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?

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.

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.

Are all of you using Prores on a Mac, or is there a way to have it on windows?

Quote from: Brightontl on April 01, 2017, 03:01

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

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.

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.

2x post...

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.