption lines), and if those coincide with some (but not all) of the spikes in the light spectrum, you get a completely wrong color for that surface. The only way to fix that kind of errors is to recolor the image by hand, pixel by pixel, because the original color information simply did not reach the camera sensor at all, due to poor lighting! -
Wouldn't you have liked to see the moon landing stuff in a decent res with HDR?
Are you seriously comparing videos of people babbling about hardware to a moon landing?
Not everything is worth the storage costs. I'm pretty sure you don't scan advertisements and spam, for example.
I just had a guy on Twitter try and argue that I should delete all my old RAW footage hard drives and re-use them
All my old stuff was heavily compressed in the transcode to save space and upload time back in the day. I could actually go back to the raw footage and redo higher quality versions of old videos if I wanted to. -
Another video related with the subject:
Basically here they explain everything that was done and their own choices. Yes it's a sponsored video from a company that sells video and photography equipment but it gives a little more insight related with the topic in question. -
I could actually go back to the raw footage and redo higher quality versions of old videos if I wanted to.
Yup, exactly. You do it if you think it is worth it, not because it is possible.
Whenever I create illustrations in Inkscape, I keep my originals in Inkscape SVG (has all sorts of extra metadata), and save a copy as plain or optimized SVG, and hand-tune it if I feel like it. I often do that while still thinking about the problem at hand. Sometimes, I just grab a screenshot or existing image, add the illustrative bits, flatten the image, and export it, without retaining the originals, if that works better or I feel like it. Just because something can be done at maximum resolution, does not mean it is always worth it. -
@Simon, it's not the pixel resolution that's important here, it that youtube allows 4x the bandwidth for a 4k upload. This leads to less compression smearing, however, bluray allows for up to 50megabit/second burst during rapid scene changes with a sustained 35megabit per second. This is why even the youtube 4k down sampled to 1080p is still said to be worse than a 1080p bluray with that 50megabit per second bandwidth which would even reveal the background noise grain of the camera's CCD in that scene, not to mention some of compression smearing which is still present in the demo image I uploaded.
Oh, screw me! what have I been saying post after post? that the only reason for 4K is the bandwidth you get with it and that HD with the same bandwidth would look as good! but no everyone can see 4K resolution and I'm the mad one! -
Right now, because I have a 1920x1080 display, I prefer 1080p content. That may change in the future. It definitely will, if I get a larger than 22" display -- however, as I mentioned before, color reproduction etc. are more important to me, so I tend to look at the panel quality instead of resolution first. Sometimes, when I watch videos, I drop the resolution because I want to drop the bandwidth used; usually because I'm doing something else (say, downloading large software packages or whatever) and not really watching the video. It annoys the heck out of me that I cannot keep the audio quality high, while dropping the video quality. I especially like technical stuff where I can switch to looking at a very high resolution photo of the thing at hand (outside Youtube, of course), while still listening. (I do not like looking at talking heads at all, btw; they annoy me.)
Yep same here, ok i have 4K displays but yea, if it's not important, on a small HD screen or I am not lookind at it I set it to 720p, -
I could actually go back to the raw footage and redo higher quality versions of old videos if I wanted to.
Yup, exactly. You do it if you think it is worth it, not because it is possible.
Er, but that's what we're arguing. He couldn't do that if his original footage was the res and quality of his upload. Did he think, then, "in a few years I'll have broadband and YouTube will have limitless storage AND viewers will have 4K monitors"? I doubt it - more likely he did it, and stored it, because he could. -
And I'm saying, not could, but because that seemed the reasonable choice.
Right now, if you do say BigClive or AvE or EEVblog type of stuff, I don't see resolution as the bottleneck. I see lighting, audio, and colors more important -- and I do like how Dave does those in general. For the masters, you probably can get more bang for your buck by using less compression, i.e. higher bit rates for the 1080p resolution.
I'm only arguing against 4K being the "obvious" choice. In my opinion, it is not obvious, not yet, unless you got those other things (lighting, audio/mics, background, non-echoing "studio" setup) taken care of first. When you have lighting you don't need to fight against, with good enough color rendering index that things look the same on the video as they look to you in real life, and you don't need to fight to get your audio clean, stable, and so on, then the next step may be upgrading resolution; however, that requires a much more grunty workstation for video editing, more storage space for the masters, more upload bandwidth, and so on. Or, the better option might be to keep the same resolution for now, but get a second camera or a microscrope for close-up videos, and a dedicated still cam for close-up zoomable photos for the website. Or something else not 4K.
To recap: maxing out on video resolution is not a sensible way to go. You need to look at what you are doing, and maximize the video quality, however you quantify it, and your resource use to get there. Usually it means getting gear often ignored, like better lights (and lots of it), good mics, even good still cameras for tech stuff for associated articles/blog posts. It depends on the content.