Davinci file size

[CanonC100User]

What do you call a huge file size? The last video I put on YT was shot in HD DNxHD 185 at 184 Mb/s. It was rendered and upscaled in Resolve Studio to UHD h265 using Super Scale, at 80Mb/s. The resulting file was 5.07GB for 8.5 minutes, to me not large at all. It took YT just over an hour from upload to producing the 4k version.

H265 is a better quality compression algorithm than h264.

 

[amit190]

What do you call a huge file size? The last video I put on YT was shot in HD DNxHD 185 at 184 Mb/s. It was rendered and upscaled in Resolve Studio to UHD h265 using Super Scale, at 80Mb/s. The resulting file was 5.07GB for 8.5 minutes, to me not large at all. It took YT just over an hour from upload to producing the 4k version.

H265 is a better quality compression algorithm than h264.

Lets start with that Im not going to upload to youtube or anywhere else. These videos are for 4k screen with my family.

For me huge is 1.6gb for 60 seconds. It was h.264 with no limits.

 

[amit190]

What do you call a huge file size? The last video I put on YT was shot in HD DNxHD 185 at 184 Mb/s. It was rendered and upscaled in Resolve Studio to UHD h265 using Super Scale, at 80Mb/s. The resulting file was 5.07GB for 8.5 minutes, to me not large at all. It took YT just over an hour from upload to producing the 4k version.

H265 is a better quality compression algorithm than h264.

 

[winnegehetoch]

What do you call a huge file size? The last video I put on YT was shot in HD DNxHD 185 at 184 Mb/s. It was rendered and upscaled in Resolve Studio to UHD h265 using Super Scale, at 80Mb/s. The resulting file was 5.07GB for 8.5 minutes, to me not large at all. It took YT just over an hour from upload to producing the 4k version.

H265 is a better quality compression algorithm than h264.

Lets start with that Im not going to upload to youtube or anywhere else. These videos are for 4k screen with my family.

For me huge is 1.6gb for 60 seconds. It was h.264 with no limits.

The best compatibility for every user platform is probably guaranteed by using h264, 8-bit, 4:2:0 and Rec.709 for target format.

The h265 typically uses up to around 50% less space for same quality, but older gear or TV's may have problems (Gran'ma' is probably fully up-to-dat, but her sons and daughters?). HDR and 10-bit formats poses extra problems for ordinary users.

If you let YouTube handle the distribution, you can concentrate on the best quality, that you want to support, and let YouTube handle the conversion to target platforms and their capabilities at any given moment (home WiFi is probably far more capable, than inner city mobile on old smartphone).

Whatever you do, the basic parameters and dependencies are::

Less file space used <===> More file space used

Less quality <===> Better quality

More compression <===> Less compression (bitrate)

Smaller "screen" size <=====> Larger "screen" size

You decide the best compromise, but if you decide to use YouTube to distribute, then YouTube will handle all downsizing, (low) quality adjustments needed or even required, for best possible experience at the receiving end (a highly variable commodity, makes politics straightforward in comparison).

A bit simplified: You decide the maximum possible quality at upload time, YouTube will get all the "bad press", if users have to live with speeds available in old Rome/Italy during vacation (here WiFi my Hotel, April 2019, maybe 100m/yards from the Pantheon) :


WiFi speeds in hotel not fat from Pantheon in old Rome in Italy.

Mobile/Cell speeds were often lower. The reason is probably, that you just don't start digging up anything in more than 2000 years old, inner cities in Europe (or Egypt or... or...). You never know, what you "catch" even if permission is given, and if you "catch" something, you never know, when the work you started could be completed.

As is often the case: There's no free meal ;-)

Regards

 

[winnegehetoch]

What do you call a huge file size? The last video I put on YT was shot in HD DNxHD 185 at 184 Mb/s. It was rendered and upscaled in Resolve Studio to UHD h265 using Super Scale, at 80Mb/s. The resulting file was 5.07GB for 8.5 minutes, to me not large at all. It took YT just over an hour from upload to producing the 4k version.

H265 is a better quality compression algorithm than h264.

By the way, what laptop specs do I need in order to run davinci resolve smoothly? Lets say ,taking 20 s-log clips ,each is one minute long ,4k and 25fps.

Do I have to get a gpu? Or can I manage without one , and i5 12th gen and 16gb ram?

These are the document to read (the first a bit long in the teeth but still linked to in the second link):

https://documents.blackmagicdesign.com/ConfigGuides/DaVinci_Resolve_15_Mac_Configuration_Guide.pdf

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=90190

Regards

 

[amit190]

Hello , Im new to video .

The mov files I get from Davinci are huge. how can I solve this without loosing quality? 4k files ...

thanks

You haven't provided any settings detail but I suspect your problem lies with your export video render settings. I suggest you select video codec h265 and a video bit rate limited to 30MB/s as shown in the attached screenshot. This won't give you the absolute best quality but the drop in quality will probably not be noticeable.

Dave

Thanks .

I used the default settings which are h.264 and no bitrate restriction.

Some questions please :

1.why 265 and not 264 ?

2.what bit rate did I used out of the camera? (I have sony a7c and the setteings were 100mb 4k 25fps).

3.why 30,000 and not more or less? Is there any recommendation for bit rate for 4k/1080p?

Thank you

h265 is a newer and more efficient codec.

The bit rate (quality) depends on what you want to do with the video and how much bandwidth is available for video delivery. I use 30MB/s because it gives me the quality I'm satisfied with but I'm just producing videos for personal use. It's a trade off you have to make for your circumstances - file size vs quality. And of course 4K uses more MB/s for a given quality than 1080p. I can't point to any guidelines quickly but others probably can.

Dave

I tried to view the h.265 in VLC player and it doesnt look good , it is choppy/jumpy.

How do you view h.265 on a windows pc?

 

[winnegehetoch]

Have you installed the Microsoft HEVC and HEIF support from the Windows Store?

Around one dollar apiece plus taxes, as far as I remember.

Regards

 

[CanonC100User]

Laptops are not really ideal for Resolve unless they are one of the latest Macs. You will be hard pressed to run 4k S-log without a discrete GPU, which is not something you can add to a laptop.

Resolve is very demanding of the hardware, especially the GPU which is used in both the free and Studio versions for picture processing.

These are the bare minimum specs for running Resolve, either free or Studio, which would allow you to do basic work in HD. If using a Windows machine you will need the Studio version for 10bit video files.







--
DaVinci Resolve Studio, Avid Pro Tools, and a Canon C100 mk2 with an Atomos Ninja 2.

 

[winnegehetoch]

Laptops are not really ideal for Resolve unless they are one of the latest Macs. You will be hard pressed to run 4k S-log without a discrete GPU, which is not something you can add to a laptop.

Resolve is very demanding of the hardware, especially the GPU which is used in both the free and Studio versions for picture processing.

These are the bare minimum specs for running Resolve, either free or Studio, which would allow you to do basic work in HD. If using a Windows machine you will need the Studio version for 10bit video files.

Good to addition to the links.

I don't use my DaVinci Resolve Studio (paid license) full version on any Windows gear.

Compared to even (relatively) cheap Apple Silicon machines, the Intel machines in my machine park lack umpfhhh (very much). Even compared to like equipped old MacBook Pro 13 (4x Thunderbolt) Intel machines.

Regards

 

[NickZ2016]

If you're comparing them to ancient machines I guess so. The general consensus is you need the latest $7000 Mac to come close to a mid range desktop machine. Close but not match.

 

[winnegehetoch]

If you're comparing them to ancient machines I guess so. The general consensus is you need the latest $7000 Mac to come close to a mid range desktop machine. Close but not match.

I love the "general consensus" remark.

There is no such thing, since everybody has different needs, requirements and aspirations.

I can't carry my desktop Mac (far less costly, than your suggestion) and monitor on board an airline, and expect it to arrive at the same time - if ever - when I'm at the destination.

You seem to have a very narrow definition of what is used. No problem. Do you have access to real world machine compares confirming your views?

I can compare machines in the same price racket with good performance - both new and old - and there is absolutely no doubt, that I would never want to be forced to edit material and render output beyond the limits of DaVinchi Resolve free version (I have the licensed Studio version) on a Windows machine in the same price range.

What the future will bring, we'll discover, when it happens. I'm completely OS agnostic, and use OSX, Windows and Unix daily. Currently I prefer OSX on my Apple Silicon.

I work regularly with ProRes RAW 5.9k 12-bit material on my MacBook Pro 14 M1 Pro while on the road, far from any AC outlet, a few times have had to content with diesel generator between 17:00 and 22:00, if I wanted anything somewhat similar to standard AC power - give and take a lot), and NO comparable Windows machine with the same memory or SSD (and external SSD's) will render at anything near the same speed for complicated edits.

That's before we talk endurance when running on battery, where comparable Windows machines are extremely "thirsty" in comparison, solving the exact same DaVinchi Resolve Studio projects.

And my machine isn't even anywhere near half the price you suggest.

If you prefer using a Windows desktop machine, it's absolutely fine with me. Why would I be bothered?

 

[NickZ2016]

Go to the Resolve forum and ask the pros what they believe. Most of who are using multiple large monitors. The computer power requirements aren't much compared to a two or three 32" monitors.

A mid range desktop today will likely have a 4070 or higher. Faster and more memory and storage.

You're impressed with the M1? Great. I'm not.

It's funny how Apple not quite matching the media decoder Intel shipped in 2019 is considered ground breaking.

 

[bing041]

1. NickZ2016 wrote:

If you're comparing them to ancient machines I guess so. The general consensus is you need the latest $7000 Mac to come close to a mid range desktop machine. Close but not match.

There you go again, regurgitating what you read on the internet with zero direct knowledge based on actual experience.

And, once again, you are spreading false information. You are not even getting right what you think you have read. Maybe you just aren't keeping up too.

See those 12bit RAW 8K videos with multiple soundtracks I have posted? They have been edited, color graded, and produced with zero glitches on a $1,000 m2 mac mini with 16GB of RAM. DaVinci Resolve Studio.

And HDR 8K videos color graded and rendered on a laptop - MacPro m1 max. DaVinci Resolve Studio.

My Windows i7 gaming desktop with 8GB graphics card and 32 GB RAM costing much more chokes on these videos.

And the rendered files are 10bit HEVC 70 Mbps, looking great on YouTube and equally so on Vimeo, contrary to your earlier assertions, again based on what you think you read.

 

[winnegehetoch]

Go to the Resolve forum and ask the pros what they believe. Most of who are using multiple large monitors. The computer power requirements aren't much compared to a two or three 32" monitors.

I know no true Pro, that believes in only one solution for all use cases.

You seem to be of the false impression, that one size fits all.

By the way, I am frequently on the DaVinci forum. Are you?

I also have the payed DaVinci Resolve Studio versions for a very long time. In effect, I have support, when required.

You?

A mid range desktop today will likely have a 4070 or higher. Faster and more memory and storage.

You're impressed with the M1? Great. I'm not.

It's funny how Apple not quite matching the media decoder Intel shipped in 2019 is considered ground breaking.

My machine was shipped 22. January 2022 (factory creation date),

And your machine?

 

[bing041]

You're impressed with the M1? Great. I'm not.

Ok, what experience do you have yourself with a Mac M1. What machine did you use? What video did you attempt to edit? Or is this based on another of your misreadings of internet chatter?

 

[winnegehetoch]

In short, they recommend up to 35Mbps for 4K at 30fps, and 68Mbps for 4K 60fps.

Please note that is mega BYTES / second (capital M), while your Sony camera is measured in mega BITs (lower-case M). And if I recall correctly, there are 8 bits to a byte, so 100 mega BITS / second from your a7C would equal 12.5 mega BYTES (please verify this as I have been wrong before.)

As far as I'm aware, video bit rate is always measured in Mega Bits per second. File size is in Megabytes ie 1000000 bytes (or Mebibytes ie 1,048,576 bytes).

Dave

In most cases, you're right, but this does NOT make MB equal Megabits (MB=megabyte, Mb=megabit).

Most people happily do their best to misuse/confuse these two abbreviations.

If you want to avoid any confusion, why not simple tell it like it is: "megabit" or "megabyte"? That way everybody knows, what you're talking about.

If you start using "mebibyte" instead of "megabyte", you may be correct, but with near certainty not understood. The difference is a trifle below 5%, and compared to the confusion around the difference between MB and Mb nothing.

Regards and a big smile

Yes Mb/s or Mbps (or Kb/s and Kbps) are the common abbreviations for video bit rate. File sizes in bytes are MB or MiB (Mebibyte). I mention the latter because some programs such as MediaInfo specify the file size in MiB. Confusion can arise when MiB is not spefically stated - a case in point is in Windows File Explorer where it states the capacity of a drive in GiB but identifies it as GB. Meanwhile the drive supplier states the drive size in actual GB and the two don't correspond.

Cheers Dave

There are lot's of variations of accidentally or intended misuse of known terms.

What I tried to convey, is, when we spell out what we mean "megabyte, mebibyte, megabit or mebibit), there can never be doubt about the actual meaning.

This I regard as a huge benefit ;-)

Regerads

 

[amit190]

What do you call a huge file size? The last video I put on YT was shot in HD DNxHD 185 at 184 Mb/s. It was rendered and upscaled in Resolve Studio to UHD h265 using Super Scale, at 80Mb/s. The resulting file was 5.07GB for 8.5 minutes, to me not large at all. It took YT just over an hour from upload to producing the 4k version.

H265 is a better quality compression algorithm than h264.

 

[CanonC100User]

I have no problem playing h265 videos in VLC or Windows Media Player.