"JGrabowMSt" (jgrabowmst)
07/03/2016 at 15:59 • Filed to: 40 cores 128gb of RAM
0
13|
"JGrabowMSt" (jgrabowmst)
07/03/2016 at 15:59 • Filed to: 40 cores 128gb of RAM | 0
| 13 |
Who has fast internet? Rate the quality on a scale of 1 to 10. The cameras were cheap, so I expect no 10s. Merely curious how 4k works for you guys.
Also, if you’re on mobile and want to have some fun, if any of you have Cardboard, tell me how this looks:
Also a cheap camera, nothing spectacular, but do let me know what you think about the quality and what you would like to see in 360. I may be able to make it happen.
CB
> JGrabowMSt
07/03/2016 at 16:07 |
|
Now I’m wondering how much 4k monitors cost, and whether it’s something I should invest in for a future PC build.
scoob
> JGrabowMSt
07/03/2016 at 16:10 |
|
Is it still encoding? Even 1080p looks and sounds... not great.
gin-san - shitpost specialist
> JGrabowMSt
07/03/2016 at 16:12 |
|
For 4k video that’s not right at all. At times it looks like it almost is HD but mostly looks like it’s 240p. I’d say 4/10.
The bottom video looks a bit more acceptable to me. I’d say 5/10.
|
JGrabowMSt
> CB
07/03/2016 at 16:16 |
|
I currently upload all of my photography in 4k, but I don’t intend on upgrading to a 4k monitor just yet. For me to upgrade to 4k, I would have to get larger displays (I currently have 21.5" 1080p displays), and they wouldn’t fit well on my desk. I use a dual monitor stand, but I would have to go to at least a 24" display, and while it doesn’t sound like much, it’s a big jump from what I’m working with now.
I don’t see gaming going very far with 4k until games become multi-threaded and can take full advantage of hyperthreading. Could just be me, but a good deal of plugins for Premiere (my editing software of choice) still can’t take advantage of GPU rendering. Some can, and After Effects can very well, but there’s no much benefit still. Until I see more benefit, I’ll probably upgrade to a Quadro K5000, but wont go to a 4k display just yet. I’ve talked to other people who claim to be amazing editors (I’ve seen their work, they’re good, but they aren’t ready for a 4k workflow), and they were convinced they were going to go to a current gen Mac Pro with 4k displays by now. I’ve got two 4k cameras, and the only issue I had was importing and exporting. I was able to work around it and get 4k presets that work (hence why I need people to watch and tell me their opinion of the quality), but I’m also a freaking hardware nerd with obscene specs that are way higher than a loaded Mac Pro.
But in short and back to the original point, I’m really hard pressed to see 4k go very far. The jump to 1080 took a long time, and the extra bandwidth needed for 4k is not going to see OTA use any time soon. For basic users, 1080 is what I would recommend, and for gaming, 1080p is still “high end.” 4k on a gaming machine requires going to multiple GPUs, and unless it’s something you’re concerned about having/running, I wouldn’t even bother. If you get a deal, obviously, go for it. Never hurts to have, but I wouldn’t hold my breath over it.
facw
> JGrabowMSt
07/03/2016 at 16:35 |
|
Sorry, at 4K (being displayed on a 2560x1600 screen), it was super blocky, and had some weird compression artifacts. Looked like 480p or lower that had just been upscaled. Maybe YouTube is still compressing, but I think normally they just don’t show the higher res options in that case.
Edit: Screenshot. Kinja will scale it down, but you should be able to get to the full-sized image:
Edit 2: Scaling down actually looks a bit better as it takes the edge off the jaggies. Look at full res, and it appears roughly like you are driving through Need for Speed 1 or something.
|
JGrabowMSt
> scoob
07/03/2016 at 16:37 |
|
I actually don’t know. It’s been uploaded for a while, but it doesn’t give a progress bar as far as YouTube’s processing goes. I had the video error out on me more than once, so I suspect it may still be processing, or YouTube ate the video and shat it out before making it available.
That said, the cameras I used were not anything special, but I would expect something better than what YouTube is currently showing.
|
JGrabowMSt
> gin-san - shitpost specialist
07/03/2016 at 16:37 |
|
It may not be finished processing on YouTube’s end. There’s no progress bar, so I don’t know.
|
JGrabowMSt
> facw
07/03/2016 at 16:39 |
|
Must not be finished then. This is the first time I’ve uploaded 4k, so I have no idea how long it will take to process. It certainly should look at least a little better than that.
|
JGrabowMSt
> facw
07/03/2016 at 16:55 |
|
By no means am I going to say this footage is high end (the cameras were $115 together), but for being that cost, the 4k performance isn’t terrible. This is a still frame directly from the Premiere timeline. You can read the lettering on the Yamaha bike, so it’s not terrible, but I’m certainly not going to compare this to a RED.
|
facw
> JGrabowMSt
07/03/2016 at 16:56 |
|
Yeah, that’s more what I would expect.
|
JGrabowMSt
> facw
07/03/2016 at 17:09 |
|
I’m rendering out a new video, I’ll replace the one that’s uploaded now and compare the quality. My internet is shit, so I’ll upload it at my girlfriends house tonight and see what it looks like. I tweaked some render settings based on some YouTube recommendations, we’ll see what happens.
|
JGrabowMSt
> facw
07/03/2016 at 20:44 |
|
Just finished uploading the new one. It will probably be some time before 4k becomes fully available, but I think it looks significantly better now. Not quite sure what was going on, but hopefully I don’t run into the same problem again.
|
facw
> JGrabowMSt
07/03/2016 at 21:00 |
|
Yeah, that’s a lot better. Still some blockiness, presumably from compression, but no longer looks like it was filmed with a 0.5MP camera.