Grass Valley Forums

Grass Valley Forums (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/index.php)
-   Editing with EDIUS (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Using 4K/UHD HQX for YouTube. (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43684)

Liverpool TV 08-14-2019 12:45 PM

Using 4K/UHD HQX for YouTube.
 
Hi.

Hereís an example of using HQX as an intermediate master file for uploading to YouTube. For this video I set HQX to its maximum output quality settings with a resolution of 4K/UHD at 25FPS.

While itís safe to say that itís very diminishing returns to use such a high quality codec for YouTube, it does however provide the opportunity for the best possible transcode at YouTubeís end.

Iíve done many such tests over the years and the results are that HQX will provide the exact same visual quality compared to using a completely uncompressed codec.

The results of using HQX for such things can be bettered when using intra-frame source material as there is no compounding of the temporal redundancy characteristics from inter-frame sources to the final inter-frame output from YouTube when using an inter-frame intermediate.

Although the source codec here is inter-frame, using HQX and its intra-frame properties, does remove another inter-frame stage during the workflow. In this instance HQX, in practice, removes one more destructive stage in delivery. The padding out of the sourceís limited colour and temporal information into HQX effectively makes the HQX transcode visually identical to the source. Which although doesnít negate the limits of the source, it does however add extra robustness for future post manipulation.

Iíll show another similar example at some point where I use high quality 4K intra-frame source material within a HQX delivery. Thereíll also be an example of CG/game play captured 4K/UHD using HQX and delivered from the capture file.

Like Iíve already mentioned, this type of workflow is subject to diminishing returns with the final YouTube transcode process, which includes the reduction to 8 Bit for any rec.709 10 Bit deliveries and the extremely low bit rate inter-frame outputs. Thereís also the large file sizes of a HQX master to be considered but using HQX does represent an option for those seeking absolute video quality when delivering to YouTube.

Despite the small visual gains with such a workflow, thereís a very practical outcome to delivering 4K/UHD and higher resolutions to YouTube. With these types of high resolution deliveries, regardless of the codec used for the intermediate. YouTube will always use VP9 for the main streaming codec for all down scaled outputs from such a delivery to any compatible client, be it via software such as a browser or app or hardware such as a streaming device. This benefit is very important as it avoids H.264 for the lower resolutions, including 1080. And while a comparative VP9 stream uses a slightly less bit rate compared to the already very low bit rate of H.264. The VP9 stream does benefit from better motion prediction and other better pre and post processing, that results in a better looking encode that very noticeably helps with complex picture detail and motion.

On that last point Iíll be making a tutorial soon showing the benefits of using Edius and Lanczos to up scale a 1080 project to 4K/UHD, in order to gain the above benefits for 1080 YouTube streams. While this may sound counter intuitive due to what would appear to be the unnecessary processing of the up and down scaling and the reasonable assumption of the compounding negative effects, the process does indeed work extremely well.

Anyway, hereís the example of the HQX 4K/UHD upload. The file is best watched on YouTube with the 4K/UHD stream option in full screen.

Cheers,
Dave.

https://youtu.be/18i3m6W_-Io


Tobe 08-14-2019 02:00 PM

Thanks for these tests...Have you found the same to be true for Vimeo processing from an HQX file?

Liverpool TV 08-14-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobe (Post 323357)
Thanks for these tests...Have you found the same to be true for Vimeo processing from an HQX file?

Hi Tobe.

Although I don’t use Vimeo I understand that it uses higher bitrates than YouTube for its encodes. All things being equal between YouTube and Vimeo with respect to the encoding process, engine and parameters etc. I’d imagine that the difference would be more noticeable with Vimeo streams. This assumes H.264 output streams from them both.

I’m not sure what the main codec for Vimeo is but if they also use VP9 and the assumption that they’d again use a higher bit rate than YouTube. Then there’d be an even more noticeable increase in the Vimeo encodes with respect to high complexity and high motion source material.

Again, I’m assuming that Vimeo is fine with HQ/X.

I tried Vimeo a long time ago and it was a definite improvement over YouTube with respect to picture quality. But for me personally it’s far too expensive as I usually upload at least a few hundred gigabytes of data per week, this video example was just over 5 minutes long and the HQX file was over 40GB.

Cheers,
Dave.

Tobe 08-14-2019 05:51 PM

Thanks, Dave...
I use Vimeo mostly for my documentaries that are available for streaming on demand. Works great for that. Yes, HQX files do get large, but sure look nice.

trillium 08-14-2019 06:18 PM

In my experience Vimeo quality can far surpass You Tube. And, Vimeo supports H.265 as well. In fact, Vimeo I think does not necessarily re-encode video depending on the type of account. Plus there aren't a bunch of ads in and around your product.

Liverpool TV 08-14-2019 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 323365)
In my experience Vimeo quality can far surpass You Tube. And, Vimeo supports H.265 as well. In fact, Vimeo I think does not necessarily re-encode video depending on the type of account. Plus there aren't a bunch of ads in and around your product.

This thread is not a comparison between YouTube and Vimeo, it's an Edius workflow thread. If you want discus the differences between YouTube and Vimeo I suggest you start a thread about it in an appropriate part of the forum.

ulyssesvideo 08-14-2019 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 323365)
In my experience Vimeo quality can far surpass You Tube. And, Vimeo supports H.265 as well. In fact, Vimeo I think does not necessarily re-encode video depending on the type of account. Plus there aren't a bunch of ads in and around your product.


unfortunately youtube is more popular hense why we use it more so then Vimeo.
honestly... to upload an hqx file to youtube is an overkill. I understand what is being demonstrated here but I think we all know that youtube does change the quality for the web.
I think it is important to edit your clips using the best quality settings and exporting the final clip to mp4 using a high bitrate.

Liverpool TV 08-14-2019 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulyssesvideo (Post 323368)
unfortunately youtube is more popular hense why we use it more so then Vimeo.
honestly... to upload an hqx file to youtube is an overkill. I understand what is being demonstrated here but I think we all know that youtube does change the quality for the web.
I think it is important to edit your clips using the best quality settings and exporting the final clip to mp4 using a high bitrate.

Like I already clearly said "HQX does represent an option for those seeking absolute video quality when delivering to YouTube" and it does make a difference.

For those not so serious about YouTube or their final video quality or for those without the upload bandwidth, then MP4 will be OK, but with all the obvious associated issues I've mentioned depending on the sources.

Harro 08-15-2019 03:15 AM

Great and very informative video Dave, please keep it up!

Liverpool TV 08-15-2019 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harro (Post 323382)
Great and very informative video Dave, please keep it up!

Hi Harro.

I'm glad you found it of some interest. I've got a few other Edius workflow examples that I'll be doing soon, I'll post links when they're done.

Cheers,
Dave.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Copyright © 2014 Belden Inc. All rights reserved.