AVS Forum banner

4K editing workflow....

2K views 24 replies 7 participants last post by  bsprague 
#1 ·
I'm not sure why I'm confused. But, reading all the posts on 4K where it will be viewed on lesser screens, where do the conversions occur. It seems like it should be the same as AVCHD, but I get the sense there are some differences.


Is this the workflow?


1. Shoot clips from 4K camcorder, phone, etc

2. Transfer footage via (large) SD card to computer like usual.

3. Open in favorite NLE --- are all the common ones working?

4 Normal editing with trims, transitions, titles, grading etc

5. Output render/transcode to the target file format --- is the target format 4K at 30p?

6. Distribute via memory stick or upload to YouTube.


I'm confused about NLEs. Are all the common ones working with 4K?


I'm confused about what output settings or presets you use when you when you intend for a 4K product that will be (slowly) uploaded and then viewed on YouTube or Vimeo.


In other words, when a 4K viewing device is not going to be used, where does the down rez from 4K to 1080 occur?


Thanks.


Bill
 
See less See more
#2 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24611354


I'm not sure why I'm confused. But, reading all the posts on 4K where it will be viewed on lesser screens, where do the conversions occur. It seems like it should be the same as AVCHD, but I get the sense there are some differences.


Is this the workflow?


1. Shoot clips from 4K camcorder, phone, etc

2. Transfer footage via (large) SD card to computer like usual.

3. Open in favorite NLE --- are all the common ones working?

4 Normal editing with trims, transitions, titles, grading etc

5. Output render/transcode to the target file format --- is the target format 4K at 30p?

6. Distribute via memory stick or upload to YouTube.


I'm confused about NLEs. Are all the common ones working with 4K?


I'm confused about what output settings or presets you use when you when you intend for a 4K product that will be (slowly) uploaded and then viewed on YouTube or Vimeo.


In other words, when a 4K viewing device is not going to be used, where does the down rez from 4K to 1080 occur?


Thanks.


Bill

You can choose to output at 1080 or 4K (if the software allows) at 30p. If 4K, then the devices the video is viewed on will perform the dowrez automatically, like a computer or tablet with a 1080 screen, or less. If you upload a 4K video, then Vimeo will convert to 720p or 1080p for streaming and Youtube will convert to all resolutions, including 4K, for streaming.


I have been able to play 4K videos on the current and previous-generation Intel-chip computers with no problem, Windows 7 or 8, and view them on 1080 monitors. Apple computers play the 4K videos with no problem (and downrez to the highest resolution the monitor can handle automatically). My cell phone (with 1080 screen) plays the 4K AX100 videos with no problem.


Sony Movie Studio 13 and Sony Vegas Pro 12 will edit and output 4K (using the same codec as the AX100) or 1080. PowerDirector Ultra 12 will also edit 4K videos and output 1080 or 4K. These are ones I know.


So, there are really no workflow differences from AVCHD - the codec being used is essentially the same (H.264).
 
#3 ·
Bill I have Adobe Premier Elements 12 for Mac which is near identical to your PE 11 for Windows except that it offers some support for 4K (unadvertised, unofficial) . During the 2 days I had an AX100 this was my workflow to get a 4K file edited and saved as a 4K file and uploaded to Youtube:


The XAVC-S/4K video files from the Sony FDR-AX100 camcorder have .MP4 extensions; e.g. C0019.MP4. I import them into PE 12 by dragging C0019.MP4 from my desktop into the PE 12 timeline. Then after editing I select Publish & Share>Computer and click on AVCHD Use For Exporting AVCHD. Then I click the Back tab and select Publish&Share>Computer again and this time I click on XAVC-S and then where it says Presets I select MP4-H264 3840x2160 29.97p 30 Mbps. Then I click the Save button to the Desktop. Alternatively, before saving, I can click on Advanced and increase bitrates, etc. before saving to the Desktop. Then from the Desktop I upload to YouTube and end up with a 4K video file published to Youtube. Apparently the ideal bitrate setting is about 60 Mbps but then the file size gets much larger.


Although the detail of 4K footage from the AX100 is initially jaw dropping, the actual footage you see on Youtube when played at 1080 just looks like ordinary 1080 footage. And its even less clear and sharp (IMHO) when played at 360p or 480p than some much older cameras. Just look at how clear the footage is from this 3+ year old camera when played at only 360p or 480p: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FUmapkqPn0
 
#4 ·
Thank you SD90 and Mark.


A long running discussion, off and on, has been lossless editing and the value of it. So far, at the consumer low price level, we trade versatile, creative editing for quality. PlayMemories, HD Writer and TMPGEnc seem to be the only low price lossless choices. Movie Studio, Premier Elements and PowerDirector seem to be the poplar choices for more versatile editing but the all rely on transcoding, rendering, re-encoding, recoding or whatever you want to call it. In all three, the editing process becomes "lossy" as compressed data must be read, combined, adjusted and rewritten. Some hate it because it damages their perfectly captured clips and others love it because they can add personal creativity to their video projects.


I'm beginning to sense that the significant value of 4K may be that the normally lossy editing process can start with enough original data in the original clip files that the lossy process can take place with less visual impact on the processed output.


In some ways this is already an old habit. Knowing relatives might view a family history project on their "old" DVD systems, I intentionally recorded in 1920p60 hoping that the lossy output would be the best I could get. I was not thrilled with what Premier Elements produced, but the relatives only seemed to care about Aunt Rula's stories. They did not seem to care if she looked fuzzy or grainy on their TVs.


If AVCHD 2.0+lossy editing=sub quality 1080x1920 viewing experience, does 4K+lossy editing=greater than AVCHD 2.0 viewing experience?


If what I suspect is true, the marketing of 4K camcorders is not sending me the right message. What I'm hearing and seeing is that I am expected to believe that my HD, AVCHD, Blu-Ray, iPad, Kindle Fire world is now obsolete and I need to prepare for investing in replacement of the whole synergistic array of devices. With all due respect to you youngsters, I don't think I'll benefit from the switch over. It will take too long.


The HD transition took about a decade from the first HD TVs to universal HD recording in the smallest of cameras and even smartphones.


However, if consumer marketing communication should made make it clear that buying a 4K camera would "significantly" improve my editing experience and output quality for my existing video system. In still photography, marketing communication has convinced buyers that the switch to RAW formats does improve their snapshots! Long live Lightroom!


Is there enough data in the 4K data files that I can make "improvements" to my clips with a $100 NLE like I can to my photos with the $100 Lightroom? If yes, the camcorder salesmen aren't getting it done.


Bill


PS: @SD90, I found on the PrE support forum that Steve Grisetti, one of the gurus, wrote, "Version 12 includes project presets as well as output templates for XAVC video at 3840x2160, so it is capable of editing video at those specs." If the presets are there, it must be "officially supported".
 
#5 ·
"If AVCHD 2.0+lossy editing=sub quality 1080x1920 viewing experience, does 4K+lossy editing=greater than AVCHD 2.0 viewing experience?" Yes.


"Is there enough data in the 4K data files that I can make "improvements" to my clips with a $100 NLE like I can to my photos with the $100 Lightroom?" Yes, and shooting and editing 4K is much easier than shooting and editing 1080 RAW video.


"...the camcorder salesmen aren't getting it done." Yes. And most reviewers don't get it either (maybe because they have to admit that 1080 cameras do not really shoot 1080).
 
#6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24612853


...."Is there enough data in the 4K data files that I can make "improvements" to my clips with a $100 NLE like I can to my photos with the $100 Lightroom?" Yes, and shooting and editing 4K is much easier than shooting and editing 1080 RAW video.
I'm starting to feel and see the excitement. If 4K brings to video what RAW does to photos at the consumer level, I may need to prioritize.


It seem the reason for 4K camcorders is NOT to make video for 4K TVs, but to make for more effective editing. Will "lossless" editing disappear from the NLE wish list because you can do it better with 4K?


I'm now curious about what Lightroom, now 5.4, does with 4K video clips. Although it does not get much talk, Lightroom can do a credible job of making a video. You don't call it a video in Lightroom language. You call it a slide show with video clips and "export", not render, to an .MP4. You still get a movie.


On my list of things to do, is experiment with making the same video in my NLE and in Lightroom. Both making grade adjustments. My initial feeling is that Lightroom can actually do a better job with things like brightness and contrast without increasing noise.


4K experimentation is frustrating for now. I think it would be at least fun to try some Lighroom style grading, cropping and adjustments to video clips like I do with GX7 and RX100 RAW photos. I don't buy the on the road bandwidth to reasonably download copies of others' clips to test "grading" and my NLE needs an annual update I was putting off until next year!


Bill
 
#7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24612988



It seem the reason for 4K camcorders is NOT to make video for 4K TVs, but to make for more effective editing.

Not really. The reasons for 4K camcorders are many and more effective editing is one of those reasons. However seeing this footage on a UHD TV is quite another experience and a pretty amazing one. So making video for a UHD TV, is yet another rationale for 4K cams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24612988



Will "lossless" editing disappear from the NLE wish list because you can do it better with 4K?


Bill

I don't think so, but 'lossy' is a result more easily seen in HD. With so many pixels and such a resulting high resolution, the loss in 'lossy' for 4K becomes less significant. With that said, the video community will always be searching for effective, 'lossless' NLEs. I know I will.
 
#8 ·
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24612988


I'm starting to feel and see the excitement. If 4K brings to video what RAW does to photos at the consumer level, I may need to prioritize.


It seem the reason for 4K camcorders is NOT to make video for 4K TVs, but to make for more effective editing. Will "lossless" editing disappear from the NLE wish list because you can do it better with 4K?


I'm now curious about what Lightroom, now 5.4, does with 4K video clips. Although it does not get much talk, Lightroom can do a credible job of making a video. You don't call it a video in Lightroom language. You call it a slide show with video clips and "export", not render, to an .MP4. You still get a movie.


On my list of things to do, is experiment with making the same video in my NLE and in Lightroom. Both making grade adjustments. My initial feeling is that Lightroom can actually do a better job with things like brightness and contrast without increasing noise.


4K experimentation is frustrating for now. I think it would be at least fun to try some Lighroom style grading, cropping and adjustments to video clips like I do with GX7 and RX100 RAW photos. I don't buy the on the road bandwidth to reasonably download copies of others' clips to test "grading" and my NLE needs an annual update I was putting off until next year!


Bill

It is pretty much possible to get visually lossless output post edit now, you don't need 4K to get that, provided you have well captured HD and have the ideal workflow results can be had that are very good.


Remember that 4K as we have it in these consumer camcorders down-sampled only provides 1080P at 24/25 or 30fps, whereas many of us have 1080P at 50/60fps on the time-line currently in HD land. It will take the next generation of consumer 4K camcorders before we have 60fps.


For encoding the output, I use the X264 encoder which produces excellent results using an app I programmed myself to make it easy. I tend to export using the lossless Lagarith codec then feed that off into the X264 encoder and results are very good.


Regards


Phil
 
#9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24613340


Hi

Remember that 4K as we have it in these consumer camcorders down-sampled only provides 1080P at 24/25 or 30fps, whereas many of us have 1080P at 50/60fps on the time-line currently in HD land. It will take the next generation of consumer 4K camcorders before we have 60fps.


Regards


Phil

"HI"


"Remember"? How can we forget Phil, you remind us every day. Of course the above has nothing to do with the question of the OP, but Phil can't resist getting a shot in at current 4K camcorders in every thread on every forum. It's actually pretty amusing at this point...endless, but amusing.


Regards,

Ken
 
#10 ·
"It is pretty much possible to get visually lossless output post edit now, you don't need 4K to get that, provided you have well captured HD and have the ideal workflow results can be had that are very good."


The point is that you do not have "well captured" HD; almost no camcorder comes close. And the losses are not invisible from AVCHD, which is highly compressed to start with (AVCHD is a delivery codec not an editing codec, it is very vulnerable to destruction in post). Sometimes I am sickened by the artifacts from edited AVCHD
.


And with 4K downrezzed, you get better color sampling: current HD is 4:2:0; downrezzed 4K is at least 4:2:2 if not 4:4:4.
 
#11 ·
I agree with Mark. If you edit and apply any sort of correction or effect, you will be far more able to produce quality 1080p output from 4K source material than any 1080p output from consumer cameras.


The biggest issue with pre-4K generation cameras is the high level of compression applied to your source, which makes subsequent editing difficult with significant damage to the footage.
 
#12 ·
#13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24613340


....For encoding the output, I use the X264 encoder which produces excellent results using an app I programmed myself to make it easy. I tend to export using the lossless Lagarith codec then feed that off into the X264 encoder and results are very good.


Regards


Phil
Phil,

I found and installed the Lagarith codec to see if I could improve results. Holy C* that makes huge files slowly. It is still on my computer, but I don't think it will get much use.


Bill
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24613654


.... Sometimes I am sickened by the artifacts from edited AVCHD
.
I was roped into a massive family history project where the elderly star of the show had to stay in the shade under a big hat. Her face was practically in a "low light" zone at high noon. Simple brightness/exposure adjustments induced terrible grain and noise.
 
#15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24614428


Here is a test chart example of how 4K downrezzed to HD compares to native HD from the same camera and compared to the very best 1080 camera....You can clearly see that 4K downrezzed to 1080 is visibly better than native 1080, and beats the best native 1080 camera.
There is something wrong with my eyeballs. I see a difference but not a significant difference. I see the shades of grey are different, but I don't see any sharpness difference. Am I looking at it wrong?
 
#16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24615128


There is something wrong with my eyeballs. I see a difference but not a significant difference. I see the shades of grey are different, but I don't see any sharpness difference. Am I looking at it wrong?

Nothing wrong with your eyeballs (you would have never been allowed to fly if that were true). You are looking in the wrong place. Look at the upper curved lines in the circle. In the GH4 1080 native there are strange offsetting lines to the curves. These are the artifacts everyone is talking about - they are false lines. And the topmost upper curved lines are indistinct. Then look at those same top curved lines in the downscaled 4K - they are perfect - no false lines and the upper curved lines are quite distinct. Now look at the right-side charts. Those upper curved lines from the downscaled GH4 are more distinct than those from the C100. These are differences at the margin, but they show up in real video.
 
#17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24612475


If what I suspect is true, the marketing of 4K camcorders is not sending me the right message. What I'm hearing and seeing is that I am expected to believe that my HD, AVCHD, Blu-Ray, iPad, Kindle Fire world is now obsolete and I need to prepare for investing in replacement of the whole synergistic array of devices. With all due respect to you youngsters, I don't think I'll benefit from the switch over. It will take too long.

....................

However, if consumer marketing communication made it clear that buying a 4K camera would "significantly" improve my editing experience and output quality for my existing video. In still photography, marketing communication has convinced buyers that the switch to RAW formats does improve their snapshots! Long live Lightroom!

I was of the "hey I skipped the whole Blu-ray thing" and kept to my SD DVD collection until I made the mistake of checking out an actual 4k UHD TV in the local bb.

My eyeballs were instantly happy with what I saw. A significant leap from the details I was used to seeing.


I now look at it with two different hats: Like you, my retired family members and teens who are glued to their smartphones don't really care about 4k - show them any video with themselves in it and they are happy. So I will continue to use 1080p most of the time. It's for pickier me who wants 4k footage in all its gory glorious details.


The marketing right now, to me at least, seems to gloss over the significant outlay and upgrades that people will need to do in order to really handle these larger native file sizes when working with 4k. As such I think the majority of people will stick with 1080 and dream about 4k. I will however re-purchase all our old DVDs in 4k when released.


I mean Planet Earth in brilliant 4k ?? Take my money no question about it !


I have a wedding coming up that I need to shoot and an Alaskan trip after that and I would regret not having 4k footage of the experience. So I have personally decided it's time to make the full jump- camcorder, extra equipment, plus full blown new computer workstation to handle the larger files and later a UHD TV (or 4k projector if the prices come down to sane levels.) Once I am done, this new setup / workflow will last for a long time. So the initial cash outlay will be huge- but worth it. Either that or get back into the car hobby again and if you think camcorders are expensive think about prepping and tracking old muscle cars and then we'll talk. [Edit: never mind you're a pilot and that's even more expensive ha.]


But that's just me... until something else new and shiny comes along and then I make the mistake of logging onto these forums and reading about it..


Rob
 
#18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24615240


Nothing wrong with your eyeballs (you would have never been allowed to fly if that were true). You are looking in the wrong place. Look at the upper curved lines in the circle. In the GH4 1080 native there are strange offsetting lines to the curves. These are the artifacts everyone is talking about - they are false lines. And the topmost upper curved lines are indistinct. Then look at those same top curved lines in the downscaled 4K - they are perfect - no false lines and the upper curved lines are quite distinct. Now look at the right-side charts. Those upper curved lines from the downscaled GH4 are more distinct than those from the C100. These are differences at the margin, but they show up in real video.
Lots of people fly with bad eyeballs. I had one quit for "idiopathic cranial sixth nerve palsy" once. It took six month so get over it, but flying still worked.


And, now that you point it out, I do see the strange lines. Thanks.
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAC  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24619927


.... So I have personally decided it's time to make the full jump- camcorder, extra equipment, plus full blown new computer workstation to handle the larger files and later a UHD TV (or 4k projector if the prices come down to sane levels.)

Except for storage space, I'm reading that processing 4K may not require a new workstation. If I get it right, getting out of the AVCHD codec speeds things up.


I'll probably follow you but more slowly. But dollars and patience will help me wait for some more camera choices to develop. I also want to see how the various NLEs work out 4K. In a half year, the next version of my favorite NLE will drift out. It better have some significant feature additions or I will be jumping ship! The last version Premier Elements 12 had nothing new of interest to me. Premier Pro is now a Adobe Creative Cloud product that you rent. So, I may move to Sony Vegas Pro which would put a dent in the "next camera with 4K" budgeting plan.


(Yesterday, next to a Post Office, was a cash machine. My DW said, "If you need cash, I'll mail the letters." I started to say no and then, like a bolt of lightning, 4K struck. Now, in the corner of my wallet is about 10% of a GH4!)
 
#20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24620203


Except for storage space, I'm reading that processing 4K may not require a new workstation. If I get it right, getting out of the AVCHD codec speeds things up.
I still have some original 4K clips I shot with the AX100 I had for 2 days. In general, the 4K/30p file sizes of the AX100 were huge as compared to the 1080/30p files of my Olympus OMD-E-M5; e.g. just a 1 minute recording with the AX100 = 500 MB file size. Then if I import that 500 MB file into Premier Elements 12, edit it and export it at a 4K & 40 mbps bitrate the file size is still around 500 MB. So that means mega hours of time are needed to upload just a 1 minute 4K video to Youtube over an average DSL broadband internet connection.
 
#21 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24621218


I still have some original 4K clips I shot with the AX100 I had for 2 days. In general, the 4K/30p file sizes of the AX100 were huge as compared to the 1080/30p files of my Olympus OMD-E-M5; e.g. just a 1 minute recording with the AX100 = 500 MB file size. Then if I import that 500 MB file into Premier Elements 12, edit it and export it at a 4K & 40 mbps bitrate the file size is still around 500 MB. So that means mega hours of time are needed to upload just a 1 minute 4K video to Youtube over an average DSL broadband internet connection.

Forget that - size just depends on bitrate. Period.


The math is simple = the AX100 Mbps in 4k is 60Mbps. That for standard AVCHD is 28Mbps. So the file sizes will be about twice as big. That's it.


If you are using MP4 in a Panasonic then the bitrates are 50Mbps in 1080, so then the 4K files sizes are not bigger really compared with the AX100 at 4K. On the GH4, 4K is 100Mbps (AVC), so then the file sizes are 2X. You get 4X the resolution for 2X the storage.


Finally, if you output the 4K originals to 1080 at 50Mbps, then the output files will be exactly the same size as the 1080 files you are getting now in MP4. You get better 1080 in the same size file.
 
#22 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24621251


If you are using MP4 in a Panasonic then the bitrates are 50Mbps in 1080
True, if one is recording with a Panasonic GX7/GH3 at 60p. But since Youtube plays 60p videos at 30p, then maybe for Youtube purposes Bill would shoot 1080 video at 30p and 20 Mbps with his GX7 in which case the file size would end up at least 4 times smaller than 4K/30p footage from the AX100, hence would upload to Youtube at least 4 times faster.


Likewise, those of us with Canon and Olympus cameras that record video at 1080/30p end up with .mov files for upload to Youtube that are far smaller than the 4K/30p footage that comes out of the AX100.
 
#23 ·
I could care less about YouTube upload speeds. If that was my governing motivation, I wouldn't get quality cameras. I always try to shoot with the best settings possible on quality equipment and I do the same when editing. Otherwise why get nice equipment?


But if quality isn't a concern, then all bets are off.
 
#24 ·
So I have been spending hours viewing tutorials and trying out various Pro NLEs and I have found my next high end NLE - Sony Vegas Pro. It is a very intuitive jump from Power Director, which I consider to be a midrange NLE, for me. I was all set to get Premiere Pro then I ran into Adobe's Cloud craziness- no thanks.


If I had a Mac I can see myself enjoying Final Cut Pro- really like the intuitive features also. Anyway, all my current plugins that I use, Pixelan, Newblue etc. work inside of Sony Vegas Pro so that's a bonus.


My current video editing machine, a tiny (literally) palm sized Gigabyte BRIX Pro with an i7-4770R Quad core and Intel Iris Pro 5200 GPU handles it nicely with the 4K files I have been feeding it.
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4888#ov This will do for now since it makes me a happy camper until a much more robust systems upgrade next year
 
#25 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAC  /t/1527546/4k-editing-workflow#post_24641326


......... I have found my next high end NLE - Sony Vegas Pro. It is a very intuitive jump from Power Director, which I consider to be a midrange NLE, for me. I was all set to get Premiere Pro then I ran into Adobe's Cloud craziness- no thanks.
Adobe's cloud craziness has me put off too. They did back down for photographers and are providing Lightroom and Photoshop for $10 a month. That's reasonable. And, if all a photographer cares about is Lightroom, you can buy it outright. Their consumer based Elements versions are also purchased. To access Premier Pro at all, Adobe requires the full Creative Cloud rental for $50 a month. All or nothing. If After Effects, Illustrator and other stuff are important, it might be justifiable.


If I made my living with Adobe products, as many do, I can see the cloud system making sense with it's incremental feature enhancement system.


As a consumer, Vegas Pro makes much more sense and I am heading that way.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top