• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!

1080p or 4k?

korach1921 said:
I meant downscaling for editing. What I ended up doing at first was using ffmpeg to convert the 4K blu-ray rip into a DNxHR HQ mxf file. However, I notice there are still plenty of artifacts when I'm editing, but I don't know if there's like any speed or quality settings you can add when converting to DNxHD.
Click to expand...
I would expect that to produce a high quality video. If you do a test render, are the artefacts there?
The reason I ask that is because the editing software often uses a proxy version of your files for preview.
 
I recommend the codec Cineform (with setting Film 2).
 
Is Cineform available for ffmpeg? Or do I need to use Resolve? Or some other software?

EDIT: Just checked and it seems it's available with shutter encoder
 
korach1921 said:
Is Cineform available for ffmpeg? Or do I need to use Resolve? Or some other software?

EDIT: Just checked and it seems it's available with shutter encoder
Click to expand...
It shouldn't matter as both DNxHR and Cineform are lossless. You shouldn't be experiencing any artefacts with either one as they are not compressing the frames at all. That's why I asked about test renders. If your test renders show artefacts then it's possibly an issue with the software or an issue with the resize algorithm chosen in ffmpeg.
 
Okay, so, I should clarify that the artifacts aren't obvious or really apparent until I apply a LUT to them after exporting the Dolby Vision footage.
 
korach1921 said:
Okay, so, I should clarify that the artifacts aren't obvious or really apparent until I apply a LUT to them after exporting the Dolby Vision footage.
Click to expand...
That sounds like normal behaviour of SDR footage in some circumstances. You'll get banding like that because each colour only has 255 levels of brightness. It's possible that is your issue. That can be hidden by adding film grain. Is your source SDR? If not, then I might have to bow out as I am unfamiliar with raw formats or editing in HDR.
 
If you're converting from 4K then there's a good chance your original source is HDR. The resize filter in ffmpeg may not be equipped to retain that HDR data (I don't mean tone mapping).
In short, I will stick with my first piece of advice; don't downscale before your edit. Just convert your source straight to DNxHR or Cineform or Prores and use that source in your editing software,
 
I see. So edit the 4K source in Resolve and then export it with Dolby Vision tone mapping?
 
korach1921 said:
I see. So edit the 4K source in Resolve and then export it with Dolby Vision tone mapping?
Click to expand...
The first part, yes. The second part, I'm afraid I have no clue. I export all my work in SDR and no idea how to do otherwise.
 
Possessed said:
I don't think 1080p has or ever will age out of relevance the way 480p and DVD quality has. The reason being that, even if 1080p is less resolution than 4K (obviously), it's still much closer to approaching the limit of how much details in a movie most people can notice than 480p ever could.
Click to expand...

Indeed. So far as I can tell, 1080p captures at least 95% of the detail captured by traditional 35mm film. Sure, you can aim as big a microscope at a frame of film and make as big a digital file as you like, but at a certain point you're just digitizing more grain, rather than preserving more detail.

IMHO, however, the most important thing when it comes to film/TV presentation isn't 4K or even 1080p, but projection. I'm convinced there's a physiological difference between watching light that's gracefully bouncing off a screen in a dark room and watching a TV/computer monitor blasting light directly into your eyeballs. Given the choice between watching a properly projected DVD and watching a 4K disc on a 4K TV with another light on in the room (in order to not get immediate, unbearable eyestrain), I'll take the DVD every time - especially when played through a naturally upscaling Blu-ray player. :cool:
 
tremault said:
It shouldn't matter as both DNxHR and Cineform are lossless. You shouldn't be experiencing any artefacts with either one as they are not compressing the frames at all. That's why I asked about test renders. If your test renders show artefacts then it's possibly an issue with the software or an issue with the resize algorithm chosen in ffmpeg.
Click to expand...

I can't really speak from experience, since I edit in 1080p, but I recently decided to try exporting files via DNxHR instead of GoPro Cineform in DaVinci Resolve, and between the two, I think DNxHR produced a lovelier result after exporting through Handbrake than Cineform did. Of course, that might be because DNxHR's default setting in DaVinci Resolve is 444 12-bit. Still, I think DNxHR preserved a lot of the details better than Cineform. Don't know if the results are the same in 4k, but it seems like the better choice from my side.
 
I'll delete when answered or if needed.

With 4K source material, how come more fanedits don't utilise these?

Especially with AI upscaling available which seem to do a decent enough job if there's 1080p deleted scenes available.

Thanks
 
I can only speak for my self so - My computer would crash and burn if I try to export full 4K movie (or upscale more than few seconds of footage with AI) also, I don't have equipment to watch 4K and dont really need it.
 
BatXDude said:
I'll delete when answered or if needed.
Click to expand...
Please don't. It's rare that we would delete a thread.
BatXDude said:
With 4K source material, how come more fanedits don't utilise these?
Click to expand...
I believe it often is due to price. UHD compatible drives are about 3-4x expensive. UHD isn't easily obtainable from purchased digital files and other means would violate the OTS rule. The files are also much larger than BD-R's as Gieferg pointed out. There are also studies that suggest human eyes can't really see the difference of or beyond 4K unless eye sight is 20/20 and even then the size vs perceivable calrity begins to have diminishing retruns.
BatXDude said:
Especially with AI upscaling available which seem to do a decent enough job if there's 1080p deleted scenes available.
Click to expand...
AI upscaling still depends on the source material. Often the payoff from 1080p to 2k or 4k doesn't seem to be worth it in terms of size/space, time and resources required to get top quality results.
 
Similar to why there aren't many if any 3d edits:

  1. Lossless HD files are already huge
  2. Editing an hours long file in HD is already intensive
  3. More people have HD compatible TV's and players to watch the result compared to 4k versions
  4. There are more software hoops to jump through at each stage to not drastically lose quality by user error
  5. Price
 
You'd probably get just the same quality rendering a high bitrate 1080p as a low bitrate 4k, and a high bitrate 4k is going to be much larger and likely not needed by many people. You'd be surprised at how many online viewers would be nearly as happy with a properly encoded 720p, they're watching social media videos on their phone all day anyway, most people aren't videophiles especially when it comes to creator-produced content.
 
Gaith said:
Indeed. So far as I can tell, 1080p captures at least 95% of the detail captured by traditional 35mm film. Sure, you can aim as big a microscope at a frame of film and make as big a digital file as you like, but at a certain point you're just digitizing more grain, rather than preserving more detail.

IMHO, however, the most important thing when it comes to film/TV presentation isn't 4K or even 1080p, but projection. I'm convinced there's a physiological difference between watching light that's gracefully bouncing off a screen in a dark room and watching a TV/computer monitor blasting light directly into your eyeballs. Given the choice between watching a properly projected DVD and watching a 4K disc on a 4K TV with another light on in the room (in order to not get immediate, unbearable eyestrain), I'll take the DVD every time - especially when played through a naturally upscaling Blu-ray player. :cool:
Click to expand...
I agree with this too. I'm so happy with my BenQ 1080p projector. Even low resolution stuff looks good on it and just has a pleasing look to it, but actual 1080p stuff just looks *Wow* on it. Good stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom