Jump to content

Posting in 4k


Paul Brenno

Recommended Posts

My question to you, Paul: What program are you planning to use for post? This will help me a great deal in recommending different hardware options. So many programs operate differently that it's almost impossible to say for sure if 8G or 16G is going to be enough, or rather RAM is even the most important equation you need to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landon, I know how to edit, but no expert, my area is directing/cinematography....early in my career, I worked for an exec producer who was a real butt, he shoved exiting down my throat, grew to hate it.....now I really enjoy it, but no expert. My main focus is editing for the web, mostly Youtube, vimeo, facebook, etc....

 

I also have no budget, so am limited to upgrading....I only have a small Windows 7 laptop, 8G, with Premiere CC, would like to shoot in 4K, but post in both HE or 4K, if that's possible (??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Premiere, you should be good. If you have 8GB right now, give it a go and see how well it handles it. If you are looking to upgrade to either 8 or 16, I'd go 16 since the cost is not that much higher, but the performance will be.

 

The big issue with Premiere and 4K is playback. Premier uses the Mercury Transmit Engine to playback in real time. 4K is tough to playback, even h264 flavor. As such, as you said I'd downsample to HD to edit with. If you're sticking with HD in Premiere, your system should be good - though a good graphics card is essential for GPU playback. Just note that until you get a graphics card, you might have to lower playback resolution to as low as 1/4 or 1/8, depending on your footage and the number of effects.

 

I still have a hard time editing GH4 H264 files in 4K in Premiere - even on my system with a 390x card, 8 core processor, 64 gigs of RAM and a RAID system. I have no trouble playing back anything 2K or HD though, even in formats like DNxHR 444.

 

So, I would recommend this: Stick with Premiere Pro CC. IF you already have 8GB of RAM, give it a go and see how it edits. If you don't yet have the 8GB even, then I'd seriously look into just going with 16, since the cost difference between 8 and 16 is not even close to double. I can get 16gb sticks for around $25 today, or an 8GB for around $18 or so.

 

NOW, I will offer you a workflow suggestion, though. Since you are planning to take 4K and edit it in 2K, It's best if you transcode the 4K to 2K before dropping it onto the Premiere timeline. Head on over to Blackmagic Design and download the free version of Davinci Resolve. You can then bring your 4K footage into DaVinci, and then export it as any number of formats - from H264 to DNxHR. Play around with different formats until you find one that gets you an acceptable quality and speed in Premiere, and stick with it.

 

You can of course drop a 4k clip directly onto a 2k timeline, but I'm not sure if Premiere would treat it as a 2k clip or not, and how doing that might affect playback performance. You'll also lose color information. Following the Resolve path, you can take a 4K 4:2:0 8-bit file and get a 2K 4:4:4 8-bit file, which has much more color space.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I also have no budget, so am limited to upgrading....I only have a small Windows 7 laptop, 8G, with Premiere CC, would like to shoot in 4K, but post in both HE or 4K, if that's possible (??)

What are the specifications of the computer? (processor speed, bus speed, graphics card, etc)

 

What is the camera you want to edit 4k with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

.h264 and .h265 are long GOP MPEG formats, which are not really designed for editing. Final Cut X and Vegas are the only software packages I know of, which can playback and handle these files properly in real time. The reason they can is because they create new media on the fly and use that media to playback smoothly. This caching process can be pretty quick on a decent power computer with fast storage. But on most computers, it doesn't work properly. I always have to transcode those formats in order to edit them in real time, no matter what resolution. I have yet to playback .h264 files in any resolution to the smoothness of the professional codecs.

 

Yes. This is also why I have been exploring other packages of late.

We've had this discussion on other threads. I have an 8 year old Mac Pro Tower (dual proc, 8 core 2.8ghz for $800 on ebay) Yet, I have no problems working with 4k Media of any professional codec in real time. It's true, I did purchase a Red Rocket card on ebay for $150 to work with RED media and I do have a GTX680 Classified, which helps greatly in DaVinci. I also have 22GB of ram (strange number I know) and a small 3 drive raid zero. Yet, I have zero problems with DaVinci now, everything works in real time, where it didn't with the old Radeon card and 10GB of ram. The editor, the color section and the delivery section. It renders 4k media in real time or faster, which is actually slow in the grand scheme of things.

 

So yea, when I make recommendations on what works... my solution actually works. If you can't playback 4k in real time, then your solution doesn't work.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to be able to playback in real-time, but that is just not a feature that Resolve is known for.

Again, no problems over here with the GTX680.

 

To my knowledge, GPU accelerated playback is not a feature of Resolve.

Well, it made a night and day difference on my system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to not get into a multi-page heated discussion, I'll just say that I'm not speaking to editing in 4K... the OP is not talking about editing 4K. I never once even said editing in 4K was a good idea. I'm speaking of editing in 2k and HD, and with downsampling 4k to 2k, as I have always been. And in this case, I have a lot of experience as well, and feel comfortable making recommendations about what works on my hardware and software.

 

If the OP was asking about editing 4K, I might still offer some advice, considering I do work with 4K and have edited with it, in a proxy timeline like many others who work with 4K. I'm not aware of too many people natively editing 4K full resolution, and nor is there a real need too - even in advance feature film workflows.

 

As to your 680 - can't speak for it. My 980 (2 generations ahead) would not play back real-time with nodes in Resolve, nor will my 390x. No where does Resolve mention the use of GPU accelerated playback, only rendering. Maybe it has to do with your processor, RAM, or maybe MAC is just a special angel of a computer that works magic... I can't say.

 

And I agree, H264 is not an editing format... I certainly don't edit in H264, and I transcode all such footage to Avid DNxHD/HR... But the reality is, many people DO try to edit H264, and most software packages CAN handle it just fine. Hitfilm plays back 4K H264 from my GH4 in real time even with effects (shows the power of my 390x GPU), Premiere Pro will play H264 fine in 2k and 4k at half to quarter res....

 

 

Tyler - I will try to say this without coming across rude... That is not my intent, I just need to clear something up here.

 

Most of time your advice pertains to high end stuff. You work on a MAC with AVID and disdain prosumer and consumer codecs with a passion. The problem with this then, is that many times an OP will ask questions about how to do something on a budget for YouTube; what camera is good enough for YouTube, what editing system will work to edit that footage. You then proceed to offer advice on setting up a high-end post production editing facility, ready to tackle the highest resolutions Hollywood can throw at you. This is GREAT and all, if the OP is asking about starting a post house. However, most OP's are on a budget, and are looking for a compromise between quality and cost.

 

In the case of this thread, the OP is wondering about hardware for his Windows PC. He is not asking rather he should upgrade to a Mac Pro, or asking how he should edit 4K in real time. He is asking about his RAM requirements to edit 2k on his windows PC, and considering I edit 2k on my windows PC on a regular basis, I am more than qualified to offer the advice I offer to the OP. Your expertise is in high end stuff, which is nice and all, but that does not pertain to this thread.

 

Summary: It's great that you want to promote the best of the best... But camping out at a Ford dealer trying to convince everyone that a Porsche is a better purchase is not going to get you or them too far. The reality is, people editing stuff for YouTube can use AMD cards, they can use a GH4... If someone has $x to work with, telling them they'd be better off with something that costs 10x that is not reasonable advice.

 

The OP is working with Premiere, which is a program you said above you don't really use the most recent version of, so how can you possibly offer first hand advice on working with Premiere Pro CC? I do work with this package all the time, and know what kind of performance I can get from it.

 

*end rant*

 

Now, why don't we get back to the topic of the post - helping the OP with his hardware requirements, rather than an 'I have more experience than you' argument?

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'll just say that I'm not speaking to editing in 4K... the OP is not talking about editing 4K.

The vast majority of people, aren't going to transcode their media to a lower resolution (duplicating media and storage) in order to edit and then go back to the original media, conform and export. The vast majority of people are going to open up a simple editing tool, drag their 4k footage into it, edit their piece and export. Heck, without using powerful tools like DaVinci and Premiere, you can't even do the down-res, edit and conform workflow.

 

As to your 680 - can't speak for it. My 980 (2 generations ahead) would not play back real-time with nodes in Resolve, nor will my 390x. No where does Resolve mention the use of GPU accelerated playback, only rendering. Maybe it has to do with your processor, RAM, or maybe MAC is just a special angel of a computer that works magic... I can't say.

There is absolutely no magic, I know many PC/Windows guys running DaVinci in 4k, real time with no problems. In fact, right before I started this feature I'm working on, I installed a few windows workstations with Premiere and they were working flawlessly with RED/Arri Raw 4k media. Storage is a big deal, my raid's throughput is close to 500MBps, which is kinda slow for 4k, but most of the storage solutions I work with are well over 800MBps. Storage throughput is critical for working with real codecs.

 

Hitfilm plays back 4K H264 from my GH4 in real time even with effects (shows the power of my 390x GPU), Premiere Pro will play H264 fine in 2k and 4k at half to quarter res....

Hitfilm probably does cached/proxy playback like Final Cut X does. It probably caches renders behind the scenes. Final Cut X is amazing with .h264 files, it works like a dream, totally flawless at full res.

 

Most of time your advice pertains to high end stuff.

Ohh I work with .h264/.h265 media every day. It's part of living in our modern world. Most of the time, I'll transcode consumer formats into something more workable by normal editing programs. If I need to turn something out fast, I will use FCPX, edit in real time and export. I've done quite a few FCPX 4k shorts for clients, most of it GoPro or drone origination.

 

I know how to work on a budget, my desktop is from 08, my laptop is from 09. I know how to get the most out of computers, though I will agree that most of my work is on Mac's. I do a considerable amount of PC work as well, computer freelancing for the film industry is partially how I pay the bills. I just promote what actually physically works and has been tested for the application (in this case 4k media for youtube). I have posted hundreds of youtube videos on various channels and have been encoding specifically for youtube delivery for close to a decade.

 

I don't use Premiere on my edit bay, mainly because I work on bigger, more commercial shows and I don't think Premiere is up to the challenge yet. I've been trained by Adobe and have installed the suite on dozens of computers. I've also trained people to use it, so I'm well verse in the newest versions, even though I don't use it at home on my own personal bay.

 

Anyway, we're just talking, the OP is busy and doesn't have the specs for his computer yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitfilm probably does cached/proxy playback like Final Cut X does. It probably caches renders behind the scenes. Final Cut X is amazing with .h264 files, it works like a dream, totally flawless at full res.

 

Hitfilm is a little different than other suites... It basically uses the CPU for nothing. It also has a RAM cache option (separate button) like AE, though I have never had to use it for anything. Basically Hitfilm is 100% GPU based, doing everything from encoding, processing, rendering, outputting, and previewing on the GPU itself. All of the effects are GPU based, including particles and the 3D render engine. That is one of the great things about it, I just wish it would be better designed to handle DNx in and out, since that is my primary post codec. As it stands right now, it won't play nor export DNx - which is a killer for me, since that is the codec that performs the best on my computer. Since it uses OpenGL and not CUDA, it also performs the same on comparable cards from either AMD or nVidia, another plus.

 

If only they would fix the codec and color management issues with it, it would be a super powerful piece of software.

 

 

The vast majority of people, aren't going to transcode their media to a lower resolution (duplicating media and storage) in order to edit and then go back to the original media, conform and export. The vast majority of people are going to open up a simple editing tool, drag their 4k footage into it, edit their piece and export. Heck, without using powerful tools like DaVinci and Premiere, you can't even do the down-res, edit and conform workflow.

 

Well, most people are not working in a 4K workflow anyway, so it's really a moot point. Even most Hollywood films are finished 2K. What I am saying is that in the past as in the present, when people do work with 4K workflows, they tend to do it on a proxy basis. That does not have to mean trancoding at all. Premiere Pro has a new proxy based workflow coming out in the next update that will automatically create a low-res file for you to edit and stuff with, and the automatically conform it back to the higher res once you're done. Resolve has a 1/4 proxy option right in the menu.

 

Super-sampling 4k to 2k is a pretty common thing though, and is the route I'd suggest people follow who shoot 4k and want to edit 2k.

 

 

I cannot use any input if NOT using Premiere. It's what I have

 

Yeah, my advice pertains to Premiere Pro directly.... In reality, 8GB of RAM would probably be sufficient for most work, since Premiere is really not a RAM hog. Just keep in mind that 8GB is the recommended system requirement for Premiere Pro, so don't go below that.

 

In reality, you'd be better off saving up the money you'd spend on a RAM upgrade toward something like a used AMD R9 280/290 - which can be had for about $150 now, and will speed up your Premiere workflow a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I downloaded iMedia Converter, which will download 4K to HD for posting, just to see what happens, gonna test it this weekend.

AGAIN, I'm on a laptop, Windows 7, Intel Pentium 2.2, 8GB....Lumix G7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never used the G7, but I do have a decked out GH4, and I believe the cameras are pretty similar. So you're going to be working with MP4 .H264 files or .MOV files.

 

Personally, I have noticed a little better performance on my GH4 when recording in .MOV rather than .MP4, though the files are a littler larger. So you might consider that. I no longer use the internal recording now that I have a Shogun recorder, but internal CAN look good if you take care of the footage when shooting.

 

Second, Premiere Pro CC can handle mp4 footage just fine at 1080p, and even at 4k if you set playback down a lot and are willing to work with some dropped frames.

 

Third, honestly, if you're looking to convert footage - I wouldn't mess with third party apps. The only two options I would consider for taking 4K to 2K in post is Media Encoder or Resolve. Media Encoder is included with your subscription to CC - and so that is the first place I'd go. All you need to do is drop your MP4 clips into the media encoder interface and then select an output location and codec. While you CAN edit in MP4, you'll find performance is a little better in some dedicated editing codecs like DNxHD. You can select to convert your 4k MP4 files to 1080p DNxHD footage within Encoder.

 

The other option is Resolve, which is free. The thing is, I don't know if you can use resolve or not. I think it requires a pretty beefy graphics card to even operate, and a lot of system resources. I don't know off the top of my head what the minimum requirements are, but if you want to check it out for yourself you can go to https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve and read the requirements. Resolve is VERY powerful program and it requires a learning curve, so if you don't want to go that route, then you can simply stay within Media Encoder to super-sample your clips.

 

The biggest advantage Resolve has is being able to take your 4k 4:2:0 footage and make it 2k 4:4:4 footage, giving you a lot more color information to work with in post. If you don't need that, then I'd stick with Media Encoder.

 

I'd steer clear of consumer-level media encoders like iMedia Converter, especially when you have a professional software already a part of your CC package that does just that - Media Encoder.

 

PS) Sorry I somehow missed 'laptop' earlier. So basically, that severely limits you on graphics card upgrade options, if any exist at all. You'll just need to make do with what you have, and in a laptop I'd probably first work on beefing up the RAM and Hard Drive, going with an SSD rather than an HDD that comes in most laptops. Maxing out your RAM and upgrading to a high capacity SSD will be the two things that give you the most performance increase on your machine.

 

In reality though, I'll be straight up honest... You'll just have to test this out. It sounds like it's a fairy dated laptop, so rather or not it can even handle 1080p or not in editing is questionable. Best case is that you can playback real-time at quarter or half res, at least in my opinion.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ohh Lumix G7, sorry I thought that was the computer name or something. I didn't recognize it as a Panasonic still camera.

 

Unfortunately with the current laptop specs, I think it will be pretty impossible to edit 4k. You really need a super fast processor and decent graphics board. Pentium processors have been replaced by the Intel core 2 and i3/i5/i7 over the last 6 years or so. Pentium's can't deal with multi-threaded tasks very much and as a consequence, they can't deal with a lot of the CPU based playback and rendering.

 

Another issue is how fast your storage is. Does the computer have USB3 and are your drives USB3 compatible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue is how fast your storage is. Does the computer have USB3 and are your drives USB3 compatible?

 

I'd also be interested to know the manufacturer and model number... Might help in determining what hardware will work. HOWEVER, given that it appears from the specs to be an older laptop, I doubt USB 3.0 is in play here, and most windows laptops don't offer any external sata ports - even modern ones.

 

This probably means he is dealing soley with 1 internal hard drive, and probably an HDD running at 5400RPM, as was standard in most laptops, even still is today. That is why I FIRST suggest an upgrade to an SSD drive. Basically, I can't even playback 1080p video in VLC on a 5400rpm drive without allowing it to buffer first. I have an external backup drive that runs at 5400rpm, and it is super slow.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lumix g7 is great, don't have a budget for a G4 yet, but it's 4k, so I'm happy.....much easier to operate than Canon....

it's smaller, which is OK, but it's ALL in how you shoot/light, but hey, it's 4K !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's really down to the imager's ability to translate photons of light into data and how that data is then translated into a visual image. Most of the still cameras like the Lumix, focus on creating still images, rather then video. If you were to take a still frame from the video and compare it to a still frame shot with the camera, the difference is night and day. The video side of the DSLR's has always been very weak, the GH4 and A7SMKII being slight exceptions.

 

In my opinion, 4k isn't as important as the imagers ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lumix, focus on creating still images

 

This is one point I'll argue with you on :D :D :D . The correct term would be 'TRIES to focus on still images'. Poor Panasonic just hasn't been able to get their stills department to match Nikon and Canon. I shoot my stills on the GH4, but I can't rightfully call it a true professional stills camera - despite its price tag. In fact, I'd say the stills function of a $500 Canon exceed the GH4 for almost three times the money.

 

So in that regard, the GH4 is in a bit of a pickle. It's designed to be a still camera with some video functionality, but it turns out the video functions (however limited they might be), really outweigh its limited stills ability.

 

I still love my Panasonic for video, though --- but only because I have it outfitted to work well with video. External recorder for 10-bit 4:2:2, Speedbooster for better lens selection, and other support equipment.

 

I'm not sure the GH4 by itself is particular good at anything, really. If it wasn't for it's video ability, I don't feel the GH4 would be used for much.

 

HOWEVER, the GH4 is a good base camera if you're looking for something cheap to start with that you can build on later to get it up to a professional level of quality. Like most camera's, the body itself should really only be viewed as ONE part of the entire picture. It's fine for Internet or any other medium where highly compressed footage is the end result anyway.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...