Bigger is Better?

[Greg Hark]

As a still photographer, I appreciate larger files for post-production. However as the file sizes for my raw images are getting larger, my time require just to import them into Lightroom seems to be taking longer and longer.

I am new to video and just don't want to take the approach "bigger is better" if the video is just going to appear on YouTube for a realestate property listing, any suggestions on setting up your camera as a starting point knowing this will only play to sell a property for a short life online.

Something to get into your computer, tweak it and get it to the client quickly.

 

[Jim G]

Regarding file sizes, the benefit in video is the same as in photography. More room to edit, crop, etc. when creating the video. I do all video in 4k, and then I download the video as 1080 and often 720k for the reason you mention. They all end up on websites. The length of the video should be in the 30 seconds to no more than 1minute 30 seconds. My stats show most viewers stop after 30 seconds.

 

[ArrUnTuS]

Powerful video editing programs allow you to export videos to "Youtube" format with the best conditions. Keep in mind that when you upload a video to Youtube, for example, Vimeo would be another example but with more quality, it makes its own changes. By uploading the video with the features they use, you already control the work from start to finish.

You can record the videos as you feel more comfortable, taking into account the final destination, and then export them directly into the correct destination format.

 

[NIFLY]

Hi Greg, all

as well as the technical side there's also a logistical one. Plan the shot, have several dry runs without shooting and then execute a couple of passes with the recording switched on. Stop the recording between passes. That way you are capturing the minimum length of time and it impacts positively upon the whole downstream workflow. I shoot a lot of talking-head interviews and I managed to cut down my post-production times by briefing the subjects to give 10 second answers. That way they self-edit and prioritise before speaking. Without that I get rambling sentences that have good bits which are hard to extract from amongst the padding. Same thing when we film an entire flight and then hunt for the diamonds .

Personally I will always go for the best quality output available from my device that my editing machine can handle, basically anything except RAW video. I never know when I'll need it again. Consider using proxy files for editing to help you handle 4k. I shoot everything in 4K a little wider than I need and refine the composition via cropping later. Everything I output is 1080p so I take advantage of the sensor given that it's going to be downres-ed anyway.

I'm not sure what craft you fly but explore camera modes available to you, some require lots of work in post, others are screen ready so you have less work to do after you shoot it.

Hope this is helpful

Paul

 

[ArrUnTuS]

What resolution do you use to record in 4K? The real 4K or the fake 4K?

I'll explain myself. There is a general confusion, among the professionals I hope not, of what resolution is 4K. It's all because manufacturers of both capture and display devices are calling all 4K.

Real 4K -> DCI 4K -> 4,096 x 2,160 pixels -> 1.9:1 ratio -> Cinema, YT with black strips
Fake 4K -> UHD -> 3.840 x 2.160 pixels -> 1.78:1 ratio -> Used in television, YT without black bands

I usually record everything in UHD because most of the time they are for video streaming services, Youtube or Vimeo. It takes up less space and does not have to be resized.

How do you guys do it?

 

[HawkView]

Most of my recording is in UHD because that is what most clients expect or ask for. However, on the three jobs I have done for movie production, they all required "real" 4K to match what they were shooting with their terrestrial cameras.

What resolution do you use to record in 4K? The real 4K or the fake 4K?/QUOTE]

 

[Tim Jones]

Like anything you are in a two stage process.
Collecting the content
Presenting the content

Here is the very simple answer to your question
When preparing the content for presentation which is better
Having more to work with, that can be edited down to the final
Or
Finding out that you needed more and did not collect it

I still mainly present in 1080
But never collect less than 2.7K on standard frame rates
and never less than 1080 when I need slow motion faster frame rates

 

[ArrUnTuS]

Like anything you are in a two stage process.
Collecting the content
Presenting the content

Here is the very simple answer to your question
When preparing the content for presentation which is better
Having more to work with, that can be edited down to the final
Or
Finding out that you needed more and did not collect it

I still mainly present in 1080
But never collect less than 2.7K on standard frame rates
and never less than 1080 when I need slow motion faster frame rates

Yeah, that's another thing to keep in mind. The resolution of the processed work and the possibility of making slow motions and the final speed you want to achieve.

Recording to 4K always allows you to zoom with quality and much more if the final resolution is 1080p. Now we can also opt for 4K at 60 fps. If that frame rate is good enough for slow motions you already have it all. I think that it is better that the source of the images have the best possible quality (reasonably) and then it will be reduced to what is asked for being able to do other intermediate operations with quality. Then you only need a computer powerful enough to work comfortably with high resolutions and high bitrates or use proxies that are your friends otherwise

 

[NIFLY]

Yeah, that's another thing to keep in mind. The resolution of the processed work and the possibility of making slow motions and the final speed you want to achieve.

Recording to 4K always allows you to zoom with quality and much more if the final resolution is 1080p. Now we can also opt for 4K at 60 fps. If that frame rate is good enough for slow motions you already have it all. I think that it is better that the source of the images have the best possible quality (reasonably) and then it will be reduced to what is asked for being able to do other intermediate operations with quality. Then you only need a computer powerful enough to work comfortably with high resolutions and high bitrates or use proxies that are your friends otherwise

UHD and Cinema 4k are both 2160p! lol

Yes I shoot UHD rather than true 4k - my main cam (Sony FS5) and B-Cam (A6500) are also UHD I don't have a cinema 4k option.

If I'm shooting for something that needs heavy grading I might shoot 1080p - on my ground cams, the FS5's 1080p is 10bit 4:2:2 rather than the UHD at 8bit 4:2:0, or if I want to access 100fps (PAL) - most times however I just colour balance a 25p image. Cropping in post is much more a priority to my workflow than is having 10bit colour, especially with interviews where I can do a 150-200% zoom to cover a cut so it looks like a new camera angle...

 

[ArrUnTuS]

UHD and Cinema 4k are both 2160p! lol

Yes I shoot UHD rather than true 4k - my main cam (Sony FS5) and B-Cam (A6500) are also UHD I don't have a cinema 4k option.

If I'm shooting for something that needs heavy grading I might shoot 1080p - on my ground cams, the FS5's 1080p is 10bit 4:2:2 rather than the UHD at 8bit 4:2:0, or if I want to access 100fps (PAL) - most times however I just colour balance a 25p image. Cropping in post is much more a priority to my workflow than is having 10bit colour, especially with interviews where I can do a 150-200% zoom to cover a cut so it looks like a new camera angle...

From what you're saying, the end result is for TV?

I believe that the UHD has been imposed by the aspect ratio. At the end of the day, how much of the content processed today is destined to film content? 5%? (to say something, it is very little in comparison, I have no data). The same aspect ratio applies to playback devices. Televisions that are much more than cinemas, monitors, even mobile phones (although here it can vary a little bit). Therefore, manufacturers produce and sell what is most in demand or output.

Was it the other way around?

 

[NIFLY]

From what you're saying, the end result is for TV?

Yes, exactly Arruntus. My standard format is PAL 16:9 widescreen. I shoot mostly corporate or arts-related media for web publishing. Not enough of it makes it to TV unfortunately but some does occasionally, I am also an approved independent producer for BBC (AP List) although work has been slow coming my way. I am hoping my PfCO certification helps things along there as well as in my own practice

 

[ArrUnTuS]

Yes, exactly Arruntus. My standard format is PAL 16:9 widescreen. I shoot mostly corporate or arts-related media for web publishing. Not enough of it makes it to TV unfortunately but some does occasionally, I am also an approved independent producer for BBC (AP List) although work has been slow coming my way. I am hoping my PfCO certification helps things along there as well as in my own practice

From what you were saying, it seemed to me

It's amazing how many video formats have been used in the industry in the past. It seems that now the codec H. 264 has been normalized and soon the H. 265 will be the most used codec. With regard to the resolutions, it also seems that a consensus is being reached throughout the industry worldwide. It is an advantage that programs such as Premiere or Final Cut already allow you to export directly to the most used formats and resolutions such as Youtube or Vimeo and where only the compression and pass parameters change.

Regarding the aspect ratio, it looks like we're going to be on TV for a long time at 16:9, but when we talk about computers it's not so clear where it's going to evolve, given the increasing resolutions that are emerging with a very large number of new monitors. We'll see

 

[Phil at Aeriallens]

....
Something to get into your computer, tweak it and get it to the client quickly.

I'm not deeply immersed in video, but can say that 1080p captured at 60 frames per second tends to yield all I need, and my customers are very happy with lots of compliments. I have been a bit tempted to use 4K because I like the ability to zoom-in/crop in what gets published as 1080p anyway without paying a penalty. Truth is, however, I really prefer 1080p 60fps out of the camera anyway because it processes SO MUCH faster on my iMac (never bogs down with 1080, where 4K -- unless downsized -- would take much longer to render out). Besides, drone-wise my "old" P3A does a great job but is not 4K capable, like my hand held camera is.

By the way, I use Davinci Resolve 14.2 almost exclusively for editing and grading, because it is free and has great features such as selectively making those brown/yellow Winter lawns look a little greener. Quick Quality is the word in real estate (well, two words).

Good luck to you!

 

[PatM]

What resolution do you use to record in 4K? The real 4K or the fake 4K?

I'll explain myself. There is a general confusion, among the professionals I hope not, of what resolution is 4K. It's all because manufacturers of both capture and display devices are calling all 4K.

Real 4K -> DCI 4K -> 4,096 x 2,160 pixels -> 1.9:1 ratio -> Cinema, YT with black strips
Fake 4K -> UHD -> 3.840 x 2.160 pixels -> 1.78:1 ratio -> Used in television, YT without black bands

I usually record everything in UHD because most of the time they are for video streaming services, Youtube or Vimeo. It takes up less space and does not have to be resized.

How do you guys do it?

Actually cinema films aspect ratios are called Anamorphic and the actual aspect ratio is 2.35:1

A lot of people put black bars on their video to try and obtain a cinematic look but for sure 4096 x 2160 is not Anamorphic or a cinema Aspect Ratio

Today the 16 x 9 is a standard aspect ratio across many formats as you point out; TV, Youtube, Vimeo and most monitors TV's of all sizes and computer screens.

Before HD, the resolution moved from a decades long standard of 480 vertical lines to 540 sometime in the late 90's and early 2000 (depending on what source you may want to find). Here in the states for most video was interlaced with 540 lower lines of resolution and 540 upper lines of resolution. While most cameras today shoot in progressive frame format, there are still cameras being used that produce interlaced footage in TV broadcasting.

High Definition was the term coined for the footage that was double the height so 540 x 2 became 1080 and when you add in the 16 x 9 format the width is 1920. This became the industry standard that camera and TV makers followed as did Youtube, Vimeo and others.

The term 4K was coined (as before) by basing the size off of doubling the height so; 1920 x 1080 doubled as before would yield an image twice as high and twice as wide - 3840 x 2160. Its 4 (Four) times the size of the standard

4K cinema/anamorphic footage will have a resolution 5076 x 2160

The cameras on most of our aircraft use a sensor whose maximum output is in a 4 x 3 standard. The video is cropped from the full image to meet the standard format of 16 x 9, and while there is the ability to add in the extra 256 pixels to the width (4096 in your case) its not a standard but more likely; that is the maximum image size that can be written for a given speed by your particular camera.

Our camera's image size when - talking video - is limited by how fast they can write data to the storage. This is why when you have a camera that can shoot full for 4K at just 30 FPS, but can write 1080 at four times the rate - because it is using four times less sensor area (data)

I shoot based upon the needs of the final output which; in nearly all of my cases are video at 16 x 9 and pictures using the full sensor to get a 4 x 3

 

[ArrUnTuS]

Masterful. Very well explained. I add a couple of notes on the differences in what was being done in America and Europe.

The good thing is that it has now become globalised and we don't have to talk about the American and European formats (Japanese would enter here too). The difference was not only the resolution but also the frame rate and codec.

Finally, the industry has finally agreed and with the arrival (it takes time, this sector is moving slowly and for a few more years the "old"ones will be used) of the new codecs and resolutions finally we do not have to go crazy. Geographical barriers are also "removed" and no matter where you record and with what system, we will all use the same system.

The differentiation between NTSC (American) and PAL (European) format is only residual and speaking of drones is more visible in the small FPV cameras. Soon we will see that the minimum resolution will be 1080p and then that difference will also disappear.

The sector that moves the most content, if we don't count Internet, is TV. The vast majority of TV channels have already adopted the HD format and many already play with 4K and other intermediate resolutions. Emissions testing has been done on even 8K. Making the TV park renovate is a process that takes many years as well as the adaptation to aerial transmission. If the signal is received by a telecommunications company, cable, fiber optic, etc., the conversion, if necessary, is made by the decoder or tuner.

Can you say this is like talking about history?