pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thoughs On 4K Video For Stock  (Read 13491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2017, 04:12 »
+1
I started uploading 4K in 2016. First i was uploading files converted to PHOTO JPEG but they take about 4x more space than native camera H264 files.
So later i started to export them to same XAVC H264 as my camera codec. There is no reason to export my files to PHOTO JPEG or PRORES and blow up my files without quality increase.
I cant see any difference if i color grade and render videos in PHOTO JPEG or in H264.


« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2017, 04:27 »
+1
If you are re-encoding using the same codec/bitrate you are definitely LOSING quality.

Video is, and will be for a long time, about compromise. Just go up to the max file size where it's still not too uncomfortable for you to upload.

If I bought a clip (big emphasis on I), I would want RAW or 10-bit ProRes HQ. But that's me. I would like the option to change as much as possible.

The majority of buyers are most likely looking for a finished clip with minimal need to change anything.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2017, 04:30 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2017, 04:32 »
0
I get bitrate about 20 Mb/s higher after rendering. I didnt try PRORES but at first look i get same result with PHOTO JPEG.

« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2017, 04:39 »
0
Well, at first look all (good) codecs should ideally look the same. That's the whole point of a good codec.

If you make changes to 8-bit footage (colors/exposure etc.) it is easier to go back through those changes if it's exported in 10-bit. If there are absolutely no changes, it doesn't matter.

Most stock clips will go by in a second or so within a film/project, but most professionals prefer to work with ProRes HQ or higher.

Exposure, lighting, subject, camera movement and focus are 100 times more important than the codec though.  :)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2017, 04:41 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2017, 04:45 »
0
I didnt think there is way back without looosing quality at all. PRORES is one and only option to export to 10 bit?

« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2017, 04:54 »
0
It's the one convenient option that is accepted by the stock sites.

What I meant was if you have a clip with low contrast for example, and you increase the contrast so it looks better (according to you) in a 16-bit environment like After Effects, a 10-bit export will allow the end user to remove more contrast to go back to the original look if needed.

« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2017, 06:24 »
0
I am amazed how people speak of H264 being a bad codec without doing a reading of its specs or at least the Wikipedia description. H264 has lots of levels and profiles of compression: some loose data others do not.

"If you are re-encoding using the same codec/bitrate you are definitely LOSING quality." - are you serious? It depends on the codec - some of them are lossless! At least google prior to posting such things.

« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2017, 06:51 »
0
I am amazed how people speak of H264 being a bad codec without doing a reading of its specs or at least the Wikipedia description. H264 has lots of levels and profiles of compression: some loose data others do not.

"If you are re-encoding using the same codec/bitrate you are definitely LOSING quality." - are you serious? It depends on the codec - some of them are lossless! At least google prior to posting such things.

No one said h264 was a bad codec. It's probably the best delivery codec.

If you re-encode a lossy file with lossless compression you will increase the file size. So the bitrate is not the same.

« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2017, 08:21 »
0
Has anyone tried working with h264 files in post-production? From our experience, it's a disaster codec for PC to ingest.

« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2017, 10:33 »
0
Is there a comparison that tells us which codec sells more. Not a perfect metric, but might be a good thing to know

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2017, 02:18 »
0
Has anyone tried working with h264 files in post-production? From our experience, it's a disaster codec for PC to ingest.

You need a better computer. If it is really a disaster for your PC it means that you have a very weak or very old computer. Apple computers are not a standard for performance.

« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2017, 04:08 »
0
Buying more expensive computer versus buying bigger disk drives. Sure.

« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2017, 05:55 »
0
I seem to remember that FT / Adobe converts everything to h264 anyway?
If that is true or is still the case, what is the point in supplying massive files if at least one major agency (and arguably the one to watch) can't be bothered with supplying them anyway?

« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2017, 07:16 »
0
I seem to remember that FT / Adobe converts everything to h264 anyway?
If that is true or is still the case, what is the point in supplying massive files if at least one major agency (and arguably the one to watch) can't be bothered with supplying them anyway?

1. They have not converted my latest prores clips.
2. That is not the agency to watch...

« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2017, 09:50 »
+1
1. I shoot mostly Sony FS7 XAVC 4K, but some GoPro, DJI Phantom, and Sony A7sII. I convert all the clips to PhotoJPEG, from the simple reason that this is a format that all agencies approve. I sell to more than 8 different Stock sites, so just re-encoding will take me much more time than the large file upload. (I have 200 mb upload so I'm doing fine)
BTW - lowering the PhotoJPEG quality from 95-100 to 85-90 reduces the file sizes afaik.
2. As for future proofing - that's what I thought. But when 8K comes around (sooner than you might think) - The stock sites wouldn't be able to charge  ~ $500 for a single clip - so I think 4K prices will be downgraded to what HD costs today.
3. Storage space is very cheap these days, if you are serious about stock video - this shouldn't be a consideration.
4. 4K video accounts to a very small part of video sales as of today. At some point more and more clients will be asked by THEIR clients to deliver in 4K. I surely hope we will see a surge in 4K sales, at least for a year or two - until 8K comes and kicks us in the ass.

« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2017, 10:42 »
+2
I surely hope we will see a surge in 4K sales, at least for a year or two - until 8K comes and kicks us in the ass.

4k has been around for many years already and HD is still standard. I doubt 8k will be the normal within 10 years (if ever). At some point we just can't see the improvement.

Start making 360/VR videos instead - THAT will definitely become bigger and bigger.

« Reply #66 on: May 06, 2017, 12:58 »
0
1. They have not converted my latest prores clips.
2. That is not the agency to watch...

Well, I'm pretty sure I read on here somewhere that they were converting everything to h264 after it was uploaded. It's of course quite possible, perhaps even likely that they have changed their minds on that.

Regardless, they are certainly encouraging h.264 for most video submission:

https://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Files/Videos

My own SS sales are tanking while FT sales are growing and others just holding steady. Since Adobe spent an awful lot of money acquiring FT it stands to reason that there will be significant company emphasis to ensure their stock division is successful.

That's the rationale I'm using to consider FT as the most important agency to watch. Seems to be playing out in my sales stats, anyway.

Also, I'm wondering why they openly state that they want h.264 video files. Is it because they are cheap and don't want those pesky large Prores HQ files? Or is it because they figure most of their buyers are comfortable with using the codec and can see no negative impact on their sales by "only" offering h.264.

« Reply #67 on: May 06, 2017, 13:24 »
0
Well, I'm pretty sure I read on here somewhere that they were converting everything to h264 after it was uploaded. It's of course quite possible, perhaps even likely that they have changed their minds on that.

Yes, my older videos were converted, but not my recent ones so they must have changed it. I think Adobe know a bit more about footage than Fotolia...

I must admit, it is quite cool to be able to browse and pick footage (and see my own clips there) right within Premiere. I do hope it will grow, but right now it's a small player (for me at least).

Unrelated, but I just started using Premiere CC 2017 and it seems to be much faster than previous versions. I might just stop using FCP X altogether (which is fast, but lacks so many basic tools it's frustrating).

« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2017, 13:29 »
0
Way back when the transition from film to file for images was taking hold almost no one would consider taking a jpeg. It was for the most part lossless TIFFs. Those that suggested jpegs might be alright were usually scorned for not understanding the nuances of the new digital landscape. I suspect that sensors weren't quite as good and RAW files not as robust but fast forward a decade or so and I don't think anyway delivers anything but jpegs. It's kinda where I see h.264 right now.

« Reply #69 on: May 08, 2017, 02:39 »
0
4k has been around for many years already and HD is still standard. I doubt 8k will be the normal within 10 years (if ever). At some point we just can't see the improvement.
I beg to differ.

There are and will be applications that require very high resolution video. Be it in the scientific or medical field but even the entertainment industry will embrace 4K/8K - just think of VR apps for Samsung Gear VR and the likes. You will need higher resolutions to get a more realistic experience. That has nothing to do with pixel peeping.

« Reply #70 on: May 08, 2017, 05:18 »
0
4k has been around for many years already and HD is still standard. I doubt 8k will be the normal within 10 years (if ever). At some point we just can't see the improvement.
I beg to differ.

There are and will be applications that require very high resolution video. Be it in the scientific or medical field but even the entertainment industry will embrace 4K/8K - just think of VR apps for Samsung Gear VR and the likes. You will need higher resolutions to get a more realistic experience. That has nothing to do with pixel peeping.

Of course VR will be more than 8k but that's not what we're talking about. That comes from several cameras. You don't create a VR world from a single future GH7 with 8k...

I didn't say there weren't applications for it, but rather what's the standard, the normal. HD is still the standard, the normal, today. It will be many, many years before (if ever) 8k is the standard. Of course for ONE camera content, not VR environments. That is not comparable. Fully realistic VR will require 100k.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 05:21 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #71 on: May 08, 2017, 08:45 »
0

 HD is still the standard, the normal, today. It will be many, many years before (if ever) 8k is the standard. Of course for ONE camera content, not VR environments. That is not comparable. Fully realistic VR will require 100k.

I agree totally. Even as the last brick and mortar video rental store shut down, the transition to renting out BluRay hadn't really happened. In an area of production, where the highest standards of production were attained, the end user didn't really care or notice. Plain old vanilla DVD was fine.

« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2017, 01:59 »
0
True, similarly as computing power improves more devices will be handle 4K, it'll wipe out HD like HD wiped out 640X480 VGA.   Plus 4k allows a user to crop, tilt pan and still get a full HD clip

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
13220 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 23:15
by tbmpvideo
15 Replies
16136 Views
Last post August 12, 2011, 04:10
by Smithore
1 Replies
3913 Views
Last post June 16, 2014, 05:48
by Mantis
4 Replies
2480 Views
Last post April 09, 2015, 02:59
by fmarsicano
4 Replies
2352 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 22:40
by Rinderart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results