4k or not to 4k

[MavicMan64]

4K, more room for cropping. That said, I don’t know anyone with a 4K tv...

4k for me. All of my TV's are 4k UHD. Nothing like watching my videos on my 86" 4k TV. Very spectacular

 

[brett8883]

Another small detail here specific to YouTube is that YouTube uses VP9 for encoding 4k videos and uses it to encode all the various resolution copies it makes. VP9 is a more efficient codec so you effectively will get a better quality video if you upload it in 4k even if you only watch it in 1080p. Some people will actually upsample their 1080p video to 4k before uploading it because of this.

Yet another reason to record in 4k that doesn’t relate to resolution has to do with the way the sensor records data. If you have a 4k sensor and record in 1080p, well the sensor is larger than 1920x1080 so it can either only record on a 1920x1080 section of the sensor which will cause the image to be cropped (it doesn’t do this) or it has to line skip (this is what it does.) The sensor will skip rows and columns of pixels on the sensor to create the lower resolution image. This means you are only seeing every other pixel both height and width so you don’t get as sharp of an image. It’s basically the difference between FOV and HQ mode on the M2Pro.

Again, you have to weigh the pros and cons but I strongly disagree that there is no benefit to recording 4k if you only intend to watch it in 1080p. Look at the movie industry. They are recording things in up to 12k now. Nobody has a 12k monitor. They wouldn’t do this if there was no benefit.

 

[David sigglekow]

Quick question , Is there any point recording a flight in 4k if you are only going to upload it to youtube or facebook.
I know , I have a expensive drone but only a 1080p tv and laptop. So just stick to 1080?

Sometime later you may have wished it was 4k if it is great footage you may not get again

 

[passedpawn]

4k for me. All of my TV's are 4k UHD. Nothing like watching my videos on my 86" 4k TV. Very spectacular

LG?

 

[MavicMan64]

LG?

Yup for sure. Life's Good

 

[passedpawn]

Yup for sure. Life's Good

I've probably got same TV on my wall.

 

[DanMan32]

Another small detail here specific to YouTube is that YouTube uses VP9 for encoding 4k videos and uses it to encode all the various resolution copies it makes. VP9 is a more efficient codec so you effectively will get a better quality video if you upload it in 4k even if you only watch it in 1080p. Some people will actually upsample their 1080p video to 4k before uploading it because of this.

Yet another reason to record in 4k that doesn’t relate to resolution has to do with the way the sensor records data. If you have a 4k sensor and record in 1080p, well the sensor is larger than 1920x1080 so it can either only record on a 1920x1080 section of the sensor which will cause the image to be cropped (it doesn’t do this) or it has to line skip (this is what it does.) The sensor will skip rows and columns of pixels on the sensor to create the lower resolution image. This means you are only seeing every other pixel both height and width so you don’t get as sharp of an image. It’s basically the difference between FOV and HQ mode on the M2Pro.

Again, you have to weigh the pros and cons but I strongly disagree that there is no benefit to recording 4k if you only intend to watch it in 1080p. Look at the movie industry. They are recording things in up to 12k now. Nobody has a 12k monitor. They wouldn’t do this if there was no benefit.

Well converting 4K to 1080p with an editor will also require skipped rows and columns.

12k lets the film industry do more detailed editing with less loss, especially with special effects and CGI. They also have room to zoom and crop in post without loss in the resulting target resolution.

What resolution do movie theaters project digital movies anyway?

 

[brett8883]

Well converting 4K to 1080p with an editor will also require skipped rows and columns.

12k lets the film industry do more detailed editing with less loss, especially with special effects and CGI. They also have room to zoom and crop in post without loss in the resulting target resolution.

What resolution do movie theaters project digital movies anyway?

4k to 1080p in an editor averages the pixel values to do the downconversion resulting in a better image quality where as in camera you literally have skipped pixels. Some cameras do this “over sampling” in camera but not the DJI drones.

DCI motion picture standard delivery resolutions are 2048 × 1080 or 4096 × 2160 for projectors with the former being phased out.

 

[DanMan32]

They should be phased out now. 1080p on a giant screen? Sheesh.

Even 2160p seems low for the size of the screens.

I would think averaging pixels would make things worse for a downconversion. Makes sense in creating pixels during upconversions though.

 

[John Locke]

Numerous post production programs are available, but the top 2 I recommend are either Adobe Premiere Elements 2029 or 2121 and DaVinci Resolve 16 (stable). Adobe will cost about $100 (but usually you can find package deal of the PE with the Photoshop Elements for $100, and NO CLOUD REQUIRED)

Last version of Adobe Elements I tried doesn't have proxy support for 4K. Did that change?

Without proxy support almost all computers cannot smoothly and quickly edit 4K video, it's worthless to try. Proxies for editing are essential IMO, and most video editors don't support proxies, last time I checked (1yr ago). Adobe PP costs $20/mo ($240/yr) to use. DaVinci Resolve is free, and it supports proxy 4K editing (called optimized files). It's the only free program out there that supports 4K, and it's a professional grade program, easily worth $200, given the features and capabilities, IMO. I'm not sure what you mean about the learning curve of Resolve. It's not much. I moved from PP to Resolve quite easily with only a few views of YT instruction on doing a couple things, like speed ramping, loading media files, and proxy generation. Other than that, it's very similar to PP with timelines for video and audio editing. The nice thing about the FREE Resolve option is there are many videos in YT to learn anything you want. Other than Adobe PP, all the other programs out there don't have as much of a following to offer training tips.

As for 4K vs 1080? This is a personal choice. If you are only posting content that's not dependent on a cinematic look, like you vacation videos of off-roading in the desert, camping in the mountains, or similar, then your content is more important, not a cinematic look. Most pilots aren't skilled enough to make "cinematic" videos anyway, so the value of 4K usually isn't there. Jerky, fast and spastic piloting is typical of most pilots, which is fine for family and friends to see. But if you hone your skills and want to create artwork level videos for YT, then 4K may be worth the hassle of larger files, more powerful computer to process, and larger SD cards. You'd be surprised how quick your home computer will fill the disk with 4K files. I've resorted to buying a 5TB USB Seagate drive from Costco ($125) each year to dump my 4K video files from my home computer to free up space.

 

[halifax]

I shoot 4k or whatever is the max quality, cut the film, then process the original in Handbrake to keep the storage file size down. Otherwise, I'd be adding a 10TB drive every couple of months. Super hot video is the exception and it gets stored in its full glory. Luckily my talents are limited so I can run with this workflow ;-)

 

[colorado kid]

I recorded my first couple of videos in 4k and then realized out how much more processing power and time is required to edit and upload videos. Everything has been in 1080p since.

you even prefer 1080p to 2.7k? i don't really understand difference. can you explain? or is it that 2.7k, like 4k, requires far more time for processing in post, but 1080p is less? thanks in advance!

 

[Alex 007]

Some interesting comments and points of view.

My Laptop is an I5 with only 8GB Ram so I have always just used 1080p 30fps with all my drones. I find that the video is quick and easy to edit and process, whereas I know that if I shot in 4k it would not be the case. I find that 1080p's quality is excellent for what I used it for. Mainly aerial clips of holidays and camping trips.

I upload them to YouTube and use that as a medium to store and share my videos. I find that the quality when watching on my TV, only an 80cm screen, is very good.

I do agree that if you want to crop your video that 4k would be better, but I never do this. I just get it as I want by flying the drone closer to the subject.

I always believe that the quality of the photo and video is all about the lens in the camera and not the resolution.

 

[passedpawn]

I shoot 4k or whatever is the max quality, cut the film, then process the original in Handbrake to keep the storage file size down. Otherwise, I'd be adding a 10TB drive every couple of months. Super hot video is the exception and it gets stored in its full glory. Luckily my talents are limited so I can run with this workflow ;-)

Wait what? 10B / 40 work days = 250GB a day. That's about 6 hrs a day, h264, with my M2P. You must have a lot of batteries to pull that off!

Regardless, you're going to be going through storage space if you're making that much content. I wouldn't bother re-compressing, given the low cost of hard drives. $20/TB.

 

[RussDrone]

I tend to prefer Vimeo as a place to keep video in a cloud. Vimeo supports high resolution video files. You can put a hot link to Vimeo in e-mail, Facebook, and other sites and it will optimize the video for the site and the device that is viewing the video.

 

[tck444]

I uploaded a few short clips of 60 seconds or less to the stock sites at 4K. A few sold, but the sale was made at 1080p as the buyer choose to purchase the lower resolution version.

Just watched one of my 1080p videos from YouTube on a 54" TV. It still looked great, at least for the casual viewer.

At least for the way that I work, the investment of time and resources make it difficult to justify 4K processing

 

[Phantomrain.org]

I uploaded a few short clips of 60 seconds or less to the stock sites at 4K. A few sold, but the sale was made at 1080p as the buyer choose to purchase the lower resolution version.

Just watched one of my 1080p videos from YouTube on a 54" TV. It still looked great, at least for the casual viewer.

At least for the way that I work, the investment of time and resources make it difficult to justify 4K processing

Some 1080 footage is outstanding , the problem comes when you need the quality and the the person making the movie has used 4K . 4K is not really as difficult as it used to be, Editors have gotten better at using 4K and were moving to 6k and 8K .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in the Rain and Land on Water.

 

[Lasidora]

I have a 50" 4k TV and the footage looks ultra hi-res & smooth when played back on it, even when I review the footage on this TV/monitor for my PC which is 46" 1920x1080 I can tell the difference between 1080 & 4k playback, it just looks more detailed, especially the view of any fields or grass, I always tended to record in 1080p 60fps but after seeing the difference when I used 4k HQ settings, I only ever record in 4k now, only problem is any decent flights are usually split across 3 mp4 video files now instead of 1, but the memory card in my Mavic 2 Pro is 128Gb so can easily handle the inconvienience.

 

[RadioFlyerMan]

With M2P, I record entirely 4k, HLG, HEVC. The h.265 does a great job of compression to keep file size low.
I like 4k because I can zoom in during post while retaining detail and quality. Of course, there is a limit to that.
My output file designed for YouTube is a 4k, HDR, with the HEVC codec. Because I use FCPX, the meta data is automatically provided to YouTube for processing to High Dynamic Range. The thing I get from that are very smooth fade transitions with little to no pixelation.
Rendering the output file does take a little longer than h.264. Also, YouTube takes a lot longer to produce the 4k HDR version, but it’s not a deal breaker.
Here is a brief demo video I put together. It doesn’t look too bad at a default 1080p on my 55” Samsung. Higher HDR versions up to 2160 look pretty smooth.

UPDATE: I failed to explain that I have always recorded in 4k. But only recently moved to HLG in mid February, and except for test demos, I have yet to produce a full length HDR video. Those videos currently on my channel are 4k, rec. 709, h.264

No sound, 1 minute long.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

With M2P, I record entirely 4k, HLG, HEVC. The h.265 does a great job of compression to keep file size low.
I like 4k because I can zoom in during post while retaining detail and quality. Of course, there is a limit to that.
My output file designed for YouTube is a 4k, HDR, with the HEVC codec. Because I use FCPX, the meta data is automatically provided to YouTube for processing to High Dynamic Range. The thing I get from that are very smooth fade transitions with little to no pixelation.
Rendering the output file does take a little longer than h.264. Also, YouTube takes a lot longer to produce the 4k HDR version, but it’s not a deal breaker.
Here is a brief demo video I put together. It doesn’t look too bad at a default 1080p on my 55” Samsung. Higher HDR versions up to 2160 look pretty smooth.

No sound, 1 minute long.

This was actually really nice footage even in 1080 it did look good, That fade on the tree was fantastic, I am going to have to implement that as it adds to the drama, great show .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in the Rain and Land on Water.