UHD - I'm a bit naive

pilsburypie wrote on 10/5/2015, 4:43 AM
Looking to get a new camera, possibly the Sony A7sii, and TV....... UHD is all the rage, most cameras and TVs now have this, but it is still early days and I remember the early issues with 1080 50p with regards to delivery and playback.

I have a few questions - forgive my lack of in depth knowledge but I've done a bit of reading and am still none the wiser.

1. Proxies in editing. I don't really understand this except that UHD is processor hungry and this is a way of giving the CPU and easier time. How is proxy editing achieved?
2. So Vegas can handle UHD, my soon to be new TV can play UHD, but how is it delivered? Most UHD TVs claim to be able to play content through their USB ports.... Is a portable HDD able to be plugged in to provide the source? What about streaming?
3. Does anyone have links to a decent workflow from camera to delivery?

I'm strictly amateur and only produce for myself and have no need to distribute media to anyone else in this format, simply trying to work out if I can utilise the UHD for myself

Comments

john_dennis wrote on 10/5/2015, 9:45 AM
1) "How is proxy editing achieved?"

Vegas Pro creates lower resolution, lower bit rate files to use for editing. Timeline performance is improved. The low resolution, low bit rate proxies are replaced for the render to produce a finer output.

2) "[I]...my soon to be new TV can play UHD, but how is it delivered?[/I]"

Since there is no current 4K optical media standard at this point, playing from storage (flash or hard drives) attached to a USB port is the way it's done. Windows Media Player 12 won't stream 4K over a network. I haven't tried Windows 10 or other applications.

3) "[I]Does anyone have links to a decent workflow from camera to delivery?[/I]"

I don't have a 4K camera yet, but I have created 4K output as photo slide shows and some aggregated 1080 video using the Vegas2Handbrake workflow. Handbrake will encode 4K. I've tried some of the newer XAVC encodes with poor results playing locally on a Sony 4K TV.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: 1TB & 2TB WD BLACK SN750 NVMe Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drives
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 22H2, Build 19045.2130

Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

riredale wrote on 10/5/2015, 9:47 AM
UHD is a shiny new toy, and some people look and say "Oooooh!"

There is probably value in the format for shooting by pros since it will make digital effects even more transparent after downconversion to delivery format. Other than that I don't see the value; if you watch TV at home from ten feet away (typical) then you would need a really, really, really, REALLY BIG TV screen to note any obvious improvement over 1080. That's my take on it, anyway. Others may differ.

Proxies have been used forever. You tell the PC to render the source footage into a much simpler format that is child's play for editing (preview window maintains high frame rate). Then you edit. At the end, you tell the computer to go back to the source footage and do exactly the same editing to it. Then you render out to your final format.

Your own particular workflow will evolve as you do projects and get more sophisticated with each one.
john_dennis wrote on 10/5/2015, 9:53 AM
"[I]...if you watch TV at home from ten feet away (typical) then you would need a really, really, really, REALLY BIG TV screen to note any obvious improvement over 1080.[/I]"

After watching a 49" 4K TV from 9 feet away for over a year, I concede that I rarely see anything that makes me go uummmmm. Netflix series Bloodline was a consistent exception. I went uummmmmm a lot when I watched that one.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: 1TB & 2TB WD BLACK SN750 NVMe Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drives
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 22H2, Build 19045.2130

Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

Steve Grisetti wrote on 10/5/2015, 10:38 AM
Also most consumer 4K comes out as a pretty highly compressed mp4 which, with that much compression, can pretty much negate the value of having all those extra pixels.

And, if you plan to post the video on YouTube, expect even more compression.

That said, I was this cynical about the value of high-def 10 years ago -- now it's second nature. So who knows? Even cool new toys become mainstream tools eventually.
John_Cline wrote on 10/5/2015, 1:13 PM
"After watching a 49" 4K TV from 9 feet away"

You're sitting way too far away, that's further away than I sit from my 65" 4k TV.
Chienworks wrote on 10/5/2015, 1:27 PM
Hard to say what "too far away" is, really. When i go to the movies and sit in front of the 36 foot screen, i like to sit in row 5 so that the screen more than fills my field of view and i end up immersed in the picture. My friends like to sit all the way in the back, probably 6 times as far away, so that the entire screen fits within their center of vision. Neither of us can understand why the other likes it that way.

So we usually compromise and sit halfway.
John_Cline wrote on 10/5/2015, 1:41 PM
"Hard to say what "too far away" is, really."

No, it really isn't that hard. I'd have to do the math, but sitting nine feet away from a 49" 4k TV would not allow the human eye to resolve all the detail available in a well-shot 4k video, in fact, at that distance, it would probably be difficult to tell the difference between regular 1080 HD and 4k.
john_dennis wrote on 10/5/2015, 2:06 PM
If you do the math, the distance is 103" +/- 3". Without doing the math, I suspect you're correct and I'm probably not able to resolve the difference between 1080 and 4K given those parameters. After the last change to my casework, I refused to go back in with saws to accommodate a 55" TV... which was close.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: 1TB & 2TB WD BLACK SN750 NVMe Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drives
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 22H2, Build 19045.2130

Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

Chienworks wrote on 10/5/2015, 2:25 PM
"No, it really isn't that hard. I'd have to do the math,"

Well, the point i was making was that, regardless of resolution, many people simply have a certain amount of field of view they want the screen to take up. They'll sit far enough back to make this happen, whether it ends up with 1 pixel per retina cell, or 100 pixels per cell, or 100 cells per pixel. For the most part they have no care what the math says.
John_Cline wrote on 10/5/2015, 5:09 PM
"For the most part they have no care what the math says."

While they might not care, I do. A couple of months ago I got a Samsung 65" 9500 Series 4K SUHD television and sitting at the "proper" distance watching well-photographed 4k content, it is absolutely spectacular! The difference between 4k over 1080 HD is nearly as dramatic as HD was over SD years ago.

Samsung JS9500 65" 4k SUHD Television

winrockpost wrote on 10/5/2015, 6:16 PM
lol..my wife does not let me get the tape measure out for proper viewing.. sure wish she did though!
PeterDuke wrote on 10/6/2015, 12:08 AM
In my lounge room, and I suspect most peoples, viewing layout and distance is dictated by room size and furniture to be incorporated.
ushere wrote on 10/6/2015, 4:26 AM
+1 peter.

quite frankly there's not that much available i would think worth watching in 4k vs hd anyway at the moment.

i'm sure we're all heading that way, but i'm in no rush....
deusx wrote on 10/6/2015, 6:14 AM
>>>The difference between 4k over 1080 HD is nearly as dramatic as HD was over SD years ago<<<

You need a better 1080 HD tv then.

>>>Hard to say what "too far away" is, really<<<<

But it's easy to say what too close is. Anything closer than 7-8 feet is bordering on absurd. I'm sure the difference is more apparent if you sit 5 feet away, but who does that? Can you picture 4 people watching a movie while sitting 5 feet away from a TV, that's just ridiculous.

So, OK. For a guy who watches movies alone in his home theater, sitting 4-5 feet away from the screen 4K makes some difference. For a normal household with a TV in a living room where you have other things like furniture and so on, it makes absolutely no difference.
Dexcon wrote on 10/6/2015, 6:58 AM
I would expect that 4K would make a noticeable difference for those with a home theatre with a projector and a large projection screen. But then, that's not really the mass market.

I suspect that 4K in the consumer electronics arena will eventually be more of a marketing strategy to stop a stagnation in TV sales in much the same way that occurred with 3D.

About 10 years ago, a breakfast radio announcer posed the question about when he first realised that he was living in the 21st century. He answered saying that his realisation came when he left home that morning and saw a plasma TV on the nature strip waiting for the annual council hard rubbish collection.

Cameras: Sony FDR-AX100E; GoPro Hero 11 Black Creator Edition

Installed: Vegas Pro 16 Edit, Vegas Pro 17 Edit, Vegas Pro 18, Vegas Pro 19 Edit, Vegas Pro 20 Edit, HitFilm Pro 2021.3, BCC 2023, Mocha Pro 2022.5.1, Ignite Pro, NBFX TotalFX 7, Neat NR, DVD Architect 6.0, MAGIX Travel Maps, Sound Forge Pro 16, SpectraLayers Pro 9, iZotope RX10 Advanced and many other iZ plugins, Vegasaur 4.0

Windows 11

Dell Alienware Aurora 11

10th Gen Intel i9 10900KF - 10 cores (20 threads) - 3.7 to 5.3 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB GDDR6 - liquid cooled

64GB RAM - Dual Channel HyperX FURY DDR4 XMP at 3200MHz

C drive: 1TB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD

D drive: 6TB WD 7200 rpm Black HDD 3.5"

E & F drives: 2 x 2TB Barracuda HDDs 2.5"

 

Chienworks wrote on 10/6/2015, 7:40 AM
"Anything closer than 7-8 feet is bordering on absurd."

Unless your screen is 10", in which case i would say sitting 7 feet away is absurdly distant.

"Can you picture 4 people watching a movie while sitting 5 feet away from a TV"

When my oldest brother got married my dad bought them a 4" portable color TV. Partially because it was inexpensive, partially because they had a tiny apartment, but also because he thought it would encourage them to cuddle closer on the couch while watching it.

I've occasionally had over 25 people in my 13x15 foot living room watching movies. Most of us end up closer and even overlapping each other than just 4 people sitting 5 feet away. Nothing wrong with that.
wwjd wrote on 10/6/2015, 11:00 AM
4K, ALL THE WAY, I SAY!

even at distance in showrooms, demos look cleaner than HD, even if I am too far away. Of course that is the goal of those demos. But often, I find myself saying, "Hey, THAT is not 4K content" and am usually right. So, math/distance aside, I think it is possible to spot the difference.

For the OP, I've had no luck buring files to 4K that ANY TV was able to playback. That was months ago, maybe things have changed, but most specs say USB will playback HD but not 4K. I think SAMSUNG can from USB if you split it into for files: A B C D or sometthing wierd I haven't tried yet. Its still kinda of a new thing AND companies want more power to regulate/cut piracy down. If they make it harder to upload 4K to view, it will be more pain to pirate and distribute which is a good thing for ANYONE doing video as a job.
john_dennis wrote on 10/10/2015, 1:54 PM
@ John Cline

According to the quick calculator of viewing distances at this site, I can't really see all the detail of a 4K 49" screen at 9' 3".

For 8K, at the distance of 2 feet, my breath would fog the screen.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: 1TB & 2TB WD BLACK SN750 NVMe Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drives
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 22H2, Build 19045.2130

Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

GeeBax wrote on 10/10/2015, 3:50 PM
[I]For 8K, at the distance of 2 feet, my breath would fog the screen.[/I]

You really have to stop watching that type of movie John :-)
John_Cline wrote on 10/10/2015, 5:33 PM
According to the spreadsheet which is based on THX recommendations, the "ideal" viewing distance from a 49" 4K TV based on the visual acuity of someone with 20/20 vision is 38.2 inches or 3.2 feet.
John_Cline wrote on 10/10/2015, 5:41 PM
"You need a better 1080 HD tv then."

My 1080 HD television is a 55" Panasonic VT-60 plasma, generally regarded as one of the finest 1080 HD televisions ever made. I stand by my statement that well-shot 4k vs. 1080-HD viewed at the correct distance is almost as dramatic as the difference between SD and HD.
PeterDuke wrote on 10/10/2015, 6:16 PM
If you adjust your viewing distance so that you can just resolve the pixels then the viewing distances would have the following ratios. I have averaged the vertical and horizontal ratios. (You can use the geometric mean if you prefer) :)

NTSC SD to HD gives a ratio of 2.46 and PAL SD to HD gives a ratio of 2.27.

HD to UHD gives a ratio of 2 and HD to 4K gives a ratio of 2.06.

So the SD to HD ratio is bigger, but whether it is almost the same depends on what you consider to be "almost".
Chienworks wrote on 10/10/2015, 9:34 PM
It's not just the resolution. The quality of the imaging devices and encoding have also improved dramatically since the SD days.
deusx wrote on 10/10/2015, 11:02 PM
>>>>My 1080 HD television is a 55" Panasonic VT-60 plasma, generally regarded as one of the finest 1080 HD televisions ever made. I stand by my statement that well-shot 4k vs. 1080-HD viewed at the correct distance is almost as dramatic as the difference between SD and HD<<<

Well, I have seen every single 4K screen there is, from $4000 up to $40,000 and there is no difference ( that matters at least ). Most of them do look great, but so does a good HD tv.

And when you have to add "at correct viewing distance" then you know it really is all more or less the same. Nobody cares about correct viewing distance. It's the same bull$hit as more pixels per inch on an 11" screen ( pixel density, retina and all that ). Just another marketing point in some guy's power point presentation that gets repeated over and over again and people think it matters. No it does not. People will sit where they feel comfortable and it's usually 8-12 feet away from the tv.

What does matter is the end result under normal circumstances and there 4K is a waste of money. Of course we will all be forced to buy 4K eventually because they'll stop making 1080 panels, but there is absolutely no reason to buy one unless you have a bad HD tv or it breaks down and you need a new one. Even then a $1500 1080 panel may look better than a $1500 4K panel, 4K one may have more pixels but the rest is probably $hit and you'll spend all day fiddling around trying to get the colors, contrast, etc right.

Think of it as recording sound at 44.1k / 16 bits vs. 96k/24bit.

Plenty of people will tell you they can hear the difference and most of them are lying. Even those who aren't lying need $1000 headphones, a good nights sleep and optimal listening conditions before they can hear it. I'm sure it's easier to spot the difference between 4K and 2K, but it does fall under "who cares" category right now.