Don't bother uploading 4K clips higher than YouTube's video bit rate recommendation! - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 Old 12-22-2015, 01:01 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
GS kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Santa Barbara County, California
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don't bother uploading 4K clips higher than YouTube's video bit rate recommendation!

Here is a big tip that I discovered from uploading and testing 4K videos I've made recently (Although I haven't tested this with 720p and 1080P videos, this most likely applies to YouTube's video bit rate upload recommendations on those resolutions too I'm guessing).

I'm gonna cut and paste the comments from my test video descriptions cuz they pretty much say it all. I just tweaked a few words to reflect the text of the two different bit rate test clips description sections...otherwise they are mostly the same exact text...(the test clips are unlisted videos BTW)


These 45 Mbps (and 100 Mbps) video bit rate 4K Ultra HD comparison clips are to demonstrate why uploading a 4K video that's encoded at a bit rate higher than YouTube's recommended 35-45 Mbps for 4K 30fps video (2160p: 3840x2160 @ 30fps) is POINTLESS and not worth the extra upload time.

Here is YouTube's upload bit rate recommendation page....


https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en


This 4K clip was recorded with my Sony FDR-AX100 4K Prosumer camcorder. It was originally all recorded at the camera's maximum 100 Mbps bit rate (it also records 4K at 60 Mbps BTW) at 30fps in Sony's XAVC-S file format. It was rendered in Cyberlink PowerDirector 14 as both a 100 Mbps and a 45 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube as is.

Here is the clip that was rendered as a 100 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube for comparison....




Here is the exact same clip that was rendered down to a 45 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube for comparison....



I used this particular shot because it best demonstrated the pixelation motion artifacts that are introduced by YouTube's VP9 compression codec and it's bit rate reduction for streaming.

As you can see... there are pixelation motion artifacts on the side of the train engines & cars... and also on the track ballast (the white rocks at the base of the tracks) as it goes by and as the camera pans to the left.

There appears to be the exact SAME amount of pixelation motion artifacts in BOTH the 100 Mbps test video and the 45 Mbps test video.

NOTE: These pixelation motion artifacts DO NOT appear in EITHER the original 100 Mbps OR the 45 Mbps source files that were uploaded to YouTube.

I used the program "4K Video Downloader" to download BOTH the 100 Mbps and 45 Mbps comparison clips from YouTube afterwards and used the program "MediaInfo" to see how much YouTube's VP9 conversion butchered them compared to the original files that were uploaded.....

Original 100 Mbps uploaded SOURCE clip: 303MB file size
YouTube 100 Mbps test clip DL'd: 66.4MB file size

Original 45 Mbps uploaded SOURCE clip: 136MB file size
YouTube 45 Mbps test clip DL'd: 66.4MB file size

The 100 Mbps clip AFTER YouTube's conversion: 22.2 Mbps
The 45 Mbps clip AFTER YouTube's conversion: 22.2 Mbps

The original audio of the 100 Mbps source clip: 384 Kbps, 48KHz
The audio AFTER YouTube's conversion: 126 Kbps, 44.1KHz

The original audio of the 45 Mbps source clip: 384 Kbps, 48KHz
The audio AFTER YouTube's conversion: 126 Kbps, 44.1KHz


CONCLUSION: Unless you have a very fast upload connection and are too lazy to convert the original video file to a lower bit rate.....

MY ADVICE... just render down your 4K video to YouTube's high-end 45 Mbps bit rate recommendation and save yourself the time it takes to upload it.

AS A GENERAL RULE.....filming at 4K and down-converting it to 1080p gives you a sharper looking video than had the video been shot in 1080p to begin with. The better the source material resolution.... the better the down-converted end product. Watching the 1080p stream of a 4K video on YouTube shows it still looks much sharper than videos on there shot originally in 1080p to begin with.

BUT... that doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to the bit rate aspect of converting a source material's superior bit rate down when it comes to YouTube. Any 4K upload source clip rendered at a bit rate higher than 45 Mbps only increases the upload time... not the quality of the final YouTube converted video. Cuz the amount of pixelation motion artifacts in the 100 Mbps conversion was the SAME.


BTW... these test clips are part of my 15:41 long "4K: Trains on Beaumont Hill, CA Nov. 22-23, 2015 Yuma Subdivision" public video (I used the 45 Mbps conversion render as my upload file source for this full video BTW)......



Feel free to comment and state your feelings and findings. I made this thread to basically give people a heads up based on my many different tests.

Sony FDR-AX100 4K UHD camcorder
Sony ECM-XYST1M Stereo Microphone
Sony VCT-VPR1 Compact Remote Control Tripod
Samsung UN40JU6500FXZA 4K UHD TV
Intel i7-4510U w/8GB RAM Nvidia GTX 850M w/4GB
Sony Vegas Pro 13 & Cyberlink PowerDirector 14

Last edited by GS kid; 12-22-2015 at 01:12 PM.
GS kid is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 Old 12-22-2015, 01:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 779 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Unless you know their algorithms you cannot be sure in anything. In your case you see no difference, does not mean there will be no difference in other cases.

And why being so hysterical about this?
Ungermann is offline  
post #3 of 11 Old 12-22-2015, 02:18 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
GS kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Santa Barbara County, California
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post
Unless you know their algorithms you cannot be sure in anything. In your case you see no difference, does not mean there will be no difference in other cases.

And why being so hysterical about this?
There is nothing "hysterical" about my post. LOL!

I have DSL internet like many other people in this world. My upload speed is only 768Kbps. My full 4K train video is 15:41 in length and took about 38 hours to upload in it's 100 Mbps form and about 17 hours to upload in it's current 45 Mbps form.

I did a bunch of tests with a bunch of different clips and the results keep coming up the same both visually and in actual video quality data numbers. And if higher than 45 Mbps in a uploaded clip's video bit rate doesn't result in a better quality clip from YouTube's video on the downstream side... what's the point of doing so then?

Not only does it save upload time but with those that have internet providers with low monthly data caps, it could make all the difference in the world to them. Hence why I gave the advice and made this thread with both visual proof and data backing up my conclusions.

I don't need to know the intimate workings of YouTube's compression codec algorithms. The proof in the pudding is in the tasting... and visually and data-wise, I have plenty of proof supporting my conclusion unless people want to prove otherwise. You're welcome to prove me wrong instead of essentially dismissing my findings out of hand.

Hence why this thread is open for people to debate and prove my conclusions wrong. Otherwise it's simply some time saving advice with some visuals and numbers to back it up.

Sony FDR-AX100 4K UHD camcorder
Sony ECM-XYST1M Stereo Microphone
Sony VCT-VPR1 Compact Remote Control Tripod
Samsung UN40JU6500FXZA 4K UHD TV
Intel i7-4510U w/8GB RAM Nvidia GTX 850M w/4GB
Sony Vegas Pro 13 & Cyberlink PowerDirector 14
GS kid is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 11 Old 12-22-2015, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,558
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS kid View Post
AS A GENERAL RULE.....filming at 4K and down-converting it to 1080p gives you a sharper looking video than had the video been shot in 1080p to begin with. The better the source material resolution.... the better the down-converted end product. Watching the 1080p stream of a 4K video on YouTube shows it still looks much sharper than videos on there shot originally in 1080p to begin with.
As a general rule yes. A high end 1080p camera that fully resolves 1080p is an exception.
Tom Roper is offline  
post #5 of 11 Old 12-22-2015, 02:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS kid View Post
Here is a big tip that I discovered from uploading and testing 4K videos I've made recently (Although I haven't tested this with 720p and 1080P videos, this most likely applies to YouTube's video bit rate upload recommendations on those resolutions too I'm guessing).

I'm gonna cut and paste the comments from my test video descriptions cuz they pretty much say it all. I just tweaked a few words to reflect the text of the two different bit rate test clips description sections...otherwise they are mostly the same exact text...(the test clips are unlisted videos BTW)


These 45 Mbps (and 100 Mbps) video bit rate 4K Ultra HD comparison clips are to demonstrate why uploading a 4K video that's encoded at a bit rate higher than YouTube's recommended 35-45 Mbps for 4K 30fps video (2160p: 3840x2160 @ 30fps) is POINTLESS and not worth the extra upload time.

Here is YouTube's upload bit rate recommendation page....


https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en


This 4K clip was recorded with my Sony FDR-AX100 4K Prosumer camcorder. It was originally all recorded at the camera's maximum 100 Mbps bit rate (it also records 4K at 60 Mbps BTW) at 30fps in Sony's XAVC-S file format. It was rendered in Cyberlink PowerDirector 14 as both a 100 Mbps and a 45 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube as is.

Here is the clip that was rendered as a 100 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube for comparison....


https://youtu.be/PQX90pGFi7Q


Here is the exact same clip that was rendered down to a 45 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube for comparison....

https://youtu.be/afaob1wvpPI


I used this particular shot because it best demonstrated the pixelation motion artifacts that are introduced by YouTube's VP9 compression codec and it's bit rate reduction for streaming.

As you can see... there are pixelation motion artifacts on the side of the train engines & cars... and also on the track ballast (the white rocks at the base of the tracks) as it goes by and as the camera pans to the left.

There appears to be the exact SAME amount of pixelation motion artifacts in BOTH the 100 Mbps test video and the 45 Mbps test video.

NOTE: These pixelation motion artifacts DO NOT appear in EITHER the original 100 Mbps OR the 45 Mbps source files that were uploaded to YouTube.

I used the program "4K Video Downloader" to download BOTH the 100 Mbps and 45 Mbps comparison clips from YouTube afterwards and used the program "MediaInfo" to see how much YouTube's VP9 conversion butchered them compared to the original files that were uploaded.....

Original 100 Mbps uploaded SOURCE clip: 303MB file size
YouTube 100 Mbps test clip DL'd: 66.4MB file size

Original 45 Mbps uploaded SOURCE clip: 136MB file size
YouTube 45 Mbps test clip DL'd: 66.4MB file size

The 100 Mbps clip AFTER YouTube's conversion: 22.2 Mbps
The 45 Mbps clip AFTER YouTube's conversion: 22.2 Mbps

The original audio of the 100 Mbps source clip: 384 Kbps, 48KHz
The audio AFTER YouTube's conversion: 126 Kbps, 44.1KHz

The original audio of the 45 Mbps source clip: 384 Kbps, 48KHz
The audio AFTER YouTube's conversion: 126 Kbps, 44.1KHz


CONCLUSION: Unless you have a very fast upload connection and are too lazy to convert the original video file to a lower bit rate.....

MY ADVICE... just render down your 4K video to YouTube's high-end 45 Mbps bit rate recommendation and save yourself the time it takes to upload it.

AS A GENERAL RULE.....filming at 4K and down-converting it to 1080p gives you a sharper looking video than had the video been shot in 1080p to begin with. The better the source material resolution.... the better the down-converted end product. Watching the 1080p stream of a 4K video on YouTube shows it still looks much sharper than videos on there shot originally in 1080p to begin with.

BUT... that doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to the bit rate aspect of converting a source material's superior bit rate down when it comes to YouTube. Any 4K upload source clip rendered at a bit rate higher than 45 Mbps only increases the upload time... not the quality of the final YouTube converted video. Cuz the amount of pixelation motion artifacts in the 100 Mbps conversion was the SAME.


BTW... these test clips are part of my 15:41 long "4K: Trains on Beaumont Hill, CA Nov. 22-23, 2015 Yuma Subdivision" public video (I used the 45 Mbps conversion render as my upload file source for this full video BTW)......

https://youtu.be/V-5474fzGPg


Feel free to comment and state your feelings and findings. I made this thread to basically give people a heads up based on my many different tests.
Both looked great to me on my MacBook Pro.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #6 of 11 Old 12-23-2015, 08:06 AM
Member
 
srnile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West Los Angeles
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS kid View Post
Here is a big tip that I discovered from uploading and testing 4K videos I've made recently (Although I haven't tested this with 720p and 1080P videos, this most likely applies to YouTube's video bit rate upload recommendations on those resolutions too I'm guessing).

I'm gonna cut and paste the comments from my test video descriptions cuz they pretty much say it all. I just tweaked a few words to reflect the text of the two different bit rate test clips description sections...otherwise they are mostly the same exact text...(the test clips are unlisted videos BTW)


These 45 Mbps (and 100 Mbps) video bit rate 4K Ultra HD comparison clips are to demonstrate why uploading a 4K video that's encoded at a bit rate higher than YouTube's recommended 35-45 Mbps for 4K 30fps video (2160p: 3840x2160 @ 30fps) is POINTLESS and not worth the extra upload time.

Here is YouTube's upload bit rate recommendation page....


https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en


This 4K clip was recorded with my Sony FDR-AX100 4K Prosumer camcorder. It was originally all recorded at the camera's maximum 100 Mbps bit rate (it also records 4K at 60 Mbps BTW) at 30fps in Sony's XAVC-S file format. It was rendered in Cyberlink PowerDirector 14 as both a 100 Mbps and a 45 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube as is.

Here is the clip that was rendered as a 100 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube for comparison....


https://youtu.be/PQX90pGFi7Q


Here is the exact same clip that was rendered down to a 45 Mbps XAVC-S file and uploaded to YouTube for comparison....

https://youtu.be/afaob1wvpPI


I used this particular shot because it best demonstrated the pixelation motion artifacts that are introduced by YouTube's VP9 compression codec and it's bit rate reduction for streaming.

As you can see... there are pixelation motion artifacts on the side of the train engines & cars... and also on the track ballast (the white rocks at the base of the tracks) as it goes by and as the camera pans to the left.

There appears to be the exact SAME amount of pixelation motion artifacts in BOTH the 100 Mbps test video and the 45 Mbps test video.

NOTE: These pixelation motion artifacts DO NOT appear in EITHER the original 100 Mbps OR the 45 Mbps source files that were uploaded to YouTube.

I used the program "4K Video Downloader" to download BOTH the 100 Mbps and 45 Mbps comparison clips from YouTube afterwards and used the program "MediaInfo" to see how much YouTube's VP9 conversion butchered them compared to the original files that were uploaded.....

Original 100 Mbps uploaded SOURCE clip: 303MB file size
YouTube 100 Mbps test clip DL'd: 66.4MB file size

Original 45 Mbps uploaded SOURCE clip: 136MB file size
YouTube 45 Mbps test clip DL'd: 66.4MB file size

The 100 Mbps clip AFTER YouTube's conversion: 22.2 Mbps
The 45 Mbps clip AFTER YouTube's conversion: 22.2 Mbps

The original audio of the 100 Mbps source clip: 384 Kbps, 48KHz
The audio AFTER YouTube's conversion: 126 Kbps, 44.1KHz

The original audio of the 45 Mbps source clip: 384 Kbps, 48KHz
The audio AFTER YouTube's conversion: 126 Kbps, 44.1KHz


CONCLUSION: Unless you have a very fast upload connection and are too lazy to convert the original video file to a lower bit rate.....

MY ADVICE... just render down your 4K video to YouTube's high-end 45 Mbps bit rate recommendation and save yourself the time it takes to upload it.

AS A GENERAL RULE.....filming at 4K and down-converting it to 1080p gives you a sharper looking video than had the video been shot in 1080p to begin with. The better the source material resolution.... the better the down-converted end product. Watching the 1080p stream of a 4K video on YouTube shows it still looks much sharper than videos on there shot originally in 1080p to begin with.

BUT... that doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to the bit rate aspect of converting a source material's superior bit rate down when it comes to YouTube. Any 4K upload source clip rendered at a bit rate higher than 45 Mbps only increases the upload time... not the quality of the final YouTube converted video. Cuz the amount of pixelation motion artifacts in the 100 Mbps conversion was the SAME.


BTW... these test clips are part of my 15:41 long "4K: Trains on Beaumont Hill, CA Nov. 22-23, 2015 Yuma Subdivision" public video (I used the 45 Mbps conversion render as my upload file source for this full video BTW)......

https://youtu.be/V-5474fzGPg


Feel free to comment and state your feelings and findings. I made this thread to basically give people a heads up based on my many different tests.
All the videos I uploaded at 1080p 60fps even though youtube did not support 60 fps now stream 60fps. I would still upload the best quality you are able for future improvement in streaming
srnile is offline  
post #7 of 11 Old 12-23-2015, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
GS kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Santa Barbara County, California
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by srnile View Post
All the videos I uploaded at 1080p 60fps even though youtube did not support 60 fps now stream 60fps. I would still upload the best quality you are able for future improvement in streaming
While on paper I would agree with you, in reality it's not so cut and dry.

Based on my observations and data, it seems pretty clear that YouTube's priority is not picture quality. Their real priority is that of resolution capability and using the least amount of bandwidth at that resolution that results in picture quality that is at least minimally acceptable to users.

Why do I come to that conclusion?

Because if they really valued picture quality, they would allow me as the viewer to sacrifice my clip's 4K resolution with motion artifacts and give me the same amount of bandwidth towards watching it in 1080p with NO motion artifacts.

They are willing to let me burn through 22 Mbps of their data bandwidth all day long watching my full 15-min train video in 4K res. So let me use that same exact 22 Mbps of bandwidth so I have a pixelation-free 1080p experience if I choose to do so.

But are they letting me do that? Nope. Instead I get a 1080p stream of the video at 3.8 Mbps with the same pixelation motion artifacts still there.... only they look even worse in the lower 1080p resolution.

So IMO....they are optimizing their compression codec cuz they are more worried about making their future resolution capability targets (8K 30fps, 8K 60fps, etc etc) than actually giving the existing lower resolutions the bandwidth they need to look really good in picture quality.

Cuz 1080p has been the normal resolution for awhile now and there is no real decent excuse in this day and age for these clips recorded at 28 Mbps to be butchered down to around a measly 6 Mbps by YouTube for playback.

Sony FDR-AX100 4K UHD camcorder
Sony ECM-XYST1M Stereo Microphone
Sony VCT-VPR1 Compact Remote Control Tripod
Samsung UN40JU6500FXZA 4K UHD TV
Intel i7-4510U w/8GB RAM Nvidia GTX 850M w/4GB
Sony Vegas Pro 13 & Cyberlink PowerDirector 14
GS kid is offline  
post #8 of 11 Old 12-23-2015, 07:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 150
GS kid, I agree with your view about your internet bandwidth situation. Mine at home is 1.5Mbps up max. It's the thing that makes us jump through the hoops to get our materials online in the first place. I'm on the Mac platform so my normal uploading workflow is whatever the original 4K/24p,25p source materials, I get them down to about 30+ to 40+ Mbps using X264 (H.264) High Profile in .mp4 container. This is not only per YouTube's recommendations but from my past tests this seems to be the sweet spot regarding IQ/bit rate.

Since YouTube has yet to accept H.265 I have no idea how going lower than our usual H.264 bit rate range would help. However I have seen 4K/24p videos made by Sony used to demo their newest 4K TVs in the showrooms and they looked great with almost non-existent smearing or other artifacts. The kind that elicited a wow from almost every passerby that happened to come by the top end of those sets. The files were on a USB2.0 sticks plugged into the TVs and they played them off those drives! I asked a salesperson who I knew at one of them to see the specs. of the files on my notebook and they turned out to be encoded with H.265 Main Profile (the highest profile currently available I believe) and the average video bit rate was only about 14-15Mbps. Granted, they may have used a very sophisticated hardware encoder none of us has access to to achieve that but it just shows how much you could do to further optimize the IQ/bit rate when the site allows and if your system can handle it.

Last edited by P&Struefan; 12-24-2015 at 05:10 PM.
P&Struefan is online now  
post #9 of 11 Old 12-24-2015, 12:31 AM
Member
 
adido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Don't take it personally GS Kid, but when users upload Youtube 300 hours of videos a minute I don't care if the degrade them . How much resources do they need to keep all those cats and toddlers in 4K... for free.

Last edited by adido; 12-24-2015 at 01:25 AM.
adido is offline  
post #10 of 11 Old 01-24-2018, 06:29 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
THERE IS a difference. Download both videos, use After Effects, Photoshop, Nuke, etc. to put one on top of the other one and set the blending mode to DIFFERENCE. If they were the same, the resulting image would be black, but you will see there is a lot different stuff going on.

A thought though... if you are watching it on your 4K TV from your couch, you won't notice the difference, so go with the smaller bit rate, but if you want to upload your work and want the maximum quality, go with 100 Mbps
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	train.JPG
Views:	143
Size:	414.1 KB
ID:	2350728  
alzhem is offline  
post #11 of 11 Old 01-02-2020, 02:43 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Wink

alright i didn't read the comments below, and did not read the thread article fully but read it just enough to get the point which you tried to share here, anyways, i have really small youtube channel mainly just for myself and lossless recording & then compressed always provided better quality on youtube than if rendered at exactly same compression to which lossless was compressed, and i read what alzhem said here and what he says is also true

here how common user can tell the difference in quality on that exact same video about train,
1. pick 4k
2. make sure that it is really 4k and press play, pause, move it back to the very start
3. do the same with the second video
4. open image capture software like imgur/puush/sharex etc
5. pick exact same dimensions, for example, from the very top left & 117Y to the very bottom right & 1935Y (that's what i done), that way the picture on screen will be exactly same and there will be no video name on top and no downloaded progress bar on bottom
6. download both pictures which you just made
7. compare their sizes, bigger size = bigger quality, such is Always the case in everything, videos, games, etc , at least it was always like that for me.
8. you see that the 3840x1819 100mb bitrate video 0 second picture ended up being (10,699,827 bytes) , while the 3840x1819 45mb bitrate video's 0 second picture ended up being (10,519,067 bytes) , the size will vary by used program, i picked .png inside ShareX and it used my puush account, .jpg will have lower size, some other program's .png may as well have lower size (puush is just focusing on max possible size) , as well as you can even see difference if you will just switch between 2 photos online, here they are btw -
100mb variant (10,699,827 bytes) puu.sh/EVKH1.png
45mb variant (10,519,067 bytes) puu.sh/EVKIE.png

you clearly can see that the difference is there, and it always was the case, bigger starting point - better outcome, you can see that difference is there but you can't really tell which one is better or worse, however the photos size doing that for you and the 100mb variant ends up being higher, because it have more detailed pixels drawn.. such low difference is also due to your high quality camera and the fact that the 45mb variant was actually compressed to and not recorded with 45mb bitrate
and no i'm not necroposting, just hope it will help to clear up some confusion for others

my youtube channel btw ._. - youtube.com/cskillers1
i don't do any good content at all, it's mainly a channel just for myself and totally random videos, but still will be thankful if random guy will subscribe c': laters.
Full Tank is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Camcorders

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off