Massive Storage Need for Video Project
-
Why in the name of soup do you need 4K footage?
Are you going to be colour grading the footage? Or just correcting brightness levels.
RAW footage is expensive to store and is huge, what are you doing where you will genuinely get the benefit of it?
Considering most footage that you see is .h284 compressed at 6-12 meg per second for most consumption on the internet, should you re-consider the 4K RAW idea?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Considering most footage that you see is .h284 compressed at 6-12 meg per second for most consumption on the internet, should you re-consider the 4K RAW idea?
We're doing 50Mb/s finals, so we need even more than that raw for editing. Considering 4K is the FINAL format, doing less than that for editing wouldn't work.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Are you going to be colour grading the footage? Or just correcting brightness levels.
You'd have to ask the editor.
-
Ignore my post in the other thread, this thread is better suited to the topic.
Why is your editor wanting to produce 4K video?
-
@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.
-
I'm just thinking that's a really expensive project in terms of time/storage and editing costs, what are you guys producing where you genuinely need 4K RAW footage.
Apple Pro-res 4:4:2:2 should give the editor a huge amount of grading scope without breaking the storage bank.
I have to say, 4K raw is an ambitious idea considering the amount of footage you are looking to capture, especially given all the other factors on those Go-Pro cameras, sensor size, quality of the glass, you'll run into that as the quality barrier quicker than file format will.
-
@Dashrender said:
WHY? what are you hoping to gain by running it at 4K for the production? Heck most theaters don't even have those projectors.
I've got people using 4K already. I can't imagine not making 4K today. We are well into the HD is old hat era. I've not been to a theater without a lot more than 4K in over a decade. Don't know what you have been seeing but 4K is already streaming from YouTube and Amazon and is about to be available from Netflix. We are into the "4K is commodity" era nearly. You can't really be wanting to make old 1080p still today.
Remember production has to look forward, not backwards. No matter what was popular last year, those things are going to look really, really dated very quickly. Even iMacs are beyond 4K now! Our laptops here are 4K and 8K!!
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'm just thinking that's a really expensive project in terms of time/storage and editing costs, what are you guys producing where you genuinely need 4K RAW footage.
Commercial video.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I have to say, 4K raw is an ambitious idea considering the amount of footage you are looking to capture, especially given all the other factors on those Go-Pro cameras, sensor size, quality of the glass, you'll run into that as the quality barrier quicker than file format will.
Have you SEEN the images coming off of these? It's not a Red by any stretch, but they look absolutely amazing.
-
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?
-
Hey Scott.
Two suggestions, NetBalancer will have you throttle if the programs themselves dont.As well unlike Blackblaze Crashplan allows you to disconnect the media for years at a time and it wont delete your backup.
-
@Sparkum said:
As well unlike Blackblaze Crashplan allows you to disconnect the media for years at a time and it wont delete your backup.
I need to additionally share it with third parties. Amazon Drive seems to be perfect for that. I can easily collaborate with the editor via that.
-
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.
