Hypothetical question re video

[Anonymous]

This is the media info for a video i saw on youtube. It is fine but i do not like that it does not have a shallow dof just a personal thing. Am i right the Color space : YUV and Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 does not indicate very high quality. I just wondered as it was shot by a pro. I am not criticising it/him just wondering what you guy think of the media info data. What could be better. 25000 fps is OK isn't it for film look. What does forced mean? I want to get a camera that can do very high quality and i will want shallow dof

General
Unique ID : ************************************************** *******************
Complete name : C:\Users\username\movie.mkv
Format : Matroska
Format version : Version 4 / Version 2
File size : 120 MiB
Duration : 4 min 5 s
Overall bit rate : 4 085 kb/s
Writing application : Lavf57.11.100
Writing library : Lavf57.11.100 / Lavf57.11.100

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L4
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Duration : 4 min 5 s
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 25.000 FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Encoded date : UTC 2014-11-07 23:21:27
DURATION : 00:04:05.840000000
HANDLER_NAME : VideoHandler

Audio
ID : 2
Format : Opus
Codec ID : A_OPUS
Duration : 4 min 5 s
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Compression mode : Lossy
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
DURATION : 00:04:05.901000000

[smrpix]

Shallow DOF is dependent on the lens -- iris and focal length. It has nothing to do with encoding, color space or frame rate.

Look for a camera that gives you complete manual control over the lens such as a DSLR or a high quality video camera that accepts interchangeable lenses.

[jagabo]

Virtually all video is distributed as YUV with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling (DVD, Blu-ray, on-line streaming...). The chroma channels are half the resolution (each dimension) of the luma channel. So a 1920x1080 video has a 1920x1080 luma channel and two 960x540 chroma channels.

No matter what was uploaded YouTube everything you can view/download has been reencoded as YUV 4:2:0.

[Anonymous]

Virtually all video is distributed as YUV with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling (DVD, Blu-ray, on-line streaming...). The chroma channels are half the resolution (each dimension) of the luma channel. So a 1920x1080 video has a 1920x1080 luma channel and two 960x540 chroma channels.

No matter what was uploaded YouTube everything you can view/download has been reencoded as YUV 4:2:0.

ok thanks EDIT then why do some cameras shoot 4:2:2

[Anonymous]

Shallow DOF is dependent on the lens -- iris and focal length. It has nothing to do with encoding, color space or frame rate.

Look for a camera that gives you complete manual control over the lens such as a DSLR or a high quality video camera that accepts interchangeable lenses.

i know i was just wondering if the encoding on that film was good as i did not like the dof and wondered if the rest was considered good. it is a personal thing with me not criticising the man who did it

[jagabo]

i know i was just wondering if the encoding on that film was good as i did not like the dof and wondered if the rest was considered good.

Uploaders have no control over how YouTube does their re-encoding.

[ChapmanDolly]

The one thing that stands out to me is the low bit-rate of 4085 kbps. Though I have never checked the final bit-rate coming from YouTube, I upload my videos at 1080 50p 35000kbps to eliminate as many YT artifacts as possible.
Depth of field has nothing to do with the video encoding method. It's how you use your focusing, exposure, and shutter settings.

[_Al_]

Some camcorders, cameras shoot 4:2:2 or maybe even higher with some hacks, not sure about those GH4, GH5 that folks play with.
Because of color corrections, for serious PRO job. You load it into videoeditor and you work on that video. Color corrections etc. But as soon you export it for a consumer market from your videoeditor , you always export 4:2:0. They do not even mention that. It comes as a sure thing. You can always archive those files if you want as 4:2:2, if you correctly export it as 4:2:2 l from your videoeditor. That might be a problem. Perhaps in some form of lossless 4:2:2 codec.

[_Al_]

Depth of field has nothing to do with the video encoding method. It's how you use your focusing, exposure, and shutter settings.

There is one side effect of using DOF, nothing to do per encoding method as you said, but its result - getting much smaller videofiles. If there is a lot of blurred stuff in a frame, encoded volume drops radically. With objects all sharp with all of their details, bitrate demands can skyrocket. That is one of reason folks wonder why their encoded video is so large and movies are not.

[jagabo]

The one thing that stands out to me is the low bit-rate of 4085 kbps.

Youtube isn't interested in high quality. They want to keep bandwidth as low as possible -- just not so low that the average user gets disgusted and stops watching.

[Anonymous]

Some camcorders, cameras shoot 4:2:2 or maybe even higher with some hacks, not sure about those GH4, GH5 that folks play with.
Because of color corrections, for serious PRO job. You load it into videoeditor and you work on that video. Color corrections etc. But as soon you export it for a consumer market from your videoeditor , you always export 4:2:0. They do not even mention that. It comes as a sure thing. You can always archive those files if you want as 4:2:2, if you correctly export it as 4:2:2 l from your videoeditor. That might be a problem. Perhaps in some form of lossless 4:2:2 codec.

OK Thanks

[Anonymous]

This is the video in case anyone wants to see it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_RyPPx1Uzk
I do not like where you can see the other side of road quite sharp starting about seconds but that is just me i do not like the 'flat' look of video

[jagabo]

The point of the video is to be able to see both the speaker in the foreground and the crowd in the background.

[Anonymous]

The point of the video is to be able to see both the speaker in the foreground and the crowd in the background.

i disagree the crowd could have been seen if slightly blurred and the focus on the speaker. imo the speaker is lost in it

[smrpix]

i disagree the crowd could have been seen if slightly blurred and the focus on the speaker. imo the speaker is lost in it

Well, now you know how to do it by using the right lenses properly. It's an aesthetic choice at this point, not right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with the footage as-is, you would just have handled it a different way.

It's also possible to add some blurring in post. How accurate or convincing that is comes down to time, talent and money.

[Anonymous]

i disagree the crowd could have been seen if slightly blurred and the focus on the speaker. imo the speaker is lost in it

Well, now you know how to do it by using the right lenses properly. It's an aesthetic choice at this point, not right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with the footage as-is, you would just have handled it a different way.

It's also possible to add some blurring in post. How accurate or convincing that is comes down to time, talent and money.

I knew already about the lenses and i said i was not judging him or criticizing him. I said it was only my subjective opinion re the background.. My question was only really about the Color space : YUV and Chroma subsampling. That has been answered

Magic Bullets looks can blur background to some extent in post

[Cornucopia]

In addition to what was mentioned about affecting DoF, sensor size also enters in.
The pro videographer in the clip was likely using a common ENG camera with a (likely) 2/3" sensor. This is much smaller than the super35 sensor used for digital cinema, so while DC cams often utilize shallow DoF, those ENG cams, by nature of their smaller sensor size and accompanying wider FoV equivalent lenses, usually end up with deep DoF. Not necessarily by artistic design but by logistical, techological and economic needs. And this has translated into an expected newsgathering style.

You can shoot however you like. But IIWY, I'd spare judgement on other material without having fuller knowledge of both intention & constraints.

Scott

[_Al_]

There is a trick that can be used, cameraman can step backwords a bit then zooming in a bit to get background more blury. Picture looks a bit more shallow, not sure how to call it, but nevertheless. It could be used now and then.

[Cornucopia]

That "trick" only works when there isn't a building/river/highway/etc immediately behind, or when the zoom lens allows for the additional adjustment. Then there's the timing and/or immediacy of the shot. News folks have to deal with split second decisions like that every day.

Again, best not make a habit of being the "monday morning quarterback".

Scott

[David Banner]

That "trick" only works when there isn't a building/river/highway/etc immediately behind, or when the zoom lens allows for the additional adjustment. Then there's the timing and/or immediacy of the shot. News folks have to deal with split second decisions like that every day.

Again, best not make a habit of being the "monday morning quarterback".

Scott

obviously you missed the part where the op said he was not judging. bit of a "monday morning quarterback" yourself complaining about point that were not made. hope you can see better through your camera than on here