1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:07,720
let me start by saying this video was a metric ass ton of work I mean not for me

2
00:00:05,279 --> 00:00:11,200
mind you Ed did all the heavy lifting so make sure that you show him some love by

3
00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:15,879
liking the video or following him on Twitter or something because his

4
00:00:12,799 --> 00:00:19,119
findings are absolutely fascinating if

5
00:00:15,879 --> 00:00:22,800
you consume or create video content on

6
00:00:19,119 --> 00:00:26,480
the web welcome to 4K better video

7
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:26,480
quality or a big fat

8
00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:35,399
placebo

9
00:00:35,399 --> 00:00:43,840
Intel is bringing ddr4 to the mainstream with their allnew core i76700 K and core

10
00:00:40,800 --> 00:00:46,079
i56600k processors check out the link in

11
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:51,280
the video description to learn more so Ed's investigation into 4K video quality

12
00:00:48,600 --> 00:00:57,359
was actually inspired by a Panasonic camera known as the GH4 at a mere $2,000

13
00:00:55,480 --> 00:01:03,039
trust me that was amazing when it came out the GH4 could shoot 4K to an

14
00:01:00,039 --> 00:01:04,439
internal SD card at a bit rate of 100

15
00:01:03,039 --> 00:01:11,720
megabit per second and you can learn more about bit rate and why it's important here which for the first time

16
00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:13,960
put 4K video production like prograde

17
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:17,920
production in the hands of regular consumers who happen to be in the market

18
00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:22,520
for what is also a fairly capable mirrorless Stills camera balling right

19
00:01:20,560 --> 00:01:26,360
we sure thought so we picked one up pretty much right away and the vast

20
00:01:24,479 --> 00:01:32,759
majority of our b-roll has been shot on the GH4 for months with us going as far

21
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:37,360
at one Point as to shoot 4k on our aam a

22
00:01:32,759 --> 00:01:40,040
Sony fs700 4K on our bcam the GH4 and

23
00:01:37,360 --> 00:01:46,119
edit on a 4K timeline with a native export of 4K video that we upload but

24
00:01:44,119 --> 00:01:51,320
this proved to be very challenging at the time the fs 700's High bit rate 4K

25
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:55,719
footage was a total bear to work with the file sizes were huge putting

26
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:59,520
significant strain on our networking infrastructure when multiple editors

27
00:01:57,399 --> 00:02:04,240
were working at the same time and we experien other workflow interruptions

28
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:08,280
ranging from poor editing timeline uh scrubbing responsiveness to annoying

29
00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:12,280
file splitting during long clip recording to even export errors when

30
00:02:10,239 --> 00:02:18,599
rendering out the final videos so we went back to 1080p downscaled from 4K

31
00:02:15,879 --> 00:02:23,879
using our external recorder on the aam since the fs700 sensor performs so well

32
00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:29,560
at resolving fine details regardless of the output file resolution anyway and

33
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:32,000
continued shooting b-roll at 4k natively

34
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:36,040
on the GH4 since while that does slow down the editing timeline it's not in a

35
00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:40,840
manner that completely cripples the productivity of our editors like the 4K

36
00:02:38,640 --> 00:02:47,120
native FS footage did so what you've been seeing out of us since then this is

37
00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:50,080
really important is a 4K timeline with

38
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:56,280
downsampled 4K footage off the fs700 that is then re-up sampled back to 4K

39
00:02:53,319 --> 00:03:02,200
and Native 4K footage from the GH4 that is then exported at 4K when we create

40
00:02:59,159 --> 00:03:03,799
the file to upload to Youtube or vessel

41
00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:08,280
fast forward almost a year and we were moving into a new office and rolling out

42
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:15,599
three new servers a rendering server powered by two Intel Zeon E5 2699 v38

43
00:03:12,239 --> 00:03:19,720
core processors a high-speed SSD based

44
00:03:15,599 --> 00:03:24,080
20 gbit network storage server and a 100

45
00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:27,000
tbte plus archival storage server these

46
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:32,560
potentially addressed almost all of the previous issues Network performance file

47
00:03:30,159 --> 00:03:36,400
size and rendering horsepower not to mention that adobe hasn't been sitting

48
00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:40,200
on ass for the last year and Premiere has improved a fair bit as well in terms

49
00:03:38,319 --> 00:03:45,560
of how it handles high bit rate and 4K files so it was time to evaluate whether

50
00:03:42,599 --> 00:03:49,920
it was worth it to go native 4K again as part of an investigation into how we

51
00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:54,799
could use our 36 core video crunching server to improve our workflow so we

52
00:03:52,319 --> 00:03:59,400
started by taking a closer look at some of the 4K footage that we'd shot

53
00:03:56,640 --> 00:04:02,879
recently on the GH4 comparing the visual quality

54
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:08,000
of the Native 4K footage and then that very same footage down sampled to 1080p

55
00:04:05,959 --> 00:04:12,640
with a variety of codec trying to figure out how to get timeline performance

56
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:17,359
perfect and the results shocked us when viewed on a 4k monitor they were

57
00:04:15,199 --> 00:04:23,080
indistinguishable from each other and in fact even when compared using overlaid

58
00:04:20,440 --> 00:04:28,960
still captures in Photoshop and by setting the blending mode to difference

59
00:04:25,440 --> 00:04:31,919
they were nearly identical so then was

60
00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:36,960
there any point recording in 4k at all we needed to dig deeper so we

61
00:04:33,960 --> 00:04:41,280
specifically recorded identical Clips at

62
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:43,680
4K and 1080p natively on the GH4 camera

63
00:04:41,280 --> 00:04:49,400
and compared those against each other this time with the 1080p footage

64
00:04:45,840 --> 00:04:52,240
upsample to 4K same result down sampling

65
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:57,080
4K to 1080p upsampling 1080p to 4K they just all look the same so we broke out

66
00:04:55,120 --> 00:05:01,680
the big guns and used our proper professional grade camera our Sony fs7

67
00:04:59,880 --> 00:05:07,320
100 to do the same comparison now we can see the difference

68
00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:12,240
watching the files over our own local network between the upsampled and the

69
00:05:09,639 --> 00:05:17,240
native 4K footage with the text on our figurine appearing to be more in focus

70
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:22,120
when watching back the native 4K file even though the camera and subject were

71
00:05:18,840 --> 00:05:24,479
not moved in between shots but what does

72
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:29,280
this difference translate to in terms of a real world benefit we all know that

73
00:05:27,120 --> 00:05:33,280
YouTube has had a 4K option for quite some time but should content creators

74
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:38,280
even be worried about shooting and editing in 4k should they export in 4k

75
00:05:36,240 --> 00:05:43,479
for their upload should you the viewer select 4K when watching we have all

76
00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:46,919
those answers but Buckle in because if the rest of this video sounded pretty

77
00:05:44,840 --> 00:05:51,080
technical this is probably going to be a little worse I'll start with the answer

78
00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:56,080
for the content creators since this affects the content consumers as well

79
00:05:53,919 --> 00:06:01,960
regardless of your camera working on a 1080p timeline with 1080p footage will

80
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:06,639
not not result in a degraded experience for your viewers thanks to the video

81
00:06:04,160 --> 00:06:11,280
processing done by YouTube the benefit of your fancy camera is basically

82
00:06:08,960 --> 00:06:16,080
limited to better performance on a green screen and better color grading and

83
00:06:13,720 --> 00:06:18,840
punching options in post- production something that is arguably much more

84
00:06:17,759 --> 00:06:27,280
important to the appearance of the footage than sheer resolution anyway so I'm not poo pooing fancy cameras but we

85
00:06:23,759 --> 00:06:30,680
also discovered that upsampling to 4K

86
00:06:27,280 --> 00:06:33,479
for your final export is worth the extra

87
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:37,400
file size and the extra rendering time because when YouTube detects a

88
00:06:35,120 --> 00:06:43,479
resolution of 4k on their side they will offer a 4K viewing option to the viewer

89
00:06:40,000 --> 00:06:45,720
that features a higher playback bit rate

90
00:06:43,479 --> 00:06:52,080
and therefore sharper image quality on both 1080P and on 4K displays which

91
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:56,440
leads us finally to the answer for consumers conventional wisdom would

92
00:06:54,520 --> 00:07:00,879
dictate that watching content at the native resolution of your display is

93
00:06:58,680 --> 00:07:05,840
ideal this is something that most of our viewers seem to be aware of based on

94
00:07:03,039 --> 00:07:11,000
these poll results but if you have the internet connection and bandwidth cap

95
00:07:07,840 --> 00:07:13,800
limits to handle it this is not the case

96
00:07:11,000 --> 00:07:21,160
for online video or at least on YouTube watching at 4k on a 4K or 1080p monitor

97
00:07:18,199 --> 00:07:25,479
yields a noticeable visual quality improvement regardless of whether the

98
00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:30,639
video was natively shot at 4K or upsampled thanks to YouTube delivering

99
00:07:27,639 --> 00:07:32,319
the video to you at a higher bit rate

100
00:07:30,639 --> 00:07:35,879
which leaves us finally with a last message for the content creators out

101
00:07:34,039 --> 00:07:41,240
there if there's anything to take away from this video it's don't get too

102
00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:43,759
focused on 4K or resolution in general

103
00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:48,879
in the same way that a 4K recording phone is not a professional video

104
00:07:46,039 --> 00:07:55,199
recording device entrylevel 4K cameras are not equal to their 4K prograde

105
00:07:51,759 --> 00:07:57,599
Brethren but don't worry most Pros are

106
00:07:55,199 --> 00:08:02,599
just using their 4K gear to have more flexibility during the creation of their

107
00:07:59,639 --> 00:08:08,479
1080p final product anyway so if you're producing Web video you may actually be

108
00:08:05,199 --> 00:08:11,280
better served by a superior 1080p camera

109
00:08:08,479 --> 00:08:17,400
at this time because lenses encoding settings codecs camera sensor size and

110
00:08:14,639 --> 00:08:21,800
sensor quality all impact the finished product and on that subject stay tuned

111
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:26,039
for the results of our investigation into editing codec it's going to be at

112
00:08:23,960 --> 00:08:29,560
least as interesting as this one especially For You video editors out

113
00:08:27,759 --> 00:08:33,919
there thanks for watching guys if you disliked this video you know what to do

114
00:08:31,919 --> 00:08:37,519
but if you liked it please click that like button maybe support us by buying a

115
00:08:36,039 --> 00:08:42,360
cool t-shirt like this one changing your Amazon bookmarked one with our affiliate code we have the instructions for how to

116
00:08:40,279 --> 00:08:46,240
do that in the little eye in the corner or even by supporting us directly

117
00:08:43,880 --> 00:08:49,000
through our community Forum now that you're done doing all that you guys are

118
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:54,120
looking for some more videos to check out boom you should check out our recent

119
00:08:50,959 --> 00:08:57,680
video on the Acer 34in curved gaming

120
00:08:54,120 --> 00:08:59,440
monitor that I absolutely freaking love

121
00:08:57,680 --> 00:09:05,870
uh we just did that one and it's not for 4K but uh is it ever sexy see you guys

122
00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:07,079
next

123
00:09:07,079 --> 00:09:10,079
time