new gopro question

[pyrate]

Wow- all that for a YouTube video! Do you think most people can tell the difference?

I'm not "dissing" you, I'm sure your videos are awesome! It just sounds like like a lot of work for a web video.

My head is spinning..

Some people run a car through the car wash at the corner
others spend hours hand washing in the driveway, both cars are clean but one holds up better under scrutiny

 

[SurfnSkate81]

That was gold Pyrate! Might be a lot of work for a web video but have guys seen how many low quality videos are on YouTube?

Kudos to anyone who has the time to spend making their video as good as it can be. Those really good videos serve as inspiration for many of us to get out there get some of that good stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maddog]

Some people run a car through the car wash at the corner
others spend hours hand washing in the driveway, both cars are clean but one holds up better under scrutiny

Touché amigo!

 

[pyrate]

not to mention, as an experience goes, exiting a auto wash cant touch the satisfaction I get out of the shine of a freshly hand waxed car

 

[Kmd1984]

Just my opinion. but the statement "8k in a sensor that small is kinda stupid" invokes a lot of negative reaction. I think a better statement might have been "Personally, 8k in a sensor that small wouldn't be of much use today, in my opinion". Instead, you posted it more of a fact. Just my opinion. YMMV

Not sure why people would react [to my opinion] like I just made a ruling on it?! On top of that, why react negative? It is just an opinion.

Having said that, I agree though. I could have worded it differently. Making it more obvious that it is just my opinion. : )

Now. I personally don't care about 8k in the new GoPro, or any other camera for that matter. I am struggling already working with 4k, ha ha. I believe they should "fix" things like Fisheye first. Speaking of Fisheye... GoPro really screwed up [of course this is only my opinion and not a FACT]. If I would have been in charge, I would have "noticed" that sooooo many MR out there were and still are using GoPros. How hard would it have been for GP to make an exchangeable lens? One without Fisheye?! Not hard at all. Also, from what I heard, DJI approached them about making a camera for them, or at least....

Hold on....

 

[SurfnSkate81]

Well of course it depends on the project. How much work so the clips need (stabilization, etc). What's the delivery resolution, etc.

Anyway, the general workflow is:

1. Import from GoPro directly to FinalCut. Do NOT optimize (transcode) or create proxies.
2. Rough cut.
3. Remove noise (Neat Video) if needed.
4. Render noise cleaned clips to ProRes 422, which is high enough quality for 4K GoPro footage.
5. Replace clips in timeline with new noise free 422 renders. Now every time I make a little tweak to those clips, I don't have to wait for them to re-render (Neat is processor intensive).
6. Stabalize all clips
7. Remove fisheye if desired (I shoot with a rectilinear lens, so don't need to do this much).
8. Render complete timeline out as seperate ProRes 422 clips and open in Resolve 12 (resolve not good with h.264 files). You can also import the XML into Resolve, but I just do each clip individually because personal preference (would take too many words to discuss here).
9. Color correct in resolve.
10. Color grade in resolve.
11. Export all clips from resolve (still ProRes 422)
12. Back in Final Cut, replace all clips in timeline with color corrected/graded clips from resolve.
13. Tighten up the edit: trim clips to taste, add effects, add titles, add transitions
14. Export Master File in full 4K ProRes 422 for archival purposes.
15. Export to 1080P for web delivery.

That's most common for me. If editing to music, then you really have to tighten up the edit right away. This usually involves rendering lots of test clips and round tripping to resolve to see if they will work. Basically there ends up being a lot of round tripping between final cut and resolve. For personal stuff I may not use resolve at all - final cut's color boards are fine (or I use the Color Finale plugin).

Hope that helps.

@erikgraham Thanks for your workflow. What ProRes quality are you using? Im assuming its the same throughout your workflow? What software or plugin are you using to stabilise? Are you doing stabilise and fisheye removal in FCPX?

I have thought about getting FCPX, I had them all back in the day then moved out of the industry. I can't believe that these days its $1500 cheaper than it used to be, but I thought I would start off spending the least amount of cash I could getting back in the game so I went with Resolve Lite.

Final Cut ($500) with Neat Video would cost me around AUD$660 vs Resolve Lite (free) with Neat Video AUD$360.

What are the main advantages from your point of view in using FCPX in your workflow?

Bear in mind I'm working on a MacBook Pro late 2011 with 2.2GHz i7, 16GB RAM & and a teeny tiny 512MB GPU. Up until now (so far only done some test footage) I have been down converting 4K wide or 2.7K medium to 1080p CineForm with GoPro Studio then playing around in Resolve.

 

[erikgraham]

Wow- all that for a YouTube video! Do you think most people can tell the difference?

I'm not "dissing" you, I'm sure your videos are awesome! It just sounds like like a lot of work for a web video.

My head is spinning..

Who said anything about YouTube videos?

When someone is asking about the Black Magic assistant, Davinci Resolve, which codec to edit in, etc., it's a good bet they aren't looking for YouTube tips. No, I think when they specifically ask about workflow in that context, they are looking for some detail.
(maybe you didn't see the original post the question came from?)

The devil really is in the details. Like importing directly into final cut instead of using GoPro studio. Some people think you must use GoPro Studio to import, or they think you get higher quality that way.

Or that by rendering only just the clips you actually use to ProRes 422, over a few months you will save mountains of disk space - hundreds of gigabytes, even terabytes depending on how busy you are.

So actually, to answer your question, yeah...
If I had a YouTube account, which I don't, I would still do pretty much the same thing.

It just sounds like a lot, but it all becomes automatic.

 

[erikgraham]

@erikgraham Thanks for your workflow. What ProRes quality are you using? Im assuming its the same throughout your workflow?

ProRes 422. That is more than enough for 4K GoPro Protune footage. And I mean just 422, not 422 (HQ) which gains you nothing in image quality when starting with GoPro footage. Also note that in that workflow, I hold off transcoding to 422 until I have to. Ultimately, I only transcode the portions of the clips that are used in the timeline. I do this to save time and disk space, and because Final Cut (unlike Resolve) can edit GoPros 4K h.264 files just fine. I can even edit h.264 at 4K on 2013 MacBook if I want to.

What software or plugin are you using to stabilise? Are you doing stabilise and fisheye removal in FCPX?

Mostly use Final Cuts stabilizer. Also use warp stabilizer in after effects. Looking into www.reelsteady.com

I have thought about getting FCPX, I had them all back in the day then moved out of the industry. I can't believe that these days its $1500 cheaper than it used to be, but I thought I would start off spending the least amount of cash I could getting back in the game so I went with Resolve Lite.

I'm hear Resolve's new non linear editor is everything from OK to very good. Haven't really used it beyond loading clips to use on the color tab. If your on a Mac, isn't iMovie free? It has a stabilizer - and you'd be learning a similar user interface.

Final Cut ($500) with Neat Video would cost me around AUD$660 vs Resolve Lite (free) with Neat Video AUD$360.

Don't get Neat Video or any noise removal software at all. Just shoot in good light and you won't have noise anyway.

If noise removal is a must, then note that the full version of Resolve has good noise removal tools. What would that cost you versus getting Neat?
And let's not forget iMovie - even if it's not free it will be cheap.

A quick note: If your getting back into the game after some years, its an Adobe world now. The jump from Final Cut 7 to X was a disaster and Adobe Premiere has taken over, along with their other software like after effects.

What are the main advantages from your point of view in using FCPX in your workflow?

If your asking why I use Final Cut, it's just personal comfort level. If your asking about the workflow, it's a pretty standard workflow. It does help save disk space since you only transcode the portions of clips you use to 422.

That's probably one big disadvantage to using Resolve 12 on your MacBook. Resolve's performance editing h.264 is poor. That forces you to transcode to 422, and that means massive file sizes.

Bear in mind I'm working on a MacBook Pro late 2011 with 2.2GHz i7, 16GB RAM & and a teeny tiny 512MB GPU. Up until now (so far only done some test footage) I have been down converting 4K wide or 2.7K medium to 1080p CineForm with GoPro Studio then playing around in Resolve.

I think downscaling to 1080P is smart and your not missing much. First of all, things are progressing fast, but for now I think 1080P is more than enough for the web. Second, when you shoot in 4K or 2.7K, and downscale to 1080P, you get a sharper picture with better color and detail than if you shoot at 1080p to start. Also, downscaling reduces noise a bit if there is any.

 

[pyrate]

I just opened a vimeo account and going to give it a try
truth is most of my video is not for public consumption and ends up on discs

 

[Soloing]

If I am not sure, how "good" my computer will perform using a specific program, and that program is not available as a trial or demo version, I just download it from a torrent site.

That way I get at least a chance to evaluate the software before I buy it... If I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I uninstall it and look for something else.

Just to be clear. I am not saying that you should download pirated software and be done with it... [emoji6]

 

[Maddog]

Who said anything about YouTube videos?

When someone is asking about the Black Magic assistant, Davinci Resolve, which codec to edit in, etc., it's a good bet they aren't looking for YouTube tips. No, I think when they specifically ask about workflow in that context, they are looking for some detail.
(maybe you didn't see the original post the question came from?)

The devil really is in the details. Like importing directly into final cut instead of using GoPro studio. Some people think you must use GoPro Studio to import, or they think you get higher quality that way.

Or that by rendering only just the clips you actually use to ProRes 422, over a few months you will save mountains of disk space - hundreds of gigabytes, even terabytes depending on how busy you are.

So actually, to answer your question, yeah...
If I had a YouTube account, which I don't, I would still do pretty much the same thing.

It just sounds like a lot, but it all becomes automatic.

You're right- my bad. I forgot what was at the beginning of the thread.

 

[Maddog]

ProRes 422. That is more than enough for 4K GoPro Protune footage. And I mean just 422, not 422 (HQ) which gains you nothing in image quality when starting with GoPro footage. Also note that in that workflow, I hold off transcoding to 422 until I have to. Ultimately, I only transcode the portions of the clips that are used in the timeline. I do this to save time and disk space, and because Final Cut (unlike Resolve) can edit GoPros 4K h.264 files just fine. I can even edit h.264 at 4K on 2013 MacBook if I want to.

Mostly use Final Cuts stabilizer. Also use warp stabilizer in after effects. Looking into www.reelsteady.com

I'm hear Resolve's new non linear editor is everything from OK to very good. Haven't really used it beyond loading clips to use on the color tab. If your on a Mac, isn't iMovie free? It has a stabilizer - and you'd be learning a similar user interface.

Don't get Neat Video or any noise removal software at all. Just shoot in good light and you won't have noise anyway.

If noise removal is a must, then note that the full version of Resolve has good noise removal tools. What would that cost you versus getting Neat?
And let's not forget iMovie - even if it's not free it will be cheap.

A quick note: If your getting back into the game after some years, its an Adobe world now. The jump from Final Cut 7 to X was a disaster and Adobe Premiere has taken over, along with their other software like after effects.

If your asking why I use Final Cut, it's just personal comfort level. If your asking about the workflow, it's a pretty standard workflow. It does help save disk space since you only transcode the portions of clips you use to 422.

That's probably one big disadvantage to using Resolve 12 on your MacBook. Resolve's performance editing h.264 is poor. That forces you to transcode to 422, and that means massive file sizes.

I think downscaling to 1080P is smart and your not missing much. First of all, things are progressing fast, but for now I think 1080P is more than enough for the web. Second, when you shoot in 4K or 2.7K, and downscale to 1080P, you get a sharper picture with better color and detail than if you shoot at 1080p to start. Also, downscaling reduces noise a bit if there is any.

For those of us who can only shoot 2.7K at 30 FPS, is that still better than starting with 1080P @ 60 FPS?

 

[pyrate]

not necessarily
depends on your goal.
60 FPS is better overall and when you need to have the option for slow motion or are filming fast moving action, and lighting is good. Some say helps reduce vibration, not sure about that
30 FPS is better in low light, and when you are moving slow with no fast moving objects that will cause blur

2.7k is almost always preferable to 1080p for filming, but not necessarily required
It allows you to shoot at higher resolution which will help with sharpness when scaled to 1080
Or
You can maintain 1080p resolution and use the extra frame size to crop your action, basically adding zoom and or the ability to pan and center subjects.

 

[Maddog]

not necessarily
depends on your goal.
60 FPS is better overall and when you need to have the option for slow motion or are filming fast moving action, and lighting is good. Some say helps reduce vibration, not sure about that
30 FPS is better in low light, and when you are moving slow with no fast moving objects that will cause blur

2.7k is almost always preferable to 1080p for filming, but not necessarily required
It allows you to shoot at higher resolution which will help with sharpness when scaled to 1080
Or
You can maintain 1080p resolution and use the extra frame size to crop your action, basically adding zoom and or the ability to pan and center subjects.

Thanks- was primarily concerned with the frame rate. I think I'll just go shoot some test video both ways and see how it looks.

 

[pyrate]

It really is the only way to know what you like, so much of this is subjective
I like the slow frame rate look, but it can blur big time

 

[erikgraham]

Thanks- was primarily concerned with the frame rate. I think I'll just go shoot some test video both ways and see how it looks.

I think you'll find that the image quality at 60fps is noticeably degraded compared to 30fps (or 24). You'll get more nuanced colors at 30fps, but the main thing you'll notice in 60fps is jaggies and artifacts along lines and edges. They might not be noticeable on an iPhone sized screen, but if you compare footage showed of the same subject on a bigger screen you can see the artifacts in the 60fps. That of course assumes whatever subject your filming has lines and edges.

 

[pyrate]

interesting, so what are you shooting your normal UAV footage at.
I have traditionally used 2.7k 60 but have slowly been moving to 4K 24

 

[erikgraham]

interesting, so what are you shooting your normal UAC footage at.
I have traditionally used 2.7k 60 but have slowly been moving to 4K 24

I do 4K Wide 30 fps Protune ON 400 ISO native white balance, spot meter off. Almost always with an ND filter.

Depending on the subject, I've had good luck slowing down 30fps using Final Cuts optical flow blending (as opposed to frame blending). For stuff like waterfalls it works great. If I were at home I'd post an example.

I don't use 24 fps because that's to choppy unless your going for the film look.

Because i turn Protune on and set white balance to Native, I have to color correct every single clip I capture. It looks horrible and flat at first, but when you color correct you get much better results than shooting without Protune. Better color. Better detail. The downside is much bigger files sizes which means you fill up your SD card faster.

I never use anything but Wide at any resolution. If you shoot Medium the GoPro just captures the middle part of the sensor and stretches it out. If you use SuperWide, it uses the whole sensor, but squishes and distorts things to squeeze the image to 16:9 ratio. Therefore, I always shoot wide, and then crop in post if I want the look Medium gives you - but i have more control over it.

FYI: just to be clear for personal stuff and messing around I might shoot 2.7K 60 fps. The quality is still great and the 60fps smoothes out the jello.

 

[pyrate]

thanks, that makes sense and explains a lot of what i am seeing as I move over to 4K

 

[Maddog]

I think you'll find that the image quality at 60fps is noticeably degraded compared to 30fps (or 24). You'll get more nuanced colors at 30fps, but the main thing you'll notice in 60fps is jaggies and artifacts along lines and edges. They might not be noticeable on an iPhone sized screen, but if you compare footage showed of the same subject on a bigger screen you can see the artifacts in the 60fps. That of course assumes whatever subject your filming has lines and edges.

I hadn't thought about that- so at 30 FPS the shutter is open longer than at 60 FPS and you capture more information per frame?