MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thoughs On 4K Video For Stock  (Read 12195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:27 »
0
I've been uploading 4K video to all the major stock sites for a few years now and I'm beginning to wonder is it a bit to good for stock?

I get the 'it will future proof' your stock library but won't that be out of date after 10 years anyway? Fashion / concepts / technology etc.

I still sell much more HD content (although my portfolio is 90% HD) and although I welcome the extra $$$ when a 4K clip is sold it is a bit to far and few between for the extra work load it takes.

My main concerns:
Extra time to edit / render / upload must be 5 X compared to HD clips

I've now got a huge backlog of clips due to the upload sizes. I have fiber and upload 2mbps but I'm finding a batch of 35 clips all at 4GB takes several days to upload to each agency. Much longer to shutterstock as they are way slow at the moment. The same batch in HD would take 8 - 10 hours or maybe sooner.

Extra hard drive space is crazy. My study is now littered with external hard drives as I have to backup my backups.

What are other 4K shooters feelings? Do you think it's worth it? Maybe stock should just be HD anyway as I can't see mainstream TV broadcasting in full 4K for many many years?


« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2017, 05:58 »
+2
My 4K clips are all less than 100MB.  Doesn't take long to upload.

« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2017, 06:08 »
+4
Are they 1sec. long?

« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2017, 06:10 »
0
Ah, no.

This one is 111MB: https://www.stocksy.com/1345105

« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2017, 06:11 »
+1
My 4K clips are all less than 100MB.  Doesn't take long to upload.

That's impossible especially in ProRes

« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2017, 06:13 »
+1
My 4K clips are all less than 100MB.  Doesn't take long to upload.

That's impossible especially in ProRes

Well, I guess you should state that initially.  These are all h264.

« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2017, 06:13 »
0
Ah, no.

This one is 111MB: https://www.stocksy.com/1345105
Oh OK you're using h.254

But why use the H.264 codec? Doesn't that kind of make it useless as it's taking away all the colour and bit depth?

« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2017, 06:15 »
+3
That's what the agencies want, that's what they get.  I don't upload aRGB either for photos.  I've never had the sense anyone really cared.

« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2017, 06:17 »
+1
I'm amazed that's what stocksy are asking for in 4K clips? h.264 will compress them to death?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2017, 06:51 »
+2
I think most of them prefer Photo JPEG. They only want H.264 if that's direct from your camera... which is going to be a lot more than 100MB.

KB

« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2017, 10:05 »
+1
I think most of them prefer Photo JPEG. They only want H.264 if that's direct from your camera... which is going to be a lot more than 100MB.
Yeah, I've always uploaded in Photo JPEG. H.264 seems like a terrible codec for resale.

My 4K clips hardly sell at all, and they're around 1 - 1.5GB in size for a 20-second clip. Definitely not worth it, yet I continue to shoot & upload in it, anyway.  ::)

« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2017, 11:09 »
+1
Most sites can down-res the 4K files so it doesn't really add anymore work other than upload times. Would it cost a lot more to upgrade your internet connection? A couple years down the road when everything is 4K then it will have been worth it.

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2017, 18:01 »
+1
Most of my videos are 4k prores HQ around 800mb-3.5gb.  I sell some in 4k but a lot in the HD version which makes me think they will sell good in the future when 4k is more the standard.  Some footage can be "future proofed" like a waterfall aerial, but some lifestyle footage could go out of style before 4k sales really pick up.  You can waste a lot of time in this industry trying to do the bare minimum with mediocre clips.  I'd say, if you're going to do it, might as well get the best out of your camera and clips.

op

« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2017, 01:05 »
+1
4K represents 50% of my sales already and of course it is more future proof than HD but we can also see that the "technology bump" in the video department could be else where in the future. Youtube already handles HFR (high frame rate 50/60~120fps) which provide more fluidity and is already part of the 8K specs. Another part of the 8K specs is HDR (high dynamic range) that Netflix uses on their productions. So the next step in video standard may be a bigger step in specs than just resolution bump that will give a good reason for people to make the switch.

« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2017, 02:59 »
+1
Just a thought...
maybe it's worth to shoot today 4k clips that are "future proof" also in the content...

that's because even if in some years 4k will become the standard, clips with outdated content won't sell anyway

« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2017, 12:20 »
+4
you said: "H.264 seems like a terrible codec for resale."

the above statement is simply not true.

I did a pixel by pixel comparison of video frames rendered with various codecs such as PRORES, H264, PJPEG, etc, and H264 performed extremely well compared to prores, and the difference in file size for PRORES makes it a far less efficient codec. The variance in pixels with H264 was hardly noticable (perhaps not even 1%) and the file size savings were absolutely massive.

in addition, H264 is a far more advanced codec as compared to PRORES. there are far more options and features. Any drawbacks with H264 (vs PRORES) have been resolved with H265 in terms of bit depth. PRORES is a very basic, featureless codec.





« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2017, 13:41 »
0
I'm beginning uploading video too. using mostly pentax camera and fuji x100 richegr...i'm stucked to basic video spec.
i upload mostly hd 1080 in h264, is better or more sellable to upload pro res? i dopnt' have the fastest connection in the world so uploading big file is a bit time consuming

RAW

« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2017, 14:15 »
+2
There's a reason H264 is smaller - You're removing data!
Try color grading an H264 clip - It will look a mess.

Upload ProRes (HQ) or PhotoJPEG (99%).

« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2017, 15:18 »
+3
you said: "H.264 seems like a terrible codec for resale."

the above statement is simply not true.

I did a pixel by pixel comparison of video frames rendered with various codecs such as PRORES, H264, PJPEG, etc, and H264 performed extremely well compared to prores, and the difference in file size for PRORES makes it a far less efficient codec. The variance in pixels with H264 was hardly noticable (perhaps not even 1%) and the file size savings were absolutely massive.

in addition, H264 is a far more advanced codec as compared to PRORES. there are far more options and features. Any drawbacks with H264 (vs PRORES) have been resolved with H265 in terms of bit depth. PRORES is a very basic, featureless codec.

Are you having a laugh? 4K video in h.264. Is it the 1st of April today or something?

« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2017, 15:23 »
+4
ProRes is a simple codec because it's the closest thing to being RAW. It doesn't compress the video anywhere near as much as the other formats. If you were to view 4K on a 4K screen and compare the two you would see huge differences. h.264 would show artifacts and loads of banding.

« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2017, 15:26 »
+2
you said: "H.264 seems like a terrible codec for resale."

the above statement is simply not true.

I did a pixel by pixel comparison of video frames rendered with various codecs such as PRORES, H264, PJPEG, etc, and H264 performed extremely well compared to prores, and the difference in file size for PRORES makes it a far less efficient codec. The variance in pixels with H264 was hardly noticable (perhaps not even 1%) and the file size savings were absolutely massive.

in addition, H264 is a far more advanced codec as compared to PRORES. there are far more options and features. Any drawbacks with H264 (vs PRORES) have been resolved with H265 in terms of bit depth. PRORES is a very basic, featureless codec.

h264 is a delivery codec = final step. For watching.
You want intra-frame compression when you're editing = ProRes.

Of course h264 is a more effective codec, that is the whole point. That doesn't mean it's a better codec for footage that is meant to be edited/graded.

There is a reason pros want ProRes HQ or better (ideally RAW of course, but file size tends to go through the roof).

The only advantage of h264 is smaller file size. If that's not a major problem, go with ProRes HQ.

JPG is more "advanced" than RAW and you normally can't tell the difference by just looking at a picture. But try changing it...
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 16:10 by increasingdifficulty »

RAW

« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2017, 15:41 »
+3
Exactly, H264 is a DELIVERY codec - Your giving your customer little choice but to use the clip as it is. If they want to color grade the clip to match their production they will be out of luck.

You need to upload an ACQUISITION codec. Something that gives the customer flexibility.

« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2017, 22:09 »
+2
many are shooting with a DSLR which outputs h.264 so you cannot up-sample it anyway. if you shoot with a flat color profile, often color grading can match a buyers project. I feel many stock buyers are fine with h.264.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2017, 04:07 »
+2
What is and isn't a delivery codec varies depending on who you speak to, but in most cases it will be something with low compression and a relatively high file size. I'd say H.264, whether a mov or an mp4, would be an intermediate codec (the kind of thing you'd send to the client for approval rather than for the final files) rather than a delivery codec... although in this instance it's also an acquisition codec.

The only thing that's set in stone is what constitutes an acquisition codec, as that's whatever your camera uses... and they can vary in quality, mainly when it comes down to the bitrate used. It's rare people ever upload acquisition codecs to stock sites though, as they need trimming or color correcting. As far as I'm concerned, the instant you edit it and render it out again, it can no longer be classed as an acquisition codec, even if it is the same actual codec used.

If you are uploading the file 'as is' from your camera's memory card, then that's great. As mentioned, you're not going to upscale the quality by using a different codec, so you may as well do that. The mistake that I think people are making, is assuming that the H.264 from your camera is the same as the H.264 you're outputting from your Premiere, or Sony Vegas, or FCP or whatever you're using. Sure, it's the same codec, but the standard output settings make it a very small, compressed file.

Your 4K camera should be recording at a minimum of 40Mb/s, so if you're rendering a 30 second clip at 100Mb, then you're losing masses of data. If you can change the minimum bitrate in your software, then do that... if you can't, then I'd go with Photo JPEG, or ProRes if you can. And if you're increasing the bitrate so it;s close to Photo JPEG, you may as well just use Photo JPEG instead.

I can't see it making a massive difference in sales, but if I was completely torn between buying one of two clips, and one was H.264 and the other one was Photo JPEG, I'd go with the Photo JPEG. 

« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2017, 07:52 »
+2
What is and isn't a delivery codec varies depending on who you speak to, but in most cases it will be something with low compression and a relatively high file size. I'd say H.264, whether a mov or an mp4, would be an intermediate codec (the kind of thing you'd send to the client for approval rather than for the final files) rather than a delivery codec... although in this instance it's also an acquisition codec.

That's not really what is meant by intermediate codec. Sending to client for approval would also be considered delivery. Intermediate codec means something that you can work with and re-encode again with minimum loss of quality. ProRes is that.


The only thing that's set in stone is what constitutes an acquisition codec, as that's whatever your camera uses... and they can vary in quality, mainly when it comes down to the bitrate used. It's rare people ever upload acquisition codecs to stock sites though, as they need trimming or color correcting. As far as I'm concerned, the instant you edit it and render it out again, it can no longer be classed as an acquisition codec, even if it is the same actual codec used.

If you are uploading the file 'as is' from your camera's memory card, then that's great. As mentioned, you're not going to upscale the quality by using a different codec, so you may as well do that. The mistake that I think people are making, is assuming that the H.264 from your camera is the same as the H.264 you're outputting from your Premiere, or Sony Vegas, or FCP or whatever you're using. Sure, it's the same codec, but the standard output settings make it a very small, compressed file.

Yes, even if you use a higher bitrate from your software it is still being re-encoded as soon as you make the slightest little change. If you upload files directly from the memory card, sure, go with native, but as soon as you tweak the contrast just a tiny bit it is much easier to go back through the changes for the end user if you're using 10-bit ProRes. Even if you acquired 8-bit h264.

Your 4K camera should be recording at a minimum of 40Mb/s, so if you're rendering a 30 second clip at 100Mb, then you're losing masses of data. If you can change the minimum bitrate in your software, then do that... if you can't, then I'd go with Photo JPEG, or ProRes if you can. And if you're increasing the bitrate so it;s close to Photo JPEG, you may as well just use Photo JPEG instead.

I would say Photo JPEG is getting to be kind of outdated, and was just a happy middle ground between h264 and ProRes. In 2017 file size shouldn't be too much of a problem for most video professionals, but if it is, then Photo JPEG or h264 can make sense. Photo JPEG is still only 8-bit though - grading 10-bit footage is very much to be preferred (even if acquisition was 8-bit and you have made changes to color and contrast). If there were absolutely zero changes, 10-bit won't add anything of course. But that's 0 changes.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 07:55 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2017, 07:59 »
0
This is going to show my lack of knowledge about codecs but even if you did upload or deliver your clips as h264, could the client convert that clip into an uncompressed format and then grade it? Sort of like the equivalent of still photo files where you have a lossy jpeg and convert it into a tiff to do your Photoshop work and make multiple saves with?

« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2017, 09:16 »
+2
They can, and will (well, not to uncompressed usually), because programs like FCPX will convert to ProRes anyway when you edit.

But they won't gain any quality from it.

As said before, it makes sense to go to ProRes if YOU make any changes to the original file, which I assume most people do. If you don't make any changes at all, and upload the original file, you can stick with the acquisition codec.

The h264 bitrate matters a great deal too of course. A 100mbit/sec file from a GH4 is a WORLD of difference compared to a 60mbit/sec file from a GoPro.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 09:19 by increasingdifficulty »

KB

« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2017, 10:43 »
+1
Your 4K camera should be recording at a minimum of 40Mb/s, so if you're rendering a 30 second clip at 100Mb, then you're losing masses of data.
I don't disagree with anything SSF said, but I just want to make it clear to people who might not realize:

40Mb/s means the clip is capturing 40 megabits per second.

A 30-second clip occupying 100MB is 100 megabytes.

40Mb/s for 30 seconds is 1200 megabits, or 150 megabytes. Which means if the final file is 100 megabytes, about 1/3 of the data is gone. That's still a huge amount of data, but perhaps not as much as some might have thought from reading the above.

« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2017, 10:55 »
+4
PhotoJPEG is the worst output format from my testing. All gradients are full of banding.

RAW

« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2017, 12:11 »
0
PhotoJPEG is the worst output format from my testing. All gradients are full of banding.

That's because the PhotoJPG is 8bit.
You should use ProRes (HQ) 16bit.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2017, 19:10 »
0
Just on the subject of advanced  codecs with more options and features... what options and features do you need, aside from it producing a watchable video file?

« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2017, 03:01 »
+1
Are all of you using Prores on a Mac, or is there a way to have it on windows?

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2017, 06:16 »
+1
Are all of you using Prores on a Mac, or is there a way to have it on windows?

Yes, there is ProResConverter AE script for windows!

« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2017, 06:29 »
0
Are all of you using Prores on a Mac, or is there a way to have it on windows?

Yes, there is ProResConverter AE script for windows!
Many thanks for the info.
I'll check this out immediately

« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2017, 07:13 »
+1
I am really no expert, but I know that I can change, adjust prores files to my liking, add color filters etc...but with h.264 I immediatly get banding and artifacts.

So I upload prores to whatever agency takes it, because this is what I would prefer to buy myself.

maybe the experts can adjust and grade h.264 files without artifacts, i dont know. i am just a regular user and prores can just take more.

I dont sell a lot of 4k video yet, i think this will come when the price of 4k drops to what is now hd and hd becomes what is now 720.

Some people are already shooting 8k video, so i dont think yu can go wrong by uploading higher quality. I want my files to have a long shelf life.

KB

« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2017, 11:02 »
0
I'm curious: Does anyone know what the agencies do when they process our files?

Because I didn't think they take them straight as we deliver them (though I could be wrong). I was under the impression that they convert them to something, but I have no idea what. Maybe different agencies do different things.

« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2017, 14:41 »
+1
I'm curious: Does anyone know what the agencies do when they process our files?

Because I didn't think they take them straight as we deliver them (though I could be wrong). I was under the impression that they convert them to something, but I have no idea what. Maybe different agencies do different things.

They only convert them when they downsize from 4k, or Shutterstock when they downsize from HD. The original is still the same as uploaded.

« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2017, 08:49 »
+2
Again, I did a pixel by pixel comparison of frames from a video rendered to PRORES and a video rendered to H264. The difference was negligible, the file size of H264 was significantly smaller.

It is a complete myth that PRORES is a good codec.

Out of 8,000,000 or so pixels, only 500 to 2000 differed between the H264 and PRORES rendered frames, and the H264 file size was a fraction of the PRORES file size.

People using PRORES are deluded into thinking it is superior to H264, and they are completely wrong.

« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2017, 09:07 »
+4
A pixel by pixel comparison of frames is irrelevant. Of course it LOOKS the same. What is relevant is how much you can grade and edit the clip before it is completely destroyed. THAT is important.

Footage is almost always used with other clips, which means the buyer is likely to want to tweak the colors.

You can't tell the difference between a high quality jpeg and the RAW file with the same settings either. But when you edit them, the difference is HUGE.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 09:10 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2017, 09:08 »
0
2x post...

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2017, 10:26 »
0
Add a saturation effect, set it to 100 and then do a pixel by pixel comparison.

« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2017, 10:59 »
0
Again, I did a pixel by pixel comparison of frames from a video rendered to PRORES and a video rendered to H264. The difference was negligible, the file size of H264 was significantly smaller.

It is a complete myth that PRORES is a good codec.

Out of 8,000,000 or so pixels, only 500 to 2000 differed between the H264 and PRORES rendered frames, and the H264 file size was a fraction of the PRORES file size.

People using PRORES are deluded into thinking it is superior to H264, and they are completely wrong.
"Pixel by pixel comparison" doesn't mean anything if you don't define what you're comparing. You have to have standards. As spacestock said, crank some settings and compare again. Is there a percent difference? I'm hoping you're using a program to analyze the colours and not your eyes. Having the opinion that they look the same does not mean they are. 

« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2017, 00:53 »
0
Usually after I render my videos, I drop them into MPEG Streamclip where I encode them as H264. I did have one video sale with a h264 clip or maybe I was just lucky. Out of curiosity, would there be any freeware available for Windows that could convert a clip to PRoRes?

« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2017, 02:24 »
+2
i upload PhotoJPEG to all stock agencies. Altough i can acquire very good results using h.264 encoding (you have to add some grain to the video so there will be no bending, and the compression will result better quality), but uploading the best quality you have is the best option i think.
 If i had prores (i had it when i used Blackmagic and a MAC) i would upload prores, but now 5dMK4 has MJPEG. Mp4 files will be under heavy pressure when editing and color grading.
The problem is that contributors do not really know what to upload. i would prefer h265, or h264 because of the small filesize and reasonable quality. i do not really think, that people on the internet would need giant files for their websites and tv commercials and stuff...still...i upload humongous PhotoJPEG-s, because i do not know what quality would be needed, also i upload them in 4k UHD.
The sales are not going well on 4k, but my way older footage, made with a nikon d90 (720p HD, 25Mbps) are selling really good. Sometimes i have a large download, like 120dollars on a 4k file, but that is not an everyday thing.
Stock sites really should declare something...i mean uploading pictures is so easy. Jpeg and that is that. i mean we could upload TIFF-s, Png-s, PSD files, but no, we upload JPEG, and it is good for everyone. Meanwhile, footage has several extensions, containers, etc. uploading in prores and photojepg is somewhat similar to uploading TIFF files. Large files which can be color graded better than MP4 files. But MP4 should be enough for many buyers. There are a lot of videos which are looking like a disaster after converting them to MP4 from better quality. And it is a pain to convert every footage you make to a different codec which suits it the best (altough this would be the most "quality-optimized" solution).
So until we really don't know what are the downloaders buying, there is no really solution for this question.
the smart little geek behind his notebook does not even know what is prores 422, and what is 4.2.2 stand for. but he will download it cuz it is the best quality he can get. then he converts it into some sh**ty codec with the birate of 15Mbps and he is  really happy cuz he has the best video.
on other hand i do not know if there are some people who would use our footage for professional stuff, which indeed needs the quality.

« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2017, 02:37 »
0
i would really prefer if stock agencies allow h.265/h.264 with an optional request of the file with a better quality. this would result that we would need to backup files with incredible file sizes but things on stock would be smoother, and upload time would decrease a lot. this is a wish that won't come true.

the most important thing we don't know, is this: what quality does the buyer need. so until this question is declared there is only one answer to this topic: upload the best quality and resolution, in the best container for your file.

« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2017, 02:58 »
0
and only for the records

Prores 422 ----> PhotoJPEG ----> Mp4  (----> decrease of quality, file size, bit depth)

you can do a pixel by pixel comparsion, it should give you a result of the same as above, but it is not so relevant, cuz the problem in quality differences comes out when videos are i motion and you are looking at darker areas. try to export a photojpeg or prores video of some fire or low light scene in MP4 and you will see the horrible truth that the mp4 codec is not able to compress them well. you can enhance the compression with adding grain to the footage, so the darker areas will be compressed better, but photojpeg and prores is far better in this kind of a situation.

Also there is a problem with programs doing their export the different way. For example DaVinci Resolve exports shi**ty mp4 files, altough other file export is way faster than in media converter or premiere pro, and timeline editing is a bliss, also less noise and bending. (i did not use final cut so i do not know about it). best program is mpeg2 streamclip but it can hardly handle 4k, and has very few editing possibilities. the footage exported from mpeg2Streamlicp had the less artifacts and bending.

« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2017, 03:26 »
+5
mp4 is not a codec, it's a container (like .mov) and can contain different kinds of codecs.

You can't compare mp4 to ProRes or PJPEG...

« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2017, 05:44 »
+1
and only for the records

Prores 422 ----> PhotoJPEG ----> Mp4  (----> decrease of quality, file size, bit depth)

you can do a pixel by pixel comparsion, it should give you a result of the same as above, but it is not so relevant, cuz the problem in quality differences comes out when videos are i motion and you are looking at darker areas. try to export a photojpeg or prores video of some fire or low light scene in MP4 and you will see the horrible truth that the mp4 codec is not able to compress them well. you can enhance the compression with adding grain to the footage, so the darker areas will be compressed better, but photojpeg and prores is far better in this kind of a situation.

Also there is a problem with programs doing their export the different way. For example DaVinci Resolve exports shi**ty mp4 files, altough other file export is way faster than in media converter or premiere pro, and timeline editing is a bliss, also less noise and bending. (i did not use final cut so i do not know about it). best program is mpeg2 streamclip but it can hardly handle 4k, and has very few editing possibilities. the footage exported from mpeg2Streamlicp had the less artifacts and bending.

I started to export h264 from Premiere Pro because with photojpeg I got banding in the skies in many clips while h264 always looks fine. I use around 200mbps for 4K stock clips

« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2017, 11:54 »
+1
Again, I did a pixel by pixel comparison of frames from a video rendered to PRORES and a video rendered to H264. The difference was negligible, the file size of H264 was significantly smaller.

It is a complete myth that PRORES is a good codec.

Out of 8,000,000 or so pixels, only 500 to 2000 differed between the H264 and PRORES rendered frames, and the H264 file size was a fraction of the PRORES file size.

People using PRORES are deluded into thinking it is superior to H264, and they are completely wrong.

I agree with what you say about H264 but can't agree on what  you say regarding ProRes. They are both good and have a place in a person's workflow. When working natively with H264 I find everything takes a little longer. Playback is less responsive and render times for proxies or transcodes also take more time. But then moving large files around takes more room and takes a little longer. As far as quality, I too cannot see any real difference. I use FCPX now and it's all rendered to ProRes for post and the performance is amazing. Scrubs and playbacks and doing almost anything happens in real time.

H264 if shot with high data rates and properly exposed etc has a lot of latitude to bend.

Forget PhotoJpeg. There is always issues with banding which are unacceptable. And despite the continued argument that it makes life easier for the end user I simply don't see it especially with similar file sizes, much better video quality and superior predicable performance of ProRes. If you're a medium or high volume 4k producer H264 will get your content to more places a lot quicker.

« Reply #49 on: April 06, 2017, 21:11 »
+2
Keep uploading 4k, in a few years time HD will sell less and less. 4k now is selling very little for me even when I've been uploading all 4k since 2012.   They are already working on 8k for cameras and before 5 years 8k cameras will be in most semi professional cameras and many phones.  Overkill? Yes but you can never have enough pixels when you are doing VR video for example which will increase penetration as technology evolved. VR is not like the 3D craze, VR will be a way to deliver video experiences for a variety of industries.

« 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
12900 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 23:15
by tbmpvideo
15 Replies
15665 Views
Last post August 12, 2011, 04:10
by Smithore
1 Replies
3488 Views
Last post June 16, 2014, 05:48
by Mantis
4 Replies
2348 Views
Last post April 09, 2015, 02:59
by fmarsicano
4 Replies
2096 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 22:40
by Rinderart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results