4K Video - is it even worth it?

[Dobbsjr]

Close enough.

[Keudn]

Wow wouldn't it be awesome to be able to load the 4k video for the higher bitrate, too bad I can barely load 720p without pausing.......

[EposVox]

Wow, this was really interesting videos.

Not sure how happy YT will be, if ppl with 1080p cameras start to upload in 4k, it may well be that YT will start checking for up-scaling and come up with restrictions.

As for me, I hate YT´s low bitrates, it completely ruins the asphalt when uploading my videos from racetrack, but not sure if I´m willing to go for more than doubled rendering and upload time. Never the less, this was an amazing video .

It's already been common practice to upload in 1440p, even back when higher than 1080p was considered "Original" quality; people would upscale past 1080p for higher bitrate.

[Freeman]

It's already been common practice to upload in 1440p, even back when higher than 1080p was considered "Original" quality; people would upscale past 1080p for higher bitrate.

No, it wasn´t and it still is not. Just looking at my subscription box, LTT are pretty much the only channel that does it. And I´m no big uploader. I just upload a few onboards from racetrack or whatever else interesting I capture for family and friends to share, so quality matter, but is not as important. But you are right, that this option is here pretty much since YT introduced 1440p.

[Mandrewoid]

So, which moderately affordable camera has the best bitrate? Was gonna buy a g4,I guess I fell victim to dat marketing

[nickl]

I have a bit of a problem with my setup and 4K, I think I have good enough internet to load the video, but I'm not sure if my graphics card has enough horsepower to downscale the 4K to my 1080p screen lol.

[xnamkcor]

This fact that uploading at 4k gives you a higher bitrate is the reason I upload all things at 720p or higher. When I tried to upload 320x240 or 640x480 video to YouTube, YouTube would just give it a really bad bitrate. So, I upscale it using Nearest Neighbor. If possible I double the height and the width, since MP4 tends to encode in patches of 2x2 pixels. So if those are identical, it's more efficient. Or so I tell myself so I can sleep at night.

 

Does anybody have specifics as to the MP4 settings YouTube uses to 4k?

 

Also, some shameless plugs of some videos.

 

4k Upload of a vertical video. Is it 4k vertical? Does anybody have a 4k capable Android that works in portrait mode? It only ever reports 480p or something when I play it back. Is it saying it's playing it back with 480 "vertical" pixels, but sideways? I'm unsure. I probably should have picked a better pattern or something. Sorry. Uploaded video was an uncompressed AVI(stream of bitmaps) at about 0.00001FPS. One frame.

 

An example of the different qualities of video of low resolution sources. Change video quality to see. Source is a GBA game(240x160).

 

Nothing too special, just showing off high FPS recording with DXTory and RAM Drive(Disk? I forget).

 

"240p-320p"-ish source.

 

 

Edit: Who's the genius who decided the forum should show links to YouTube as actual video inserts? Oh well. I put links. If the forum programmers want all YouTube links to turn into graphical inserts, who am I to argue?

 

Edit 2:

 

Not sure how happy YT will be, if ppl with 1080p cameras start to upload in 4k, it may well be that YT will start checking for up-scaling and come up with restrictions.

 

I'm sure they also don't like me uploading gigabytes of video because they refuse to support lossless codecs.

Edited August 16, 2015 by xnamkcor

[Guest Johnny5g]

i want more moving vlog

[.spider.]

I'm sure they also don't like me uploading gigabytes of video because they refuse to support lossless codecs.

They do support lossless encoded videos for example with x264.

BTW: MP4 isn't a codec and a modulus of 16 is standard.

[xnamkcor]

They do support lossless encoded videos for example with x264.

BTW: MP4 isn't a codec and a modulus of 16 is standard.

the x264 "lossless" isn't true lossless. It just calls itself that because it thinks it's "visually indistinguishable".

 

BTW: Nobody cares. Everyone knows I'm not referring the container.

 

PS: You forgot to mention that "AVI" isn't a codec too. You could at least be consistent in your pedantry.

[dcb-z]

So whose Jazz figure was that?

[.spider.]

the x264 "lossless" isn't true lossless. It just calls itself that because it thinks it's "visually indistinguishable".

That's wrong.

BTW: Nobody cares. Everyone knows I'm not referring the container.

Nope for a lot of people it's not clear

[Arty]

personally 60fps@1080p > 4k

[bottonetto]

For the GH4 4k to 1080p comparison did you guys use the 200 mbps setting for 1080p or 100 mbps?

 

I always wondered what kind of picture quality difference there was with 4k since it only allows half the bitrate for 4x the pixels. I've kept most of my footage at 1080p because of it.

[xnamkcor]

For the GH4 4k to 1080p comparison did you guys use the 200 mbps setting for 1080p or 100 mbps?

 

I always wondered what kind of picture quality difference there was with 4k since it only allows half the bitrate for 4x the pixels. I've kept most of my footage at 1080p because of it.

 

You could take two videos of the same thing and put it through a video comparison utility.

 

http://compression.ru/video/quality_measure/index_en.html

[bottonetto]

You could take two videos of the same thing and put it through a video comparison utility.

 

http://compression.ru/video/quality_measure/index_en.html

 

I might do that if I find the time. Maybe with more complex scenery and high motion to see if there's changes in certain situations.