Just the basic hobbie flying question

[Tom skerke]

Question I fly just for fun no 107 i leave all my settings on default i shoot in 4k 30 alway .my question is this .Should I keep 464 0n or 465.I don’t edit anything.I download to my iPad and then LUMAFUSION then to YouTube. Best suggestion please.

 

[phantomrain.org]

Do you mean 264 Codec and 265 codec ? You should stick with 264 , its easier in many ways.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your EVO 2 in the Rain.

 

[Tom skerke]

Yes that’s what I ment thanks

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

Question I fly just for fun no 107 i leave all my settings on default i shoot in 4k 30 alway .my question is this .Should I keep 464 0n or 465.I don’t edit anything.I download to my iPad and then LUMAFUSION then to YouTube. Best suggestion please.

I think you mean H264 or H265?

On that assumption, H264 was still the standard, last time I checked. Practically any device or application that uses video includes the codec and can work with the files, with no plugins or additional downloads.

H265 is much more efficient in terms of storage space, but the quality is dependent on the encoding settings. It's not that H265 can't produce quality video. The problem is that the default H265 quality settings on most devices and editing software, in my experience, are way too low.

Without knowing what settings Autel uses for H265 nor whether they can be tweaked, the best I can suggest is that you shoot some video in H265 and see if you're pleased with the quality.

The other problem with H265 is that it's a proprietary codec. Some software and operating systems (including Win10 -- I'm not sure about iPad) require an additional license and/or plugin to use it. It's dirt cheap. The problem is that you may have to buy and install it multiple times. Not every app can use the same implementation. I have the codec installed at least four times, for example; and yet Windows Media Player wants me to buy it again.

If it works for you and you're pleased with the quality, however, it will save you storage space and upload time. I've found it shrinks files by close to 50 percent with comparable quality if you use the right settings.

 

[Tom skerke]

Thank you very much for your response

 

[herein2021]

Question I fly just for fun no 107 i leave all my settings on default i shoot in 4k 30 alway .my question is this .Should I keep 464 0n or 465.I don’t edit anything.I download to my iPad and then LUMAFUSION then to YouTube. Best suggestion please.

I agree with @GeekOnTheWing just stick with H.264, way easier and simpler to edit. Unfortunately with the EVO II 6K I have yet to find a comprehensive chart showing all of the camera's specs; even simple things like the fact there is a crop when shooting 4K60FPS isn't documented anywhere that I have seen.

I say that because it is possible certain modes of the camera are only available when shooting H.265. I haven't bothered doing any testing and I only shoot H.265 but I know with many modern cameras the only way to get 10 bit footage or their highest resolution (i.e. 6K) is they force you to use H.265 to keep from exceeding the data transfer rates of the storage media; no idea if this is the case with the EVO II 6K since I have never tried the H.264 mode. However, it would not surprise me if 4K30FPS is only 4:2:0 8bit when shooting at H.264 or that 6K may only be possible with H.265.

The other problem with H265 is that it's a proprietary codec. Some software and operating systems (including Win10 -- I'm not sure about iPad) require an additional license and/or plugin to use it. It's dirt cheap. The problem is that you may have to buy and install it multiple times. Not every app can use the same implementation. I have the codec installed at least four times, for example; and yet Windows Media Player wants me to buy it again.

To get around the codec issue I simply use Davinci Resolve to do all editing and media viewing until I render out the completed project. Davinci Resolve can preview and edit H.265 with ease, so I use the media browser like Windows Explorer when I am working on project. All of my current cameras now only output H.265 with the way I have them setup and I got tired of Window's quirkiness so I stopped trying to get the codec to be supported in Windows Explorer.

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

To get around the codec issue I simply use Davinci Resolve to do all editing and media viewing until I render out the completed project. Davinci Resolve can preview and edit H.265 with ease, so I use the media browser like Windows Explorer when I am working on project. All of my current cameras now only output H.265 with the way I have them setup and I got tired of Window's quirkiness so I stopped trying to get the codec to be supported in Windows Explorer.

I usually do the opposite: I shoot in H.264, but sometimes will render in H.265, also using DaVinci Resolve Studio, if the resulting video would otherwise take forever to upload. But Resolve's default render settings for H.265 using VBR are horrid. The defaults for rendering in H.265 using QPB are decent-enough for most work, but could be better.

Using the PNY Pro Elite cards I picked up at Wally World, I have had no write errors recording in 4K/60 using H.264, which was actually a nice surprise because the cards were pretty inexpensive. I fully intended to wind up returning them, but they worked out well.

 

[Tom skerke]

Thanks

 

[herein2021]

I usually do the opposite: I shoot in H.264, but sometimes will render in H.265, also using DaVinci Resolve Studio, if the resulting video would otherwise take forever to upload. But Resolve's default render settings for H.265 using VBR are horrid. The defaults for rendering in H.265 using QPB are decent-enough for most work, but could be better.

Using the PNY Pro Elite cards I picked up at Wally World, I have had no write errors recording in 4K/60 using H.264, which was actually a nice surprise because the cards were pretty inexpensive. I fully intended to wind up returning them, but they worked out well.

Most of my cameras will only shoot 8bit unless they are set to H.265 so I decided to just standardize on H.265. Even the GoPro will only shoot H.265 if you want 4K60FPS, so I'm pretty much stuck with H.265. I always render out to H.264 though because a lot of clients do not have a machine that can playback H.265.

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

Most of my cameras will only shoot 8bit unless they are set to H.265 so I decided to just standardize on H.265. Even the GoPro will only shoot H.265 if you want 4K60FPS, so I'm pretty much stuck with H.265. I always render out to H.264 though because a lot of clients do not have a machine that can playback H.265.

I'll have to try H.265. Maybe when I'm done with what I'm [supposed to be] doing now, I'll run out to the backyard and shoot something. I mean with the camera, not the guns.

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

This video was encoded using H.265 at 4K/60. The original actually looks better than what's on Vimeo. Maybe once the high-resolution versions transcode it will look better.

I've noticed that Vimeo seems to have problems with H.265. It takes much longer to transcode and the quality isn't as good. When I really care about video quality for something destined for Vimeo, I render using H.264 and let it upload overnight. When I can live with a slight quality reduction, I render in H.265.

I've never used H.265 to encode on the EVO II before, however. It looks like they're using some pretty decent defaults. I'll shoot some more boring videos to test it some more if the monsoons ever stop.

 

[herein2021]

This video was encoded using H.265 at 4K/60. The original actually looks better than what's on Vimeo. Maybe once the high-resolution versions transcode it will look better.

I've noticed that Vimeo seems to have problems with H.265. It takes much longer to transcode and the quality isn't as good. When I really care about video quality for something destined for Vimeo, I render using H.264 and let it upload overnight. When I can live with a slight quality reduction, I render in H.265.

I've never used H.265 to encode on the EVO II before, however. It looks like they're using some pretty decent defaults. I'll shoot some more boring videos to test it some more if the monsoons ever stop.

Pretty much any guide out there recommends H.264 if you are uploading to any of the online platforms. As you mentioned, H.265 is not very mature yet and it's main benefit is reducing the data rates needed to encode higher quality footage which lets vendors get away with "slower/less expensive" media. Another benefit of course is the smaller file sizes, but the main benefit is not needing something like CF Express when recording 6K video or 4K60FPS 4:2:0 10bit footage.

My standard upload format is 4K30FPS H.264 with a bitrate of 16MB/s. I have not seen any benefit from going higher in bitrate or framerate. Google has posted some pretty extensive specs here: Recommended upload encoding settings - YouTube Help

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

Pretty much any guide out there recommends H.264 if you are uploading to any of the online platforms. As you mentioned, H.265 is not very mature yet and it's main benefit is reducing the data rates needed to encode higher quality footage which lets vendors get away with "slower/less expensive" media. Another benefit of course is the smaller file sizes, but the main benefit is not needing something like CF Express when recording 6K video or 4K60FPS 4:2:0 10bit footage.

My standard upload format is 4K30FPS H.264 with a bitrate of 16MB/s. I have not seen any benefit from going higher in bitrate or framerate. Google has posted some pretty extensive specs here: Recommended upload encoding settings - YouTube Help

I re-rendered the video using H.264 and re-uploaded it. I also edited it to make it shorter and slightly less-boring. What's on Vimeo now looks pretty much identical to the source files from the SD card.

I would have just uploaded the source files, but Vimeo usually mangles H.265-encoded content.

 

[herein2021]

I re-rendered the video using H.264 and re-uploaded it. I also edited it to make it shorter and slightly less-boring. What's on Vimeo now looks pretty much identical to the source files from the SD card.

I would have just uploaded the source files, but Vimeo usually mangles H.265-encoded content.

I don't use Vimeo much because they charge after you hit their storage or upload limits, but it sounds like their recommended format is H.264 as well. I view H.265 kind of like raw footage out of the camera (even though it is still compressed) and as such I treat it as an editing codec (kind of like ProRes) vs a delivery codec. The standard delivery codec to me is H.264. I know for any purists reading this that H.265 is far from raw footage, and it is actually worse on the editing software than H.264 but when cameras only offer 10bit and their highest resolutions in H.265 then there are some similarities to raw footage and capture codecs vs delivery codecs.

Many lower end video cards cannot GPU accelerate H.265 so I'm pretty sure the online video hosting platforms transcode H.265 to H.264 prior to making it available for consumption. The last thing you want is an online platform transcoding for you; which is probably why it looked worse on Vimeo when you uploaded H.265.

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

I'm not a big fan of Vimeo. But the videos usually look good (if uploaded with H.264 encoding), and I hate Vimeo as a company slightly less than I hate Google as a company.

I also hate ads on my videos, especially when I'm not getting a vig. If YouTube offered an option where creators could pay to not have ads on their videos, I might hold my nose and go for it. But alas, they offer no such option; and having done business with Google Adsense in the past, I have no desire to do so again.

I plan to monetize my boring videos as part of a site about my own journey, as it were, to becoming a drone pilot. Everything I do is practice and I already share most of it with the world, mistakes and all. I plan to embed them into a site with a conversational tone about my own experiences, and monetize it with Amazon or with private ads.

That's all part of the plan; and for that use case, Vimeo is still the best option that I've found.

Another option would be self-hosting. I actually self-host videos for another completely unrelated site, but they're small and the video quality isn't especially important. For something drone-related, I'd need a massive server to store and serve high-res, high-quality files in multiple versions. The server, colo, and bandwidth costs would be astronomical. Even on S3 it would cost a fortune.

So for now, Vimeo it is. But I'm always looking.

 

[herein2021]

I'm not a big fan of Vimeo. But the videos usually look good (if uploaded with H.264 encoding), and I hate Vimeo as a company slightly less than I hate Google as a company.

I also hate ads on my videos, especially when I'm not getting a vig. If YouTube offered an option where creators could pay to not have ads on their videos, I might hold my nose and go for it. But alas, they offer no such option; and having done business with Google Adsense in the past, I have no desire to do so again.

I plan to monetize my boring videos as part of a site about my own journey, as it were, to becoming a drone pilot. Everything I do is practice and I already share most of it with the world, mistakes and all. I plan to embed them into a site with a conversational tone about my own experiences, and monetize it with Amazon or with private ads.

That's all part of the plan; and for that use case, Vimeo is still the best option that I've found.

Another option would be self-hosting. I actually self-host videos for another completely unrelated site, but they're small and the video quality isn't especially important. For something drone-related, I'd need a massive server to store and serve high-res, high-quality files in multiple versions. The server, colo, and bandwidth costs would be astronomical. Even on S3 it would cost a fortune.

So for now, Vimeo it is. But I'm always looking.

With YouTube you do not have to have ads in your videos. None of mine have ads, but if you monetize then the way you get paid is with ads. I just use YouTube as a video hosting platform for my clients, to show past work, and to show future clients my particular style of shooting so I don't attempt to make revenue off of the videos themselves.

Vimeo is well known as the higher quality video hosting platform, but that quality comes with either limitations on your total uploads or you have to pay for one of their plans and if you ever stop paying they will delete all of your videos. So I have a free Vimeo account just for when a client wants me to put together a showreel that they need to present to their leadership to hire me. After the proposal process is done, I delete the reel so that I don't run out of space.

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

With YouTube you do not have to have ads in your videos. None of mine have ads, but if you monetize then the way you get paid is with ads. I just use YouTube as a video hosting platform for my clients, to show past work, and to show future clients my particular style of shooting so I don't attempt to make revenue off of the videos themselves.

Vimeo is well known as the higher quality video hosting platform, but that quality comes with either limitations on your total uploads or you have to pay for one of their plans and if you ever stop paying they will delete all of your videos. So I have a free Vimeo account just for when a client wants me to put together a showreel that they need to present to their leadership to hire me. After the proposal process is done, I delete the reel so that I don't run out of space.

I have the "Pro" plan with the add-on for unlimited weekly uploads. I've had it before off and on. It's pricey, but less expensive than setting up another server. When you start adding up all the drives needed for a RAID array of that capacity, plus sufficient resources to process and serve the files, plus colo and bandwidth, Vimeo starts looking like a bargain.

My Vimeo plan comes out to about two EVO batteries / year. That's my new cost comparison basis. In the Part 61 world, the AMU (Aviation Maintenance Unit, or USD $1K) is the standard. For Part 107, I'm going to measure costs in batteries. I'll call it the EBU (EVO Battery Unit). Vimeo costs me about two EBU's a year.

But I would never trust Vimeo as the sole storage for my files. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if their parent company shut down the service and locked the doors without notice some day. So I have the source and rendered files for all my videos stored locally and on a NAS, and the important ones also backed up on B2 and/or S3. My ISP hates me.

 

[tuxontodd]

I've tried H.264 and H.265 on the EVO 1 and haven't noticed any difference in file size. What am I missing?

 

[AirStreamPictures]

Question I fly just for fun no 107 i leave all my settings on default i shoot in 4k 30 alway .my question is this .Should I keep 464 0n or 465.I don’t edit anything.I download to my iPad and then LUMAFUSION then to YouTube. Best suggestion please.

The reason to use h.265 would be that you want to do color grading of your footage more than minor tweaks. That’s because h.265 allows you to capture 10-bit image data (in some modes) and h.264 doesn’t. So if you’re just doing what you say, h.264 is the right choice. Your iPad will play it back more easily and there will be no quality difference.

 

[AirStreamPictures]

I don't use Vimeo much because they charge after you hit their storage or upload limits, but it sounds like their recommended format is H.264 as well. I view H.265 kind of like raw footage out of the camera (even though it is still compressed) and as such I treat it as an editing codec (kind of like ProRes) vs a delivery codec. The standard delivery codec to me is H.264. I know for any purists reading this that H.265 is far from raw footage, and it is actually worse on the editing software than H.264 but when cameras only offer 10bit and their highest resolutions in H.265 then there are some similarities to raw footage and capture codecs vs delivery codecs.

Many lower end video cards cannot GPU accelerate H.265 so I'm pretty sure the online video hosting platforms transcode H.265 to H.264 prior to making it available for consumption. The last thing you want is an online platform transcoding for you; which is probably why it looked worse on Vimeo when you uploaded H.265.

I think all of the online platforms re-encode everything. In most cases, they encode several different copies with different data rates and resolutions, then match them to the bandwidth they sense going to the viewer system. That’s why it’s so important to upload as lightly compresses a version as your upload bandwidth will allow. I usually upload a 25Mbit h.264 file to Vimeo or YouTube, but occasionally, if quality is especially important, I’ll upload a ProRes file. Their compressed streaming files look a bit better. (Or at least they do in my so-called mind. ?)