Many will know that I mainly film in 1080p because I hate the huge file sizes that 4k Creates. Today I shot this short video of my local town on the Air 2s in 4K 60 FPS to see if I can see the difference.

I will view it on my 4k 55 Inch TV

Looks good to me.  

Very nice!  The details coming thru on my 4K TV on each and every house/headstone is extraordinary.  Hopefully you'll be able to see the difference as well.
eta:  some 4k television do a pretty good job with upscaling which cause many to believe 1080p is just as good as 4k so yes, that is subjective.  however, with a bigger tv and up a little closer, you should be able to see enough of a difference to justify.  i always believe my content is not just for me and when others look at it, if it's in 1080p and it's fuzzy, they appreciate it less.  ymmv

Watching while switching settings all the way from 720 to 2160, the difference is discernible. But at 1080 and above, less so.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-9 10:40
Watching while switching settings all the way from 720 to 2160, the difference is discernible. But at 1080 and above, less so.

Yes that is how I feel. It is just that massive data size or 4K that concerns me. I will do some at 4K but still do most at 1080p Upscaled as before I think now I know how to upload the 4k Upscaled Properly

Bigplumbs Posted at 1-9 13:53
Yes that is how I feel. It is just that massive data size or 4K that concerns me. I will do some at 4K but still do most at 1080p Upscaled as before I think now I know how to upload the 4k Upscaled Properly

Perfectionists might have something to say about it. But if it looks fine, then it IS fine

Blériot53 Posted at 1-9 14:10
Perfectionists might have something to say about it. But if it looks fine, then it IS fine

same discussion we had decades ago about sd.  still have people trying to pass off sd content as "fine."

was told that i was a perfectionist because i wanted an hd tv.

is it time to go with 4k?  not quite, but soon.

Very nicely done.  1080p looks fine to me.  

The Saint Posted at 1-9 15:51
same discussion we had decades ago about sd.  still have people trying to pass off sd content as "fine."

was told that i was a perfectionist because i wanted an hd tv.

Well yes. I have an OLED  4K these days too. And watching older broaddcast content (repeats) on it shows up glaringly what we thought was wonderful 20 years ago.
But I have to say that, to my old eyes, I cannot pick out enormous differences between 1920x1080 and anything of higher definition.
I get what BP is saying, so far as editing is concerned.

The perceived difference between 760, 1080 and 2160 depends on the distance from the TV and on the size of the screen. If you go far enough, the eyes are not able to see any difference. From my experience, the biggest difference in aerial videos is between SDR and HDR: extending the dynamic range increases a lot the quality of a video. And this is independent from the resolution. I usually take videos at 4K HDR 30p.

Nice views.
It would be interesting to see a 1:1 comparison from 2 different shots at the same location with FHD upscaled and 4K 'regular'.
Mainly to see how YT handles this difference and which gives a better tradeoff.

I almost bought a 4K camcorder finally, as my 10yr old one gave up on me last summer.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 00:15
The perceived difference between 760, 1080 and 2160 depends on the distance from the TV and on the size of the screen. If you go far enough, the eyes are not able to see any difference. From my experience, the biggest difference in aerial videos is between SDR and HDR: extending the dynamic range increases a lot the quality of a video. And this is independent from the resolution. I usually take videos at 4K HDR 30p.

I sit about 3 metres away away from our 108cm screen.
720 does look poor, but everything 1080 and above looks great

Blériot53 Posted at 1-10 00:50
I sit about 3 metres away away from our 108cm screen.
720 does look poor, but everything 1080 and above looks great

Me too...  It depends also on your visual acuity. In most cases, when sitting at a reasonable distance from the screen (> 2m) it's almost impossible to see any difference between 1080 and 4K.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 01:37
Me too...  It depends also on your visual acuity. In most cases, when sitting at a reasonable distance from the screen (> 2m) it's almost impossible to see any difference between 1080 and 4K.

My optician tells me I have very good vision for my age, I'm glad to say
I don't need glasses at present.

Montfrooij Posted at 1-10 00:34
Nice views.
It would be interesting to see a 1:1 comparison from 2 different shots at the same location with FHD upscaled and 4K 'regular'.
Mainly to see how YT handles this difference and which gives a better tradeoff.

It can be easily done starting from a 4K shot. You can downscale it to 1080 using a good video encoding software with high quality settings and then you can compare the two versions on you TV.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 01:42
It can be easily done starting from a 4K shot. You can downscale it to 1080 using a good video encoding software with high quality settings and then you can compare the two versions on you TV.

That is not exactly the same.
The drone takes different bitrate footage at FHD, so it compresses already.
So after that you upscale compressed footage and Youtube gives its own compression again.
I'm curious about the differences.

Montfrooij Posted at 1-10 02:07
That is not exactly the same.
The drone takes different bitrate footage at FHD, so it compresses already.
So after that you upscale compressed footage and Youtube gives its own compression again.

I agree, it cannot be the same. But, assuming the all videos are always post processed and re-encoded, I do not expect the process I described introduces significant artefacts.
And considering that the bitrates delivered by the Air 2S are very high, I do not expect the FHD videos have a lower quality than the 4K.
I'm not suggesting to go thru YouTube,  just to create two clips and play them directly on the TV.
If you want to use YouTube, you just need to upload a 4K video and YouTube will make it available at the different resolutions. But all the contents delivered by YouTube are encoded once more and it can reduce the quality.
I'll prepare a couple of mp4 clips and I'll share them.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 02:29
I agree, it cannot be the same. But, assuming the all videos are always post processed and re-encoded, I do not expect the process I described introduces significant artefacts.
And considering that the bitrates delivered by the Air 2S are very high, I do not expect the FHD videos have a lower quality than the 4K.
I'm not suggesting to go thru YouTube,  just to create two clips and play them directly on the TV.

I'm mainly interested in how Youtube handles a 'native 4K' vs 'upscaled FHD'.
Because I always assumed that upscaling is BS.
But then someone pointed out to me that the compression software of YT handles 4K footage different than FHD footage, resulting in better quality images compared to native FHD footage.
So he claimed (and showed) that it did have benefits to upscale your footage.
But this was just one user, so I am curious if others have the same results.
For home usage, it is impossible to test, since very TV / playing device will play various files differently. Depending on how they are programmed to do so.

Here you can find two mp4 clips at 1080p and 4K to be downloaded and played on your devices:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/ ... view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/ ... view?usp=share_link

There are enough details (the textures on the rocks) to appreciate the differences (if any ...) on your TV.

Here the links to the same clips uploaded to YT:




Please consider that YouTube never upscales FHD videos to 4K, it's your tv that does it. The 1080p clip is available only up that resolution, not more.

Montfrooij Posted at 1-10 02:34
I'm mainly interested in how Youtube handles a 'native 4K' vs 'upscaled FHD'.
Because I always assumed that upscaling is BS.
But then someone pointed out to me that the compression software of YT handles 4K footage different than FHD footage, resulting in better quality images compared to native FHD footage.

YouTube uses different codecs: 4K videos are always encoded using VP9. FHD videos are encoded using AVC1 (h264)  and VP9. Depending on the device the video is played, the best codec is selected.
YouTube never upscales the uploaded videos.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 03:52
YouTube uses different codecs: 4K videos are always encoded using VP9. FHD videos are encoded using AVC1 (h264)  and VP9. Depending on the device the video is played, the best codec is selected.
YouTube never upscales the uploaded videos.

I know.
But still I'm curious if there are benefits to upscaling your FHD footage compared to uploading native 4K footage. Since that was claimed some time ago.
I don't upscale myself. Unless my project is mostly shot in a higher resolution and I have some shots with a FHD camera that I want to include. But not complete projects.

Montfrooij Posted at 1-10 04:25
I know.
But still I'm curious if there are benefits to upscaling your FHD footage compared to uploading native 4K footage. Since that was claimed some time ago.
I don't upscale myself. Unless my project is mostly shot in a higher resolution and I have some shots with a FHD camera that I want to include. But not complete projects.

Generally speaking, an upscaled FHD video won't never have the same quality of a native 4K. But if created with a professional software, there are some chances that the difference is barely perceivable.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 04:36
Generally speaking, an upscaled FHD video won't never have the same quality of a native 4K. But if created with a professional software, there are some chances that the difference is barely perceivable.

Again, the main thing here is how Youtube processes them and what quality difference that will give.
The guy who tested this proved that an upscaled FHD video gave better results on youtube than the native FHD file at the FHD viewing resolution.
So that makes me wonder, what if we shoot 2 shots. One at FHD, upscale that and upload it to YT. And shoot the same scene in 4K and upload that to YT.
Will there be a difference in quality at the FHD viewing resolution on YT.

Montfrooij Posted at 1-10 04:39
Again, the main thing here is how Youtube processes them and what quality difference that will give.
The guy who tested this proved that an upscaled FHD video gave better results on youtube than the native FHD file at the FHD viewing resolution.
So that makes me wonder, what if we shoot 2 shots. One at FHD, upscale that and upload it to YT. And shoot the same scene in 4K and upload that to YT.

If possible, I kindly ask to provide the link to the article you're mentioning. I'd like to understand all the conditions of that test. Upscaling videos do not provide absolute results in terms of quality, it depends on the subject and on the light and color levels. When a FHD video containing a strongly (and randomly) textured subject, and maybe some shadowed areas, is upscaled, I doubt that YT processing delivers a better result than the native FHD source.
By opposite, videos containing homogeneous subjects can be easily upscaled. Only a detailed analysis of the edges can show the difference, but nobody put his attention on hedges when playing a video.

BTW I always avoid upscaling. I take shots at the maximum allowed quality available with all the Air 2S features enabled (4K HDR at 30 fps). Then depending on the purposes I create the final deliverable in FHD or 4K, SDR or HDR.

FabioV Posted at 1-10 05:05
If possible, I kindly ask to provide the link to the article you're mentioning. I'd like to understand all the conditions of that test. Upscaling videos do not provide absolute results in terms of quality, it depends on the subject and on the light and color levels. When a FHD video containing a strongly (and randomly) textured subject, and maybe some shadowed areas, is upscaled, I doubt that YT processing delivers a better result than the native FHD source.
By opposite, videos containing homogeneous subjects can be easily upscaled. Only a detailed analysis of the edges can show the difference, but nobody put his attention on hedges when playing a video.

I'm sure it was on this forum, but it could have been 2 or 3 years ago. I don't remember and the search function on the forum is very bad. (it uses every word, not the combination)

This can be interesting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/VideoEd ... ng-and-other-myths/

FabioV Posted at 1-10 03:35
Here you can find two mp4 clips at 1080p and 4K to be downloaded and played on your devices:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/ ... view?usp=share_link

for me, the differences between these two clips are minor, not major.  but the second clip is more clear and i am able to easily spot things like the viewing platform in the beginning of the clip that i didn't exactly seen in the first clip.  also at the end of the clip, i see objects on the mountain in the background but only in the second clip am i sure that they are buildings and not something else like empty patches.  obviously when i go back to the first clip i can make them out.

when switching between 1080p and 4k, the differences in this video are MAJOR for my tv.  why?

The Saint Posted at 1-10 06:02
when switching between 1080p and 4k, the differences in this video are MAJOR for my tv.  why?

https://youtu.be/1La4QzGeaaQ

Because 4K is better than FHD ...
This video has been taken at 8K and YouTube makes it available also at 4K, 2K, FHD and lower, after having downscaled it. At highest resolutions (4K and 8K), it is delivered using the VP9 and the AV01 codecs only, not the AVC1 (h264).
I expect that the downscaling process from 8K to FHD has some more impact on the quality than the downscaling to 4K. In addition, depending on the device you're using to play it, when the AV01 codec is automatically selected, the quality can be better.
All the information I'm providing can be easily obtained using the youtube-dl program, available for all the platform. It can show all the available formats for a given link and then it provides the capability to download one or more format. If you want to do some testing, you can download the 4K and FHD formats and then play them locally on your PC or TV.

   

The Saint Posted at 1-10 05:58
for me, the differences between these two clips are minor, not major.  but the second clip is more clear and i am able to easily spot things like the viewing platform in the beginning of the clip that i didn't exactly seen in the first clip.  also at the end of the clip, i see objects on the mountain in the background but only in the second clip am i sure that they are buildings and not something else like empty patches.  obviously when i go back to the first clip i can make them out.

I agree. On my 55' OLED TV, sitting at 1,5m - 2m, I can see the difference, but only when focusing on the details. A casual viewer (not interested in a comparison) probably won't notice any difference.

^thanks for the info; lots of good helpful information....still learning as well.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-10 00:50
I sit about 3 metres away away from our 108cm screen.
720 does look poor, but everything 1080 and above looks great

Same here... I have a 600mb/s Full fibre internet connection so no issues getting 4K down the pipe.

When we watch netflix  4K stuff I honestly cant see the difference than when it is in 1080p

FabioV Posted at 1-10 06:25
Because 4K is better than FHD ...
This video has been taken at 8K and YouTube makes it available also at 4K, 2K, FHD and lower, after having downscaled it. At highest resolutions (4K and 8K), it is delivered using the VP9 and the AV01 codecs only, not the AVC1 (h264).
I expect that the downscaling process from 8K to FHD has some more impact on the quality than the downscaling to 4K. In addition, depending on the device you're using to play it, when the AV01 codec is automatically selected, the quality can be better.

One needs to try not to become too much of a Geek with these things and remember to watch the Video rather than just looking at the perceived quality.

The Narative and Message is the important thing.

I recall an Optician once telling me that People don't generally have 4K eyes !

FabioV Posted at 1-10 06:27
I agree. On my 55' OLED TV, sitting at 1,5m - 2m, I can see the difference, but only when focusing on the details. A casual viewer (not interested in a comparison) probably won't notice any difference.

That is very close to a TV of that size

Bigplumbs Posted at 1-10 13:41
Same here... I have a 600mb/s Full fibre internet connection so no issues getting 4K down the pipe.

When we watch netflix  4K stuff I honestly cant see the difference than when it is in 1080p

We have fibre internet - but not yet right to the house. Even so, at 70Mb we have no streaming issues.

The other interesting thing is if you read YT Stats it shows that a huge number of viewers watch on tablets and phones............. Sort of makes these higher resolutions somewhat pointless

Bigplumbs Posted at 1-10 13:46
The other interesting thing is if you read YT Stats it shows that a huge number of viewers watch on tablets and phones............. Sort of makes these higher resolutions somewhat pointless

I can tell a huge difference on my phone or Chromebook.

Bigplumbs Posted at 1-10 13:44
One needs to try not to become too much of a Geek with these things and remember to watch the Video rather than just looking at the perceived quality.

The Narative and Message is the important thing.

I was just answering a question and the explanation required some technical concepts.

Bigplumbs Posted at 1-10 13:45
That is very close to a TV of that size

Usually I stay at 2.5 - 3m

Bigplumbs Posted at 1-10 13:46
The other interesting thing is if you read YT Stats it shows that a huge number of viewers watch on tablets and phones............. Sort of makes these higher resolutions somewhat pointless

YT delivers contents at 8K or even 12K. It means that there are people interested in it, with suitable devices and bandwidth.