Need to export my Kodak film piece to MP4 for a competition I'm entering...best settings?

[Stephen Perera]

Hello everyone. Need to export a short film that they want in MP4 format for a competition I am entering. It's all shot on film, with ProRes 4444 cineonlog footage. No problem exporting etc as ProRes etc but I get smudgy results with the MP4 format they want for the competition. I was hoping someone could tell me what are the best export options for MP4 that will retain the grain and colour etc of my piece. Thanks in advance.

[Jon O'Brien]

I've been exporting films lately in MP4 because that's what a lot of clients want. It's not as good a look but I think it's easier to deal with for them. The only tiny bit of advice I can give you (and you probably are way past me in terms of doing this sort of thing, and know this already) is what I learned from a video on youtube titled "How I color grade 16mm film and digital" (or similar) by an Aussie cinematographer who seems to have taken it down. It had great advice in it for improving the look of film footage before exporting. I've found that the following helps. Like I said, you probably already know this little tip.

In the Color section of Davinci, after grading and everything else and you're nearly ready to go to export, click on the 'Blur' button approx in the middle of the screen. It's a raindrop and triangle symbol. Up comes a box with three lots of triple columns. First three columns is labelled 'Radius'.

I go to the blue column on the right with the cursor and drag down slightly. Try decreasing the value from 0.50 down to about 0.48 or maybe 0.47. Now, I'm not technical, my skills are more along the lines of 'try twiddling a few knobs here and there and see if things look better to my eye'. Well, doing this, I always seem to get a more pleasing result. Works for me, anyway. Basically it sharpens the look of the grain a bit, I think. Best of luck with it.

With using Davinci I'm like someone with a pallet and a brush and just mixing the paint around and seeing if it looks better ...

 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Are you exporting 1080 or 4k full res?

[Brian Drysdale]

Are you uploading to Filmfreeway? I exported at a setting of 11mbits for 1080p, which seemed to fit in with their requirements, but you could experiment to get the best result within their file size limitation. 

[Stephen Perera]

Hi all, thanks for your messages. Jon, I'm gonna try what you suggested out! Just uploading to my YouTube to compare with the previous upload of the same. Brian, had not heard of Filmfreeway, will check it out. Daniel, uploading as 2K haha, right in the middle.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

If YT, you have to check your viewing setting is set to highest resolution. 2K should be great.

I had done lots of resolution tests, but can't find them on I.A. One was in color and very important. The color tests show how color changes and breaks down with lower res. I.A.'s search function is just so-so.

I did find one set of res tests for titles. They are black and white and go for 240p to 4K.

Download files, look at on large monitor or TV.

Text Resolution Examples D.D.Teoli Jr. : D.D.Teoli Jr. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Well, good luck with figuring it out. Always post samples of the problems here.

 

 

 

Edited March 7 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Here are the some of the other tests...

Cine' Text Size & Color Tests D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I've also got some res tests of film clips, but they have not surfaced yet. I've got thousands of things at the I.A. and depend on their search function to find it. 

OP, besides your film IQ, you need to check title quality at different res. The color of text changes and the readability can break down at lower res. 

[Tyler Purcell]

MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264. So just use the .h264 encoder in Resolve and simply change the wrapper ID (rename .mov to .mp4) and you should be fine. Where I don't do many 1080p outputs anymore, if you set resolve to automatic, it does a great job with .h264 outputs. Retaining the grain with a .h264 file is challenging, if not impossible because the LONG-GOP compression system used, its entire job is to "ignore" that doesn't move much.  I find pre-sharpening the output just a tiny bit and then encoding it with Resolve, to a pretty decent representation of the grain however. You'll never get the color accuracy tho, it's always going to be 8 bit 4:2:0 with .h264. HEVC or .h265, can do 10 bit 4:2:2 in resolve, but good luck getting that file to playback anywhere. I've had nothing but problems working with those files even on powerful Apple Silicon systems. At least the .h264 variant works fine and you gotta remember, no consumer streaming service (YouTube, Vimeo, Dropbox, google drive etc) can stream in 10 bit 4:2:2 anyway, they're all transcoding to AV1. 

Edited March 7 by Tyler Purcell

[Fabian Schreyer]

18 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264.

MP4 is a container format for digital media. While the container can, of course, contain H.264 encoded material, the use of MP4 says absolutely nothing about which encoder was actually used.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

MP4 is a container format for digital media. While the container can, of course, contain H.264 encoded material, the use of MP4 says absolutely nothing about which encoder was actually used.

Ya know, I always thought the same thing, then I researched. 

[Fabian Schreyer]

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You did research and found out that MP4 is not a container format but instead equals to h264 encoding?

[Stephen Perera]

Hey @Jon O'Brien the sharpening thing worked for sure thanks for that!!!!

[Perry Paolantonio]

On 3/7/2025 at 5:12 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264. 

No it's not. As @Fabian Schreyer correctly stated, MP4 is a file format - a container. Within that container you can have a variety of codecs. MP4 files can contain H.264/AVC (MPEG4-part 10), a very specific variant of which Blu-ray uses, but there are plenty of ways to make H.264 files that are *not* the same as blu-ray's subset and will not work. These are used for a variety of players.

MP4 can also contain H.265/HEVC (MPEG-H Part 2), and even ProRes (MPEG4-Part12/ISO Media) is MP4, among other codecs. In addition to the video codecs, it also supports a range of audio and text data (subtitles). 

 

On 3/7/2025 at 5:12 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

(rename .mov to .mp4)

This doesn't always work and is bad practice. 

It's also worth noting that the MP4 format is different on Mac, Windows, and Linux versions of Resolve. Some allow more features than others. Some allow for hardware acceleration of encoding, others do not. The end result is not identical, in our experience, so it requires a bit of experimenting. 

Edited Monday at 04:17 PM by Perry Paolantonio

[Tyler Purcell]

On 3/8/2025 at 11:04 AM, Fabian Schreyer said:

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You did research and found out that MP4 is not a container format but instead equals to h264 encoding?

MP4 is a container, but it also directly dictates the type of media within the container. An MP4 must contain an MPEG variant within. Sure, you could theoretically use HEVC .h265 as well, but for the most part HEVC's are MXF format (media exchange format). 

[Perry Paolantonio]

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

An MP4 must contain an MPEG variant within

Again, No. For example, MPEG-4 Part 12 can contain JPEG2000. 

Quote

Sure, you could theoretically use HEVC .h265 as well, but for the most part HEVC's are MXF format (media exchange format). 

We are responding to your initial assertion that:

Quote

 

MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264.

 

 

...which is plainly wrong.

[Jon O'Brien]

14 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

Hey @Jon O'Brien the sharpening thing worked for sure thanks for that!!!!

I'm so glad. Thank you for letting me know. I've contacted the cinematographer and asked him to please repost his excellent video on Youtube. It truly was extremely helpful.

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Again, No. For example, MPEG-4 Part 12 can contain JPEG2000. 

This is 2025, there is no "modern" application for this. 

JPEG2000 in 2025 are using different wrappers like; .mj2, .mjp2, .j2c, etc. 

I'm certain you can dig up some software written in 2002 that uses an .MP4 wrapper. Nobody is encoding that today with modern software unless they're using some sort of antique engine. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:43 AM by Tyler Purcell

[Perry Paolantonio]

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

This is 2025, there is no "modern" application for this. 

That is irrelevant. I used it as an example of a codec that can live in an MP4 wrapper because once again, for the record, you stated that "MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264." Which it is not. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:46 PM by Perry Paolantonio

[Tyler Purcell]

15 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

That is irrelevant. I used it as an example of a codec that can live in an MP4 wrapper because once again, for the record, you stated that "MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264." Which it is not. 

Please, that's like saying Pro Res can be in an JP2 wrapper. Give everyone a break. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:28 AM by Tyler Purcell

[Perry Paolantonio]

All I'm doing here is pointing out a mistake. Of course the primary codec used in MP4 these days is H264/AVC. But it's not the only codec, which is what you were saying above. Words matter. 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

All I'm doing here is pointing out a mistake. Of course the primary codec used in MP4 these days is H264/AVC. But it's not the only codec, which is what you were saying above. Words matter. 

Yep, I'm certain all of us use words that 20 years ago had a different meaning than today. 

[Perry Paolantonio]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yep, I'm certain all of us use words that 20 years ago had a different meaning than today. 

It's really tiring, the way you try to derail conversations like this when someone calls you out for being wrong. So I'm sorry to everyone reading this if it sounds like I'm being a jerk. People read things in a forum like this, and assume they're correct, because most of the folks posting here know what they're talking about. Incorrect information has to be corrected or else it flourishes. 

I mentioned JPEG2000 as an example of a codec MP4 supports that's not an MPEG variant after you said that any codec in MP4 has to be MPEG of some flavor. Then you run with that as if I'm saying everyone does this. That's a pretty common way of deflecting attention when someone points out a mistake. For the record, I'm not saying JPEG2000 in MP4 is often used. That was never the point. I'm just saying that you could use it, after you said you couldn't.

You also say that H.265 in MP4 is "theoretically" possible. Well, it's more than theoretical. Have a look at this screen shot, taken from Resolve 19's deliver window. These are the codecs Resolve supports on MP4 export on the Mac.

 

If you're going to answer people's questions, at least answer them correctly. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:36 PM by Perry Paolantonio

[Dom Jaeger]

1 hour ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

People read things in a forum like this, and assume they're correct, because most of the folks posting here know what they're talking about. Incorrect information has to be corrected or else it flourishes. 

Thanks Perry, agree 100%. 

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Incorrect information has to be corrected or else it flourishes. 

No incorrect words were stated. An incorrect word is the opposite of the truth.

An "omission" like .h265 can also be wrapped into an MP4, is not an incorrect in any way. It's an omission because it's not relevant to the conversation, nor would I have even suggested it. 

This comment, is in no way shape or form incorrect, according to my over 30 years in the industry, wikipedia AND Chat GPT. 

On 3/7/2025 at 2:12 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

MP4 or (AVC part 10) encoding is identical to .h264.

Here is the textbook explanation of the .MP4 wrapper directly from Wikipedia. You will notice the terminology I used, matches the terminology in the Wikipedia explanation. 

The history of the wrapper is thus; 

6 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

I mentioned JPEG2000 as an example of a codec MP4 supports that's not an MPEG variant after you said that any codec in MP4 has to be MPEG of some flavor.

This has nothing to do with modern encoding of media, which is what the OP will be using. In fact, if you research Part 12 and 14, you will find the ISO 14496-12 to be depreciated as of 2017, thus it most likely was someone looking to patent something for their own product that never took off. Heck, even under the JPEG2000 page, it only denotes MP4 once, by saying in the past there was a variant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#JPEG_2000_image_coding_system_–_Parts

The fact you felt you needed to correct me as some sort of "win" based on outdated information that has no validity in modern times, is truly the problem. 
 

6 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

You also say that H.265 in MP4 is "theoretically" possible. Well, it's more than theoretical. Have a look at this screen shot, taken from Resolve 19's deliver window. These are the codecs Resolve supports on MP4 export on the Mac.

Yes, in some software like Resolve it's possible, in other software like Premiere (not media encoder), it's not so cut and dry. 

So it's "theoretically" possible, if you have the proper software. It would NOT be possible, without the proper software, which is why it's theoretical and not fact. 

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

People read things in a forum like this, and assume they're correct, because most of the folks posting here know what they're talking about. Incorrect information has to be corrected or else it flourishes. 

Perry, you have zero interest in the truth, if you did you wouldn't say straight BS like this; 

On 3/10/2025 at 8:58 AM, Perry Paolantonio said:

MP4 can also contain .....  and even ProRes (MPEG4-Part12/ISO Media) is MP4, among other codecs. 

You didn't once respond to the OP. You came on here, saw I responded, did not like the omission and the copy and paste from Wikipedia and thought you'd denigrate my responses with a total wash of nonsense that doesn't help anyone. It's like you need to stroke your ego, but none of your response has anything to help the OP, zero percent. So you were only here to denigrate me, nothing else, just me. 

So the bastion of getting it right, basically is discussing hacks and old methodologies that are long out of date, to prove a point that someone else on this group is wrong. You have no interest in the truth, because if you did, then you wouldn't go around bullshitting everyone here as if you have a doctorate in the subject. Furthermore, your response hasn't helped anyone. It hasn't furthered this conversation one bit. 

For what it's worth, not even Chat GPT agrees with your assessment. 

 

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Thanks Perry, agree 100%. 

Of course you agree, you don't know that Perry is full of shit.