Feedback Needed Davince resolve messed with the quality

HippoDrone said:
Your video is showing as a 4k vid to me though!
Click to expand...

Dewey316 said:
Youtube shows me, that vid is available in up to 2160p now, it may have just taken a long time to encode it.
Click to expand...

R-Rated said:
That's my point - 4k is dragging on processing in the past few weeks.

I blame all the UFOs videos the US is leaking. The aliens are wanting better resolution
Click to expand...

It is here now as well :)
So that means i will have to start uploading a bit more in advance when possible.
Good to see it might be just fine, video quality-wise, but it was just youtube f-ing around.
Means i can focus on the audio problem again xD
 
I would use a higher bit rate. 10000kbps is pretty low. I've also found h265 gives a smaller file for the same quality/bitrate , YT recommends 44000-56000 bitrate for 2160, but I tend to go higher than their recommendations.
 
Meifesto said:
View attachment 5838

This is how it is when i open the project.
And it looks the same as when i rendered it.
Click to expand...

With that resolution, try changing the Quality restriction to something like 80,000.

I am using the Studio version of Resolve, so I have the "Encoder" option too, but this is what my settings looked like before switching to H.265. I found an appreciable difference up to about 80k in the Quality restriction - after that, I couldn't tell. I also render at 1440 res instead of 4k - I mean, I'm shooting at 1080, so it's already scaling up anyway.

1622752393899.png


-John
 
Y'all [Dewey & Mengy] are just too fast for me... but yes, Jay's video does list out Studio stuff ... but Mengy can afford to buy Resolve now that he's monetized ;)

What I showed in my post above should all work in the Free version [minus the Encoder, because y'all are PEASANTS! - J/K :D ]

-John
 
New upload is rendered at the standard setup that Davinci gives, for "4k".

It has been rendered more quickly in Youtube to the full 4k setting then the previous one.
When the camera/motorcyle is moving slowly the footage looks high quality, smooth and sharp.
When we are moving at speed there is some problems with the quality.

So the next one will be rendered out Davinci at the advised 100,000 - 150,000 kbps.
Let's see of that fixes the fast parts.



It is interesting to see how many options Davinci have, but it does also makes it harder to use at moments. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dewey316 said:
I would use a higher bit rate. 10000kbps is pretty low. I've also found h265 gives a smaller file for the same quality/bitrate , YT recommends 44000-56000 bitrate for 2160, but I tend to go higher than their recommendations.
Click to expand...
I think you can get away with a little higher bitrate than the YouTube (YT) recommendations but I think if you go too high, YT may penalize you for going with a rate the makes your final file size really big (or at least far above the average) in order to reduce your file size to save space on YT's servers. But then again I have not proven this through hard evidence. On the other hand, I have watched many videos online about this theory and through experience with my own uploads trying to find that bitrate sweetspot for best final YT video output quality.
 
YBGuy said:
I think you can get away with a little higher bitrate than the YouTube (YT) recommendations but I think if you go too high, YT may penalize you for going with a rate the makes your final file size really big (or at least far above the average) in order to reduce your file size to save space on YT's servers. But then again I have not proven this through hard evidence. On the other hand, I have watched many videos online about this theory and through experience with my own uploads trying to find that bitrate sweetspot for best final YT video output quality.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but switching to H.265 for output has made my rendered video file size about 1/3rd of what it was, AND YT processes them much faster [generally], so it's a win-win for me.

I've uploaded videos rendered with 100k bitrate and even 150k bitrate, and YT never smacked my hand, AFAIK.

-John
 
I just use 45K bitrate at 2160 res. I did tests with vids at much higher bitrates but I couldn't tell any difference once YT processed them, they all looked the same to me.
 
Drakhen99 said:
I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but switching to H.265 for output has made my rendered video file size about 1/3rd of what it was, AND YT processes them much faster [generally], so it's a win-win for me.

I've uploaded videos rendered with 100k bitrate and even 150k bitrate, and YT never smacked my hand, AFAIK.

-John
Click to expand...
I did not know YT accepts the H.265 compression. For awhile that one was unsupported. I think a bunch of companies have joint ownership of it (H.265) and YT would need (or would of needed) to pay royalties to use that compression. NHK, Mitsubishi Electric, GE, and even Samsung along with other companies joint developed it. I don't want to get into detail here, but its licensing history was crazy complicated. There is something like a 1000 patents protecting it. The patent list is something like 160 pages long. Maybe it's free or low cost to use now? Or maybe not? And that's part of the reason YT needs to run ads on almost every single video now???...:P I don't know for sure.
 
YBGuy said:
I did not know YT accepts the H.265 compression. For awhile that one was unsupported. I think a bunch of companies have joint ownership of it (H.265) and YT would need (or would of needed) to pay royalties to use that compression. NHK, Mitsubishi Electric, GE, and even Samsung along with other companies joint developed it. I don't want to get into detail here, but its licensing history was crazy complicated. There is something like a 1000 patents protecting it. The patent list is something like 160 pages long. Maybe it's free or low cost to use now? Or maybe not? And that's part of the reason YT needs to run ads on almost every single video now???...:p I don't know for sure.
Click to expand...

Wow, I had no idea about H.265! I do know that it supports it though :D

@Dewey316 and I have been uploading in H.265 for a while now. It's a game-changer as far as I'm concerned.

-John
 
There is a trick to force youtube to render the 4k version faster. When your video is stuck at 1080p - go to YT studio, then to editor and trim your video by a few frames. Save the project. It will be rendered in 2h.

I also found that it usually stuck at 1080p when you upload at busy times (like Saturday afternoon). So it's better to upload for example Friday morning.
 
That's a good trick to do!

I uploaded 5 videos [all H.265] shortly after 0100 my time last night, and the first one was done processing by 0730, and I just checked now... and the 2nd one is done. Still waiting on the other 3.

The first 4 videos are 7-10m long, and the 5th is 33m long [it's a compilation of the other 4, something I'm experimenting with on my channel].

-John
 
UncleL said:
There is a trick to force youtube to render the 4k version faster. When your video is stuck at 1080p - go to YT studio, then to editor and trim your video by a few frames. Save the project. It will be rendered in 2h.

I also found that it usually stuck at 1080p when you upload at busy times (like Saturday afternoon). So it's better to upload for example Friday morning.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I did not know of this, thanks for sharing.
 
Rendered a 1080 video today, with higher kbps, to see how that goes.
Next up is the 2k video, with even higher kbps, if i can get that edit done today.

So much stuff we need to catch up after 8 days of no internet :O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top Posters Past 30 days

Winners Video

Website Supported by Ipswich SEO

Latest posts

Back
Top