Video from the C23 and H Plus

[YuKay]

So, I think it's up to the videographer to improve the viewer experience. First of all, PAN SLOWLY. You can always speed it up in post if necessary. Second, you don't need to shoot and produce at 60fps to produce stunning video. Use 60fps when you need to capture fast moving action in front of the camera (or don't mind limiting your audience to people with a fast computer and internet connection).

Aye - and I've been reading the PAN SLOWLY advice from the old hands in this forum for a long time. As for publishing a YouTube video at 60fps, I'm not certain what the benefits are. I can see the value in filming at 60fps when you want some slow motion sequences or just to process down to 30fps for smoother video; but publishing at 60fps seems like you are incurring playback overheads for nil or marginal benefit.

And most of your potential audience can't view 4k video, let alone 4k60, so all that weight and processing time is wasted on them. For this majority, does 1080p/30 source video display better than 4k video which has been downscaled by YouTube's algorithms?

It's a tough call. If you have the tools to create 4k/60 video then people tend to want to use them. But their efforts are only ever seen by the few. And the number of people who can play them as smoothly as they run on your hard drive could be very small indeed - at least for a few years yet until everyone has souped up rigs and ultrafast broadband. Trouble is, by then, the video buffs will have moved on to 6k or 8k video and it will be rinse and repeat.

 

[YuKay]

Just posing a question, how much of the pan complaints might be due to a rolling shutter?

I only know what I have read on rolling shutter limitations but it seems that any stuttering in a slow-moving scene wouldn't be caused by the rolling shutter. A fast-moving camera and/or a subject could fall foul of the shutter but the resulting artifacts seem to be a bit weirder than stuttering video.

Happy to learn more on this but I'm fairly convinced (as an observer only) that most of the issues we see are due to the capture limitations - which must be fully exposed by shooting fast-moving video at 4k/60.

 

[PatR]

If you’re making big production movies the ultra high resolution stuff is really good for the post processing but the vast majority of final product is down scaled to lower frame rates (often 24fps) and resolutions that can be broadcast. There isn’t all that much 4k broadcast stuff hitting our homes and often what there is has been choked down due to delivery speeds. Shooting in 4k and up is great but publishing in 4k is only good for those that have the capability to play it at that resolution at every level of their play back equipment. Slow internet, lower resolution monitors, old and slower computers, modems, obsolete graphic cards, all defeat 4k play back snd often generate confusion with people that think the video is bad when all the old stuff they are trying to play it on or through is at fault. Cinema companies have been shooting in 8k for years but nothing currently out there can deal with broadcast or playback for the general viewer. IMO, shooting in 4k and up is great but publishing for the masses is still best served at 1080. We all want to show the best product we can but that can end up an exercise in futility when many can’t effectively play it. It gets tiring to be constantly trying to figure out why people’s play back equipment is hanging up, and they don’t like hearing the problem is on their end.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I read something on the other page regarding frame rates and started writing this a while ago then came back and finished just now so; it is just some thoughts I have on the subjects being discussed.

I will sound like a broken record so forgive me but; high frame rates played back at regular speed such as we see in 60 FPS videos on Youtube are pointless for the most part. Movies and TV all over the world are played back between 24 and 30 FPS because that was, and still is, the rate that most closely matches the way our eyes work. Please note that modern movies are still rendered and played in 24 P (which is actually 23.976) specifically to capture motion blur. Modern CG effects were only made possible when they finally figured out HOW to simulate motion blur on CG images. When objects move there should be motion blur and this is not to be confused with something like lens blur or flat out - being out of focus.


But I digress.

High frame rates are what allow slow motion to look natural, more than 40% of commercials, tvs and movies today use these high frame rates (60 to 240) in the capture process but are interpreted - and thus rendered out at the normal frame rate of the final comp.

Many of the videos shot using a C23 that do not look as good as some of the others, and are losing their quality - not inside the camera but in the final editing from one or more of the following: a lack of understanding of the rendering process, an NLE that is simply not comfortable with the type of footage being used or; it is a playback issue or - all of the above.

One thing is for sure, the footage from the C23 is at a high enough quality coming out of the camera that, when rendered out properly, uploaded and played back on YT, Vimeo or what ever will - while having lost some of its quality through the upload and re-compression process - look nearly as good as when played back locally. There are enough examples of these videos already uploaded and in this thread. So when we see a video that does not look good, there is a 99.999 % chance it was not the camera but one of the three items above.

 

[Rubik]

If you’re making big production movies the ultra high resolution stuff is really good for the post processing but the vast majority of final product is down scaled to lower frame rates (often 24fps) and resolutions that can be broadcast. There isn’t all that much 4k broadcast stuff hitting our homes and often what there is has been choked down due to delivery speeds. Shooting in 4k and up is great but publishing in 4k is only good for those that have the capability to play it at that resolution at every level of their play back equipment. Slow internet, lower resolution monitors, old and slower computers, modems, obsolete graphic cards, all defeat 4k play back snd often generate confusion with people that think the video is bad when all the old stuff they are trying to play it on or through is at fault. Cinema companies have been shooting in 8k for years but nothing currently out there can deal with broadcast or playback for the general viewer. IMO, shooting in 4k and up is great but publishing for the masses is still best served at 1080. We all want to show the best product we can but that can end up an exercise in futility when many can’t effectively play it. It gets tiring to be constantly trying to figure out why people’s play back equipment is hanging up, and they don’t like hearing the problem is on their end.

Yes. Fortunately, a 4K video uploaded to YT is also available to viewers at lower resolutions which will play more smoothly on pedestrian systems. So, other than the time and expense to create and upload 4K content, there is no penalty in user experience for uploading in the higher resolution.

 

[Rich Z]

Quite honestly, someone demoing a 4K capable camera only using 1080p as the output format is not very helpful to me. I won't even view them. It would have no point in doing so for me. The 4K/60fps capability of the Typhoon H+ is the main selling point that got me to even consider buying one. So of course I want to see video samples showing off that format.

And yes, I can see quite the difference between a 4K/60fps and 4K30fps video on my PC's screen. My main PC is pretty capable, and my internet connection normally hits around 180mbps. YouTube will sometimes lag, but it seems like it is on their end most of the time.

Actually, panning shots using 4K/30fps actually feels painful to watch lately. The details smear across the scene and are quite distracting to me.

Which brings up a question. Why is panning so much harder on the video than simply raising or lowering the camera instead? I rarely see problems with the video camera being raised or lowered, but panning just seems to be so much harder on the video capability. Seems like the total number of pixels being processed for each frame would be about the same either way.

 

[PatR]

At a demo level I agree, you can’t sell a 4k camera processed at 1080. But not everyone is interested in selling a maker’s product. There’s a lot more that are only interested in using them after watching demo videos. It’s been more than once I’ve taken a 4k video over to view with a client only to find they couldn’t play them. One of them couldn’t even run 1080.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

If you always shoot at the highest resolution your camera and microSD card are capable of... then, deliver whatever resolution your client can easily utilize. When they come back to you 18 months later asking, "Do you have that drone footage in a really high resolution?" ... you can be the hero and reply, "Why, yes... yes I do."

 

[Rob Hadfield]

I’ve done that too and also ended up with a jerky video.

Just posing a question, how much of the pan complaints might be due to a rolling shutter? I watched the two comparison videos and the cathedral video last night on YouTube several times and also found the first viewing with the two comparison videos less that satisfactory. The second and third times played well. The “stats for nerds” indicated the internet speed had increased considerably from the first viewing. The cathedral video only provided one pan “bump” during the viewings but I had seen that one before so it may have been “cached” in my computer in some manner.

I don’t have the photo tech knowledge you guys do but the only thing I found a bit irritating in the comparison vids was what appears to be some “ballooning” of the buildings as the lens passed over things. Smaller to larger to smaller with lens passage.

Rolling shutter is more evident in fast pans, as the sensor is writing the image, think it's from left to right and down the sensor you get a wobble like the top is taking longer to keep up with the top of the sensor.

Here's a short example:

Simliar problem with panning, it needs to be smooth for the sensor readout to keep up, anything fast will suffer with rolling shutter and also stuttering of the video as well. A pan has to be done slowly and smoothly to look good. As most are hobbyists they don't always understand about video production and how it all works. So that's why we see a lot of sub par footage and then everyone thinks this is what the equipment puts out.

I shoot at 25p with a shutter speed of as near as I can to 50 this allows the foreground to be blurred when I'm flying fast and low but the rest of the frame is nice and sharp.

Like with any new skill its a learning curve, your learning to fly well and also learning how to shoot good video as well.

The ballooning is attributed to the pincushion on the C23 lens, its evident by the bend in the horizon, just wish they had gone a little narrower on the lens to remove it

As buildings come closer they will look a little larger and get a little smaller because of the pincushion of the lens

 

[Rob Hadfield]

Quite honestly, someone demoing a 4K capable camera only using 1080p as the output format is not very helpful to me. I won't even view them. It would have no point in doing so for me. The 4K/60fps capability of the Typhoon H+ is the main selling point that got me to even consider buying one. So of course I want to see video samples showing off that format.

And yes, I can see quite the difference between a 4K/60fps and 4K30fps video on my PC's screen. My main PC is pretty capable, and my internet connection normally hits around 180mbps. YouTube will sometimes lag, but it seems like it is on their end most of the time.

Actually, panning shots using 4K/30fps actually feels painful to watch lately. The details smear across the scene and are quite distracting to me.

Which brings up a question. Why is panning so much harder on the video than simply raising or lowering the camera instead? I rarely see problems with the video camera being raised or lowered, but panning just seems to be so much harder on the video capability. Seems like the total number of pixels being processed for each frame would be about the same either way.

Raising and lowering of the camera follows the writing of the sensor from top to bottom which is why there isn't any real problems in the footage. You can't go up or down as fast as you can pan

 

[YuKay]

Thanks to Simon Thomas for this 4k/30 testament to the H Plus's stability in 40kmph shoreline winds in Germany - and for the fabulous sunset at the end. (Although I can't understand a word he says, I like Herr Thomas as his joie-de-vivre is obvious in any language.)

He hasn't given me much to complain about either - note the number of dropped frames on the first play-through:



I can't imagine that I would have enjoyed that sunset more at 60fps…

 

[Rubik]

Thanks to Simon Thomas for this 4k/30 testament to the H Plus's stability in 40kmph shoreline winds in Germany - and for the fabulous sunset at the end. (Although I can't understand a word he says, I like Herr Thomas as his joie-de-vivre is obvious in any language.)

He hasn't given me much to complain about either - note the number of dropped frames on the first play-through:

I can't imagine that I would have enjoyed that sunset more at 60fps…

I agree. That was beautiful and smooth. I didn't notice any dropped frames, even at 13Mbps connection speed. Reloaded link and got >40Mbps.
I'll bet one of our most esteemed contributors loves the curved horizon of the gopro footage!

 

[PatR]

That has to be a residual Disney influence from their "It's a Small World" attraction.

 

[YuKay]

That's neat comparison video using a camera I'm familiar with.
I'm still trying to understand why you feel the H+ has difficulty recording smooth pans in 4K60. Look at this video from 0.06s on. The pan is way too fast but still looks smooth on my screen. There is an occasional hiccup but after running through that sequence repeatedly, it looks to be unrelated to the quality of the video since the hiccup occurs at different points with each run through.

If you see jitter or jerkiness, it's probably not the video but something in your system or internet connection.

It's been a long time since I looked at Firefox but I reinstalled it today and ran some YouTube tests. By default, it wouldn't play 4k or VP9 video but I dug into config (very unMaclike) and got it working.

All the 1080 videos played great, including those at 60fps, without a single frame drop. All the 4k/30fps videos played great without a single frame drop. But all **** broke loose when I tried to play 4k/60fps. The dropped frames were off the scale (50%) and only got a little better on two subsequent re-runs.



That's disappointing as I might have switched to Firefox since it seems generally clean, snappy and not too intrusive.

The problem may be down to the config setting only enabling 4k and VP9 via software.

 

[Rubik]

It's been a long time since I looked at Firefox but I reinstalled it today and ran some YouTube tests. By default, it wouldn't play 4k or VP9 video but I dug into config (very unMaclike) and got it working.

All the 1080 videos played great, including those at 60fps, without a single frame drop. All the 4k/30fps videos played great without a single frame drop. But all **** broke loose when I tried to play 4k/60fps. The dropped frames were off the scale (50%) and only got a little better on two subsequent re-runs.

View attachment 10948

That's disappointing as I might have switched to Firefox since it seems generally clean, snappy and not too intrusive.

The problem may be down to the config setting only enabling 4k and VP9 via software.

That's certainly not been my experience. Your Connection Speed looks good enough but unacceptable Buffer Health. Perhaps Firefox doesn't play well with Macs. Did you try getting a different Host via the method I mentioned above?
I'm a PC guy, always have been, since the 8088 days.

 

[YuKay]

That's certainly not been my experience. Your Connection Speed looks good enough but unacceptable Buffer Health. Perhaps Firefox doesn't play well with Macs. Did you try getting a different Host via the method I mentioned above?
I'm a PC guy, always have been, since the 8088 days.

I reloaded the page twice and also once just dragged the playback slider back to the beginning. I didn't keep a record of any connection changes but the playback buffer kept struggling to keep up. Tomorrow I'll take a look at Firefox settings and see if I can improve anything.

 

[YuKay]

Viewing at 1440/60 in three browsers (and with no dropped frames) something has gone very wrong here. Check the foreground tree (and surrounding area) from 45s onwards which, for me, degenerates into a fuzzy, muddy, shearing, jumping mess. Is this the camera's auto settings trying to adapt to dappled light and shade?

 

[AH-1G]

It is not nearly as bad as the CGO3+. Here

I fly directly into the sunrise and pan left with the sun to the back of the H. You can see the aberations a sunshade would resolve when the camera is direct into the sun and up to 90 degrees (11 seconds to 30 seconds in the video). It is still not to bad. I would not want this in a still frame, but for this style of video I think it is acceptable.

Finally video without any music! Poor choices of music can ruin the video enjoyment.
Also, I did appreciate your slow pan movements, many try to pan to quickly thus distorting the video.
Over all the imagery is fantastic, did you have this in auto mode for recording or manual settings?

 

[Ty Pilot]

I always knew you were from the future

Viewing at 1440/60 in three browsers (and with no dropped frames) something has gone very wrong here. Check the foreground tree (and surrounding area) from 45s onwards which, for me, degenerates into a fuzzy, muddy, shearing, jumping mess. Is this the camera's auto settings trying to adapt to dappled light and shade?

I don't think so, this is more likely one of those examples we can chalk up to NLE issue such as one that doesn't like the footage or perhaps he was using incorrect settings in the render but for sure - that poor footage is not the fault of a C23 - unless he's wrecked it.

 

[Rubik]

Viewing at 1440/60 in three browsers (and with no dropped frames) something has gone very wrong here. Check the foreground tree (and surrounding area) from 45s onwards which, for me, degenerates into a fuzzy, muddy, shearing, jumping mess. Is this the camera's auto settings trying to adapt to dappled light and shade?

Ugly! Since the previous views showed a straight horizon, the poster probably ran the original files through an editor which messed up the video. Or, he/she used a slower microSD card. Who knows. This is certainly not typical of what the C23 can do.