This is why you should never ever upload 1080 HD

[Brojon]

Same arguments people have with print size and viewing distance vs pixel peepers.
I just had a similar argument with some folks that poo-poo'd the Mavic because the sensor was "only" 12 mp and wasn't fit for large prints.
I guess video has the same misperceptions.
Not to say I think 1080 is a good size to shoot - but rather a 1080 display is perfectly adequate at recommended viewing distances.
Heck - you can go to a theater and sit in the front row and pick apart even the newest digital movies from Hollywood for clarity and sharpness. It simply means you're too close.

 

[Dronefriend]

Same arguments people have with print size and viewing distance vs pixel peepers.
I just had a similar argument with some folks that poo-poo'd the Mavic because the sensor was "only" 12 mp and wasn't fit for large prints.
I guess video has the same misperceptions.
Not to say I think 1080 is a good size to shoot - but rather a 1080 display is perfectly adequate at recommended viewing distances.
Heck - you can go to a theater and sit in the front row and pick apart even the newest digital movies from Hollywood for clarity and sharpness. It simply means you're too close.

A 1080p display can be great. 1080p resolution can be great.

1080p YouTube is not great. It is terrible. Vimeo is only slightly better. Not about pixel peeping. If you cannot see the difference, your eyesight might be not so great anymore (and no offense if this is the case!)

It is like comparing a .png with a very lossy .jpg.

1080p 422 ProRes is fine for archiving a master.
A high bitrate h.264 can work too. But a very lossy h264 is just utter terrible..

 

[Brojon]

A 1080p display can be great. 1080p resolution can be great.

1080p YouTube is not great. It is terrible. Vimeo is only slightly better. Not about pixel peeping. If you cannot see the difference, your eyesight might be not so great anymore (and no offense if this is the case!)

It is like comparing a .png with a very lossy .jpg.

1080p 422 ProRes is fine for archiving a master.
A high bitrate h.264 can work too. But a very lossy h264 is just utter terrible..

There have been entire tutorials written on how to upload to Youtube and Vimeo to counteract the crappy conversions.
Of course people notice how crappy it is - what exactly would you expect given that the service is free and Google has to host all that video.
You think they're going to go deluxe for free?
No. They default compress like a can crusher.

 

[Dronefriend]

There have been entire tutorials written on how to upload to Youtube and Vimeo to counteract the crappy conversions.
Of course people notice how crappy it is - what exactly would you expect given that the service is free and Google has to host all that video.
You think they're going to go deluxe for free?
No. They default compress like a can crusher.

Nope not expecting high bitrate for free. Just merely saying that uploading in 2K or 4K will yield better results. Not sure if a 1080p display can view 2K+ though, maybe the browser caps out at 1080?

 

[andy_k]

applying the same arguemtn as the OP, his 2k footage isn't going to look great on my 4K monitor - now, I'm not going to tell everyone to start shooting 4K because I've got a bigger/better monitor than them. I'm going to accept that currently most people are viewing on 1080p screens or phones and sharing stuff on Youtube and Vimeo is not a measure of the quality of your recording - the overall quality of your video on these platforms matters to one person - you. All the rest of don't expect great things because we are streaming low bitrate versions of the files which are really 4k only in name

As has been said, most broadcast HDTV is only transmitted at 720p - Amazon and Sky (here in the UK) broadcast a very small selection of their total output in 1080p and even less in 4K - at one stage, the only way top stream 1080p movies here in the UK was via an XBox as their movie channel was 'full HD'

Dronefriend has hit the nail on the head - it's all about bitrate

 

[andy_k]

Not sure if a 1080p display can view 2K+ though, maybe the browser caps out at 1080?

it won't have native support so the device will add another layer of conversion/compression which is why you they tend to look horrible when you try and view above the native resolution of the screen

 

[Rockett Drone Works]

Been watching my Apple TV with as many 4k movies as possible. I also shoot in 5k with my Red Scarlet W. If you can't tell the difference good for you! You will save some money!

 

[LarBear360]

Look at how much money the music industry throws at recording music and ultimately everything winds up on MP3 played through ear buds from Walmart. Only the hard-core audiophiles really care.

Ditto with video. When I made my living producing corporate video, we were obsessed with shooting in the highest quality possible only to eventually dump everything down and distribute on VHS, because that's what the customer and their intended audience used.

If you are flying commercially, I agree you should start out with the best possible image but it's not as critical as it once was. Let the customer decide what works best for them. For casual use, nobody watching your YouTube channel cares.

And here again, if you're shooting at 3AM in the morning and it's raining, and you have a 50" 4K curved screen TV in your living room, and you want to see the rain drops, you MUST shoot in 4K. :>

 

[Rockett Drone Works]

Yes, but iPhones are getting better. TV's are getting better. Etc, etc. Red is about to release the Hydrogen phone with holographic capability. We push for better everyday. To just lie down and say, "oh well, the world isn't there yet." is a cop out.



Y

Look at how much money the music industry throws at recording music and ultimately everything winds up on MP3 played through ear buds from Walmart. Only the hard-core audiophiles really care.

Ditto with video. When I made my living producing corporate video, we were obsessed with shooting in the highest quality possible only to eventually dump everything down and distribute on VHS, because that's what the customer and their intended audience used.

If you are flying commercially, I agree you should start out with the best possible image but it's not as critical as it once was. Let the customer decide what works best for them. For casual use, nobody watching your YouTube channel cares.

And here again, if you're shooting at 3AM in the morning and it's raining, and you have a 50" 4K curved screen TV in your living room, and you want to see the rain drops, you MUST shoot in 4K. :>

 

[Brojon]

Look at how much money the music industry throws at recording music and ultimately everything winds up on MP3 played through ear buds from Walmart. Only the hard-core audiophiles really care.
Ditto with video.

I agree and see this as a general decline in quality across all the creative industries.
People no longer care about prints - they want digital to post on Facebook.
Magazines are printing some of the worst images I've seen in 50 years - some appear to be from microstock.
The general perception and care about the arts is in decline.

 

[LarBear360]

Yes, but iPhones are getting better. TV's are getting better. Etc, etc. Red is about to release the Hydrogen phone with holographic capability. We push for better everyday. To just lie down and say, "oh well, the world isn't there yet." is a cop out
Y

Right! And Ampex was releasing Quadrophonic. And Sony Betamax. When the world catches up, the prices for this stuff will have come way down. Upgrading will be a breeze and not as expensive. And it might even be better than what we have available now!

 

[Phil Tuggle]

From my perspective, the primary concern is audience expectation, followed by the "cost vs benefits" of 1080 vs 2K or 4K or whatever.

For my clients, they are really not equipped to view 4K for the most part and actually really appreciate 1080p. On the other hand, the costs, computing power requirements, and time involved in editing 4K are just too much to handle at this point in time (for me), AND, since I deliver my work electronically (vs a flash drive in the postal mail), upload speeds tie up the computer far too long to be "worth it" (again, for me...and my clients). That will change of course as progress is made, especially in computer power, internet data transfer speeds and the commonality of 4K TV's and monitors, etc.

 

[Droning in AR]

And in today's world, most of the people will be watching it on their phone. Just Saying..............

I work for a TV station and we don't even send out better than 720p.

^^ BOTH of these. ^^

If you take drone video and upload it to the internet, 99% of ALL viewers won't be able to watch it in anything over 1080p.

1% of the viewers will, but what kind of incentive is that? If you were making a product to bring to market, would you want 1% of the population to be able to purchase it, or would you target the other 99%?

Now, I am 100% for high def, and 4k all the way. I have 32" and 55" screens, and there is obviously a HUGE difference between 1080p and 4k on screens of that size. But when the majority of internet viewers use their phone, a laptop, or an 18" (or less) size monitor, well, like Sagebrush posted - wait maybe 5 years.

 

[BarryWilson]

Reproducing screen grabs does not tell the story unless viewing distance if factored in. To a person with 20/20 vision 1080 will look the same at 10ft from an 80” screen as 2k does at around 7 feet. Yes it does all seem to fall apart when you get in close but at usual viewing distances the differences are nowhere near as clear as might be expected.

I looked at new 4K television as compared to my current 1080p and you couldn't convience me to upgrade 2 years ago. I was comparing a SONY Bravia XBR 929 with local dimming array to the 4K that were out at the time. My television looked BETTER at a normal viewing distance of about 8 to 10 feet than the 4k. If you got with in a few feet the 4k did in fact have better resoulution. Problem is you can't view from that close. So the frequency rate of the Bravia with infinite color palette using local dimming array vs. Edge lit made the older 1080P better visually. So in the same regard you can't compare what you view on big televisions to desktop monitors either because they are designed for best viewing distance. I'm waiting for the 4k and 5k technology to refine and improve itself and come down in to a reasonable price range.

 

[Travels with Yoly]

I was quite surprised at how affordable quality 4K flat screens have become lately. I saw nice Samsung 58 inch UHD 4K units on sale at WalMart for $598 this month. Makes me think of the 60 inch 1080p LED Samsung I bought years ago for $2K. I shoot and edit in 4K and upload to my YouTube channel. My ISP and download speed won't buffer 4K but I can usually watch any video in 1440p and I see a noticeable difference between that and 1080p (on my 30 inch Dell 4K monitor). Windows Media Player won't even play a 4K file (maybe just the codec wasn't recognized, I'm not sure). I had to purchase a separate video player just to view my files.

 

[Rockett Drone Works]

The higher the quality, the more futureproof.

 

[andy_k]

The higher the quality, the more futureproof.

optimistic and probably the best we can hope for but probably not true

 

[Brojon]

The higher the quality, the more futureproof.

As far as archival footage to be used as stock - absolutely true.

 

[andy_k]

As far as archival footage to be used as stock - absolutely true.

much of the 'archive footage' we see today is of incredibly poor quality (even for the time it was shot) that doesn't make it any less relevant. Content is far more important than quality

 

[Rockett Drone Works]

much of the 'archive footage' we see today is of incredibly poor quality (even for the time it was shot) that doesn't make it any less relevant. Content is far more important than quality

Of course, but you strive for the best.