eevBLAB #16 - 4K Render Youtube Experiment - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 03:31:55 am
content: Dave is running a test upscaling his 1080p 50fps footage to 4K UHD (3840x2160) 30fps and uploading to Youtube. Rumour has it that Youtube is supposed to detect this 4K footage and give better quality converted video quality.Can you see any difference between this video at 1080p and this other one uploaded at 1080p?And if there is a quality difference, is it worth the extra file size, rendering, transcoding, upload, and youtube processing time?Render times for the 5min video are:4K = 17:291080p = 1:59Transcoding (Handbrake) times:4K = 6:531080p = 1:09Filesizes:4K = 1281M1080p = 312M

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 04:12:32 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 08, 2015, 04:09:17 amYes. And that is exactly what people are claiming.QuoteOnly for added flexability in editing. In terms of Youtube 4K playback, there is no perceptible difference between a true 4K camera and a 1080p camera upscaled.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 04:15:39 am
content: I played them both back a number of times and could not see much difference if at all on my high spec pc and monitor, yet to check what they look like on the bigger LG smart TV, mind you and as I have previously pointed out with most Youtube videos I now tend to automatically watch at 480 and prior at 320 and will only kick it up to 720 or 1080 if I need to see something with finer detail providing that it is available in higher resolution.After a couple of strokes my eyesight isn't what it once was and "blurry vision","flickering lights" and "tunnel view" now as standard built in features, honestly for most content I don't really give a rats how well a video is done nor how much effort went into producing it, although the exception being people such as yourself, Shahriar and a couple of others where the content is the determining factor and more important to me than anything else, these informative content based videos get both my admiration and accordingly my greatest appreciation regardless of the resolution.And the day you start calling for makeup is the day that I pull the pin.......Many ThanksMuttleyAnd here's a free gift for those that need to watch in high definition....DIY....

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 04:43:10 am
content: I haven't even looked at the videos, I don't trust experiments like this unless they're double blind!However, I usedyoutube-dlto list the video formats and actual video data sizes of the two videos, and you can see that the 1080p version of the 4K upload is actually asmallerfile (86.4 MiB / 103.23 MiB*) than the straight 1080p upload (87.20 MiB / 115.83 MiB). So the idea that the 4K uploads get a special, higher bitrate seems false.Wild speculation: the upscaling to 4K used an interpolating filter, and when it's downscaled back to 1080p, the footage is very slightly blurred, leading to slightly easier compression for the codec.* (A / B) where A is the VP9 codec file, and B is the AVC codec file.rs20@cave:~/eevblab/1080$ youtube-dl -F q95mfnmMdwA # Native 1080p...248 webm 1920x1080 DASH video 2616k , vp9, 30fps, video only,87.20MiB137 mp4 1920x1080 DASH video 4322k , avc1.640028, 30fps, video only,115.83MiB...rs20@cave:~/eevblab/1080$ youtube-dl -F 4SqryR3-8uE # 1080p --> 4K --> 1080p...248 webm 1920x1080 DASH video 2533k , vp9, 30fps, video only,86.41MiB137 mp4 1920x1080 DASH video 4318k , avc1.640028, 30fps, video only,103.23MiB...Code:rs20@cave:~/eevblab/1080$ youtube-dl -F q95mfnmMdwA q95mfnmMdwA: Downloading webpage q95mfnmMdwA: Downloading video info webpage q95mfnmMdwA: Extracting video information q95mfnmMdwA: Downloading DASH manifest q95mfnmMdwA: Downloading DASH manifest Available formats for q95mfnmMdwA:format code extension resolution note249 webm audio only DASH audio 51k , opus @ 50k, 1.82MiB171 webm audio only DASH audio 111k , vorbis@128k (44100Hz), 3.88MiB250 webm audio only DASH audio 121k , opus @ 70k, 2.58MiB140 m4a audio only DASH audio 128k , m4a_dash container, aac @128k (44100Hz), 4.55MiB251 webm audio only DASH audio 231k , opus @160k, 5.06MiB160 mp4 256x144 DASH video 111k , avc1.42c00c, 15fps, video only, 3.90MiB278 webm 256x144 DASH video 126k , webm container, vp9, 15fps, video only, 3.50MiB133 mp4 426x240 DASH video 248k , avc1.4d4015, 30fps, video only, 8.75MiB242 webm 426x240 DASH video 250k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 6.84MiB243 webm 640x360 DASH video 434k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 12.68MiB134 mp4 640x360 DASH video 610k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 13.19MiB244 webm 854x480 DASH video 747k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 22.53MiB135 mp4 854x480 DASH video 1113k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 26.15MiB247 webm 1280x720 DASH video 1499k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 48.48MiB136 mp4 1280x720 DASH video 2063k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 50.84MiB248 webm 1920x1080 DASH video 2616k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 87.20MiB137 mp4 1920x1080 DASH video 4322k , avc1.640028, 30fps, video only, 115.83MiB17 3gp 176x144 small , mp4a.40.2, mp4v.20.336 3gp 320x240 small , mp4a.40.2, mp4v.20.35 flv 400x240 small43 webm 640x360 medium , vorbis, vp8.018 mp4 640x360 medium , mp4a.40.2, avc1.42001E22 mp4 1280x720 hd720 , mp4a.40.2, avc1.64001F (best)rs20@cave:~/eevblab/1080$ youtube-dl -F 4SqryR3-8uE 4SqryR3-8uE: Downloading webpage 4SqryR3-8uE: Downloading video info webpage 4SqryR3-8uE: Extracting video information 4SqryR3-8uE: Downloading DASH manifest 4SqryR3-8uE: Downloading DASH manifest Available formats for 4SqryR3-8uE:format code extension resolution note249 webm audio only DASH audio 51k , opus @ 50k, 1.82MiB171 webm audio only DASH audio 111k , vorbis@128k (44100Hz), 3.88MiB250 webm audio only DASH audio 123k , opus @ 70k, 2.58MiB140 m4a audio only DASH audio 128k , m4a_dash container, aac @128k (44100Hz), 4.55MiB251 webm audio only DASH audio 237k , opus @160k, 5.06MiB160 mp4 256x144 DASH video 111k , avc1.42c00c, 15fps, video only, 3.90MiB278 webm 256x144 DASH video 135k , webm container, vp9, 15fps, video only, 3.50MiB133 mp4 426x240 DASH video 249k , avc1.4d4015, 30fps, video only, 8.75MiB242 webm 426x240 DASH video 251k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 6.89MiB243 webm 640x360 DASH video 439k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 12.75MiB134 mp4 640x360 DASH video 610k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 13.27MiB244 webm 854x480 DASH video 738k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 22.37MiB135 mp4 854x480 DASH video 1110k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 26.18MiB247 webm 1280x720 DASH video 1506k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 47.10MiB136 mp4 1280x720 DASH video 2043k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 49.84MiB248 webm 1920x1080 DASH video 2533k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 86.41MiB137 mp4 1920x1080 DASH video 4318k , avc1.640028, 30fps, video only, 103.23MiB271 webm 2560x1440 DASH video 8050k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 224.87MiB264 mp4 2560x1440 DASH video 8739k , avc1.640032, 30fps, video only, 239.34MiB313 webm 3840x2160 DASH video 19787k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 660.01MiB266 mp4 3840x2160 DASH video 22117k , h264, 30fps, video only, 695.09MiB17 3gp 176x144 small , mp4a.40.2, mp4v.20.336 3gp 320x240 small , mp4a.40.2, mp4v.20.35 flv 400x240 small43 webm 640x360 medium , vorbis, vp8.018 mp4 640x360 medium , mp4a.40.2, avc1.42001E22 mp4 1280x720 hd720 , mp4a.40.2, avc1.64001F (best)Quote from: wilfred on October 08, 2015, 04:09:17 amThat makes perfect senseifYouTube has code on its servers that chooses a higher 1080p bitrate if the source media is 4K. But as indicated above, that doesn't appear to be true, at least in this case.

author: Armxnian
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 05:11:40 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 08, 2015, 04:09:17 amYoutube doesn't downscale to 1080p, it transcodes to 1080p. I'm pretty sure you're supposed to watch the 4k version, even if you're not on a 4k monitor (which will be downscaled), to get the extra bitrate. Someone needs to download the videos and compare the bitrate of the 1080p version of the 4k upload to the 1080p version of the 1080p upload. One thing to consider is that when uspscaling during rendering, the 4k version will require more bitrate to not look like crap, so you need to subtract that bitrate overhead from the extra bitrate that youtube gives you on a 4k upload. 4k is 4x the data of 1080, but I am not a video expert and have no idea how x264 or whatever encoder you use handles compression of 1080 vs 4k. Is a compressed 4k test file 4x the file size/bitrate of a compressed 1080p file? I don't think so. It can be less, or even more, based on the content and compression. I am also not sure if 4k of actual pixels take up more bitrate than 4k pixels that were produced by an upscaling algorithm. It's very complicated to quantify the quality of such a test objectively. However, with some testing and math, you can come up with an estimate.I cannot comment on the subjective quality as my monitor fell off my desk, so I'm without a display/computerThere are however other factors to consider. The hw acceleration implementation in chrome,firefox,etc isn't very good. Neither is software rendering. The people complaining about stutters in the comments need to realize that 4k playback requires a decent internet connection and a decent cpu, especially since the medium is a web browser.One benefit with higher resolution sources is watching them on high resolution displays like many modern smartphones. The upscaling (1080->1440) in the youtube app and through a web browser isn't very good. I notice an immediate difference in quality watching a 1440 video on the native 1440 screen of my Nexus 6 compared to a 1080 source, even if the actual visual quality of the content is the same. One must appreciate the fact that the quality youtube delivers is amazing considering how much data Google has to store, process and deliver. But you must also acknowledge obvious limitations from an enthusiasts point of view.I'm getting a professional 4k display on Tuesday so I can actually test everything.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 05:48:53 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 08, 2015, 04:43:10 amSomeone on Youtube pointed out those same numbers.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 06:35:31 am
content: I did a couple of native 4k videos on Youtube a few months ago to see how it worked out.In the end, the massive increase in transcoding time at my end meant that I really didn't consider it worthwhile doing longer term for now. In addition, I only have facilities for 25 fps at 4k, I don't know if Youtube can cope with 50 or 60 fps on 4k: 1080p at 50 or 60 fps seemed a reasonable enough compromise.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 06:54:38 am
content: What. Perform two extra conversations on a lossy file format and expect better quality. Smells like a Batteriser...

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 07:11:44 am
content: Quote from: Towger on October 08, 2015, 06:54:38 amTwo conversions with high quality settings can give a better result than a single conversion with low quality settings.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 07:40:22 am
content: If you look careful at the white board drawings you can see some difference between 4K upload played back at 1080p, and the "native" 1080p upload.The red text seems to be "jpegy" a bit. I uploaded a comparison picture zoomed in X2 below.I took the comparison from frame 0 of each video in Firefox 41.0.1 & HTML5 YT player.So if I did the comparison right, IMHO the 4K upscaled version looks better.. but also a bit silly that youtube works this way.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 07:59:18 am
content: Quote from: hans on October 08, 2015, 07:40:22 amThanks for that. Yes, the 4K one does appear sharper.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 08:02:17 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on October 08, 2015, 06:35:31 amAs you can see with my numbers above, it is indeed a massive increase going to 4K in render time, transcoding time, upload time, and youtube processing time.That's at 30fps of course. 50fps like I've been doing recently is also massively slower than 30fps.I'm thinking about switching back to 30fps (but still shoot at 50fps) and only render and upload 50fps on videos that have a lot of movement, like outdoors stuff, walking cam footage etc.

author: SteveLy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 08:04:36 am
content: It's Dave in his electronics lab not a bloomin Lucasfilm Ridley Martin Scott Scorsese billion dollar blockbuster. 1080p/720p is plenty good enough. Anything more is waste of time & resources.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 08:45:25 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on October 08, 2015, 06:35:31 amThere are some 60fps 4k videos on youtube. I seem to remember we watched some which are 60fps and 3D at 4k, too.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 09:22:56 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 08, 2015, 07:25:04 amThe claim underlying this whole thread is that the re-encoding that YouTube does on their servers to (almost) all uploaded videos is this single "low quality" conversion in place.

author: Spamlobster
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 09:24:44 am
content: I'd think the upscaled solution might give better result only in still shots. The small increment in image quality & lesser artifacts - per frame - will likely never give nicer result if there's any real motion in the shot compared to 1080@50/60. And Dave, you're hyper, there's basiclyalwaysmovement (camera or subject) in your shots.#803 and #804 are a fresh example what the difference in fps alone does. (#804 was propably shot @50 fps but rendered @30, no?)Is the small & situational image quality improvement worth the motion performance, absolutely not, not to mention the extra hassle of rendering etcetera.Btw thanks for your work on EEVBlog.

author: aerobaticant
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 10:56:27 am
content: Hi Dave,For what it's worth, if you shoot in 1080P then upload in 1080P. If the 1080P video is viewed full screen on a 2160P monitor then the monitor or video player will probablyscaleto 2160Puncompressed. This is almost certainly going to be better than a transcode.If you were to shoot in 4K (2160P) then it would be worth uploading in 4K.By the way I have been working in professional video for over 20 years.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:15:58 pm
content: Neither video looks that great, but there are definitely differences between them, at least when viewed on my 4k screen where the 4k version needs no further manipulation before it is displayed. The flaws in Dave's skin show up much better with the 4k versionThe black shirt looks awful in both videos, although slightly less horrible in the 4k one. It quantises in a very unpleasant way.

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:46:48 pm
content: The AVCHD compression is going to destroy any real difference. The colour depth and shadow detail is lacking, and the lighting doesn't help. Quite frankly it would be better to stop worrying about 4K when you're not able to fully exploit 1080P anyway.I don't know what Coppice is talking about above. Both videos are 1080p via YouTube, so the idea only one needs manipulation is nonsense.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:49:11 pm
content: Quote from: The Magic Rabbit on October 08, 2015, 02:46:48 pmI get the 4k video at 4k from youtube, and display it on a 4k monitor.

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:55:15 pm
content: Interesting... I don't get a 4K option on either video.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:56:04 pm
content: Quote from: The Magic Rabbit on October 08, 2015, 02:55:15 pmFirefox doesn't offer me a 4k option. Chrome does.

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:57:01 pm
content: I'm using Chrome on Win7 64bit.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 02:59:01 pm
content: Quote from: The Magic Rabbit on October 08, 2015, 02:57:01 pmI'm using Fedora.

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 03:02:09 pm
content: Well that's just showing off. LolI wonder if the You Tube player varies though... or maybe the content isn't at all resolutions in all countries.I'm in the UK.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: SteveLy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 03:12:31 pm
content: I downloaded the vids and had a look at identical frames from the 1080p-youtube/4k-upload and 1080p-youtube/1080p-upload (EEVBlog2) versions. The compression noise is certainly different but there is not much in it in terms of quality; some bits look perhaps a whisker better on one, others on another.But this video is not a good one to test the idea on. It's hard to tell what's more noise vs more detail and processing blur from genuinely more accurately represented smooth textures in the background.If the upscaled-4K upload does improve 1080p viewing quality then it could be reserved for special videos that warrant that level of detail. There is no need for it in normal talking head, DaveCad, teardown vids. Good camera focus, not shaking the camera and what's in front of it are a lot more important for pleasant viewing experience. And I hate the idea of wasting all that extra processing power and bandwidth just to get a bee's dick of an increase in quality.In my limited youtube experiece one could maximise quality for a given resolution by compressing the video in a format and with settings that youtube was happy to accept as is without reprocessing. (But I haven't tried that in a while; maybe it does not work any more.)FWIW, here is a frame from both 1080p videos (click thumbnails for full 1080p frame PNGs):Dave in 1080p from 1080p:Dave in 1080p from 4K:

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 03:16:30 pm
content: Quote from: The Magic Rabbit on October 08, 2015, 03:02:09 pmYoutube does serve us mostly from local servers, and we have 1Gbps internet so we have no bandwidth restrictions to those local servers. I'm in HK.

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 03:18:30 pm
content: My connection is 24Mbps... Which in the UK is considered fast.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 03:20:09 pm
content: Just tried to watch that in 2160p 4K ... Crappy works WiFi and my Acer Chromebook 11 ... The Chromebook worked fine but the painfully low bandwidth WiFi link fell over and choked on the dataThere wasn't an option to watch at 1080p 4K in my browsers YouTube settings, so I selected 2160p 4KPersonally, I usually watch in 720p HD (or lower) on my laptop. Internet 'speed' in the UK is piss poor

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 05:38:59 pm
content: Quote from: The Magic Rabbit on October 08, 2015, 03:18:30 pmI have 3Mbps (poor man in Calif) . I am glad of this test because a while ago I stopped watching Dave's videos because of my bandwidth and now I see YT resizes them to 480p (Auto setting) so I can watch them now. At 4k my computer just locks up. I can force it to 720p and it plays, but I will let it use Auto unless I need to increase the res. Then if I really really need high res, I download the video in high res and watch it with VLC.Dave if you see this: why do you use Handbrake, can't you take the file from your camera and load it directly into Vegas?

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 05:41:49 pm
content: I think only the latest version of Vegas supports 4K. The Canon HG series will import into Vegas 11 at 1080p.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 05:56:07 pm
content: Quote from: The Magic Rabbit on October 08, 2015, 05:41:49 pmthanks

author: hayatepilot
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 06:19:32 pm
content: I think the High Frame Rate looks much, much better than the 4K upscaled version.Please stick with 50p, it's not worth the extra time it takes for rendering and uploading.Keep the videos coming!Greetings

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 08:49:59 pm
content: Two lossless .bmps, screenshots from each of the two videos, on a 4k monitor. I can't see the difference from a purely still picture perspective.24MB each when you select the download link or view the original.1080p:https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=2EDA80327053C74D!49896&authkey=!APFzt8UC-2XHWmM&v=3&ithint=photo%2cbmp2160p:https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=2EDA80327053C74D!49897&authkey=!AI5rPOWgd2Dxrlo&v=3&ithint=photo%2cbmpEdit: attached a 4x zoomed in photo, 2160 on left, 1080 on right, looks like more artefacts on the 1080 to me. In practice, I couldn't tell, and I had to try hard to find an example where I could identify a difference.

author: tbrucenyc
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 09:29:46 pm
content: How would anyone "see" the 50 fps rate unless there was a lot of action?I could not see the difference between the two 1920 x 1080@30Both looked great!You don't have a lot of screen action so you don't need a high frame rate.Besides:My microprocessor dropped frames at 50 fps so I've been having to watch at 720...Whaa Whaa Whaa Whaa(Fiber Optic Internet 50Mbps 1920 x 1200 x 59 monitor)Image is of Right click; Stats for nerds... Connection speed says 45171 Kbps

author: plexus
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 12:30:46 am
content: I am watching via a 15Mbps DSL connection to an Apple TV via HDMI into a 50" HP Plasma TV (no it doesn't do RPN). I carefully went back and forth comparing and the upscaled 4K looks much better. its crisper, seems to have a wider colour gamut. in the 1080p version there are highlights on your face that blow out where-as on the 4K there is some detail there and they don't blow out. I can try and take some pics but it will be a challenge with the moire the TV mask will resolve.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 01:09:10 am
content: I only have a 1920x1080 monitor. Both 2160 and 1080 looks the same to me, although in the posted still images in this thread there does indeed seem to be a small difference. 2160p stutters even though my computer and broadband should be fast enough (in theory), not sure why this is yet but it's not watchable as it is.I think there is a big improvement with video shot at 50 fps over 30 fps though.So personally I would much prefer 1080@50 over 2160@30.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 02:58:01 am
content: I'm still not 100% convinced that these still image comparisons are valid, I mean, are we sure that we aren't grabbingan I frame from one video and a B frame from the other? But based on other anecdotal evidence, we have to conclude that the 2160p30 viewed at 1080p30 is marginally better-looking than the 1080p30 native. I, for one, think 1080p50looks far better than the indistuingishable (to me) 1080p30 and 2160p30. Even when it's just a talking head shot, it's just so fluid and life-like, I really like the 50fps.As for how a smaller file (the 2160p transcoded to 1080p file) can appear better quality, here's some brand new speculation: If you allow a video compressor moretimedo its compressing, it can achieve a higher quality for a given fixed (or even slightly smaller) bitrate. Two-pass encoding is just one example of this, but there are presumably many parameters to fiddle with. Given that only a negligible fraction of files uploaded are 4K at the moment; YouTube can afford to spend alotmore CPU time transcoding each video. By contrast, every % of performance they can squeeze out of the 1080p compressor is worth gazillions of dollars, so that's going to be optimized down to a cost. I think that could be one explaination for what we're seeing here.Quote from: apis on October 09, 2015, 01:09:10 amWait, are you playing the 2160p video AT 2160p? Dave's OP specifically instructs us to play the 2160p video at 1080p:Quote from: EEVblog on October 08, 2015, 03:31:55 amIf so, that'sfascinatingthat the smaller file would be more demanding to decode AND higher quality to watch.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 03:58:51 am
content: In my old fashioned opinion, if the content justified anything better than 1080 - I'd be happy to use it, but anything short of special events with well-defined & lit shots with broadcast lenses and ... seems like overkill. Even 1080 is a bit of a stretch for a close-up shot inside a piece of 20-year old gear, or a whiteboard lecture.Everything is nice, but the supporting overheads (set, lighting, make-up, encopding, conversion, bandwidth) - seem to make it largely irrelevant - added to the fact thatmostof the punters wil be watching on ADSL at 10Mbps or less.For that 10-20% of casual viewers capable of seeing the 4K (rendered properly) in real-time, I'd rather you spend your time with the family or doing more benchtop videos!

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 04:50:46 am
content: I do see some improvement with 4K upscaled at your end as opposed to 1080p upscaled to 4K with my GPU, but it's not by a whole lot. I'm sure it's the bitrate that made the actual difference. With high bitrate 1080p such as broadcast TV, the upscaling works very well indeed.For those with just a 1080p monitor, what about try comparing 4K downscaled to 1080p and plain 1080p? Any GPU of the 650 series (Kepler) or newer can handle 4K.And maybe try intermediate resolutions like 1440p? I presume 1440p monitors are pretty common nowadays.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 07:20:58 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 09, 2015, 02:58:01 amThat's indeed a worthy observation, and one I hadn't considered.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 07:25:35 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 09, 2015, 02:58:01 amWouldn't grabbing frame 0 solve this issue? From my understanding you're basically talking about key-frames and intermediate frames.I downloaded 1080p video, 4K upload at 1080p and 4K. Difference in file size is negligible at 1080p; so it's not a higher bitrate being pushed back to the clients. I did notice that the 4K and 1080p versions look very much alike in quality. The 1080p video has a lot more noise/artifacts in it.Maybe the "raw" video is processed first to a format to be stored on YT servers, which needs obviously to be higher at 4K. Maybe from this intermediate file all other qualities are derived.Because if you download your YouTube video after uploading, it is likely you won't get the same video file back, and often there is some quality loss.I think Dave does a lot of "static" shots in his videos. Of course the mailbags and white-board talks are definitely not that and probably more pleasant to watch at 50fps, however a teardown often has static close-up images of the board (e.g. waffling on a topic for 2 minutes with 1 static board shot) that may be better viewed at a "higher quality" video.But I don't think there is all that much in between them. I personally like to watch 50/60fps for any video with quick movement. I wouldn't have called the 1080p a bad encode if I hadn't view the 1080p @ 4K upload.

author: JuiceKing
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 07:55:45 am
content: The 4K version certainly has more skin detail on my 27" monitor. It's pretty subtle and I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything with the regular HD. I suspect that lighting technique would have more impact on my overall impression of detail and sharpness.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 08:11:26 am
content: Quote from: hans on October 09, 2015, 07:25:35 amYou're right about key frames vs intermediate frames; but I wouldn't recommend taking frame 0 because frame 0 is least likely to be representative of a typical frame (even if it were guaranteed to be a key frame).

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 12:59:00 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 09, 2015, 02:58:01 amI only have a 1080p monitor so I have only been able to watch 2160p at 1080p. Smaller file-size, better quality and 4 times as many pixels is impressive.Ah, ok, thanks for pointing that out.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 01:02:02 pm
content: Quote from: apis on October 09, 2015, 12:59:00 pmYou can still choose 2160p in YouTube even if you only have a 1080p screen, but I'm assuming you haven't done that.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 01:25:59 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 09, 2015, 01:02:02 pmI have tried it with the 2160p setting in youtube of course, that's when it stutters. Youtube scales it down to 1080p resolution though, since that's my monitors full screen resolution. I've watched the 2160p version atboth1080pand2160p settingon youtubeand compared both to the native 1080p EEVblog2 version (on my 1080p monitor (in full-screen mode of course)).

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 01:35:38 pm
content: If I pause it I can see small differences in quality but as I said before, I think 50/60fps vs 30fps makes a bigger difference: makes video look more sharp and fluid. And personally, since 2160p stutters, I can't use it anyway. But I can definitely manage with 1080p@30 fps as well so it's not a big deal either way.What's most important is that the original recording is in 50fps imho, can't really see much difference between the two videos.

author: SteveLy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 02:45:04 pm
content: QuoteI think some posters are missing the point. You're meant to compare the two vids (EEVBlog and EEVBlog2 versions) at 1080p coming from youtube, not at 4K or at 4K from youtube scaled to a 1080p monitor.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2015, 03:58:29 pm
content: I'm starting to feel confused nowbut I've tried both settings and my conclusion is the same either way.

author: 5ky
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2015, 05:24:53 am
content: Your upsampled 4k looks better on my 4k monitors. There's more detail in your skin.That being said, I'm not sure it's worth the extra rendering time and upload bandwidth for the marginal gain in quality. (did it take much longer to render/upload?)I assume the problem in sony was smart resample? I hate that you can't set that to be disabled by default.

author: The Magic Rabbit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2015, 12:53:45 pm
content: Those claiming more detail and better colour have to be seeing something artificial. The original footage is not 4K. If there are highlights being blown and detail vanishing it has to be in the encoding process.When I watch upscaled DVD using the upscaling system on my HD TV it looks better than the upscaling system on my cheap DVD player, but the PC upscaling looks even better. The picture is sharpened and various other filtering applied, which obviously isn't there on the DVD. I suspect the same is happening here when the source footage is being upscaled to 4K. That may also be why some people are seeing better results than others - the differences may be in the upscaling or downscaling being performed in software or hardware when viewing, rather than the video itself. Remember that You Tube uses hardware acceleration when available, and the quality of graphics cards and drivers can vary considerably.Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 14, 2015, 12:57:52 pm
content: Quote from: 5ky on October 13, 2015, 05:24:53 amYes, it's evil.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 14, 2015, 01:00:02 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on October 08, 2015, 08:49:59 pmThanks. Does seem to be better, but marginal at best.