Video from the C23 and H Plus
- Thread starter Steve Carr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- c23 video
- Status
CraigCam
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 1,520
- Reaction score
- 663
- Age
- 64
Here is a lengthy video shot with the C23. It’s from my backyard. There is little yaw input in this flight as all camera movement is from the gimbal. I’m not used to the ST16 s switch and slider behaviors yet so I apologize for the jerky movements in spots. It’s my tenth flight with the Plus.
No FAA rules were broken in this video. I’m over my own property, below 400’ AGL, maintaining VLOS, and never over people. Not sure my neighbor in their pool were happy though as the wider view of the C23 picked them up when I looked down at the backhoe while gaining altitude. It’s one of those things you never see during flying on the ST screen.
The video is shot in 4K. I set the shutter speed myself at 400. ISO is 100. White balance on “cloudy”. It’s edited in Adobe Premier using auto color correction settings and rendered to H264 via the Vimeo preset in Adobe. I prefer Vimeo over YouTube for public view.
It’s long and not meant to be anything other then learning the new camera and gimbal. I did get some lightning within the first couple minutes. I was going to try to capture that eyesore of a backhoe finally leaving but the wind really started kicking up. I had to land before the truck drove off. At the very end is a quick clip of the wind I was dealing with at landing.
No FAA rules were broken in this video. I’m over my own property, below 400’ AGL, maintaining VLOS, and never over people. Not sure my neighbor in their pool were happy though as the wider view of the C23 picked them up when I looked down at the backhoe while gaining altitude. It’s one of those things you never see during flying on the ST screen.
The video is shot in 4K. I set the shutter speed myself at 400. ISO is 100. White balance on “cloudy”. It’s edited in Adobe Premier using auto color correction settings and rendered to H264 via the Vimeo preset in Adobe. I prefer Vimeo over YouTube for public view.
It’s long and not meant to be anything other then learning the new camera and gimbal. I did get some lightning within the first couple minutes. I was going to try to capture that eyesore of a backhoe finally leaving but the wind really started kicking up. I had to land before the truck drove off. At the very end is a quick clip of the wind I was dealing with at landing.
Thanks CraigCam. Really struggling to find something not to like in your video. Loved the sky throughout and especially at the end.
CraigCam
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 1,520
- Reaction score
- 663
- Age
- 64
Well I’ve been following this thread and the samples to date have been confusing. I figured I’d go with my standard approach and happily, Premier with last update put the GUI back to something I understand again. I was making simple fun videos with the 480 consistently last year then I got busy at my studio and didn’t have time.
This summer is really slow again so I’m back to doing more video shooting and so far, it seems the C23 is a viable production camera. I get data compression as we deal with it in music daily. Like audio, you need the best resolution and dynamics at high rates to survive the bit shredding down the road. To me, black is the low end fundamental like bass - omnipresent and non directional - colors are your mid range and white is your high frequencies. Like audio, we will always choose brighter as better hence the love of cameras that automatically expose towards higher color and brightness. But experience teaches you to not do that and I’ve learned that it’s better to under expose your shots and correct in post. Plus the 720 view on the Android is its own animal and not color accurate.
This time of year the sky is pretty flat so inspiration is a mixture of wanting to fly vs dying in the heat. Soon the fall will be here and I’ll have my AZ sunrises and scenery basking in golden light again. I’m scouting new spots and considering organizing a photo field trip to some good private and cinematic locations. Meanwhile, practice, practice, practice....
This summer is really slow again so I’m back to doing more video shooting and so far, it seems the C23 is a viable production camera. I get data compression as we deal with it in music daily. Like audio, you need the best resolution and dynamics at high rates to survive the bit shredding down the road. To me, black is the low end fundamental like bass - omnipresent and non directional - colors are your mid range and white is your high frequencies. Like audio, we will always choose brighter as better hence the love of cameras that automatically expose towards higher color and brightness. But experience teaches you to not do that and I’ve learned that it’s better to under expose your shots and correct in post. Plus the 720 view on the Android is its own animal and not color accurate.
This time of year the sky is pretty flat so inspiration is a mixture of wanting to fly vs dying in the heat. Soon the fall will be here and I’ll have my AZ sunrises and scenery basking in golden light again. I’m scouting new spots and considering organizing a photo field trip to some good private and cinematic locations. Meanwhile, practice, practice, practice....
rdonson
Premium Pilot
YuKay, after reading the article
VP9 - Wikipedia
I’m wondering how we utilize or try VP9 from FCP X to YouTube. Does Compressor support VP9?
VP9 - Wikipedia
I’m wondering how we utilize or try VP9 from FCP X to YouTube. Does Compressor support VP9?
Ron, no Apple products support VP9. The common way to encode in VP9 is simply to upload a 4k video to YouTube and it will happen automatically. But to get the best result, I wouldn't want to upload in one codec and have YouTube re-encode so you could try uploading your huge transcoded file and see what happens.
There are a couple of tools which will encode in VP9, eg Sorenson Squeeze - but they have just announced EOL for that product so it may not be a smart investment. It can still be downloaded and presumably paid for though.
I believe that Adobe Media Encoder also outputs VP9 but can't speak from personal experience.
And for free, you can encode into VP9 with Handbrake and via the command line in FFmpeg. Advice here and here. That said, I suspect YouTube would automatically re-encode a VP9 video into its preferred variant so you would probably get a better result by not encoding it yourself - especially as FP9 is a notoriously slow process.
It's also possible to force YouTube to convert a previously uploaded video to VP9, although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that.
Also, some good advice here for producing better H.264 videos from FCP/Compressor.
rdonson
Premium Pilot
Thanks, YuKay! Once again you’ve taught me something I wasn’t aware of. You’re a font of wisdom.
I especially liked the last link.
I especially liked the last link.
rdonson
Premium Pilot
Just bear in mind that Safari users won't see 2k or 4k YouTube video in anything better than 1080p - and they represent almost 14% of the total (Chrome = 59%). And because Safari converts VP9, any VP9-encoded video will look rough in Safari.
H.264 is still the best option for cross-platform viewing at all sizes below 2k, even though VP9 looks better imho.
Hopefully Vimeo can be a winner from the codec wars - although I'm not sure if all their viewing options are available to non-subscribers.
H.264 is still the best option for cross-platform viewing at all sizes below 2k, even though VP9 looks better imho.
Hopefully Vimeo can be a winner from the codec wars - although I'm not sure if all their viewing options are available to non-subscribers.
rdonson
Premium Pilot
Good points. I have a Vimeo login and will likely start using it more for sharing my videos. So far the only video I've shared on this site is a flyaway event that I uploaded to YouTube.
While I use Safari a lot I've been using Chrome for a decade (?). I was an early adopter and there was a long period when it was way better than the others for security, conformance to standards, performance, etc. That playing ground kind of evened out when MS decided they no longer had a lock on browsers in the Windoze desktop and put some effort into their browser. Apple was more or less shamed into keeping Safari up to do when it suited them. I still prefer the security features of Safari.
While I use Safari a lot I've been using Chrome for a decade (?). I was an early adopter and there was a long period when it was way better than the others for security, conformance to standards, performance, etc. That playing ground kind of evened out when MS decided they no longer had a lock on browsers in the Windoze desktop and put some effort into their browser. Apple was more or less shamed into keeping Safari up to do when it suited them. I still prefer the security features of Safari.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Vimeo started out as a means for professionals and aspiring professionals to display their work for exposure and discovery, while providing a wide range of instructional topics for the creation of high quality video. Recently Vimeo expanded their services to provide well above average teleconferencing capabilities to businesses.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 2,997
- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Location
- Central Florida
- Website
- copperdawg.com
I'm not really a technical guy but I have been uploading to Youtube for about twelve years and it was during this time as you know, that the shift from 480 through 1080 and eventually to 4K being the norm. During this time Youtube requirements changed quite a bit but has settled over the past few years. I have some thoughts I would like to share and welcome any of yours in response. I recently uploaded a video at 4K and viewing the Youtube video side by side with my final edit played locally there is very little difference that I am seeing. I do use chrome.
I think a lot of problems in videos on Youtube start with the NLE and specifically in the render process. Rendering out video correctly is not well understood and is sort of the dark art of video production. Also, all editors are not equal when it comes to encoding and rendering. Many of the cheap or free NLE's have terrible encoding and do not offer the user the ability to adjust settings for a given output. Also most editors have rendering presets for sites like Youtube and Vimeo and so fourth but these presets use parameters that typically make the render process faster thus making the whole editing process faster when in fact it is way over compressing for final output.
Youtube's process does a better job and gives a cleaner video when the upload parameters they ask for are used for your rendered video - I will list the settings below.
I always output my video as large as it can possibly be while meeting the requirements below. Notice below under the video codec heading it says - No Bitrate Limit Required. In other words push your bitrate limit above that of your raw video and it will output at the same data rate or higher. As an example; 1 minute, (58 seconds to be exact) of raw Typhoon H Plus footage I recently shot at 30 FPS in 4K had a file size of 458 Mb. I used this footage in my recent video that also contains clips from my Panasonic LX-10 and a Gopro Hero 5. The data rate from the Panasonic is a little higher than the Plus and the Gopro is a little lower. The video is just under 10 minutes so; a rough estimate would be that the raw combined footage would have a total file size of 4.5 Gb or there abouts.
It actually put on weight - final rendered out size, ready for upload to YouTube was 6.3Gb. The extra file size is due to the extra titles, audio tracks various transitions and so fourth. Had I not gone in and manually set the final parameters and used my editors recommended settings, the file size would be just under 2 GB's. And this is for the 4K videos; when down res-ing 4 K and outputting to 1080, the render gets hit about twice as hard IF you don't set your own parameters.
So basically if we're uploading to youtube a file size smaller than that of the raw video, we're leaving a lot of quality behind. I don't use Vimeo because I started on Youtube and have my workflow in place. I would be interested to see a rendered video uploaded to both Youtube and Vimeo to see what the difference is, in an apples to apples comparison if anyone has done this.
I think a lot of problems in videos on Youtube start with the NLE and specifically in the render process. Rendering out video correctly is not well understood and is sort of the dark art of video production. Also, all editors are not equal when it comes to encoding and rendering. Many of the cheap or free NLE's have terrible encoding and do not offer the user the ability to adjust settings for a given output. Also most editors have rendering presets for sites like Youtube and Vimeo and so fourth but these presets use parameters that typically make the render process faster thus making the whole editing process faster when in fact it is way over compressing for final output.
Youtube's process does a better job and gives a cleaner video when the upload parameters they ask for are used for your rendered video - I will list the settings below.
I always output my video as large as it can possibly be while meeting the requirements below. Notice below under the video codec heading it says - No Bitrate Limit Required. In other words push your bitrate limit above that of your raw video and it will output at the same data rate or higher. As an example; 1 minute, (58 seconds to be exact) of raw Typhoon H Plus footage I recently shot at 30 FPS in 4K had a file size of 458 Mb. I used this footage in my recent video that also contains clips from my Panasonic LX-10 and a Gopro Hero 5. The data rate from the Panasonic is a little higher than the Plus and the Gopro is a little lower. The video is just under 10 minutes so; a rough estimate would be that the raw combined footage would have a total file size of 4.5 Gb or there abouts.
It actually put on weight - final rendered out size, ready for upload to YouTube was 6.3Gb. The extra file size is due to the extra titles, audio tracks various transitions and so fourth. Had I not gone in and manually set the final parameters and used my editors recommended settings, the file size would be just under 2 GB's. And this is for the 4K videos; when down res-ing 4 K and outputting to 1080, the render gets hit about twice as hard IF you don't set your own parameters.
So basically if we're uploading to youtube a file size smaller than that of the raw video, we're leaving a lot of quality behind. I don't use Vimeo because I started on Youtube and have my workflow in place. I would be interested to see a rendered video uploaded to both Youtube and Vimeo to see what the difference is, in an apples to apples comparison if anyone has done this.
Ty Pilot, I think a lot of YouTube issues are caused by uploader inexperience. It's not surprising when you consider how many uploads there are. And for a free, almost ubiquitous, video broadcast facility, YouTube is amazing.
But it's a noisy, brash environment which often subjects visitors to lengthy advertisements; and its compulsory 4k codec is not browser agnostic.
I have seen many high quality videos on YouTube; but I think the quality is generally higher on Vimeo - no doubt partly due to a more experienced body of uploaders. And because Vimeo is not for the masses, it offers a much more elegant and refined user experience imho.
Because it is free and open to all, YouTube will always dominate; and no doubt the codec war will soon be resolved and YouTube will play nicely with Safari again. A lot of big names are backing a new open source video codec, believed to be VP9, while vested interests continue to support H.264/265 which rakes in hefty licence fees for its owners. Since VP9 is thought to be at least as good and as streamlined as H.265, with both superior to H.264, then VP9 will likely become the new, free-to-all video standard - at which point, Apple will adapt to it or Safari will die.
But it's a noisy, brash environment which often subjects visitors to lengthy advertisements; and its compulsory 4k codec is not browser agnostic.
I have seen many high quality videos on YouTube; but I think the quality is generally higher on Vimeo - no doubt partly due to a more experienced body of uploaders. And because Vimeo is not for the masses, it offers a much more elegant and refined user experience imho.
Because it is free and open to all, YouTube will always dominate; and no doubt the codec war will soon be resolved and YouTube will play nicely with Safari again. A lot of big names are backing a new open source video codec, believed to be VP9, while vested interests continue to support H.264/265 which rakes in hefty licence fees for its owners. Since VP9 is thought to be at least as good and as streamlined as H.265, with both superior to H.264, then VP9 will likely become the new, free-to-all video standard - at which point, Apple will adapt to it or Safari will die.
- Status
Similar threads
