MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Software => Topic started by: derby on November 22, 2022, 08:21

Title: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: derby on November 22, 2022, 08:21
Hi all,
It's more than a year that I'm working on animation for stock, going from something very simple like animated text banner ("happy new year" and things like this...) to more demanding jobs. nothing that could be compared to professional experts, but animations with some more complicated effects like particles or fractal noise.

I'm happy with After effects, as it seems to me an incredible machine to create quite anything you have in mind, but AE it's also expensive, and I'm looking for some good cheaper alternative.
I'm start testing Davinci resolve that has the Fusion section that seems really good, but I can't understand if I can recreate in Davinci fusion all the possibilities that I have in AE. For example, a simple text animation with light effect seems much more challenging to do than in AE. But probably it depends on my newbie status with Davinci.

Is there some here that can give me opinion about the two software? I'm not talking in general difference, that are obvious and I can see by myself; I'm asking specific opinion for creation of animated clip for stock: the speed of workflow, the plugin available for both, and the flexibility of both software.

Thanks for your opinions!
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: chillbilldill on February 19, 2023, 16:38
Coming from a lifelong Adobe software users, Davinci Resolve is better. Never thought I would switch away from Adobe, but I like Davinci more. It just feels nicer to navigate, and looks better too.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: jjneff on February 22, 2023, 05:43
Resolve is more fun to use and more powerful, get use to the tool and you will love it.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: helloitsaaron on December 13, 2023, 15:52
Personally, I'm a huge fan of Resolve. I'm also a Mac user.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 10:30
What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: MotionDesign on December 15, 2023, 13:26
For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 13:55
What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

No subscription and free lifetime updates.  ;)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 14:05
What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

No subscription and free lifetime updates.  ;)
>:(
My question was of a technical nature.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 14:26
What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

No subscription and free lifetime updates.  ;)
>:(
My question was of a technical nature.

Check YT. There are many examples meant to answer your question.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ)

I have all the apps from Adobe (for free), but I prefer to use Davinci Resolve for video editing. The only drawback I am facing is no 10-bit ProRes export on PCs (only on Macs). But I export lossless uncompressed temp files from Davinci and use Adobe Encoder (also free from Adobe) to generate ProRes, before uploading. Actually Encoder is the only Adobe app, besides LR and PS that is useful to me (OK, the PDF editor too  ;))
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 17:58
Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 18:40
Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.

Corect. Content matters more than anything.

But if I have the option to offer better quality to a minority of content creators who need to further process the clip, then 10 bits may make the difference between me and my competitors.
On some sites the codec is mentioned and ProRes may be more attractive to some buyers, especially to those high end buyers who are ready to pay >$1k for such clips.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 03:27
Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.

Corect. Content matters more than anything.

But if I have the option to offer better quality to a minority of content creators who need to further process the clip, then 10 bits may make the difference between me and my competitors.
On some sites the codec is mentioned and ProRes may be more attractive to some buyers, especially to those high end buyers who are ready to pay >$1k for such clips.
Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?  ???
Your video weighs a lot, has a high bitrate, and therefore many buyers will not buy it. Many buyers need videos that are small in size and without heavy codecs. You're losing those customers.
On stocks, as I understand it, only the plot and just normal video quality are important.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 03:30
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ)
I watched the video and read the comments. But I still don’t understand whether Resolve will give me more options when color grading stock videos than Adobe Premier. Many arguments are not arguments for me. Adobe Premier is not buggy for me.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 07:12
Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?  ???
Shutterstock.
Example below.
And remember that the ProRes version is only for 4k.
Regular HD and FHD versions are H264, meant for the type of customers you are talking about (a large majority, indeed)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 07:52
Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?  ???
Shutterstock.
Example below.
And remember that the ProRes version is only for 4k.
Regular HD and FHD versions are H264, meant for the type of customers you are talking about (a large majority, indeed)
1. $200 is not the $1000 you wrote about.
2. For that kind of money you can buy any quality video, the codec doesn’t matter.
3. Do you also upload videos in FHD format to stocks? Are you duplicating?
4. Yes, stocks have a service to download videos in HD format from the 4K source that you upload. But the quality of this video is very bad. The bitrate is low there. Therefore, a buyer would rather buy a normal video in HD than buy a reconverted video on stock.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 09:07
Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?  ???
Shutterstock.
Example below.
And remember that the ProRes version is only for 4k.
Regular HD and FHD versions are H264, meant for the type of customers you are talking about (a large majority, indeed)
1. $200 is not the $1000 you wrote about.

It is.
I wrote about how much the customer would pay for it, not about my share of that payment. ;)
Go back and check what you quoted.

4. Yes, stocks have a service to download videos in HD format from the 4K source that you upload. But the quality of this video is very bad. The bitrate is low there. Therefore, a buyer would rather buy a normal video in HD than buy a reconverted video on stock.

Ooh, so when you talk about 4K, the clip quality doesn't matter, but when you talk about FHD it does? 🤔

I don't duplicate. I always upload 4K.
You should know that the agencies are always downsizing 4K videos to FHD, using the same H264 codec settings.

I doubt that a 4K H264 clip downsized to FHD H264 would look better than the same clip downsized from 4K ProRes to FHD H264.

https://support.shutterstock.com/s/article/best-video-format-for-stock-footage
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 14:20
It is.
I wrote about how much the customer would pay for it, not about my share of that payment. ;)
Go back and check what you quoted.
You don't know how much the buyer paid for this video. These are just your assumptions. If you had an answer from the stock, it would be accurate data.

Ooh, so when you talk about 4K, the clip quality doesn't matter, but when you talk about FHD it does? 🤔
I'm saying that a well-prepared video rendered in 4K codec h.264 8bit and with a bitrate of 100-150 Mb/sec is of good quality. Your source videos, which have a bitrate of 10 bits and possibly shot in prores or raw, are only needed by you so that you can make high-quality color correction, not lose data, and then render in a quality that is suitable for all buyers. Do you really think that buyers buy videos in order to have them professionally edited?
Yes, HD video must also have quality, at least a bitrate of 50 Mb/sec.

You should know that the agencies are always downsizing 4K videos to FHD, using the same H264 codec settings.
I don't agree. If stocks convert your videos efficiently, they won’t have enough production capacity to do so. I can see from the size of these videos in HD format that they have a very low bitrate, probably 8 or 10 Mb/sec.

I doubt that a 4K H264 clip downsized to FHD H264 would look better than the same clip downsized from 4K ProRes to FHD H264.
It will look the same. And even if you do a high-quality rendering, it will still look the same.

https://support.shutterstock.com/s/article/best-video-format-for-stock-footage
Modern cameras now record in h.264 with the same quality as ProRes. Therefore, there is no point in shooting in ProRes, much less uploading this codec to stock. More precisely, of course, you can upload the video to ProRes, but we will get a large file size and scare off many buyers.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 14:25
Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Annie2022 on December 16, 2023, 14:46
Get a 4k video shot on a decent camera and export it twice. Once at h264 and again at Pro Res. Compare both at 100% and you should notice a difference. H264 is rubbish.

I received $300 commission for video just last week on SS. That buyer would have paid nearly $1000. (On L4, I receive 30% commission on what SS sells video for)

If one is not making decent video sales, even occasionally, then maybe they should change their codec? Big buyers, for example wanting establishing shots for movies, documentaries and tv commercials, want top quality.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Annie2022 on December 16, 2023, 14:48
For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)

Thanks for this answer. I think you're the only one here who answered the OP's question. Others may be confusing AE (for animation) with Premiere Pro for (standard video).
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:27
Get a 4k video shot on a decent camera and export it twice. Once at h264 and again at Pro Res. Compare both at 100% and you should notice a difference. H264 is rubbish.

I received $300 commission for video just last week on SS. That buyer would have paid nearly $1000. (We are guaranteed 30% commission on what SS sells video for)

If one is not making decent video sales, even occasionally, then maybe they should change their codec? Big buyers, for example wanting establishing shots for movies, documentaries and tv commercials, want top quality.
The camera natively records at 400Mb/s (4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra) (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, LPCM). If you think this is rubbish, then of course good luck to you.
Do you probably write directly to ProRes on your camera?
If anything, there is no difference between ProRes and 4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra.

Just because you got paid $300 doesn't mean it was because you uploaded the video to ProRes.

Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.

So, it’s good that the camera can write in 10 bits, but as I already said, all this is only needed for video color correction. The final video can be rendered in 8 bits and the quality of this video will be good and sufficient for most buyers. Of course, it is no longer possible to do radical color correction with 8-bit video, but the author has already done it with 10-bit video.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:38
(We are guaranteed 30% commission on what SS sells video for)
This is your guess. For such amounts, commissions may be different. On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices. These are some kind of individual sales. You need to find out from shutterstock what these sales are and how much the buyer paid.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 16:41
Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.
Wrong.
I discovered one of my clips in a Netflix series.
So there's that.  ;)

On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices.

Wrong again. Big agencies have dedicated sales teams curating on demand requests from for big media buyers, who have big bugets but no time to search the entire database.
Example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/business (https://www.shutterstock.com/business)

Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?
I already told you: the assurance that I will never have to pay $60/month to be able to use the tool, if Adobe decides to cancel the all apps bonus given to succesful contributors.

Technically, Premiere is pretty comparable and it could definitely serve my needs (although I am not sure it can do the same fantastic noise reduction job, for example)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 03:41
Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.
Wrong.
I discovered one of my clips in a Netflix series.
So there's that.  ;)

On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices.

Wrong again. Big agencies have dedicated sales teams curating on demand requests from for big media buyers, who have big bugets but no time to search the entire database.
Example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/business (https://www.shutterstock.com/business)

Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?
I already told you: the assurance that I will never have to pay $60/month to be able to use the tool, if Adobe decides to cancel the all apps bonus given to succesful contributors.

Technically, Premiere is pretty comparable and it could definitely serve my needs (although I am not sure it can do the same fantastic noise reduction job, for example)
Again, a well-made video and downloaded with a good bitrate in the h.264 and 8bit codec will also be quite suitable for the same Netflix subscription. Here we need clarification from shutterstock about whether they buy videos in the h.264 codec at high prices or not.
That video of yours that you found on Netflix, is it probably also uploaded to prores?  :)
In any case, this is all a dispute without evidence on both sides. Over the years I have read many forums, and many authors bought videos at high prices and the videos were not uploaded to prores. And some videos generally had a low bitrate.
Regarding noise, is the Neat Video plugin worse than Davinci resolve?
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 03:44
At the moment, we do not know exactly how much the buyer pays for a video when the author receives $200 or $300 on the shutterstock website. I don't understand this price at all, there are extended licenses on the shutterstock website, but they don't cost $1000.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: MotionDesign on December 17, 2023, 06:30
For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)

Thanks for this answer. I think you're the only one here who answered the OP's question. Others may be confusing AE (for animation) with Premiere Pro for (standard video).

You are welcome :)
I've used fusion studio on and off for a couple of year, i've made some motion graphics that sell well on stock, but i prefer to use AE with plugins such as Element3d, Stardust and Plexus
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 08:44

Regarding noise, is the Neat Video plugin worse than Davinci resolve?
Neat Video alone costs $149, while the entire Davinci Studio Version has a perpetual one time cost of $295, including the excellent noise reduction feature. A plugin alone costing more than half the cost of the excellent fully loaded Davinci package?
That video of yours that you found on Netflix, is it probably also uploaded to prores?  :)
Yes, the Netflix clip was 10 bits ProRes, indeed.
Any clip inserted in a movie must be edited to fit the movie's color scheme, thus the 10 bits requirements.

At the moment, we do not know exactly how much the buyer pays for a video when the author receives $200 or $300 on the shutterstock website. I don't understand this price at all, there are extended licenses on the shutterstock website, but they don't cost $1000.
These are special, unlisted deals made with enterprise buyers, who need special customised services (as advertised on the link shared with you above)
We know exactly what is in our contracts and the percentages we agreed to be paid to us. I can bet that no agency will pay you more than the percentages you signed up for. :D

Legally, for deviations from the agreed contract, the agency must contact you and ask for a special agreement. For example, Adobe contacted me and proposed to pay me $2,000 for a clip need for special uses. I signed a dedicated agreement before going ahead with the sale.
So if there is no special agreement, we can easily reverse engineer the sales cost of a clip.

Bottom line: having quality clips encoded with quality codecs is increasing your chances to get your clips curated and sold for big bucks to enterprise customers
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 09:13
Neat Video alone costs $149, while the entire Davinci Studio Version has a perpetual one time cost of $295, including the excellent noise reduction feature.
Money issues don't interest me. I'm only interested in the technical aspect. If Neat Video removes noise no worse than Davinci resolve, then I will remove noise using Neat Video.

Bottom line: having quality clips encoded with quality codecs is increasing your chances to get your clips curated and sold for big bucks to enterprise customers
I think that many authors with good income will disagree with you. Probably a lot depends on the content that is being filmed. If you are shooting something that is later used in films, then the prores codec may be a good solution. Again, it is difficult to render into this prores so that the file is no more than 4 GB.
Do you shoot in 3840x2160 or a larger format?
Nowadays, many authors upload their videos to subscription stock agencies, and the prores codec is not required there.
There is also such a program as Topaz Video Enhance AI. If someone needs it, then you can make high-quality 4K from HD and remove any noise and artifacts. I think that Netflix knows how to use this program.

In any case, I don’t have the content that you probably have. Therefore, for me, loading many gigabytes onto stocks is a waste of time.

Now cameras shoot at 400Mb/s (4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra) (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, LPCM). I am sure that this quality is enough for everyone who wants to make high-quality color correction. You can upload video directly from the camera to stock. This video takes up less space than prores.
 ;D ;D ;D

I have one more thought. Perhaps some customers buy prores not because they need 10 bit and 4:2:2, but because it fits into their production process. These people can only work with prores. This prores is good because it does not require a lot of resources to work with it. But to work with h.264 or h.265 you need powerful computers. I think this is the answer.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 09:47
But to work with h.264 or h.265 you need powerful computers. I think this is the answer.
Nope. You only need a fairly recent video card, able to natively encode/decode h.264 and h.265. It shouldn't be a problem for a media enterprise.

Again, it is difficult to render into this prores so that the file is no more than 4 GB.
Do you shoot in 3840x2160 or a larger format?
I only shoot 2160p. My ProRes files rarely exceed 1.5GB (for 15-20s clips)

There is also such a program as Topaz Video Enhance AI. If someone needs it, then you can make high-quality 4K from HD and remove any noise and artifacts. I think that Netflix knows how to use this program.
I love all the Topaz tools for photography, they are really great and useful.
FYI, I recently tested Topaz Video AI. I must say that I was disappointed. The video stabilization, noise reduction, processing time (even on a fairly powerful PC) were visibly worse than what I get with Davinci Resolve. It brings no added value to me and decided not to buy it.  ;)

One more thing: I don't necessarily care about ProRes, I care about preserving my 10 bits. I am not aware of any other 10 bits codecs supported by all main agencies (SS, AS, P5 and IS). When things will change, I will gladly switch, since I don't like my dependency on a $60/month, subscription based Adobe Encoder.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Annie2022 on December 17, 2023, 14:26


In any case, I don’t have the content that you probably have. Therefore, for me, loading many gigabytes onto stocks is a waste of time.




Back in 2016 when I started video, it was recommended to me to use the old Quicktime PhotoJPEG codec for stock video. I trained and learned from some of the top video sellers at the time. But when PhotoJpeg was no longer available a few years later, that was the dilemma that faced many of us. Prores or h264. Smaller files for convenience or even larger files for quality. I ended up going to Prores, much to the encouragement of some top contributors.  I also compared the 2 codecs at 100% - and especially in difficult areas such as skies - there was a huge difference in quality.

And yes, it can depend on what type of video you shoot. I have many establishing shots, that when they sell, I usually receive high commissions. Thats where the real money is, and definitely worth the larger files.

You need to talk to more top sellers, and you will be surprised at the money that can be made even now on SS. There is a thread here somewhere were people showed some of their top commissions. $800 I think was the highest by Pace, I believe.

Anyway, once again, it all depends on what you shoot and what type of buyer you are targeting.

PS. There may be some 'snobbish' value attached to using prores. I had a friend who had his own production company and he always insisted on prores. And that may also apply to some buyers as well. But if that is what some buyers want, then its up to us to provide what they want - not the other way around.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Annie2022 on December 17, 2023, 14:34
For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)

Thanks for this answer. I think you're the only one here who answered the OP's question. Others may be confusing AE (for animation) with Premiere Pro for (standard video).

You are welcome :)
I've used fusion studio on and off for a couple of year, i've made some motion graphics that sell well on stock, but i prefer to use AE with plugins such as Element3d, Stardust and Plexus

Thanks. I used to use AE for animation although I was still training on it. So your information is very helpful.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 17:48
I care about preserving my 10 bits.
The shutterstock website does not show how many bits your video contains. The video can be in prores, but contain 8 bits for example.
Are you rendering in prores 422 or in 422(HQ) ?
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 19:11
I care about preserving my 10 bits.
The shutterstock website does not show how many bits your video contains. The video can be in prores, but contain 8 bits for example.
Are you rendering in prores 422 or in 422(HQ) ?

The sales team curating those big bucks clips knows the codec quality. It would help if you had understood that, after so many explanations  ;)

Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 18, 2023, 03:00
I care about preserving my 10 bits.
The shutterstock website does not show how many bits your video contains. The video can be in prores, but contain 8 bits for example.
Are you rendering in prores 422 or in 422(HQ) ?

The sales team curating those big bucks clips knows the codec quality. It would help if you had understood that, after so many explanations  ;)

Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.
Of course, shutterstock can watch your video and find out its characteristics. Do you think that buyers give shutterstock the task of finding them a 10-bit video? To me this sounds naive.
In my opinion, your video is simply suitable for buyers in terms of plot, color correction, and perhaps also because your video is in the prores codec (some people are immediately comfortable working with prores).
I seriously doubt that buyers generally figure out such an issue as video bit depth.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 26, 2023, 06:37
One more thing: I don't necessarily care about ProRes, I care about preserving my 10 bits. I am not aware of any other 10 bits codecs supported by all main agencies (SS, AS, P5 and IS). When things will change, I will gladly switch, since I don't like my dependency on a $60/month, subscription based Adobe Encoder.
It is not clear why Adobe programs cannot export 10-bit video to H.264. Modern cameras shoot 10 bits in H.264 and even in an mp4 container.
When I export video to the H.264 codec in Media Encoder, I get 8-bit video.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 26, 2023, 14:39
One more thing: I don't necessarily care about ProRes, I care about preserving my 10 bits. I am not aware of any other 10 bits codecs supported by all main agencies (SS, AS, P5 and IS). When things will change, I will gladly switch, since I don't like my dependency on a $60/month, subscription based Adobe Encoder.
It is not clear why Adobe programs cannot export 10-bit video to H.264. Modern cameras shoot 10 bits in H.264 and even in an mp4 container.
When I export video to the H.264 codec in Media Encoder, I get 8-bit video.

I could export 10 bits H.265 directly from Davinci Resolve, instead of using Media Encoder to export 10 bits ProRes, but H.265 is not accepted by all agencies.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 28, 2023, 14:57
Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.
Why do you think that the finished file will have a bit depth of 10? Can you see somewhere what the bit depth of prores is?
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 28, 2023, 15:30
Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.
Why do you think that the finished file will have a bit depth of 10? Can you see somewhere what the bit depth of prores is?

There are many ways to analyze it. Most video editors have built-in tools to check the clip structure.

If you want, you can also so use 3rd party apps like MediaInfo (for example) to check the bit depth.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 28, 2023, 16:01
Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.
Why do you think that the finished file will have a bit depth of 10? Can you see somewhere what the bit depth of prores is?

There are many ways to analyze it. Most video editors have built-in tools to check the clip structure.

If you want, you can also so use 3rd party apps like MediaInfo (for example) to check the bit depth.
You can show a screenshot where it says that your clip is in the prores codec and has a bit depth of 10 ?
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 28, 2023, 19:39
Sure. Here you go.
A ProRes clip imported back in DaVinci Resolve and checked with the Inspector shows this:
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 08:18
Sure. Here you go.
A ProRes clip imported back in DaVinci Resolve and checked with the Inspector shows this:
I think it's not the Inspector that shows this information. DaVinci has a media info option.
But I don't like this. I have several videos in the prores codec. But the MediaInfo program does not show their bit depth. Also, Adobe Premier does not show the bit depth of prores. Stock agencies also do not show bit depth. I think that shutterstock does not even have the technical ability to find out the bit depth of your video.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 10:45
I think it's not the Inspector that shows this information.
It doesn't matter what you think.
What matters is the reality: the Inspector is showing the bit-depth info.
Again, you are denying the reality even when it screams in your face.

I also checked MedInfo. You are right that the ProRes clips have no bit depth displayed. I didn't realize it until now, since I only used it to double-check my input videos, for their native color space.
MediaInfo shows the 10 bit-depth for the native H265 clip, and for the intermediary uncompressed clip, but not for the final 10-bit ProRes. This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.

But Davinci Resolve properly displays this information, which is not debatable.

Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 11:52
I think it's not the Inspector that shows this information.
It doesn't matter what you think.
What matters is the reality: the Inspector is showing the bit-depth info.
Again, you are denying the reality even when it screams in your face.

I also checked MedInfo. You are right that the ProRes clips have no bit depth displayed. I didn't realize it until now, since I only used it to double check my input videos, for their native color space.
MediaInfo is showing the 10 bit-depth for the native H265 clip, for the intermediary uncompressed clip, but not for the final 10 bit ProRes. This is weird, indeed.

But Davinci Resolve is properly displaying this information, and this is not debatable.
I also have Davinci Resolve. And in my version of the program Inspector does not show the video bit depth.
So, we only know that only Davinci Resolve can show the video bit depth in prores. We don't know of any other programs. We don’t know whether the shutterstock site uses Davinci Resolve to determine bit depth.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 11:53
I think it's not the Inspector that shows this information.
It doesn't matter what you think.
What matters is the reality: the Inspector is showing the bit-depth info.
Again, you are denying the reality even when it screams in your face.

I also checked MedInfo. You are right that the ProRes clips have no bit depth displayed. I didn't realize it until now, since I only used it to double check my input videos, for their native color space.
MediaInfo is showing the 10 bit-depth for the native H265 clip, for the intermediary uncompressed clip, but not for the final 10 bit ProRes. This is weird, indeed.

But Davinci Resolve is properly displaying this information, and this is not debatable.
I also have Davinci Resolve. And in my version of the program Inspector does not show the video bit depth.
So, we only know that only Davinci Resolve can show the video bit depth in prores. We don't know of any other programs. We don’t know whether the shutterstock site uses Davinci Resolve to determine bit depth.

You may have the free version of DaVinci Resolve which is not supporting 10 bits files :)

As I told you before I am using the paid Studio version.
Do your homework.

PS:
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)
"ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources (such as DVCProHD) would need to be upsampled to a 10-bit file"
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 11:58
This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)
"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 11:59
You may have the free version of DaVinci Resolve which is not supporting 10 bits files :)
I also looked at the paid Studio version.
I don't have the free version of DaVinci Resolve.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 12:01
This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)
"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.

Sure. So when anyone sees a ProRes clip, they can safely bet that it's a 10-bit clip, even if they don't have Davinci Resolve or other tools to check it.

The key character traits that define the ProRes 422 family are support for:

4:2:2 source material (as well as 4:2:1 and 4:2:0 source material if the chroma is upsampled to 4:2:2 prior to encoding),
any frame size (including SD, HD, 2K, 4K, and 5K) at full resolution,
10-bit sample depth,
intrafame (I-frame) only, and
variable bit rate.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 12:07
This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)
"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.

Sure. So when anyone sees a ProRes clip, they can safely bet that it's a 10-bit clip, even if they don't have Davinci Resolve or other tools to check it.
It's a lie! I can recode any video from any crap phone into prores 422.

The de facto bit depth of the video will be 8. Whatever Davinci Resolve shows.  ;D ;D ;D

Many people, after reading this topic, will begin to render any of their videos from their phones in prores and upload them to stock agencies.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 12:15
You may have the free version of DaVinci Resolve which is not supporting 10 bits files :)
I also looked at the paid Studio version.
I don't have the free version of DaVinci Resolve.

Then look harder. It's in the Metadata tab:
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 12:28
This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)
"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.

Sure. So when anyone sees a ProRes clip, they can safely bet that it's a 10-bit clip, even if they don't have Davinci Resolve or other tools to check it.
It's a lie! I can recode any video from any crap phone into prores 422.

The de facto bit depth of the video will be 8. Whatever Davinci Resolve shows.  ;D ;D ;D

Many people, after reading this topic, will begin to render any of their videos from their phones in prores and upload them to stock agencies.  ;D ;D ;D

I agree, but it's not a lie. It's a fact.

What you describe is cheating.

The fact of the matter is that Davinci Resolve will show 10 bits, because the ProRes files are 10 bits (minimum), even if you cheated and invented 2 (or more) bits out of thin air, by falsely encoding an 8-bit file with a 10 or 12-bit codec.

The same goes for any other codecs. You can encode an 8-bit clip and sell it as a 10-bit H.265, for example. MediaInfo will show 10-bit, Davinci will show 10-bit, and your client will have no way to know upfront, that someone is selling fake 10-bit clips.

Congrats, you fooled someone!  ::)

So, it doesn't have anything to do with ProRes, but with your integrity.

The only way to discover this cheat is when the buyer is trying to edit the clip, only to realize it has ugly sudden transitions and banding specific to 8-bit clips. They may very well return the clip and ask for their money back.

And, btw, my S22 Ultra can make native 10-bit clips in Pro mode.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 12:36
You may have the free version of DaVinci Resolve which is not supporting 10 bits files :)
I also looked at the paid Studio version.
I don't have the free version of DaVinci Resolve.

Then look harder. It's in the Metadata tab:
That's what I wrote.  :)
Perhaps this tab is part of the Inspector.  ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 12:41
This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)
"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.

Sure. So when anyone sees a ProRes clip, they can safely bet that it's a 10-bit clip, even if they don't have Davinci Resolve or other tools to check it.
It's a lie! I can recode any video from any crap phone into prores 422.

The de facto bit depth of the video will be 8. Whatever Davinci Resolve shows.  ;D ;D ;D

Many people, after reading this topic, will begin to render any of their videos from their phones in prores and upload them to stock agencies.  ;D ;D ;D

I agree, but it's not a lie.

It is cheating.

The fact of the matter is that Davinci Resolve will show 10 bits, because the ProRes files are 10 bits, even if you cheated and invented 2 bits out of thin air, by falsely encoding an 8-bit file with a 10-bit codec.

The same goes for any other codecs. You can encode an 8-bit clip and sell it as a 10-bit H.265. MediaInfo will show 10 bits, Davinci will show 10 bits, but your client will have no way to know upfront, that someone is selling fake 10 bits clips.


So it doesn't have anything to do with ProRes, but with your integrity.

The only way to discover this cheat is when the buyer is trying to edit the clip, only to realize it has ugly sudden transitions and banding specific to 8-bit clips.

And, btw, my S22 Ultra can make native 10-bit clips in Pro mode.
No, this is not cheating.
You yourself wrote today that prores 4:2:2 also works with 8-bit files. This means that this is a problem with this codec if it represents 8-bit video as 10-bit. You also need to check what your DaVinci Resolve program will show, 8 bit or 10 bit.
People encode videos using the codecs that are popular. The shutterstock website does not prohibit encoding 8-bit video into the prores 4:2:2 codec.  ;D ;D ;D

Conclusions: there are no programs that show the video bit depth. Very few people have your DaVinci Resolve Studio software.

Most stockers phones and cameras shoot 8-bit video.  ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 12:45
Zero Talent, I remain of the opinion that people buy your video not because it has 10 bits. But only because it is encoded in prores. Or perhaps just a good story.
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 12:48
Conclusions: there are no programs that show the video bit depth. Very few people have your DaVinci Resolve Studio software.

Wrong conclusion: MediaInfo is showing the bit depth, but not for ProRes, when the bit-depth is known by default (see below).

Zero Talent, I remain of the opinion that people buy your video not because it has 10 bits. But only because it is encoded in prores. Or perhaps just a good story.
 ;D ;D ;D

That's fine. Keep doing what you do. Less competition for those of us, who understand what high-end buyers want.

But at least you learned something new today. This is progress! You're welcome!
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 13:03
Wrong conclusion: MediaInfo is showing the bit depth, but not for ProRes, when the bit-depth is known by default (see below).
No, not known. You yourself proved that prores works with 8-bit video.

But at least you learned something new today. This is progress! You're welcome!
I'm sure you learned a lot more than I did today.  ;D ;D ;D

And this, I know that the MediaInfo program shows the bit depth of any video, but not prores.  ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 13:47
Yes, I learned something about MediaInfo, indeed. No shame in admitting it: it doesn't show the bit-depth for ProRes clips.

And yes, as I said, ProRes can also work for 8-bit sources. After upscaling them to 10 bits. All ProRes outputs will always be 10 bits minimum, even if the source file was 8 bits.

Below is the MediaInfo info for an old 8-bit H264 clip. Next to it, is the ProRes version obtained by asking Adobe Media Encoder to encode it with ProRes, as presented in Davinci Resolve. I even removed the check forcing the encoding at maximum depth.
As expected, the output is a ProRes 10-bit clip.

I am sure that by using this cheat you may fool some buyers interested in quality 10-bit clips, but it is also likely that it may bite you back. The choice is yours.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 13:59
Yes, I learned something about MediaInfo, indeed. No shame in admitting it: it doesn't show the bit-depth for ProRes clips.

And yes, as I said, ProRes can also work for 8-bit clips. After upscaling them to 10 bits. All ProRes outputs will always be 10 bits minimum, even if the native file was 8 bits.

Below is the info for an old 8-bit H264 clip. Next to it, is the ProRes version obtained by asking Adobe Media Encoder to encode it with ProRes. I even removed the check forcing the encoding at maximum depth.
As expected, the output is a ProRes 10-bit clip.

I am sure that by using this cheat you may fool some buyers interested in quality 10-bit clips, but it is also likely that it may bite you back. The choice is yours.
+100

I think that buyers buy prores only because they are comfortable working with this codec. Also, the buyer can theoretically return any purchased clip if he doesn’t like it. I've heard of such returns.
The author of the video will never receive any claims or threats from the buyer. All these issues are regulated by stock agencies, and on the websites of these agencies there are no requirements for the authors you write about here.
I also believe that this is a defect of the prores codec, which represents 8-bit video as 10-bit. Moreover, I'm not sure that DaVinci Resolve even detects the video bit depth in the prores codec. Most likely, this program decided that if it is prores, then it means there are 10 bits. Thus, most buyers will never know what depth of bits they purchased. Many video editing programs will also not show how many bits are in the video in the prores codec.
 :) ;)

You are writing about some kind of scaling of 8 bits to 10 bits. I'm not sure that this is even possible and that Media Encoder does this. You need to ask Adobe about this. And even if you are right, then so much the better, 8 bit videos will become 10 bit.  :)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 14:16
Yes, I learned something about MediaInfo, indeed. No shame in admitting it: it doesn't show the bit-depth for ProRes clips.

And yes, as I said, ProRes can also work for 8-bit clips. After upscaling them to 10 bits. All ProRes outputs will always be 10 bits minimum, even if the native file was 8 bits.

Below is the info for an old 8-bit H264 clip. Next to it, is the ProRes version obtained by asking Adobe Media Encoder to encode it with ProRes. I even removed the check forcing the encoding at maximum depth.
As expected, the output is a ProRes 10-bit clip.

I am sure that by using this cheat you may fool some buyers interested in quality 10-bit clips, but it is also likely that it may bite you back. The choice is yours.
+100

I think that buyers buy prores only because they are comfortable working with this codec. Also, the buyer can theoretically return any purchased clip if he doesn’t like it. I've heard of such returns.
The author of the video will never receive any claims or threats from the buyer. All these issues are regulated by stock agencies, and on the websites of these agencies there are no requirements for the authors you write about here.
I also believe that this is a defect of the prores codec, which represents 8-bit video as 10-bit. Moreover, I'm not sure that DaVinci Resolve even detects the video bit depth in the prores codec. Most likely, this program decided that if it is prores, then it means there are 10 bits. Thus, most buyers will never know what depth of bits they purchased. Many video editing programs will also not show how many bits are in the video in the prores codec.
 :) ;)

You are writing about some kind of scaling of 8 bits to 10 bits. I'm not sure that this is even possible and that Media Encoder does this. You need to ask Adobe about this. And even if you are right, then so much the better, 8 bit videos will become 10 bit.  :)

Hmm, this is so precious: you are right, and the entire Pro industry is wrong! So are the pros using or developing Davinci Resolve. And Apple... for creating a defective codec. Nobody realized all this until today when you had to ask these questions yourself. Ohhh... and let's not forget Gallup... for asking the wrong questions and giving you data that's contradicting your preconceptions::)

I just did the conversion I mentioned above using Adobe Media Encoder. It works as intended. Go and try it yourself.
Davinci is telling you the truth you don't want to admit. But this is no surprise, is it? You are already well known for denying the evidence, even when it is screaming in your face.

Here is that good link again:
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml (https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml)

Read carefully: While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources (such as DVCProHD) would need to be upsampled to a 10-bit file.

If you want, it can even work with 1-bit source files, able to reproduce only 2 colors:

(https://07274spat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1_bit.png)

But in this case, the cheat will be much easier to detect.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 17:20
Davinci is telling you the truth
OK. In fact I do not care. You are already arguing with yourself.
You think that Media Encoder creates 10 bits from 8 bits, okay, I won’t argue, I still don’t know how Media Encoder works.
Let's assume that the prores codec works correctly, the Media Encoder makes 10 bits and DaVinci shows the correct information.
This all simplifies working with 8-bit video.  ;D
Conclusions: There is only one program that shows the number of bits in prores, and that program is called DaVinci.  :)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 17:24
You are already well known for denying the evidence, even when it is screaming in your face.
:o :o ::) :-\ :-\ :'( :'(

Probably because your evidence is usually not evidence.
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 18:06

Conclusions: There is only one program that shows the number of bits in prores, and that program is called DaVinci.  :)

Unlike yourself, high end users and media players already know that ProRes 422 output is always 10-bit, by defintion. Period. End of line. No switch to 8-bit. 10-bit only.

H.265 (for example) can be either 8-, 10-, or 12-bit, hence the need for clarification, not necessarily for users, but mainly for media players, which must be told upfront how to read and decode the file.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 05:24
Unlike yourself, high end users and media players already know that ProRes 422 output is always 10-bit, by defintion. Period. End of line. No switch to 8-bit. 10-bit only.
ok
 ;D
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 05:26
(https://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37433.0;attach=20344;image)

Why do you enable the option to render with maximum bit depth? Your prores codec already renders everything at 10 bits, as you claim.
 ;)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 30, 2023, 06:08
(https://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37433.0;attach=20344;image)

Why do you enable the option to render with maximum bit depth? Your prores codec already renders everything at 10 bits, as you claim.
 ;)

I already explained it above when I converted an 8-bit H.264 to ProRes with that checkmark disabled.

ProRes 4:2:2 output is ALWAYS 10 bit, no matter if that checkmark is set, or if your source file is 8 bit.
Why don't you try it yourself?

My source files are 10-bit and ProRes is preserving my original bit-depth.

That checkmark has an effect when used with other input-output codec combinations, not in this case.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 06:22
Why don't you try it yourself?
I tried it. The files have different sizes. I rendered 10 bit video.
The question is why?  ;)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 06:24
Zero Talent, where can I read what stocks you upload videos to? Or you haven't written this here on the forum yet.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 30, 2023, 06:37
Why don't you try it yourself?
I tried it. The files have different sizes. I rendered 10 bit video.
The question is why?  ;)
I'm not sure I understand what you did. What were your input and output settings?

Even inside the 10-bit ProRes family (LT, vs normal, vs HQ) the output files have different sizes depending on how much information the lossy compression is discarding.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 06:48
Why don't you try it yourself?
I tried it. The files have different sizes. I rendered 10 bit video.
The question is why?  ;)
I'm not sure I understand what you did. What were your input and output settings?

Even inside the 10-bit ProRes family (LT, vs normal, vs HQ) the output files have different sizes depending on how much information the lossy compression is discarding.
10-bit ProRes LT.
The first rendering is with maximum bit depth.
The second rendering is without maximum bit depth.

I took one source file and made 2 different renderings from it.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 30, 2023, 07:32
Why don't you try it yourself?
I tried it. The files have different sizes. I rendered 10 bit video.
The question is why?  ;)
I'm not sure I understand what you did. What were your input and output settings?

Even inside the 10-bit ProRes family (LT, vs normal, vs HQ) the output files have different sizes depending on how much information the lossy compression is discarding.
10-bit ProRes LT.
The first rendering is with maximum bit depth.
The second rendering is without maximum bit depth.

I took one source file and made 2 different renderings from it.

And both final files are 10-bit ProRes, right?
Except for the test above, I never experimented with that setting switched off.

I found this explanation, which means that the setting has a different purpose. Maximum depth means 32 bit for internal calculations instead of 8 (or 10?):
8-bit means the result of every calculation on the image can only have 256 possible levels per channel (RGB or YUV). That’s not a lot of accuracy. With multiple effects on a clip, this means we’ll get rounding errors for each calculation, with the danger of introducing banding and blocking.

In 32-bit, we’re doing all calculations with results that can have more than 4 billion different levels per channel, so rounding errors with multiple effects are totally eliminated. We can also store levels way beyond 100% white and 0% black
.

So, it looks like that setting is mainly used for internal transcoding calculations. Maximum depth means more accurate calculations, not necessarily the bit-depth of the final file, which is fixed in our case, by the 10-bit ProRes standard.

Keep it checked. It may take longer to render, but the original information will be better preserved.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 08:16
Why don't you try it yourself?
I tried it. The files have different sizes. I rendered 10 bit video.
The question is why?  ;)
I'm not sure I understand what you did. What were your input and output settings?

Even inside the 10-bit ProRes family (LT, vs normal, vs HQ) the output files have different sizes depending on how much information the lossy compression is discarding.
10-bit ProRes LT.
The first rendering is with maximum bit depth.
The second rendering is without maximum bit depth.

I took one source file and made 2 different renderings from it.

And both final files are 10-bit ProRes, right?
Except for the test above, I never experimented with that setting switched off.

I found this explanation, which means that the setting has a different purpose. Maximum depth means 32 bit for internal calculations instead of 8 (or 10?):
8-bit means the result of every calculation on the image can only have 256 possible levels per channel (RGB or YUV). That’s not a lot of accuracy. With multiple effects on a clip, this means we’ll get rounding errors for each calculation, with the danger of introducing banding and blocking.

In 32-bit, we’re doing all calculations with results that can have more than 4 billion different levels per channel, so rounding errors with multiple effects are totally eliminated. We can also store levels way beyond 100% white and 0% black
.

So, it looks like that setting is mainly used for internal transcoding calculations. Maximum depth means more accurate calculations, not necessarily the bit-depth of the final file, which is fixed in our case, by the 10-bit ProRes standard.

Keep it checked. It may take longer to render, but the original information will be better preserved.
According to DaVinci, yes, both files are 10 bits.

I read your assumptions. But these are just assumptions.
On the other hand, how much space can 2 bits take up? :)

Media Encoder has an 8bit or 16bit option. They do not affect the prores codec; the files are also the same size.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 30, 2023, 10:03
2 bits means 4 times more information: 2 power 8 = 256 shades of luminance vs 2 power 10 = 1024 shades.
The uncompressed file will grow 4 times larger, only because of the extra luminance details.
But the lossy algorithm will discard some of this extra information, during compression.

This is no different than shooting 14 bit RAW versus vs 8 bit JPG, in photography.

This is why it's better to shoot timelapses in RAW, process and export them as 16-bit TIFF, then combine them in a clip using 12 bit codecs like ProRes 4:4:4.
You will still drop some of the original information when downsampling from 14 bit RAW to 12 bit ProRes.

That "use maximum depth" settings we talk about, is similar to the intermediate 16 bit TIFF based export describe above, used before the final encoding.

Did you read the ProRes codec specs too? Those were not assumptions.
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: stoker2014 on December 30, 2023, 12:15
This is why it's better to shoot timelapses in RAW, process and export them as 16-bit TIFF
:o :o :o ::) ::) ::)

And it’s better to shoot video in RAW !
Do you shoot videos in raw?  ;)
Title: Re: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
Post by: Zero Talent on December 30, 2023, 13:37
This is why it's better to shoot timelapses in RAW, process and export them as 16-bit TIFF
:o :o :o ::) ::) ::)

And it’s better to shoot video in RAW !
Do you shoot videos in raw?  ;)
Of course it's better.
As I said, I can only shoot RAW for timelapses. I don't have such extremely expensive equipment for normal footage.
Short of that, shooting 10 bit footage is the best I can do.  ;)