Author Topic: 4096 x 2160p vs 3840x2160 (Read 11159 times)

J_Stock · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2019, 10:47 »

I don't know what program you're using, but in AE, you can right-click on the clip in your composition and choose:

1. Transform
2. Fit to Comp Width

It will calculate the proper size and proportionally upscale your clip. And yes, it will chop of a little on the top and bottom, but that would be minimal.

Just make sure your composition in AE is 4096x2160.

Or, just scale up to 102.4%.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2019, 20:10 »

You're probably overthinking this one. We see lost sales because the clip isn't 4k, because it's not ProRes or better, because it's not 23.98 or 24 but I've never had anyone ever ask for C4k over UHD or the other way around.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2019, 08:47 »

Quote from: PeterChigmaroff on November 17, 2019, 20:10

You're probably overthinking this one.

I agree.

Quote from: PeterChigmaroff on November 17, 2019, 20:10

We see lost sales because the clip isn't 4k, because it's not ProRes or better, because it's not 23.98 or 24 but I've never had anyone ever ask for C4k over UHD or the other way around.

Do you mean that buyers have contacted you, asking for ProRes, 4k, and/or 23.98p and you didn't have it, and therefore they didn't buy? Or do you THINK you lost sales?

---

The last three months I've sold around 50 clips on Pond5.

94% were HD.

6% 4k.

36% of the HD sales had 4k (ProRes) versions available. 64% were HD native.

---

From this small sample I can just assume that MOST buyers don't care about 4k, at least not enough to spend more $$$. They also MIGHT not care that much about getting ProRes since the h264 downconverted versions worked fine.

Of course, very small sample, and I don't have time to go back further right now, but right now it seems HD h264 is still fine for most, with a few "advanced" buyers wanting 4k.

The download time alone for, say, 30 ProRes HQ 4k clips would be a couple of hours, which may or may not be too slow for some customers.

---

Just a bit of guesswork here... Anyone with conflicting data?

J_Stock · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2019, 09:05 »

For most stock buyers, codec doesn't matter. Frame rate doesn't matter. Resolution doesn't matter.

What matters is the content.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #29 on:** November 18, 2019, 12:05 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on November 18, 2019, 08:47

Quote from: PeterChigmaroff on November 17, 2019, 20:10
You're probably overthinking this one.

I agree.

Quote from: PeterChigmaroff on November 17, 2019, 20:10
We see lost sales because the clip isn't 4k, because it's not ProRes or better, because it's not 23.98 or 24 but I've never had anyone ever ask for C4k over UHD or the other way around.

Do you mean that buyers have contacted you, asking for ProRes, 4k, and/or 23.98p and you didn't have it, and therefore they didn't buy? Or do you THINK you lost sales?

---

The last three months I've sold around 50 clips on Pond5.

94% were HD.

6% 4k.

36% of the HD sales had 4k (ProRes) versions available. 64% were HD native.

---

From this small sample I can just assume that MOST buyers don't care about 4k, at least not enough to spend more $$$. They also MIGHT not care that much about getting ProRes since the h264 downconverted versions worked fine.

Of course, very small sample, and I don't have time to go back further right now, but right now it seems HD h264 is still fine for most, with a few "advanced" buyers wanting 4k.

The download time alone for, say, 30 ProRes HQ 4k clips would be a couple of hours, which may or may not be too slow for some customers.

---

Just a bit of guesswork here... Anyone with conflicting data?

I'm sure your stats are accurate. We have lost sales to poor codecs, to being HD and to not having the desired frame rate but never to a clip being UHD. We had the right clip with wrong tech specs. We also see requests for specific frame rates, codecs and resolution but I've not seen one that specified C4k. I don't acutally think there is an overall best practices to all this. Just pleasing some of the people most of the time. You choose who those people are.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #30 on:** November 18, 2019, 13:12 »

I've just realized the HD downsampled versions of 4K clips are offered with very small file sizes Shutterstock.
A 10second clip is 8 Megabytes. That's around 6mbit/s bitrate.

Isn't that unacceptably low? I cannot imagine providing useful quality for further processing in that size. That should be around Youtube quality which is sometimes questionable even for final delivery. And stock clips should be considered like raw material for further processing.

I always have the intention to provide HD clips in 100mbit/s the minimum

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #31 on:** November 18, 2019, 13:36 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on November 18, 2019, 13:12

I've just realized the HD downsampled versions of 4K clips are offered with very small file sizes Shutterstock.
A 10second clip is 8 Megabytes. That's around 6mbit/s bitrate.

Where do you see that? I see from around 25-80 mbit/sec depending on the content.

100 mbit for HD is good, but in reality, NEAR perfect quality can be obtained with 100 mbit for 4k, which most smaller cameras film with (GH4/GH5 100/150 mbit) and that 4k quality is quite pristine. No, not as good as a ProRes capture of course, but very good.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #32 on:** November 18, 2019, 14:30 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on November 18, 2019, 13:36

Quote from: Desintegrator on November 18, 2019, 13:12
I've just realized the HD downsampled versions of 4K clips are offered with very small file sizes Shutterstock.
A 10second clip is 8 Megabytes. That's around 6mbit/s bitrate.

Where do you see that? I see from around 25-80 mbit/sec depending on the content.

100 mbit for HD is good, but in reality, NEAR perfect quality can be obtained with 100 mbit for 4k, which most smaller cameras film with (GH4/GH5 100/150 mbit) and that 4k quality is quite pristine. No, not as good as a ProRes capture of course, but very good.

If i click on my older 4k clips, the HD version file size is around 100-200 Megabytes
On clips uploaded nowadays it's 8-10 Megabytes...

I understand that 100 mbit/s is not absolutely necessary for good quality HD, but 6 seems way too low

Desintegrator · « **Reply #33 on:** November 18, 2019, 14:34 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on November 18, 2019, 14:30

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on November 18, 2019, 13:36
Quote from: Desintegrator on November 18, 2019, 13:12
I've just realized the HD downsampled versions of 4K clips are offered with very small file sizes Shutterstock.
A 10second clip is 8 Megabytes. That's around 6mbit/s bitrate.

Where do you see that? I see from around 25-80 mbit/sec depending on the content.

100 mbit for HD is good, but in reality, NEAR perfect quality can be obtained with 100 mbit for 4k, which most smaller cameras film with (GH4/GH5 100/150 mbit) and that 4k quality is quite pristine. No, not as good as a ProRes capture of course, but very good.

If i click on my older 4k clips, the HD version file size is around 100-200 Megabytes
On clips uploaded nowadays it's 8-10 Megabytes...

I understand the 100 mbit/s is not absolutely necessary for good quality HD, bzt 6 seems way too low

Ok, my very recently uploaded clips have bigger file sizes for HD versions again. Looks like there was a period recently when SS converted them really low. I have even a 18 second clip where the HD version is just 6.1 MB

Desintegrator · « **Reply #34 on:** November 18, 2019, 14:35 »

Also noticed that 4096*2160 is downsized to 2047*2160 instead of 2048.
Couldn't that deter buyers? It's strange to have an odd-numbered dimension. I don't if such problems exist today, but around 15 years ago when I first had to deal with video codecs and such there were some codecs and some editing software where the dimensions of the clips had to be divisible by 8. (which basically every standard video resolution is)