AntDX316 Posted at 6-13 00:44
I have 32GB of RAM, i7-2699V3, 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra, Intel 750 NVMe, X99, etc.

Is that on a Windows Machine ?

KEJ Posted at 6-13 03:59
Totally agree.

.

KEJ Posted at 6-13 04:00
Is that on a Windows Machine ?

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

AntDX316 Posted at 6-13 04:15
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

I used be windows many years ago.

But once you go Mac, you never look back(40gb ram + 4gb graphics).

I do normally play around with quite long clips, 5 mins of 4k video with no issues, so.........

KEJ Posted at 6-13 04:25
I used be windows many years ago.

But once you go Mac, you never look back(40gb ram + 4gb graphics).

Yeah, I know but.. I game the latest Windows games daily lol.  Post-production and other things are a small fraction for what I use the PC for.  My friend has a Mac.  The 2.7K60 video I've made with Crystal Inn looks amazing on it than it does on my PC.

AntDX316 Posted at 6-13 04:28
Yeah, I know but.. I game the latest Windows games daily lol.  Post-production and other things are a small fraction for what I use the PC for.  My friend has a Mac.  The 2.7K60 video I've made with Crystal Inn looks amazing on it than it does on my PC.

Very true the Mac monitors are pretty good to be honest 5k.

And as you say, if you are a gamer, its hard/expensive to be in top position on all platforms/areas/applications and a matter of personal priorities, unless you have deep pockets.

AntDX316 Posted at 6-13 03:11
Sure, but at the cost of a longer rendering time and higher demand for recording power.  Maybe my CPU does not have the instructions to render H.265 properly.  Maybe you need an X299 or better.  Maybe an i9.  I don't have one so I have no idea.  Maybe you need Optane too.  Maybe you need another accelerator to make it happen.  Perhaps it would work if you have all the Nvidia Tesla GPUs that the budget of Pixar has so they can save More money for this to work but all I have is what I've listed.

"Sure, but at the cost of a longer rendering time and higher demand for recording power.  Maybe my CPU does not have the instructions to render H.265 properly.  Maybe you need an X299 or better.  Maybe an i9.  I don't have one so I have no idea.  Maybe you need Optane too.  Maybe you need another accelerator to make it happen.  Perhaps it would work if you have all the Nvidia Tesla GPUs that the budget of Pixar has so they can save More money for this to work but all I have is what I've listed."

Your computer spec' seems to have changed a bit, you say you have a 2080 TI GPU, in previous post you had two 1080 GPUS. It matters not though, if you use an editor that supports GPU rendering then they make light work of H265 rendering. Even on a Windows machine.

Aardvark Posted at 6-13 04:52
"Sure, but at the cost of a longer rendering time and higher demand for recording power.  Maybe my CPU does not have the instructions to render H.265 properly.  Maybe you need an X299 or better.  Maybe an i9.  I don't have one so I have no idea.  Maybe you need Optane too.  Maybe you need another accelerator to make it happen.  Perhaps it would work if you have all the Nvidia Tesla GPUs that the budget of Pixar has so they can save More money for this to work but all I have is what I've listed."

Your computer spec' seems to have changed a bit, you say you have a 2080 TI GPU, in previous post you had two 1080 GPUS. It matters not though, if you use an editor that supports GPU rendering then they make light work of H265 rendering. Even on a Windows machine.

I sold the 2x 1080 GTXs.  They were MSI 8Gs.  I regret it.. hopefully, the Call of Duty with Ray tracing can avail.  I got into real-world usages because computer gaming is quite boring and lonely.  I've pretty much learned so much in the real-world though now that has become boring but it made it closer to impossible of dying.  Last year, I swam for the first time in the ocean.  Saw a shark at Belmar, NJ when swimming far.  I told people but no one believed me.  A week or so later, people started getting Eaten.  The last news I saw of people vs shark encounters was 2016.  Nothing of that year and the year before.  I only swam to practice if I ever Jetski but you can lose teeth (wave hits in a tuck), that could be boring (after spending a lot to have it), be stranded out in open water and get eaten by a shark.  I thought it was cool involving in Many hobbies and possible careers.  I've learned a lot that I can say cross-use but in the end, you basically waste money.  Some people have died doing Half of what I've done w/ the things I have and done but it doesn't really matter too much, only for those who had no idea what they were doing at the time though which should be used as good data to prevent such issues from happening in the future who would involve in similar scenarios.

AntDX316 Posted at 6-13 06:16
I sold the 2x 1080 GTXs.  They were MSI 8Gs.  I regret it.. hopefully, the Call of Duty with Ray tracing can avail.  I got into real-world usages because computer gaming is quite boring and lonely.  I've pretty much learned so much in the real-world though now that has become boring but it made it closer to impossible of dying.  Last year, I swam for the first time in the ocean.  Saw a shark at Belmar, NJ when swimming far.  I told people but no one believed me.  A week or so later, people started getting Eaten.  The last news I saw of people vs shark encounters was 2016.  Nothing of that year and the year before.  I only swam to practice if I ever Jetski but you can lose teeth (wave hits in a tuck), that could be boring (after spending a lot to have it), be stranded out in open water and get eaten by a shark.  I thought it was cool involving in Many hobbies and possible careers.  I've learned a lot that I can say cross-use but in the end, you basically waste money.  Some people have died doing Half of what I've done w/ the things I have and done but it doesn't really matter too much, only for those who had no idea what they were doing at the time though which should be used as good data to prevent such issues from happening in the future who would involve in similar scenarios.

That entire piece was all over the place like a mad dog's breakfast. Stick to the subject.

In any event, you do not appear to have a clue about how to use H264 or H265. They are actually transport formats, meaning they use MPEG encoding to provide maximum compression consistent with best quality, and are intended for trasmission systems. Even using them to record from a camera is not using them for their intended purpose. However the amount of compression has become very attractive to camera makers, so they are used in all cameras these days except pro versions who prefer to use un-compressed and RAW formats where possible.

In post-producing with H264 and H265, you should import the files into your editor in a much more workable format like Pro-Res or an uncompressed YUV format to make it easier on the editing system. H264/265 are MPEG encoded, and take a lot of horsepower to decode for viewing and scrubbing, so use of an intermediate file format, even though it may take up ten times the amount of file space as the original, is the best approach. Only when you have finished working with the material, you can then render it into a final MPEG format that you can use for distribution. If it takes a while to render, so be it, you will have saved a lot more time during the edit by not having to wait for the computer to deal with the troublesome MPEG original.

As for H264 producing a better result than H265, the more recent H265 is better and more efficient, no doubt about.

Lets clear this mess up some more... H264 vs H265 both @ 100mbps equals the exact same sized file on disk (give or take slight variances) so there is no file size advantage at all in DJI's H265 implementation at the same bitrate over H264. Now while H265 has the 'potential' to encode similar quality at half (or more) the bitrate/size as H264 is requires a lot more processing power (or dedicated hardware) to do it. It all comes down to how each product handles the H265 and more importantly how much processing power and/or dedicated hardware it contains to do so. Now in the case of the DJI Phantom 4 Pro/Advanced the 'quality' of H264 vs H65 is about the same with one exception in that H265 is prone to more 'blockiness' in uniform acolor sections (such as a blue sky and possibly other areas such as sections of trees/grass etc). In my  identical scene tests H265 came out worse off due to this. Consider this knowing H265 requires much more processing power than H264. If DJi drones could encode H265 @ 100mbps in high quality then they should easily encode H264 @ 200mbps also. They can't! So, it is fair to say and from test examples see that it is somethign like this at the end of the day... DJI H264 @ 100mbps (high quality encoding) vs DJI H265 @ 100mbps (low/standard quality encoding) = both files have about the same visual quality.

Geebax Posted at 6-13 15:08
That entire piece was all over the place like a mad dog's breakfast. Stick to the subject.

In any event, you do not appear to have a clue about how to use H264 or H265. They are actually transport formats, meaning they use MPEG encoding to provide maximum compression consistent with best quality, and are intended for trasmission systems. Even using them to record from a camera is not using them for their intended purpose. However the amount of compression has become very attractive to camera makers, so they are used in all cameras these days except pro versions who prefer to use un-compressed and RAW formats where possible.

The tree detail isn't as detailed as H.264.  I forgot to make the video today doing both but next time I will.

Also rendering in Pro-res or uncompressed YUV in Premiere then final editing in MPEG in AE is better than doing H.264 from Premiere into AE?

Dingoz Posted at 6-13 18:06
Lets clear this mess up some more... H264 vs H265 both @ 100mbps equals the exact same sized file on disk (give or take slight variances) so there is no file size advantage at all in DJI's H265 implementation at the same bitrate over H264. Now while H265 has the 'potential' to encode similar quality at half (or more) the bitrate/size as H264 is requires a lot more processing power (or dedicated hardware) to do it. It all comes down to how each product handles the H265 and more importantly how much processing power and/or dedicated hardware it contains to do so. Now in the case of the DJI Phantom 4 Pro/Advanced the 'quality' of H264 vs H65 is about the same with one exception in that H265 is prone to more 'blockiness' in uniform acolor sections (such as a blue sky and possibly other areas such as sections of trees/grass etc). In my  identical scene tests H265 came out worse off due to this. Consider this knowing H265 requires much more processing power than H264. If DJi drones could encode H265 @ 100mbps in high quality then they should easily encode H264 @ 200mbps also. They can't! So, it is fair to say and from test examples see that it is somethign like this at the end of the day... DJI H264 @ 100mbps (high quality encoding) vs DJI H265 @ 100mbps (low/standard quality encoding) = both files have about the same visual quality.

The file size was always Higher with H.264 vs H.265 at the same time but I will run that test again to see.  I will run it twice to see.  Twice on H.264 sitting for 5 seconds then H.265 for 5 2 or even 3 times to get the right data.

In fact, I will do it 3 times on the P4P V2.0 and the Mavic 2 Zoom.  After, we will analyze everything.  Everything on 2.7K60 so it looks even.

Higher compression will most always take longer than the lower compression and it will also use more system resources, the reason for the higher compression means that the output file will be smaller, it does not mean that the quality will be better or worse, but, there are times when high compression loses some quality. Its then you need to weight it up, is the extra space and bandwidth saved worth the minuscule of quality lost. I believe that in this case it should be worth it and the loss that you are noticing yourself, do you have something to show us?

RE the dji video, to be honest, one looks like the file from the cache and the other off the SD card just to try to up the selling point, thats marketing for you, my 1080 off the sd card in 264 has never looked like that in the clip...

AntDX316 Posted at 6-13 18:15
The tree detail isn't as detailed as H.264.  I forgot to make the video today doing both but next time I will.

Also rendering in Pro-res or uncompressed YUV in Premiere then final editing in MPEG in AE is better than doing H.264 from Premiere into AE?

"Also rendering in Pro-res or uncompressed YUV in Premiere then final editing in MPEG in AE is better than doing H.264 from Premiere into AE?"

I have no idea what you are on about? You DON'T 'render' in Pro-Res or YUV at all then edit in MPEG. You should convert to Pro_Res or YUV when you import the H264 or H265 file, perform your editing, colour correction and whatever else you want to do and finally render out to MPEG for the finished product. The object is to NOT have the material in MPEG form when you are editing, as it dramatically slows down the editor unless you have a high powered system. The whole point of the Pro-Res or YUV intermediate format is to make it easier to perform the editing process by reducing the decoding load on the computer, and to keep a consistent high quality during the operations being performed on the material. Think of the MPEG compression formats as a way to send or carry around the material, not to perform any editing, FX or other operations on.

Geebax Posted at 6-13 19:59
"Also rendering in Pro-res or uncompressed YUV in Premiere then final editing in MPEG in AE is better than doing H.264 from Premiere into AE?"

I have no idea what you are on about? You DON'T 'render' in Pro-Res or YUV at all then edit in MPEG. You should convert to Pro_Res or YUV when you import the H264 or H265 file, perform your editing, colour correction and whatever else you want to do and finally render out to MPEG for the finished product. The object is to NOT have the material in MPEG form when you are editing, as it dramatically slows down the editor unless you have a high powered system. The whole point of the Pro-Res or YUV intermediate format is to make it easier to perform the editing process by reducing the decoding load on the computer, and to keep a consistent high quality during the operations being performed on the material. Think of the MPEG compression formats as a way to send or carry around the material, not to perform any editing, FX or other operations on.

I need to Clip the footage straight off the drone then I do effects in AE.  I need to go through Premiere or Resolve First otherwise the footage remains Uncliped in AE.

It's coming out at H.264 then I render in H.264 into H.264 in AE.  H.265 saved more memory by 25% and the image quality was garbage.  It goes from say HD into SD then when you do it again it's like even Worse.  In the very beginning, my footages weren't as good lol.  Now they are a lot better but I'm still learning.  You can render uncompressed of course but it takes 100GB instead of say 73MB.  You can create proxies w/ Premiere which renders the footage at a lower res so when you preview it's instant otherwise you have a massive delay with scrubbing in 4K.

Bashy Posted at 6-13 19:20
Higher compression will most always take longer than the lower compression and it will also use more system resources, the reason for the higher compression means that the output file will be smaller, it does not mean that the quality will be better or worse, but, there are times when high compression loses some quality. Its then you need to weight it up, is the extra space and bandwidth saved worth the minuscule of quality lost. I believe that in this case it should be worth it and the loss that you are noticing yourself, do you have something to show us?

RE the dji video, to be honest, one looks like the file from the cache and the other off the SD card just to try to up the selling point, thats marketing for you, my 1080 off the sd card in 264 has never looked like that in the clip...

I've experimented rendering in different settings and they vary in rendering times and of course storage.  I just want to know the best method when rendering in Premiere to go into AE then in AE what to render as.  H.264 at 240Mbps CBR seems to be the best.  I've tried VBR but at max, it's the same.  I've tried 2-pass with variable bitrate but it takes way way longer to render.  Storage savings doesn't matter to me because I delete the videos after a few days anyway as they are stored on Youtube.

I think the Mbps depends what is your public target, the internet connection. Maybe in USA is not a problem. But for example, here in my city in Brazil I think the average is only 5Mb or 10Mb, so better only render videos FULL HD like 8 -10 Mbs VBR, much more it will freeze the video, and you have to pause and wait for loading.

allyssongemelli Posted at 6-14 07:04
I think the Mbps depends what is your public target, the internet connection. Maybe in USA is not a problem. But for example, here in my city in Brazil I think the average is only 5Mb or 10Mb, so better only render videos FULL HD like 8 -10 Mbs VBR, much more it will freeze the video, and you have to pause and wait for loading.

yeah, but it's all about the file size at the end anyway

AntDX316 Posted at 6-14 09:39
yeah, but it's all about the file size at the end anyway

Yep, the file size, and the systems that are supported. I don't know for sure if everybody can run a H265 video withou any issue.

allyssongemelli Posted at 6-14 10:18
Yep, the file size, and the systems that are supported. I don't know for sure if everybody can run a H265 video withou any issue.

Yes you can and I do.

I know just about nothing codecs but I came across this topic as I was trying to find out why my 2017 macbook air stock wasn't playing my DJI FPV 1080p videos on any software. Turns out my macbook doesn't like or can't handle .265, so I'll just stick to .264 and I believe that should fix my particular problem. Thank you.

djiuser_yid9HQhCEKBm Posted at 7-10 08:01
I know just about nothing codecs but I came across this topic as I was trying to find out why my 2017 macbook air stock wasn't playing my DJI FPV 1080p videos on any software. Turns out my macbook doesn't like or can't handle .265, so I'll just stick to .264 and I believe that should fix my particular problem. Thank you.

Try downloading a copy of VLC Player, it will contain a codec that should handle H.265.