- Joined
- Jun 28, 2015
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 7
I qued a clip in media encoder that was 8 minutes, 4 hrs to encode! h.264, you tube 1080
Really....seriously
Make sure you have Open GL selected in encoder?
I qued a clip in media encoder that was 8 minutes, 4 hrs to encode! h.264, you tube 1080
Really....seriously
The higher the quality of the source video the higher quality every resolution below it will be.Not sure if I should start a new thread but ...If I film in 4k and export to 1080 in final cut will it still be better then filming in 1080 and exporting to 1080... Because I can't seem to be allowed to upload in 4k anywhere directly from final cut so I'm deciding if it's worth filling up my hard drive with 4k over and over again.
The higher the quality of the source video the higher quality every resolution below it will be.
I didn't think of that. Hmmm. If you take the 4K first into color correction in a 4K sequence - then take that one out to your final 1080p delivery. I'll test that. Shoot 4K, grade in 4K then downconvert. .. (few minutes later)
OK Here is another example with CLIP 1 and CLIP 2. You guess which is which. 4K and 1080p shot. THIS time, both with color grading. The same effect on both clips. RGB Curves, Vignette and Grad in Sky. Effects applied in a 4K sequence on 4K clip before bringing it into the 1080 sequence for comparison again the other clip. Both rendered out at 1080p30.
Your choppiness is likely your shutter speed. In the video world there is something called the 180 degree rule where your shutter speed should be double your frame rate.Thanks, I have not tried down scaling 4k to 1080. Does the 1080 look better? Will that also eliminate the choppiness of the video after being down scaled?
Thanks for your reply
Rchjr
You should downscale first. Render clip as 10 bit (ProRes or Gopro Cineform for example) and then color grade. I will do some tests today and publish here.
Maybe 4K a tiny bit better on large views but about equal to inferior to direct 1080 at 400% zoom in.Promised test for you guys.
Enjoy.
Promised test for you guys.
Enjoy.
WelcomeDefinitely Clip 1 is 4k.
Received my P3 a while ago and have done amazing things with it.
BTW my first post on this site
I chose the P3P because I got tired of the retailers telling me that the P3A's weren't in, but had plenty of the P3P's. Looking back, I'm glad I did!I personally chose a P3A because I thought that for the expected life of the bird that I would not really need 4k, nor do I currently have a 4k monitor. I thought about resale and the higher residual value of a P3P, but I just know that I never really sell anything. The P3A seemed fine to me.
Now that I have a P3A, I sometimes wish I had gone with a P3P for just one reason. The pesky tilted horizon similar to the tilted horizon in your videos. I did not know at the time of purchase that a tilted horizon was such an issue. An issue that is now well known but still may never be fixed.
With a 4k source, I could have corrected the tilted horizon in post and still had a stunningly crisp video remaining. With a 1080 source, any cropping to edit the tilted horizon results in a less than 1080 video with visible (to me) degradation.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have gone with a P3P.
Thanks, now if you extrapolate this test to my footage you get the answer !
Thats a great test showing the integer transform compression of h.264 in the details. In the same given bitspace, 1080 just has less to compress. Nice view BTW. Of course youtube adds it's own to the mix.
I think 4K would win hands down if you show it on a 4K monitor compared to 1080p upscaled to 4K. Or if you scale 4K up 200% in a 1080p sequence compared to 1080p footage scaled up the same which would look awful. Otherwise, the benefits are somewhat more unclear. I think the 1080 stuff is nice in your example.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.