He might just be talking about the negative reactions to HFR for cinema. There were the hobbit movies (48fps) that made people nauseous, and the new Gemini Man (shot at 120fps but mostly screened at 60fps) and people don't like the look of that either, giving people headaches, but I don't know much about Gemini Man HFR problems

As action cameras don't film at shutter of 180degrees (normally) it will never be as fluid on a big screen at 30fps or 60fps. The 30fps drone footage likely presents a problem on a cinema screen too if you wanted a 60fps film, would you interpolate the extra frames and if you did how bad could that look on a giant screen, I doubt you'd want 30fps if your documentary is particularly cinematic especially cutting back and forth between 30fps drone and 60fps camera footage . For more of a cinema look you'd choose 30fps? I don't really know, I bet someone does though

Looks to me that you're example was originally 60fps and rendered to 30 fps with resampling activated, which gives the ghosting image.

I would render two final versions, one 60 fps and one 30 fps and see which one is best (I expect the 60 fps version), but most importantly, deactivate resampling before rendering both versions.

Or the forum recompression downsampled it from 60fps to 30fps?

But yes, definitely disable resampling for your 30fps render.

As it's a documentary, and it was shot in 60fps, I would tend to favour 60fps for the output.

But yes, definitely disable resampling for your 30fps render.

As it's a documentary, and it was shot in 60fps, I would tend to favour 60fps for the output.

Also for the 60 fps render, it's important to disable resampling. Cause otherwise Vegas tries to interpolate the missing frames from your 30 fps footage which also results in ghost images. Better doubling 30 fps to 60 fps, which happens automatically when resampling is disabled. But ofcourse this will than still look as 30 fps.

I have no experience if the new optical flow technology of VPro17 could make a difference.

Or the forum recompression downsampled it from 60fps to 30fps?

But yes, definitely disable resampling for your 30fps render.

As it's a documentary, and it was shot in 60fps, I would tend to favour 60fps for the output.

But yes, definitely disable resampling for your 30fps render.

As it's a documentary, and it was shot in 60fps, I would tend to favour 60fps for the output.

Also for the 60 fps render, it's important to disable resampling. Cause otherwise Vegas tries to interpolate the missing frames from your 30 fps footage which also results in ghost images. Better doubling 30 fps to 60 fps, which happens automatically when resampling is disabled. But ofcourse this will than still look as 30 fps.

I have no experience if the new optical flow technology of VPro17 could make a difference.

Thanks for your replies. Do you guys think I should render it in 4k? Or 1080, because most people who see it probably won't have a 4k monitor? What do you guys think??????

Thanks for your replies. Do you guys think I should render it in 4k? Or 1080, because most people who see it probably won't have a 4k monitor? What do you guys think??????

How will you be delivering it? To "most people?" Or for "film festivals?" Those are entirely different purposes.

1080 p30 is the most deliverable streaming format. Juried festivals have their own requirements, quite often DPX.

Be sure to level your video for streaming.

For YouTube I would upload the full whack 4k 60p. That's the most future-proof, and you may get more views than if it's only in a lower resolution or frame rate.

For film festivals, you need to ask them what they need.

On my 4k 65" TV, I can hardly see or see no difference between 2160 Osmo Pocket/Hero7 footage or the 1080 downscales from it. Both look very good. For me the main reason to deliver in 1080 only. Recording in 2160 yes, delivering in 2160 is overkill.

A friend made a film in 4k 2 year ago for film festivals and was advised to have it authored for distribution as DCP-2K (2048x1080p) . It's due to an incompatibility with screening 4k on 2k projectors which was very common in December 2017. The low quality due to down sampling would still be the case today, but maybe 4k projectors are the norm now or much more common.

I think forget about compromises for Cinema, produce it for multimedia devices as 4K60p. You could try optical flow type interframes for your 4k30p drone footage converting to 60p but frame double for glasses as it's limited quality would not give successful conversion

I have thought, perhaps mistakenly, that 1080p as downsized by Youtube from the 4k, will not be as good as uploaded 1080p. Any impressions, or am I just having an OCD moment?

On my 4k 65" TV, I can hardly see or see no difference between 2160 Osmo Pocket/Hero7 footage or the 1080 downscales from it. Both look very good. For me the main reason to deliver in 1080 only. Recording in 2160 yes, delivering in 2160 is overkill.

@3POINT

+1+1+1

That is one of the most truthful, and politically incorrect things ever said on this forum. Congratulations on avoiding the number trap and trusting your eyes!

I thought it were my old eyes not to see any difference.😁😁😁😁😁😇

+1 @Musicvid

Numbers can sometimes help identify a problem, but our eyes are by far and away the best deciders. I've just finished watching an info-travel-doco on FTA (from Viking Cruises) - I am sure the tech specs are probably good for TV, but the color-grading was awful - it looked like a packet of Rinso had been chucked into the color-grading process (lack of saturation and gamma lifted to avoid any semblance of black). Unfortunately, this is not unusual in Australia where many of this type of program goes to air washed-out when it should be making the destinations look good.

I have thought, perhaps mistakenly, that 1080p as downsized by Youtube from the 4k, will not be as good as uploaded 1080p. Any impressions, or am I just having an OCD moment?

Super-sampling downscales a higher resolution to create a better quality 1080p, as youtube is not downscaling in real time it doesn't have to produce low quality. It would be interesting to see a live 4k stream on youtube, and check the live 1080p transcode. I would think it would be of lower quality than the archived version, in much the same way Twitch live transcoding looks terrible, but unlike youtube it doesn't bother re-encoding, it saves the low quality live transcode.

+1 @Musicvid

... the color-grading was awful - it looked like a packet of Rinso had been chucked into the color-grading process (lack of saturation and gamma lifted to avoid any semblance of black). Unfortunately, this is not unusual in Australia where many of this type of program goes to air washed-out when it should be making the destinations look good.

Yes, it's a fact. Badly shot 4k looks worse than badly shot 1080p because it's supposed to be "better."

I bought a 4k tv and a Fire 4k stick so I could see for myself. "4k TV" channels are about as thrilling to watch as old travel shows, if you ask me.