Massive Storage Need for Video Project
-
What I'm trying to say is, I can record a .wav file at the highest meg per second if I wanted to, but that won't make my music amazing.
My thing is that it needs to look good, is the shot framed nicely? The audio capture clear and stellar? Additional lights in place?
With a single go-pro I would worry about whether content, shot placement, lighting & audio is stellar before worrying about resolution.
@scottalanmiller said:
Have you SEEN the images coming off of these? It's not a Red by any stretch, but they look absolutely amazing.
I'm guessing you have the Hero? Might be wrong.
Certainly in the past 2 years a lot of cameras from different manufactures are all fairly similar now, We just finished a project in East Africa using Blackmagic Pocket Cinema cameras, with Pro-Res 4:4:2:2 we kept storage costs down but still had a massive amount of data for the edit, It also looks incredible, being able to use fantastic lenses does help.
Without knowing what you are planning to make, my worry is that going through the expense of storing and having someone edit that 4K raw, will it make the content better? Especially if the editor insists on using raw.
-
@Dashrender said:
I suppose for commercial use, but even then.
Sure those services all provide (or soon will) provide 4K, but how many people can take advantage of it? or have the bandwidth to do it streaming?
Many today and nearly everyone in a year. By the time the material is ready, the question will be who can't take advantage of it? And streaming, while already broadly available and nearly everyone I know can do it, isn't needed as you can download too (that's how Vimeo is handling it right now.)
But already we have people streaming in 4K off of YouTube and we are only just testing the format!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I suppose for commercial use, but even then.
Sure those services all provide (or soon will) provide 4K, but how many people can take advantage of it? or have the bandwidth to do it streaming?
Many today and nearly everyone in a year. By the time the material is ready, the question will be who can't take advantage of it? And streaming, while already broadly available and nearly everyone I know can do it, isn't needed as you can download too (that's how Vimeo is handling it right now.)
But already we have people streaming in 4K off of YouTube and we are only just testing the format!
I'd be willing to bet YouTube compresses it heavily.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Certainly in the past 2 years a lot of cameras from different manufactures are all fairly similar now, We just finished a project in East Africa using Blackmagic Pocket Cinema cameras, with Pro-Res 4:4:2:2 we .....
Funny, I was JUST looking at those not 30 minutes ago!! Looks nice.
-
@scottalanmiller Even at 1080P
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Without knowing what you are planning to make, my worry is that going through the expense of storing and having someone edit that 4K raw....
Well the "cost" is pretty much all in time, right? Since Amazon is $60 unlimited (per year, of course) the cost is the same in pure dollars if we do 720p or 4K. The time to get the footage up to it? Yeah, that takes a lot longer and we are attempting to tackle that. But if we have to ship drives, then so be it. But other than the time to upload, what would be the reason to turn down the resolution and "work with less" when 4K is available? Especially since YouTube and Vimeo are already offering 4K services today? Even if the footage isn't the best, it looks better in 4K than it does in 1080p.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I'd be willing to bet YouTube compresses it heavily.
Obviously, down to 50Mb/s. We're converting specifically for YouTube 4K streaming so that the transcoding artifacts are minimal.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'm guessing you have the Hero? Might be wrong.
Hero4 Black, yes. Only GoPro with 4K. No ideal, but the images are great and it's 4K at a low price point. We are doing travel videos so the wide field limitation is not as bad as it could be. Gotta get past a proving point before investing in more robust gear.
-
@scottalanmiller Wellll....does it?
Just for fun, I took the same great footage, made one a standard def DVD and one a h264 30 meg per second video.
Then using a switcher, did A/B test with both playing at the same time and asked people to "Spot the difference" between them. Apparently they were both the same.
I would say that the quality of the playback device (TV/IPad/PC) will have a bigger impact on it.
@scottalanmiller said:
We are doing travel videos so the wide field limitation is not as bad as it could be.
I was worried you were attempting corporate talking heads or interview style, for travel I guess it's alright.
-
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Why do you need RAW 4K for production? Why not record in RAW HD?
Because HD is far too low. We WANT to be recording in 8K so that we can compress down to 4K. But that's not a reasonable option.
WHY? what are you hoping to gain by running it at 4K for the production? Heck most theaters don't even have those projectors.
They actually are. There was Digital 4k Projectors or lights out required by major productions a few years back. This allows them to both ensure quality. and ensure theaters stay complaint as many were showing unlicensed show times. Now they get a hard drive that is encrypted to plug into their projector. They have to login to the website and generate a one time password that they can only get a few mins before the movie is set to start. The this code can only be used one and thus stops the illegal showings.
-
@scottalanmiller It's probably my brain but the shimmer the camera gives off when you judder it up or down ever so slightly is really distracting. Even at standard def.
I'll borrow a black magic and do some test footage so you can compare.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Apple Pro-res 4:4:2:2 should give the editor a huge amount of grading scope without breaking the storage bank.
Pro-Res 4:2:2 is consider a intermediate codec, not something you really want to make deliverable out of. You want 4:4:4 color space at least. Raw is preferred. Pro-res is meant to make editing easier on your computer by using less data to edit and then re-linking to the source media for output.
-
@scottalanmiller I can see some rolling shutter in that video.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Pro-Res 4:2:2 is consider a intermediate codec, not something you really want to make deliverable out of. You want 4:4:4 color space at least. Raw is preferred.
Still looks good though, if it's a toss-up between shoot it or not, then use 4:2:2. - Very few actually go to the time and painstaking effort of properly grading their work anyway.
-
So far, Amazon Cloud Storage is working out! Getting data uploaded faster than it is created, which is pretty much all that I need. Getting everything protected AND able to be shared. Total win.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Still looks good though, if it's a toss-up between shoot it or not, then use 4:2:2. - Very few actually go to the time and painstaking effort of properly grading their work anyway.
Any professional will use LUTs and do the edit then during the post process it gets send to a color house to do the final color work. Coloring is just like special effects they are done by facilities that specialize in that and only do that.
