MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thoughs On 4K Video For Stock  (Read 22913 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I get the 'it will future proof' your stock library but won't that be out of date after 10 years anyway?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.





jonbull

    This user is banned.
« 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 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
15000 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 23:15
by tbmpvideo
15 Replies
19562 Views
Last post August 12, 2011, 04:10
by Smithore
1 Replies
6949 Views
Last post June 16, 2014, 05:48
by Mantis
4 Replies
3953 Views
Last post April 09, 2015, 02:59
by fmarsicano
4 Replies
3958 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 22:40
by Rinderart

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors