4K Workflow Questions

[SameSelf]

I am looking at getting a 4K camera sometime in 2016 (before the 2016 football season starts). No longer the naive videographer of the past, I recognize that I will need to re-evaluate my HD workflow which I am fairly happy with right now. So a couple of questions:

1. I am wondering what the state of the art for 4K encoding is for Youtube (my primary delivery format)? IOW, is x265 at an acceptable level of maturity? Or would I be better off with x264?
2. Should I not even bother with 4K uploads right now and just downrez to HD?
3. Also, I keep seeing VP9 being thrown around, but it is not listed on the software list. Is this slated to be the real winner in the 4K codec wars?

TIA.

[LigH.de]

1.: Encoding to HEVC may take several times longer, but will not spare several times the size of the AVC result. So I believe that x264 is still optimal, compared to x265, regarding efficiency – if you take time consumption into account.

2.: Yes, you should care – uploading 4K resolution will also result in a better quality of the HD downscales than just uploading HD resolutions.

3.: VP9 takes even more time to compress, and will probably not beat HEVC in quality:bitrate efficiency...

[racer-x]

No matter what codec you encode to (avc, hevc or vp9), youtube will re-encode anyway. You might as well just use a good quality setting in x264 and forget it. I would just go with CRF=19 for my youtube uploads.

[SameSelf]

1.: Encoding to HEVC may take several times longer, but will not spare several times the size of the AVC result. So I believe that x264 is still optimal, compared to x265, regarding efficiency – if you take time consumption into account.

2.: Yes, you should care – uploading 4K resolution will also result in a better quality of the HD downscales than just uploading HD resolutions.

3.: VP9 takes even more time to compress, and will probably not beat HEVC in quality:bitrate efficiency...

1. That is very interesting to hear. I was under the impression that x265/HEVC is for 4K the way H.264 was to HD. I guess the only way to know for sure is to run some side by side tests, but I don't have any 4K content to play with currently.

2. Thanks for the reminder. I had read that somewhere once before but it had since slipped my brain.

3. Ok, good to know.

[SameSelf]

No matter what codec you encode to (avc, hevc or vp9), youtube will re-encode anyway. You might as well just use a good quality setting in x264 and forget it. I would just go with CRF=19 for my youtube uploads.

Yes, I am aware of that. Although since posting this and doing a little reading up on things, it sounds like Google is pushing VP9 really hard for 4K uploads to Youtube and that they may not even support HEVC?

[SameSelf]

The more I think about this the more I think that 4K is still cutting edge, at least generating your own content for the web. I hope 4K will eventually find its way to the masses.

[racer-x]

I posted some links to original 4k hevc footage you can experiment with if you'd like. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/368684-Editing-4k-HEVC-footage-(Samsung-NX1)

[KarMa]

3.: VP9 takes even more time to compress, and will probably not beat HEVC in quality:bitrate efficiency...

In my own basic tests, I peg VP9 at or slightly above x264 (slow preset). And slower than x264.

[KarMa]

Yes, I am aware of that. Although since posting this and doing a little reading up on things, it sounds like Google is pushing VP9 really hard for 4K uploads to Youtube and that they may not even support HEVC?

VP9 is free and made by Google/Youtube, so it's only natural. And free on Google's scale is very cost effective. It's also a stick used against HEVC patent holders, to make them feel like their is competition. But HEVC is still better than VP9.

[_Al_]

4k getting out from Sony Vegas, even Vegas Movie Studio (4k export did not work properly for user, or it could be used with old Vegas versions), I posted some of it that crazy "4k" thread. 4k export is in the post underneath. Rendering 4k mp4 (H.264+AAC) using dmfs and dropping signpost avi and INI file on batch file. INI file is pretty easy and gets you anything. If project in Vegas is 4k resolution, there will be no resizing line in that INI file.

[LigH.de]

Still to 1.: Depending on your CPU, especially AVX features, encoding a whole 4K movie with x265 may take days, possibly even weeks, if you use any more elaborate presets than the fastest few. If you don't mind that, HEVC will certainly be more efficient than AVC for 4K resolutions.

I don't have any recent intel Core i# CPUs available, only AMD Phenom-II or A#, therefore no AVX2, and I would not want to know the electricity costs if I let a movie of more than one hour playing time encode with such a PC with any x265 preset not having "fast" in its name; it would possibly keep me warm in the winter.

In my own basic tests, I peg VP9 at or slightly above x264 (slow preset). And slower than x264.

I guess the first one relates to x265?

[SameSelf]

Still to 1.: Depending on your CPU, especially AVX features, encoding a whole 4K movie with x265 may take days, possibly even weeks, if you use any more elaborate presets than the fastest few. If you don't mind that, HEVC will certainly be more efficient than AVC for 4K resolutions.

That is one of the reasons I think 4K content might still be out of bounds for the hobbyist as it necessitates a high powered workstation and maybe even a render farm, not to mention how sluggish my system will feel when editing.

I posted some links to original 4k hevc footage you can experiment with if you'd like. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/368684-Editing-4k-HEVC-footage-(Samsung-NX1)

Thanks for the link. I will definitely be taking those files for a spin on my machine to see how the workflow feels.