-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Davinci file size
- Thread starter amit190
- Start date
Dave_J_E
Forum Enthusiast
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 .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
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
Dave_J_E
Forum Enthusiast
h265 is a newer and more efficient codec.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
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
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
About twice as efficient as H264. 30-50MBs should be fine for 4K.
Off The Mark
Veteran Member
If you are uploading to YouTube, they provide a list of recommended bitrates that vary by resolution and frame rates. You can see it on this page:
YouTube recommended upload encoding settings - YouTube Help
These features are only available to partners who use YouTube Studio Content Manager. Below are recommended upload encoding settings for your videos on YouTube. Container: MP4
support.google.com
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.)
For uploading 1080p, Youtube reccomends 8Mbps for up to 30fps, and 12Mbps for up to 60fps.
Pro tip: Even if you are shooting in 1080p, if you are going to upload to youtube, a lot of people reccomend using a 4K timeline / rendering at 4K, since youtube applies a lot more compression to 1080p video than to 4K video.
Just opinion, no facts statment: Vimeo has better quality than youtube, but you pay for it.
In my experience most people consider the YT upload standards too low . YT no matter what you uploads tends to mangle things. But the better the file you upload the more care they take. I've seen people suggesting uploading DNX . Now those are large files.
Hearsay. Your "experience" is what people claim!
I have uploaded 100's of videos to YouTube. 4K, 8K, 5K. Average rendered bitrate is 50Mbps HEVC. I have, I think, high standards of image quality, and I find the quality of my videos streamed on YouTube quite good (by which I mean compared to the original), streamed at the highest resolution. None of my videos were "mangled."
Anyone can look at my videos on YouTube @markr041 or in this forum (markr041 or bing041) and judge for yourself. Experience the videos.
Dave_J_E
Forum Enthusiast
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
Off The Mark
Veteran Member
Good to know. thanks.
Do you have access to a lot of original videos? How do you acquire them, other than your own? And the comparison is not "SOOC" but with a rendered video uploaded to YouTube. Few people upload clips straight from the camera. So, the weak link can be the rendering before uploading.
Lots of pro videographers, like Philip Bloom, upload to YouTube. They do not assert their videos are "mangled." Nikon and Sony and other manufactures post demonstration videos from its cameras using YouTube to show how good the quality is. Do you think they would do that if they thought the results were "mangled"?
No one is arguing the streaming quality is identical to the originals that were uploaded. But the quality is now quite good when people know how to render their own videos.
And the point of this thread is how to best render for uploading.
Wait who doesn't claim that YT videos are worse ? Vimeo has already been mentioned for higher quality. There might be a million discussions on how to get the best possible results uploading to YT. In the old days the suggestion was to upload in 4K even if the source was FHD or lower. That tricked YT into giving you less compression.
During Covid YT dropped quality even more to lower the stress on the net.
None of the companies that use Youtube for marketing are using it because of the quality. They're doing it because of the audience.
During Covid YT dropped quality even more to lower the stress on the net.
None of the companies that use Youtube for marketing are using it because of the quality. They're doing it because of the audience.
I agree they are using YouTube for the audience, but they would not if they thought the quality was so bad their cameras would look bad (the video from them).
You just seem to parrot what you read on the internet. And much of the information, such as some of yours ("mangled"), is just plain wrong. You should actually check out some of the stuff you read and repeat. Check which are correct and which not. Render a video yourself properly and upload it to see, for example. Start with making sure your rendered video looks as good as the OOC clips.
I have a Vimeo account. I do not see a great deal of difference from my uploaded videos on YouTube and Vimeo. One big advantage of Vimeo is that they retain the uploaded original and any user can download it. Thus one can actually compare the original uploaded video to the streaming version (at the same resolution).
I have created a thread with the same video on Vimeo and YouTube and also with the capability to download the original just to show you and others the YouTube streaming version (at the same, highest resolution) is actually pretty good, when one properly renders a video. @NickZ2016 You should look to see that your comment on YouTube video quality and Vimeo is wrong.
In DaVinci Resolve Studio, rendering a 4K video at 50Mbps HEVC gives you a nice YouTube version. That is my experience.
Last edited:
winnegehetoch
Leading Member
Youtube allows high quality delivery, if you stream on high quality connections (most users do not, at least not while using shared mobile networks).
Just because your typical male user has the best and meanest and biggest and fastest smartphone on earth, doesn't mean, that his bad mobile connection (shared with maybe a dozen to tens of other users at any moment in populated, high rise inner cities) can or will deliver the same ~70-100 megabit/s 4k video speeds, I get as a standard on my 600/600 bit full duplex fibre optic connection.
As an example: In inner city old part of Rome/Italy 5 megabit download/streaming speed is pure luxury). Nothing will allow YouTube to deliver better quality in this example.
The big advantage with using YouTube is, that YouTube is very adept at adjusting throughput to actual line capacity and reliability.
You certainly won't get the best quality everywhere, but chances are, that you always get the best possible quality at any given moment. Otherwise many if not most smartphone users would have inordinate big problems receiving anything in daytime use;-)
Regards
winnegehetoch
Leading Member
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
Dave_J_E
Forum Enthusiast
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
Last edited:
sludge21017
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,624
- Solutions
- 8
- Reaction score
- 1,424
One person's huge file size can be pretty small to someone else.
Turn down your bit rate.
I had a 118GB exported file the other week. Took Youtube 5 days to convert.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum