The Sony ZV-E10 records XAVC with 2160p30 at 100Mbps....so rendering to 1080p30 is not the best setting...have a look at Voukoder for Vegas to get best quality renders.

With my similar Sonys I shoot 4K24p and render 1080p24 or 4K24p. I work on a 4K timeline that matches the source footage. The Sony 1080p footage doesn't look so good so I don't use that setting often (main reason to is better rolling shutter performance).

Hi Paul,

I like your User Name on Youtube!

The biggest truth about Youtube is that there is very little you can do with your encoding in Vegas or other editors to improve Youtube's delivery quality, assuming their minimum standards are met. What you are uploading is properly exposed, leveled, and at a sufficient bitrate for any online delivery service. Well done.

Youtube doesn't let the tail wag the dog, except in somerelatively minor ways. You get what you get.

1080p is a good resolution compromise, because the majority of viewers, at least in the US still have relatively modest connection speeds. You "could" upload 4k, but again the downrezzed streams on Youtube pretty much suck.

That said, I downloaded your most recent clip (last week), and I have some observations about your shooting environment in the church.

• The lighting is a real problem. Your most recent clip (1 week) appears to be the only one that is white balanced in camera. The rest are really warm yellow.
• The sanctuary lighting may be warm white flourescent, which is sadly lacking in the proper spectral range for video. It is doubtful your venue would be happy with true daylight balanced tubes, which are expensive and pretty harsh. Cool white, or a mixture of warm and cool white might be a good compromise for the congregation and your camera sensors. Have a conversation and maybe experiment if your church has the budget.
• Always white balance on a neutral reflective surface or a neutral gray card, available online. The back wall may also have been painted a bit warm, which makes the shadows and faces bluer than you might like if you use that for white balance.
• There are some lens filters available for fluourescent and sodium lighting, but they can reduce your available light by up to 2 stops. Maybe not worth the expense.
• Your audio is a bit hot, showing a little clipping, and perhaps a loudness penalty from Youtube. Back off about -3dB, and you should be in the right zone.

A good suggestion was made above, I use Voukoder MP4/x264 for almost everything I upload.

We appreciate your attention to videography details, and welcome to the discussions! Rest assured, you are on the right track.

;?)

Sony A7C2 here. I shoot 4K30p as it's easier (for me) to stick to the 180 rule without going to an incremental SS. All-I, overkill I know, but it matches the ~400Mps bit-rate that my Fuji XT-4 puts out with ease. And editing both on the same timeline is butter smooth.

Most of my effort is balancing audio.

For archival, I render out to Cineform (gasp!), as it matches my constant bit-rates, and same for YouTube, which it ingests just fine. Plus it plays nice with Media Player. No such luck with ProRes. Original footage gets deep-stored on my NAS.

I'll get my coat ...

Thanks for all the great comments. I just installed Voukoder and I am testing some of your suggestions now.

Sony A7C2 here. I shoot 4K30p as it's easier (for me) to stick to the 180 rule without going to an incremental SS. All-I, overkill I know, but it matches the ~400Mps bit-rate that my Fuji XT-4 puts out with ease. And editing both on the same timeline is butter smooth.

Most of my effort is balancing audio.

For archival, I render out to Cineform (gasp!), as it matches my constant bit-rates, and same for YouTube, which it ingests just fine. Plus it plays nice with Media Player. No such luck with ProRes. Original footage gets deep-stored on my NAS.

I'll get my coat ...

Hi @ChrisD

I also am also primarily focused on my audio, since my archives are almost all videos of musical stage productions that I produced before retirement. Welcome to the discussion.

About your workflow, if you have enough disk capacity to store All-Intra and Cineform archives, and a beefy enough machine to work on them in Vegas without a lot of Previewing stops and starts, I'm "all in" on your 400Mbps archives. They may serve you well in light of the rate that AI technology is advancing, especially if you are doing commercial work.

Regarding the delivery of that material for publishing, sharing, and streaming to the masses, the majority of online services, internet bandwidths, and consumer equipment (at least in the US), support nowhere near your delivery capability.

So for Youtube, which @PaulOnMars said is his delivery target, the output is the exactly the same bandwidth and "quality," no matter how much you put in.

This means that the 400Mbps Lossless you are uploading will play with almost the same clarity on YT as if you had uploaded 40Mbps x264, maybe a difference of 1% when comparing the SSIM Benchmarks for each against Youtube's bandwidth ceiling of 18Mbps shown above.

This means that the only remaining consideration may be your upload and processing times on Youtube, rather than any measurable objective quality difference.

Yes, Youtube is that hardcore about what it gives back to you in bandwidth, and thus quality. Vimeo is modestly better about delivering acceptable quality.

However, after looking again and comparing your uploads on Youtube, I encourage you to stick with your own first visual impressions.

In the end, that's the really theonly thing that matters.

;?)

@mark-y Heh. Yes, I spend a ton of time on audio, even if it is talking-head, to avoid at all costs any YouTube recompression.

For video, oddly (or maybe not), with All-I my editing experience is much better than, say, XAVC S 4K, maybe because of the compressed nature of Long-GOP. Dunno.

Either out to Cineform, or leaving it native, for titling and grading -- usually just applying the Cinecolor s-log3 LUT. Both formats are smooth at Best-->Full.

Generally I'm not too worried about uploading high bit-rates, and YouTube ultimately rendering it down to vp09. It is what it is, and it does save me a step. Plus I'm on Fibre, so a 20GB video goes up pretty quick. Waiting for it to process all three resolutions is quite another matter. 😀

With Youtube, as well as with most streaming services, the limiting factor is their delivery bitrate ceiling, and not the bitrate of the source you sent to them. Youtube simply doesn't let the tail (us) wag the dog (them), and I think their output is generally pretty awful, ranging to intolerable with high detail, high motion source.

Generally I'm not too worried about uploading high bit-rates, and YouTube ultimately rendering it down to vp09. It is what it is, and it does save me a step.

I'll check back in to the discussion after a few weeks and of course I respect your impressions and methods as being entirely valid for your purposes. Until then . . .

Respectfully, Mark

With Youtube, as well as with most streaming services, the limiting factor is their delivery bitrate ceiling, and not the bitrate of the source you sent to them.

I get that. I have no expectation that the bitrate will be anything but the YouTube limit.

All I am saying is that it saves me the workflow step of thinking about specific bitrates and a seperate YouTube render. I just upload my master and call it a day.

Here. Original 350Mb/s. Cineform. Straight from timeline. No mess, no fuss. 😌

👍