How do you deliver?

[kye]

With all my codec comparing and YT quality measuring, I'm interested to know how people are actually delivering their content?

I've made it multiple choice so you can select more than one option, so if it varies a little then put perhaps the two or three most common methods you use.

[newfoundmass]

A lot of the stuff I do is delivered in 1080p, with maybe 10% in UHD. I also still make DVDs for some clients, but always send a 1080p mp4 via Dropbox or Google Drive. 

Really I deliver in whatever way the client wants though. A surprising number don't want/expect anything with a high bit rate. I'll often get asked if I can make the file smaller! 

[MrSMW]

1080 to Vimeo and they download from there at whatever options are available/they choose.

[Geoff CB]

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

1080 to Vimeo and they download from there at whatever options are available/they choose.

This is what I have been doing recently, clients really like it because they can watch and download in one spot. Also it's doesn't take up space like dropbox/google drive or expire like wetransfer.

My usual process:
1) Export a DNxHR 12-bit 4:4:4 file  in Resolve
2) Handbrake to create a H265 10-bit 4:4:4 file that I set on slow render speed for very high quality at a lower bitrate
3) Upload to Vimeo

If I have a DCP delivery for a short film/trailer I use the DNxHR file and run it through DCP-O-MATIC.

Of course some clients I know don't care about resolution or image quality that much, for that I just export using the Vimeo preset in Resolve. 

[aaa123jc]

H.264 1080P via Google Drive. 

Most clients don't care about 4K or the codec, and they actually prefer smaller file size. Of course, there are some clients who have specific need, and I will deliver the codec and resolution they want. But more often than not, H264 1080P is the most suitable format for the clients. 

I do event videography mostly, so this is my experience. 

[Anaconda_]

In my day job, I deliver straight to a client via FTP. I place a 1080i ProRes 422 file in a folder, along with music rights info and a transcript. They can then download it when they want, and it's up to them to delete the files when they have it. - Of course, I store a backup of the project and the text documents, so I can make a new render when needed, but usually it's not.

--

For most other stuff, its C4k through a cloud service. I always provide a ProRes and MP4 file, along with anything else that's been agreed on (BTS photos etc.) I also include a description of why I've uploaded the same file in two formats with a huge size difference.  One to send on to any broadcasters and one for online etc. 

--

For personal projects it's YouTube, but i generally upload a ProRes file. Not sure if there's a benefit, but I've done it for years and never had an issue, so why change a working formula?

5 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

2) Handbrake to create a H265 10-bit 4:4:4 file that I set on slow render speed for very high quality at a lower bitrate

Would you mind sharing your Handbrake settings? 

 

[Trek of Joy]

I deliver 4k and HD, mostly via dropbox. The HD is for smaller files to share, the 4k is because everyone likes to see their project on big 4k tv's and it gives them a master file for other distribution needs. Plus its a better Youtube upload. Sometimes I put everything on a flash drive (crazy how cheap 8 or 16gb drives are these days) if they want physical media. Its really up to the end user.

Chris

[mrtreve]

Vimeo review for work-in-progress.

Dropbox for final delivery. Usually h264 and prores.

I do tend to deliver in 4k as standard even if they don't request it. You never know where and how they might be presenting it... could be on a huge screen in their boardroom with their CEO watching. It also means that I've got higher quality masters for my reel etc.

[ntblowz]

Wipster to client for comment, Vimeo for final delivery, majority in 1080P and small amount in 4K, and the odd 8K once in a blue moon.

[newfoundmass]

13 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

H.264 1080P via Google Drive. 

Most clients don't care about 4K or the codec, and they actually prefer smaller file size. Of course, there are some clients who have specific need, and I will deliver the codec and resolution they want. But more often than not, H264 1080P is the most suitable format for the clients. 

I do event videography mostly, so this is my experience. 

Yeah, it's kinda crazy how little clients care about 4K and bit rate when it comes to event stuff. I'm guessing a big part of it is they aren't really familiar with video, and just want a quick and easy file they can download and share? They also have grown accustomed to YouTube's quality, so it lowers expectations maybe? 

10 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

For personal projects it's YouTube, but i generally upload a ProRes file. Not sure if there's a benefit, but I've done it for years and never had an issue, so why change a working formula?

I know YouTube claims/recommends certain settings for best results but I have never really noticed much difference. I generally just use the YouTube export settings in whatever NLE I'm using, unless I also need to deliver a higher quality version in which I'll just upload that since I have Gigabit internet and so uploading isn't an issue. 

[kye]

@Anaconda_ @newfoundmass YT is pretty much a brick wall when it comes to quality.  You can give it higher quality files, but the quality bump is almost negligible.

I haven't done exhaustive testing because it's been covered pretty well in this thread (look for the posts by Bryan Worsley):

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=85016

[billdoubleu]

My videos are intended for family only, so, I don't publish anything online. I maintain a server at my home, running Plex, where I host my videos. Family members can stream from wherever they desire on any device they desire. I edit in Resolve with UHD H.264 clips optimized to DNxHR LB. I then render a UHD H.264 master that streams fine over my home network and a low bitrate 1080p H.264 version for those streaming remotely.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

On 8/22/2020 at 6:21 AM, kye said:

@Anaconda_ @newfoundmass YT is pretty much a brick wall when it comes to quality.  You can give it higher quality files, but the quality bump is almost negligible.

I haven't done exhaustive testing because it's been covered pretty well in this thread (look for the posts by Bryan Worsley):

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=85016

Uploading to YouTube is all about getting YouTube to give you more bandwidth.

High resolution, high framerate and high dynamic range all seem to give your file higher bitrate.

VR (denoted by an s instead of p like 1440s) also give significantly higher bitrate, but is of course not suitable for all productions.

I haven't done any precise testing on how much impact each factor has.

[kye]

22 minutes ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Uploading to YouTube is all about getting YouTube to give you more bandwidth.

True, but for each combination of resolution/framerate/DR there is very little you can do - that's what I mean by a brick wall.

23 minutes ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

High resolution, high framerate and high dynamic range all seem to give your file higher bitrate.

VR (denoted by an s instead of p like 1440s) also give significantly higher bitrate, but is of course not suitable for all productions.

True, but probably not very useful.

If you upload at a higher resolution then that resolution will have a higher bitrate, but the other resolutions don't.  ie, if you upload at 1080p and watch at 1080p you get a certain bitrate, if you upload at 4K and watch at 1080p you get the same bitrate as before.  You're only catering to the people with higher resolution displays, or those who manually override the resolution settings to stream in a resolution higher than their display.

Exporting and uploading at a higher framerate probably hurts the aesthetic more than the extra bitrate helps, so that's not a particularly useful thing.  I guess you could upload at double the framerate you shot at and just have every second frame the same in the file, but they'd move because the compression would make them different so it would still be a strange effect.

Higher dynamic range is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how you guarantee the same colour grade between those watching in HDR vs 709, so that's probably a wild-card too.

YouTube is free, and the quality is "good enough".  I think the strategy is to do our best and just work around it.  It's not bad, and the content is what matters, rather than the image, after all 🙂 

[UncleBobsPhotography]

Good points. I've heard reports that watching a HDR uploaded video on a non-HDR display will look worse than watching a video which was graded for non-HDR in the first place, which makes it a bit pointless since most viewers most likely will not watch it on an HDR display anyway.

I've noticed more and more YouTubers using 1080p60, and usually it looks pretty good. If your primary audience is YouTube, then shooting in 60p might be a good idea.  Personally I wouldn't upload in 50/60p unless I shot it in 50/60p. One advantage of upping the frame-rate over the resolution is that YouTube will default it to 60p, while it will very seldom default to 1440p or 4k. Then there is of course the artistic choice of whether 24p, 30p or 60p looks better, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Geoff CB]

17 minutes ago, kye said:

 

If you upload at a higher resolution then that resolution will have a higher bitrate, but the other resolutions don't.

That's actually not true, if you upload in 4K youtube uses a different compression method for 1080p as well (VP9 vs H264) making it look much better. 

[kye]

7 minutes ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Good points. I've heard reports that watching a HDR uploaded video on a non-HDR display will look worse than watching a video which was graded for non-HDR in the first place, which makes it a bit pointless since most viewers most likely will not watch it on an HDR display anyway.

I've noticed more and more YouTubers using 1080p60, and usually it looks pretty good. If your primary audience is YouTube, then shooting in 60p might be a good idea.  Personally I wouldn't upload in 50/60p unless I shot it in 50/60p. One advantage of upping the frame-rate over the resolution is that YouTube will default it to 60p, while it will very seldom default to 1440p or 4k. Then there is of course the artistic choice of whether 24p, 30p or 60p looks better, but that's a whole other discussion.

I think framerate is an artistic choice and I'm not much of a fan of the 60p look.  I used to be pretty insensitive to it, but the more I get into film-making the more I see and now it looks strange and video-y.

My internet is fine with 4K but can't do 4K60, so I notice whenever something is uploaded in 4k60 and the only ones I've seen that are have been shot in 60p too.  Maybe others are frame-doubling but I haven't seen any.

7 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

That's actually not true, if you upload in 4K youtube uses a different compression method for 1080p as well (VP9 vs H264) making it look much better. 

Here's a video uploaded in 1080 that has both:

[newfoundmass]

4 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

That's actually not true, if you upload in 4K youtube uses a different compression method for 1080p as well (VP9 vs H264) making it look much better. 

I've heard this before. And I know a lot of channels upload in 4K even if the source footage isn't 4K. But I also have heard more popular channels get better quality transcoding overall, which is to say a file uploaded on a small channel might not look as good as if the same file was uploaded to a larger channel. 

I'm still of the opinion that most of us don't own TV's that are capable of truly displaying the benefits of 4K, even YouTube's highly compressed 4K, given the size of our TVs. On most things I can't see a ton of difference between 1080p and 4K unless I'm right on top of the TV. 

[kye]

11 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I've heard this before. And I know a lot of channels upload in 4K even if the source footage isn't 4K. But I also have heard more popular channels get better quality transcoding overall, which is to say a file uploaded on a small channel might not look as good as if the same file was uploaded to a larger channel. 

I'm still of the opinion that most of us don't own TV's that are capable of truly displaying the benefits of 4K, even YouTube's highly compressed 4K, given the size of our TVs. On most things I can't see a ton of difference between 1080p and 4K unless I'm right on top of the TV. 

I have a 32inch UHD display and the differences are obvious between 4K and 1080p.  

Having said that though, the differences between YT 4K and a 1080p Prores HQ export are slim, with the Prores having the advantage of course.

It's all about bitrate, not resolution.

[newfoundmass]

11 hours ago, kye said:

I have a 32inch UHD display and the differences are obvious between 4K and 1080p.  

Having said that though, the differences between YT 4K and a 1080p Prores HQ export are slim, with the Prores having the advantage of course.

It's all about bitrate, not resolution.

It's funny because I see very little difference on my 55 inch TV sitting about 10 feet away. Only when I'm within 2 or so feet do I see significant differences, even when factoring in just bit rate. If I'm looking on a monitor up close, I can definitely see a difference, but when I'm doing casual viewing? Not so much.