Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

A quantum leap forward (Patreon)

Published:
2018-02-25 06:38:48
Imported:
2021-03

Content

I'm finally figuring out the art of post production, and I feel I've only scratched the surface. Attached below is a screenshot of today's experiment where I graded footage from Tori's profile video (I had a lot of wonderful unused shots left over). See the attached jpg file for details. And that still isn't full resolution! The added film grain gives an illusion of detail and the shadows react more naturally to the light.
There is a catch though: the file sizes are GIGANTIC! After Effects is unable to render in mp4, so the next best thing is avi with x264 compression, which is ridiculous. Up to 400 gigabyte for 10 minutes. Render times are atrocious. My processor has been almost nonstop rendering for the last 2 weeks now. I'm thinking of getting another computer and using it just as a render farm. Or two...
So the big question is: Is it worth it? There's no way I could do 4-5 full videos a month at this quality with my current equipment. I could reduce the resolution, but I would really not want to do that. Watching this in 4K is just beyond spectacular.
I could definitely do picture galleries between videos to sweeten the wait.

Quality or quantity? I would love to hear your thoughts!

Files

Comments

CJoe

That's a tough question, but not having 4k equipment at the moment and anytime soon, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy such videos. So for the time being, I'd selfishly say "quantity".

Anonymous

============== 400 gigabyte for 10 minutes ? 400 gigabyte for 10 minutes is Totally Ridiculous ! Would Take Forever to Really See It and Frankly, Looking At the jpg, It Is Not Worth It. Most Definitely Voting for Quantity. Sheesh. ==============

gamegirlpower
>>10375627

From my own viewing statistics, I can see that only 17% of viewers have 4K monitors so far. Which means you selfishly make a very valid point.

Entropia 3D

Hey Game Girl Power, I'm experienced in After Effects and wondered about the your numbers. First of all AE can render out in MP4 - 2 ways. 1. With Render Queue - Choose QuickTime MOV as container and H264 as Codec. It will be .mov but is a MP4 2. With Media Encoder - Use H.264 as Format and the Preset 4K Youtube Final filesize should be about 300 MB per minute video. So 3 GB for 10 min in HQ. With artificial grain I guess more. And on my PC, AE render time at 4K is about 9 min per 1 min video, but couldn't test with Mojo and Cosmos ;-) BTW: I could need a new promo vid ;-)

WickedWizz

I think we had a little of that discussion before, my point is the same. I think not too many people actually have 4k, I don't atleast. So quantity with your current level of detail is more than enough for me :)

gamegirlpower
>>10378045

Hey B, great to hear from you again! I must admit my AE isn't exactly fully functional. I just can't afford it since I'm still saving for that medical trip to the US. Media Encoder doesn't work for me, but I'll try rendering as mov with h.264 :) Mojo and Cosmos are actually really low system resources, they have greatly reduced my render times. I can highly recommend them. And sure, I'm always game to make another promo video :)

gamegirlpower

Looks like it's nigh unanimous! Alright, the people have spoken, 4K is out the windows (except for some major story videos and the shadow videos, where it really doesn't make too much difference in file size, since there is a lot of black). I'll stick to 1440p and try to pump out more footage :) Thank you all for keeping me on course!

Dr. Whoopass

Looks like I'm late but def quantity since I will probably never see these in 4k :P But if you like making them ignore us!

Jacob East

Hey GGP. I work in media and do specialty AE work for high end video installations, custom high PPI displays, ultra-wide 8k+ etc. My “professional opinion” is that you’re not gaining anything going from 1440p to 4k because the today’s 2nd Life models and environments don’t target anything close to 4k with their textures or poly count. You’re basically using AE to ‘fake in’ detail with video grain and upscaled raster capture or live geometry captured at a resolution where it doesn’t reveal more true detail. All this at a very high cost in processing time and the headaches that come along with things breaking at 4k. TLDR: It’s too early for 4k. Very low benefit for lots of extra effort. You’re better off targeting 1440p and letting any 4k upscaling happen on the delivery/display side, since all 4k sets have upscaling techniques that happen in real-time - and mimic what you’re trying to achieve in post.

gamegirlpower
>>10420976

Thank you so much for your input, it's fantastic to hear from a pro! You are right, the detail differences between 1440p and 4K are marginal at the current texture resolutions, whereas the file size and processing time differences are astronomical. I also didn't consider the upscaling capabilities of 4K displays. Another good reason to stick to 1440p for now!

Jacob East

Hey just happy to give a lil advice! It’s like 60fps vs 30fps as well. 60fps is fantastic, but so many TVs have frame interpolation now, that can turn 30fps footage into what is perceptively60fps in the hardware. 60fps is a big burden for captue, post and streaming, but totally easy to emulate locally since any TV set that’s 8 years old or newer is likely to have frame interpolation as standard. When I watch your videos on my 240hz big screen the clarity of motion is awesome, even though the input is probably 1080p @ 30fps. 4K upscaling is an arms race on the hardware side. They’re doing all the hard work so you don’t have to. Keep up the great work! Can’t wait to see what the next generation of hardware and models will bring.