Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

EPIC-X test shoot - Sunset on Han River (4K YouTube upload)

Mike Lary

Mike Lary

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
digitalfactory.kr
Here's a 4K upload of our Han River test that shows before and after grading of 5K source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytEVTzWZ8&feature=feedu
Please select 'Original' quality setting to view at 4K.

The degree of crisp detail that can be pulled from these images is amazing. To retain a sense of realism, we had to go easy on the throttle in post. ;)

Note:
The vignetting you see is from the RedPro Prime 18mm.

Camera: EPIC-X
Lens: RedPro Prime 18mm
Aperture: T1.8
ISO: 800
Framerate: 24fps
Shutter: 1/48th
Resolution: 5K
REDCODE: 7:1

First segment: RedGamma2 / RedColor2
Second segment: RedLogFilm / RedColor2 (graded in Resolve)
 
Wow that is pretty damn sharp playing at "Original" size on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor! Beautiful.

What format, bitrate and filesize did you upload this to Youtube in? Quicktime?
 
Tom Lowe said:
Wow that is pretty damn sharp playing at "Original" size on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor! Beautiful.

What format, bitrate and filesize did you upload this to Youtube in? Quicktime?
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

We uploaded a ProRes 4444 .mov directly to YouTube and let them do the rest. The file size was 4.5 GB. I had lunch and dinner in the time it took to upload.

We're happy with the result, but we'll be using a different transcoding solution in the future that gives us more control and better time management of the process. I'm thinking YouTube doesn't play well with files this large (and running time was only 30 seconds) because we got an error at the end saying the upload failed. It had actually completed, but all the data I'd entered for the description/tags, etc was gone.

P.S. Credit goes to Nook Kim for the grading.
 
This test has proved to me that it's now all about how much fine details I can get from a camera. There are quite a few cameras that give me over 13 stops of DR and whatnot, but not too many cameras give me this much detail.

Please take a look at this image very close in full screen mode. You can see the mountains behind the bridge which is very far and covered in fog. We will do much more of further tests with Epic footage, but I do believe that this level of detail can only be achieved at the acquisition.

This test also shows that there IS 4K delivery medium that can benefit from higher resolution than 1080, although I hope Youtube gets much faster.

I should note that I did sharpened the image very slightly to add a bit of extra pop, but I really didn't have to.

Enjoy the Epic!
 
Nook Kim said:
I should note that I did sharpened the image very slightly to add a bit of
extra pop, but I really didn't have to.
Click to expand...
Was wondering if you did. Seems mild though. Epic is very detailed and naturally sharp.
 
wow, youtube has grown leaps and bounds with the 4k quality. i remember the initial iteration of it, and it really didn't look so hot. now you can really see the difference. great shot.
 
Brian Iannone said:
Wow, that is stunningly clean footage! Great job. :) I didn't know YouTube accepts ProRes 4444 files.
Click to expand...

Neither did we, so we figured we'd give it a shot. They're a bit vague about supported formats.
 
Mike nice the resolution is very very good,
have you tried to convert in F4V 4k? change much?
 
luigivaltulini said:
have you tried to convert in F4V 4k? change much?
Click to expand...

I haven't had time to delve too deep into the 4K transcoding yet. When I find a more elegant solution that rivals that upload quality, I'll definitely post the results.
 
Mike Lary said:
I haven't had time to delve too deep into the 4K transcoding yet. When I find a more elegant solution that rivals that upload quality, I'll definitely post the results.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, in this days i try upload prores4444 vs f4v . I love youtube 4k and RED.;)
thanks for your sharing.
 
Mike Lary said:
Hi Tom,

We uploaded a ProRes 4444 .mov directly to YouTube and let them do the rest. The file size was 4.5 GB. I had lunch and dinner in the time it took to upload.

We're happy with the result, but we'll be using a different transcoding solution in the future that gives us more control and better time management of the process. I'm thinking YouTube doesn't play well with files this large (and running time was only 30 seconds) because we got an error at the end saying the upload failed. It had actually completed, but all the data I'd entered for the description/tags, etc was gone.

P.S. Credit goes to Nook Kim for the grading.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Looks great! Uploaded 4K files look normally much sharper on YouTube than uploaded 1080p. For uploading large files to YouTube I‘d recommend Google Chrome it is more stable than i.e. Safari. I had the same experience with two uploads via Safari (>4 GB) they failed at the end. For more than 30 seconds I prefer ProRes222 LT. Here are two test shots on EPIC-X Canon Mount uploaded in 4K (5 GB / 8.5 GB):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR_5_JpjuyE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZpJ6KFmsSE
 
Claus Mueller said:
Hi Mike,

Looks great! Uploaded 4K files look normally much sharper on YouTube than uploaded 1080p. For uploading large files to YouTube I‘d recommend Google Chrome it is more stable than i.e. Safari. I had the same experience with two uploads via Safari (>4 GB) they failed at the end. For more than 30 seconds I prefer ProRes222 LT. Here are two test shots on EPIC-X Canon Mount uploaded in 4K (5 GB / 8.5 GB):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR_5_JpjuyE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZpJ6KFmsSE
Click to expand...

Hi Claus,

Thanks for the advice. We'll definitely give that a try. Do you have preferred software for the transcoding?

Your footage looks beautiful. I especially like the textural study in the second piece, for its variety and the level of detail rendered. It's a feast for the eyes. Thanks for sharing.
 
Mike Lary said:
Hi Claus,

Thanks for the advice. We'll definitely give that a try. Do you have preferred software for the transcoding?

Your footage looks beautiful. I especially like the textural study in the second piece, for its variety and the level of detail rendered. It's a feast for the eyes. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike. Workflow was straight forward. RCX-Pro --> 4K ProRes444 --> FCP X ---> 4K ProRes222 LT --> Upload 4K ProRes222 LT via Chrome (not Safari !!) to YouTube
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top