New video:

Celebrity Monologues. This base allows guest posting, but please register for the full experience.

Moderators: AArdvark, Ice Cream Jonsey

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 9333
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

New video:

Post by Tdarcos »

From the description:

I just got this camera Friday (the 26th) and decided to do test video. This is my first raw video, not edited, just me, unfiltered, just talking. I say "alleged 4K" because the internal resolutions inside the camera seem to include 1080P but don't seem to include either 2.7K nor 4K. Well, for $69 including tax and shipping, all I expected was 1080P. so...

Alan Francis wrote a book containing everything men understand about women. It consisted of 100 blank pages.

User avatar
Jizaboz
Posts: 4811
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: New video:

Post by Jizaboz »

Well it least it works! Picture quality looks ok to me. I wonder if perhaps the higher rez options are hidden somewhere?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

User avatar
Flack
Posts: 8822
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: New video:

Post by Flack »

Looks good, Paul! IMHO, 4k is pretty overrated at this point except in some pretty specific situations. 4k resolution videos are 4x the resolution of HD (1080p) videos, which means 4x the file size and 4x the resolution. It takes a pretty hefty CPU and video card to edit 4k footage (I had to upgrade my machine to handle them). Keep in mind that those 4x larger than normal files are going to take a lot longer to upload to YouTube. Even then you have to consider how people are going to view your videos. People will need a 4k monitor or television, otherwise they'll most likely be watching in 1080p anyway (or, more likely, on their phones).

I spent a bunch of money to be able to handle 4k videos and eventually went back to shooting and editing in 1080p. All the extra resources and effort simply weren't worth the payoff.
"I failed a savings throw and now I am back."

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 9333
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

Re: New video:

Post by Tdarcos »

Jizaboz wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:04 pm Well it least it works! Picture quality looks ok to me. I wonder if perhaps the higher rez options are hidden somewhere?
I checked the menus. The onlyoptions are
Movie size:
→ 1080p (30 fps)
_ 720p (60 fps)
_ 720p (30 fps)
_ 640x480 (60 fps)

Image quality:
→ Super fine
_ Fine
_ Normal
I'm using the highest of both. Now, is 60fps for higher picture quality or slow motion? Have to try it and see.
Flack wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:05 pm Looks good, Paul! IMHO, 4k is pretty overrated at this point except in some pretty specific situations. 4k resolution videos are 4x the resolution of HD (1080p) videos, which means 4x the file size and 4x the resolution.
As I said, I bought it expecting a 1080P camera, and I am satisfied. Its file format is .MOV, and two files I made had the following statistics:
Both: Width 1920 x Height 1080
This Video - 654 MB (686,640,117 bytes) - Length 6:05 (I calculate 10,960 frames at 30fps)
Test Video - 24.7 MB (26,001,993 bytes) - Length 0:13 (390 frames)
So, the file size is 1.8 to 2 megabytes per second. About 62,570/69,905 bytes per frame. Now, the container adds some overhead which is more prevalent in a short clip, but given 1920x1080 pixels is potentially 2.074 million pixels per frame (and at 3 bytes per pixel for 24 bit color) so given key frame data compression (an initial full frame (key frame) is generated, then for several frames only the differences between this frame and the previous one are stored, then a new key frame starts the cycle over again) those are probably very compact files.

In the case of the longer video, this is about 114 million bytes per minute, probably not that difficult to manage.
Alan Francis wrote a book containing everything men understand about women. It consisted of 100 blank pages.

User avatar
Flack
Posts: 8822
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: New video:

Post by Flack »

The problem is, YouTube compresses the shit out of their videos. You can test this by uploading a video to YouTube and then using one of those websites to download it. If you download it from the native YouTube site I think it defaults to 1280x720, but you can use those websites to download the video in 1080p. My fourth BigRobsVan video is 1.8GB on my HD in mp4 format. I uploaded the video to YouTube and redownloaded it (both in 1080p) and the download was 160MB.
"I failed a savings throw and now I am back."

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 16178
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: New video:

Post by AArdvark »

What will you do with the new 4K camera?

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 9333
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

Re: New video:

Post by Tdarcos »

AArdvark wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 2:45 am What will you do with the new 4K camera?
I dunno, maybe record video?
Alan Francis wrote a book containing everything men understand about women. It consisted of 100 blank pages.

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 16178
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: New video:

Post by AArdvark »

That was understood, what will be the subjects of said recordings?

Food video?

Mama Blue
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:53 am

Re: New video:

Post by Mama Blue »

Looking good Darcos!
Congrats on the camera!

Post Reply