Short animation moon impact scene.
Comments
-
@NormanPCN i got curious and imported the Vimeo and Youtube file into Hitfilm and used the difference blending. Believe me there is quite a difference to my videos. I just used toggling on and off of one of the videos and in some places the difference in detail is very noticeable (Vimeo the better one) when you look closer. Especially the mountain and alien creatures does have the most difference as expected.
As @Triem23 said if the bitrate was for example 10 to 11 it would be less noticable. But at numbers like 4 to 4.4 i think it is more important.
-
Actually as i more looked into the difference in my Youtube and Vimeo files it got more pronounced to me. For example the lower dark parts in the mountain are quite smeared out in Youtube. Doesn't look nice at all. The lighter parts are different too but not so much as those dark parts.
-
If it was easy to post directly images here i would show you an example (still not possible i think?).
-
@citrusninjakick for uncompressed data:
1280x720=number of pixels.
Number of pixelsx24=bits per frame (usually I would do pixelx3 for bytes/frame) because mp4 output is three channels at 8bits/channel.
(Bits per frame) x (frames per second)=bits per frame.
Bits per second/1024=kbits per second
Kbits per second/1024=mbits per second.
For 4k uncompressed
(3820x2160x24x24)/(1024 x1024)=4532.52mbps
Or 4.43 GIGABITS per second.
Or 0.55 GIGABYTES/second.
DNxHR 4K 4:4:4 @23.97fps is 41.68 MegaBYTES per second (source: Avid White Paper) so 0.55 GB is 550MB. Showing DNxHR has a compression ratio of well over. 100:1
Playback speed depends on disc speed to read the codec then CPU speed to decode (decompress) the data, then the GPU to render to screen. It all works together.
-
@Triem23 "Since uncompressed 1280x720 @24fps is over 500mbps, by the time you've crammed it to 3 or 4 I think that 12% difference is probably significant. "
Interesting that you phrase it that way. Given the previously listed bitrates of 4 and 4.5Mbps and your >500Mbps source value, I see the greatest loss coming from the drop from the 500Mbps to 4.5Mbps and the additional loss from dropping to a slightly lower 4Mbps, from 500, being less significant. Most of the loss being from the huge drop given the smaller relative diff in the two target rates.
Anyway, from looking at SSIM values from previous and recent test encodes I have done is the basis of my statements. Of course I am using x264 encoding modes that very likely are doing greater analysis than what the online services use. This can be like comparing the x264 Ultrafast mode to their Medium or Slow mode. I've not done any comparo of things like that.
-
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ao9EyFWihNgchn6B6iX0fZ2T7ckf
It is a Onedrive link to 2 PNG images in a ZIP file. Hitfilm was at 300% preview size. Guess which one is which?
-
@NormanPCN oh, it's massive compression, but using a simplified number of 500 base divided by 4 we get a compression ratio of 125:1 divided by 4.5 we get a compression ratio of 111:1. A big enough difference to seem statistically significant, and visually noticeable, which matches what we see when comparing YouTube to Vimeo.
-
@Kadri Be careful doing pixel peep comparos on single frames for any LongGOP encode. Especially low bitrate encodes.
I, P and B frames all have a different quantizers. While motion vectors might be copying portions of an I-frame the non-referenced parts are encoded differently in P/B frames.
Best to ignore that techno babble and just watch video as video and pick what you like. Differencing is fine but again, best to look at it as video.
-
Let me rephrase this, obviosuly you don't see what I'm seeing. One moment...
-
@NormanPCN from an subjective aspect Vimeo looked always better to me then Youtube as i said. I don't like the techno babble too much too because after a while i get lost what to think about when every data is -kind of- a mind field
@CitrusNinjaKick *_0000.png is Youtube, *_0001.png is Vimeo.
-
I had them side by side and I messed up because obviously you can't see my screen...
-
This was a nice read for me tonight as i surfed around:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=94216&PageNum=1
-
@Kadri I had to chuckle at that article.
To TL/DR it: h.264 is the only video codec compatible across all current computers and mobile devices, so here's an article about iPhones...
-
The one thing that was new to me is the Power of .75 rule. I thought as the image got bigger the bitrate should go relatively bigger too...so to speak.
-
Have you guys noticed those that worry so much about specs generally produce worse quality content across the board? I saw that in film school all the time.
I have to keep tech on a normal human level, you guys continue talk about all the numbers and letters.
Carry on...
-
@citrusninjakick I would say this more relates to people who "worry about specs" without understanding what the specs mean or signify. So we have a recent thread from the guy with his 8-core CPU wondering why Hitfilm isn't running... You KNOW he's going to end up not having a GPU. He worried about his CPU without understanding that modern video, graphics and 3D software (and games) require a GPU. We have weekly posts from people wondering why their YouTube posts look worse than their source video because they don't understand data compression. We have people worrying about their 4k, 60fps video who don't understand no one needs 4k or 60fps video... Especially for a talking head vlog. These people are worried about specs without understanding them.
A certain amount of knowledge of specifications is vital to film. You don't need the knowledge of NormanPCN, Aladdin4d or Stargazer54 (all tech experts) or even my knowledge (journeyman), but understanding certain basics avoids a lot of problems. And, man, we do get an amount of questions on here the posters could solve for themselves with a Google search that would take less time than posting the question in the first place.
The great thing about advances in camera tech and software is that it opens up film to more people. The flip side is a lot of these people shouldn't be doing film.
-
"The great thing about advances in camera tech and software is that it opens up film to more people. The flip side is a lot of these people shouldn't be doing film. "
It takes time. Maybe one of those guys will end up as a great movie maker
Sometimes there come things up related to numbers-specs, like DPI versus image resolution, that even guys who should know better don't understand.
In a digital world you can not escape all of them. I try to know so much i need only (not that more knowledge is bad). In the past i tried to know everything but didn't produced anything.
-
@Kadri sorry, I actually did a major topic shift at the end. "Shouldn't," isn't about tech knowledge. That's factual and can be learned with research. There are intangibles in film, in having a sense of rhythm, composition and color that cannot be taught. There are those out there who, bless 'em for trying, just aren't very good. When I run into them, I still give the same help I give everyone. ;-)
To get back on topic, the moon explosion is part of a larger sequence? When do we get to see more shots?
-
You don't need the knowledge of NormanPCN, Aladdin4d or Stargazer54
Thank god
-
@Triem23 i am working on the last 2 scenes now that i had to add after the first rough cut of the short movie. Music,sound and the last edit i would say 1-2 months but i said that last year too. But this time it looks for real
I work since 2 years on it. It begun just as a test of one scene animation actually. The lenght got longer and longer and is now 7-8 minutes or so. I tried to raise the quality in time. I feel it will end as a kinda between test and real short movie quality. If i would go back i would remake most of the scenes. But just to finish this will be probably the most i will be proud of.
-
You don't need the knowledge of NormanPCN, Aladdin4d or Stargazer54
Trust me you don't want it either it's too distracting and it will lead you down a dark path full of misery and missed opportunities
The flip side is a lot of these people shouldn't be doing film.
I wouldn't go quite this far because because you have to do something in order to learn. On the other hand there's a lot of times when I just want to scream "STEP AWAY FROM THE CAMERA!" or computer or whatever so I totally get where you're coming from..
having a sense of rhythm, composition and color that cannot be taught.
Which brings me to a music video I just saw yesterday. Whoever did it has some skills, but not the right ones. He had a music track giving him a rock solid rhythm to work from and blew it in my opinion. I'm not saying you have to follow the rhythm of a track exactly but whatever you do should at least be in some type of cadence with it otherwise you end up with a hot mess.
Even worse there's supposed to be a narrative here and the rhythm doesn't even fit that not to mention most of it was plagiarized from Stranger Things If you haven't seen Stranger Things then what's here ends up telling a completely different story if you take the time to try and figure it out. Non-native English speakers probably won't catch it but for native English speakers it makes the lead singer out to be a very very bad man.
-
You don't need the knowledge of . . . . Trust me you don't want it either it's too distracting and it will lead you down a dark path full of misery and missed opportunities.
I can verify the truthfulness of this statement.
Reminds me of another truth by our friend Hunter S. Thompson:
“The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason.”
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1942c1e5df26e47916ca88cdc6c08ace.svg)
