Will use High Bit Rate when I want to photo capture out of the video footage. The benefit is each frame is more clear and defined versus standard which requires stepping frame-by-frame to find that clear image. If I know im not going to capture a photo still from my footage, just use standard to save space and battery.
UA-cam converts the video to a higher quality format when uploading the video in higher than 1080p and 60mbps. I would keep it at 60mbps for faster uploads and 100mbps if you don't wan't to lose original quality.
Very noticeable difference when you compare paused frames of similar lighting. Eg. at 2:26 before and after the switch. What you should have done was rode the same trail twice, and shown a split screen with the split vertically down the middle, with videos both at 100% height of the screen. Comparing the two videos by reducing them by 50% in size will never show a noticable difference between the two.
Glad I watched to the end, I was preparing to say I see a difference watching our UA-cam videos on our large screen 4K TV that is pretty obvious, and that was what you commented in the wrap up.
i cant belive your using a gopro for the 1st part of the video its very good quality video actually fantastic quality i recently got a gopro as a birthday gift
Thanks for making this video. Just got my first GoPro and and trying to figure all this stuff out. I think I'll keep it in standard bitrate. If I was making money off videos I could see where I'd want the best of the best but I'll probably just be sharing my videos on social media. I'm really into photography and it's a similar thing there, where people stress out about having the best of the best cameras and lenses with the most megapixels. 90% of those people aren't doing it for a living and are just sharing their photos on Facebook and Instagram, which downgrade the quality to the point where you wouldn't be able to tell what's shot on a 45 megapixel camera or a 20 megapixel camera.
hi mate, i don't think you would see much difference to the naked eye on bit ratios but its always a helpful topic. The area you would see better quality is in bandwidth and colour technology, especially when editing or grading with colour and highlights. I think off memory its about 60x or 65x more shades of colour and over a billion colours in 10 bit compared to 256million in 8bit. Realistically no one is going to be in a position to remark on how good the quality is, you will only really see it on big screen from cameras such as Redcam or TV/FIlm grade machines. or underwater footage on temperature changes. Helpful video though and interesting
High bitrate is beneficial for scenes with lots of fast movements on the scenes. In those cases is where low bitrates will generate this "pixelation" on the spaces where this fast movements are occurring. If the movements aren't that fast or abrupt, higher bitrates won't affect that much the quality of the video.
It is noticeable, if your device is setup to view high quality resolution. Most mobile devices default to a lower quality to improve streaming speeds over different networks. There's too many variables to accommodate. If there's a way in YT to see the medium that your viewers use most commonly and post produce to accommodate that mode. SD cards are getting cheaper and mine give me 7 hrs recording on one and 10 hrs on another at 4K so it comes down to personal preference and what you're willing to spend. Like your vids!
Thank you for the comparison. . . Have you tried 2.7k OR 4k/60fps ? Lock white balance 5000 and EV at -1.0) You can reduce to 30fps (Not 24) in post. Not sure action cameras can handle the processing @ 5.3k with all the variables of MB in the forest with changing light and stabilization requirements. Lens flare in the forest has been a challenge for us too. Made full body camera hood to reduce most, unless head on. We have 6 cameras on UTV hard wired for various POV so we can fade to a diff camera if one flares or gets dirty. Challenging . . .
Only real advantage of doing high bitrate is making lower resolution renders on youtube look somewhat better. When I viewed the comparison in 1080P the high bitrate did look slightly better. In 4k there was virtually no difference.
I'd say it definitely looks better on high bitrate (watching from a macbook on 4K YT quality), however, that is whilst going from one to the other, and as a side-by-side comparison. I don't think in isolation that the standard bitrate looks bad, so it's a good factor to consider when thinking about file size vs quality, etc.
I MIGHT have seen some difference in the detail levels of leaves and grass in the riding pictures, but I might as well just have fooled myself into thinking I saw it. Also, I suspect UA-cam will anyway give me a bitrate that is lower then the Gopro standard bitrate. My raw files on the computer nearly always look better than the same clip when I've uploaded it to UA-cam and play it from there.
I always shoot in high bit rate and flat color profile. This gives you options in post. 4K/2/7K is the only resolutions that look good on MTB videos when in the woods. YT's compression crushes detail in the trees where it's just pixelated blurriness.
I'm on a 144hz 4k monitor, forced youtube to use 4k obviously, and I genuinely can't see a difference lmao. On my 256gb sd card, my gopro 11 reports that I can get like 7h30m of 4k60 at superview at normal bitrate, but 4h at 4k60 at high bitrate. I just did a full ride video that's coming off the SD card now... can't wait to blow up my processor trying to edit lol. Never filming hi bitrate again unless maybe I'm doing a rainwalk video
You used high bitrate on the gopro setting but most likely exported both videos in lower bitrate in your editing program so they look the same to me. You have to export at 100mbps in your editing software to see the improvement. Edit: Once you showed them side by side i do see a bit of smudging in the low bitrate video, but its only noticeable on my 55inch 4K TV. Wouldn't bet an eye if I was watching it on a cellphone.
Don’t really see a difference. Plus when I upload to UA-cam, I think they decide what resolution they publish based on your viewers. I rarely record anything other than 1080 30fps. One time I did record the blue angels in 4K 60fps and I managed to capture the ISS streak by in broad daylight.😂
UA-cam will never serve a higher resolution you upload. They keep all the originally uploaded files and remaster the live videos when new resolutions/frame rates etc become available, but then higher resolution is nothing without high bitrate. Uploading in 1080 is a terrible idea, at 1080 and under youtube defaults to a crappy codec to re encode your video (Unless you meet their definition of a popular channel). You'll notice pixelation in fast moving scenes. Better to take your 1080 video and export it at 1440 or higher, then youtube will use the VP09 codec/higher bitrate. The pixelation will not be introduced, assuming it wasn't there in your original video, which it won't be if you shoot in high bit rate :)
Thanks for sharing! I've been using high but it takes forever to render and lags while editing. Going to try standard next time (I also use it to film mountain biking).
I would use high bitrate, water would be pretty high frequency with waves and spray etc. For editing, most softwares allow for proxy files. One thing people fail to consider is frame rate, If you shoot in 30fps at the same bitrate as 60fps, the frames from the 60fps recording will be half the quality of the ones shot at 30fps.
Does the video look different in terms of quality when playing it on macbook (Quicktime Player for example) versus uploading and watching on youtube? Kinda confused by how this works. I shot a footage in 4K, 10 bit and standard bit rate but it doesn't look like a 4K footage at all when I played it on Quicktime...
Hey mate, good onya for getting out there on the pushy to do some proper field testing. Here's a tip for you, if you're looking to keep your vids for years, and you want the best quality for use as everything gets more capable, buy as many cards of a size as you can afford, up your bit rate to 100Mbps but also up your FPS up to [in your case ] 120 FPS. Because you use Resolve [I read that in one of your replies] what you do then is in the edit page, right click on your highlighted clip that you'd like to edit, scroll up to "change clip speed" click it and up the top left click in the "Speed" box and change that to 40%. Hit "Change" on the bottom right. This will give you an output of 30 FPS. [40% of 120 FPS =30 FPS ]The box will disappear and you'll see the highlighted clip on the timeline. Highlight all the clips to the right hand side of your now edited clip, this will allow you to click and drag all of them as one unit quite a way to the right. Once you've done this, highlight your clip you've slowed down, hover the mouse towards the right hand side in the clip and this will give you a symbol similar to ] , once this is showing, click the mouse and hold, a white line will now appear in front of your clip, without letting go of the mouse, drag the clip to the right to populate the interior of the white lined area. When you reach the vertical white line on the right, you will be able to view the full extent of your edited, slowed down clip. Be careful to allow enough space between the clips to "grow" your slomo clip. Put the play head back at the beginning of the edited clip, hit ctri F [PC ] then the space bar once you have full screen, to view your now, 30 FPS clip that will look buttery smooth. I own Resolve Studio, but I would imagine Resolve Freebe does the same if that's what you're using. I'm a bit of a quality over quantity freak. PS WB is very important, try and work in Degrees Kelvin. As a starter, try ~5500 for sunny days. [Your light will be different to the light here in AUS, due to different contaminants in the air ] Don't use Auto WB. You're better off using a good quality ND 8 or ND 16 filter. Make sure you set your ISO to operate in a range, e.g. low of 100 to a high of 400. This depends upon the lighting situation of any given ride. i.e. In and out of shade or not. It's all about ISO, trust me on this, everything else can be a fixed setting, controlled by ISO. Good luck. If you get around to doing all that, maybe pop that up on your channel and see if people notice the difference. Enjoy. Al.
TL;DR if you aim to get the ultimate video quality, shoot and render at the maximum possible bitrate. A very simple experiment to figure out how bitrate may affect the image quaility. take a video captured with ANY bitrate. import it into a new project using your video editing tool (I use LumaFusion). Now export it specifying the lowest possible bitrate in the export settings. Then export the same project specifying the maximum possible bitrate. Compare the two video. You will notice the difference.
This, always max out everything you can. As youtube always re encodes your video its even worth exporting in ProRes 422 or similar. The lower compression means a faster render at the expense of a slower upload, but thats a choose your poison decision.
I could not tell the difference personally. Watching on YT on a 43" Samsung OLED TV, at 4K in full screen. I imagine the higher bitrate would be useful for post processing and editing if you are doing color grading or something like that. But for general youtube videos I don't think spending the battery and storage is worth using high bitrate.
Hi! You're moving fast and taking your footage with only 30fps. That means you get a lot of motion blur. Encoding unsharp frames with a high bit rate doesn't make things much better. Perhaps you can repeat this test at 60fps (and 10bit). This should give better results.
@@ClintGibbs The motion blur you mean isn't dictated by the fps, rather by the shutter speed being double the frame rate. I would be very surprised if the go pro isn't using a dynamic shutter speed to control exposure, possibly up to like 1/10000 at times. For cinematic you usually want the blur, for fast paced action you nearly always want more fps so the video is smooth.
Looks the exact same. Any differences that someone notices will disappear when you don't have the clips side-by-side. A blind test would be nearly impossible to tell. Great video
There’s a noticeable difference around let’s say the 20% on the edges. Maybe like 15% on the left and 15% on the far right. It looks like the middle portion of the video looks largely the same around the center of view. but I see significantly more detail in the leaf structures on highbit rate, when they are on the far edges of the screen. Anyways, I’m only about 2 1/2 minutes into this video and that’s what I notice.
Wait…. This is supposed to only be video bit rate right? The audio seems like the sampling sections are significantly smaller on high bit rate. There is much more vocal definition. I don’t understand this. There should be no difference because that should be independent of video bit rate, unless somehow they are related together.
Will use High Bit Rate when I want to photo capture out of the video footage. The benefit is each frame is more clear and defined versus standard which requires stepping frame-by-frame to find that clear image. If I know im not going to capture a photo still from my footage, just use standard to save space and battery.
Thanks for the comparison. No it's not worth double the file size when UA-cam murders the bitrate anyway.
UA-cam converts the video to a higher quality format when uploading the video in higher than 1080p and 60mbps. I would keep it at 60mbps for faster uploads and 100mbps if you don't wan't to lose original quality.
Very noticeable difference when you compare paused frames of similar lighting. Eg. at 2:26 before and after the switch. What you should have done was rode the same trail twice, and shown a split screen with the split vertically down the middle, with videos both at 100% height of the screen. Comparing the two videos by reducing them by 50% in size will never show a noticable difference between the two.
Glad I watched to the end, I was preparing to say I see a difference watching our UA-cam videos on our large screen 4K TV that is pretty obvious, and that was what you commented in the wrap up.
i cant belive your using a gopro for the 1st part of the video its very good quality video actually fantastic quality i recently got a gopro as a birthday gift
Thanks for making this video. Just got my first GoPro and and trying to figure all this stuff out. I think I'll keep it in standard bitrate. If I was making money off videos I could see where I'd want the best of the best but I'll probably just be sharing my videos on social media. I'm really into photography and it's a similar thing there, where people stress out about having the best of the best cameras and lenses with the most megapixels. 90% of those people aren't doing it for a living and are just sharing their photos on Facebook and Instagram, which downgrade the quality to the point where you wouldn't be able to tell what's shot on a 45 megapixel camera or a 20 megapixel camera.
hi mate, i don't think you would see much difference to the naked eye on bit ratios but its always a helpful topic. The area you would see better quality is in bandwidth and colour technology, especially when editing or grading with colour and highlights. I think off memory its about 60x or 65x more shades of colour and over a billion colours in 10 bit compared to 256million in 8bit. Realistically no one is going to be in a position to remark on how good the quality is, you will only really see it on big screen from cameras such as Redcam or TV/FIlm grade machines. or underwater footage on temperature changes. Helpful video though and interesting
High bitrate is beneficial for scenes with lots of fast movements on the scenes. In those cases is where low bitrates will generate this "pixelation" on the spaces where this fast movements are occurring. If the movements aren't that fast or abrupt, higher bitrates won't affect that much the quality of the video.
You need to tell us what else your other settings were. Resolution, fps etc
It is noticeable, if your device is setup to view high quality resolution. Most mobile devices default to a lower quality to improve streaming speeds over different networks.
There's too many variables to accommodate.
If there's a way in YT to see the medium that your viewers use most commonly and post produce to accommodate that mode.
SD cards are getting cheaper and mine give me 7 hrs recording on one and 10 hrs on another at 4K so it comes down to personal preference and what you're willing to spend.
Like your vids!
From the perspective of cycling- no difference that justifies the file size enormity. Not at all.
Thank you for the comparison. . . Have you tried 2.7k OR 4k/60fps ? Lock white balance 5000 and EV at -1.0) You can reduce to 30fps (Not 24) in post. Not sure action cameras can handle the processing @ 5.3k with all the variables of MB in the forest with changing light and stabilization requirements. Lens flare in the forest has been a challenge for us too. Made full body camera hood to reduce most, unless head on. We have 6 cameras on UTV hard wired for various POV so we can fade to a diff camera if one flares or gets dirty. Challenging . . .
Thanks for your final thoughts!
They're extremely informative and helpful!
Only real advantage of doing high bitrate is making lower resolution renders on youtube look somewhat better. When I viewed the comparison in 1080P the high bitrate did look slightly better. In 4k there was virtually no difference.
I'd say it definitely looks better on high bitrate (watching from a macbook on 4K YT quality), however, that is whilst going from one to the other, and as a side-by-side comparison. I don't think in isolation that the standard bitrate looks bad, so it's a good factor to consider when thinking about file size vs quality, etc.
I MIGHT have seen some difference in the detail levels of leaves and grass in the riding pictures, but I might as well just have fooled myself into thinking I saw it. Also, I suspect UA-cam will anyway give me a bitrate that is lower then the Gopro standard bitrate. My raw files on the computer nearly always look better than the same clip when I've uploaded it to UA-cam and play it from there.
Very helpful. Thanks, Clint!
Thanks for doing these tests so I don't have too! Super helpful.
Not worth the file size and definitely not worth the extra battery consumption and heat.
I always shoot in high bit rate and flat color profile. This gives you options in post. 4K/2/7K is the only resolutions that look good on MTB videos when in the woods. YT's compression crushes detail in the trees where it's just pixelated blurriness.
I'm on a 144hz 4k monitor, forced youtube to use 4k obviously, and I genuinely can't see a difference lmao. On my 256gb sd card, my gopro 11 reports that I can get like 7h30m of 4k60 at superview at normal bitrate, but 4h at 4k60 at high bitrate. I just did a full ride video that's coming off the SD card now... can't wait to blow up my processor trying to edit lol. Never filming hi bitrate again unless maybe I'm doing a rainwalk video
You used high bitrate on the gopro setting but most likely exported both videos in lower bitrate in your editing program so they look the same to me. You have to export at 100mbps in your editing software to see the improvement.
Edit: Once you showed them side by side i do see a bit of smudging in the low bitrate video, but its only noticeable on my 55inch 4K TV. Wouldn't bet an eye if I was watching it on a cellphone.
Clint you shine in this type of vlog. I don’t see any if at all difference, other than maybe a tad more detail. Thanks
I would have never noticed any difference and honestly still don't. I am still using a Hero 9
Don’t really see a difference. Plus when I upload to UA-cam, I think they decide what resolution they publish based on your viewers. I rarely record anything other than 1080 30fps. One time I did record the blue angels in 4K 60fps and I managed to capture the ISS streak by in broad daylight.😂
UA-cam will never serve a higher resolution you upload. They keep all the originally uploaded files and remaster the live videos when new resolutions/frame rates etc become available, but then higher resolution is nothing without high bitrate. Uploading in 1080 is a terrible idea, at 1080 and under youtube defaults to a crappy codec to re encode your video (Unless you meet their definition of a popular channel). You'll notice pixelation in fast moving scenes. Better to take your 1080 video and export it at 1440 or higher, then youtube will use the VP09 codec/higher bitrate. The pixelation will not be introduced, assuming it wasn't there in your original video, which it won't be if you shoot in high bit rate :)
Thanks for sharing! I've been using high but it takes forever to render and lags while editing. Going to try standard next time (I also use it to film mountain biking).
Sali bi slika na yt bila bolja u koliko bi se snimalo u rezoluciji 4k i 120 f.p.s ?
Thanks that was really helpful. I do sailing videos. I will try the standard bit rate from now on. Should help solve my storage and editing issues.
I would use high bitrate, water would be pretty high frequency with waves and spray etc. For editing, most softwares allow for proxy files. One thing people fail to consider is frame rate, If you shoot in 30fps at the same bitrate as 60fps, the frames from the 60fps recording will be half the quality of the ones shot at 30fps.
Does the video look different in terms of quality when playing it on macbook (Quicktime Player for example) versus uploading and watching on youtube? Kinda confused by how this works. I shot a footage in 4K, 10 bit and standard bit rate but it doesn't look like a 4K footage at all when I played it on Quicktime...
Hey mate, good onya for getting out there on the pushy to do some proper field testing. Here's a tip for you, if you're looking to keep your vids for years, and you want the best quality for use as everything gets more capable, buy as many cards of a size as you can afford, up your bit rate to 100Mbps but also up your FPS up to [in your case ] 120 FPS. Because you use Resolve [I read that in one of your replies] what you do then is in the edit page, right click on your highlighted clip that you'd like to edit, scroll up to "change clip speed" click it and up the top left click in the "Speed" box and change that to 40%. Hit "Change" on the bottom right. This will give you an output of 30 FPS. [40% of 120 FPS =30 FPS ]The box will disappear and you'll see the highlighted clip on the timeline. Highlight all the clips to the right hand side of your now edited clip, this will allow you to click and drag all of them as one unit quite a way to the right. Once you've done this, highlight your clip you've slowed down, hover the mouse towards the right hand side in the clip and this will give you a symbol similar to ] , once this is showing, click the mouse and hold, a white line will now appear in front of your clip, without letting go of the mouse, drag the clip to the right to populate the interior of the white lined area. When you reach the vertical white line on the right, you will be able to view the full extent of your edited, slowed down clip. Be careful to allow enough space between the clips to "grow" your slomo clip. Put the play head back at the beginning of the edited clip, hit ctri F [PC ] then the space bar once you have full screen, to view your now, 30 FPS clip that will look buttery smooth. I own Resolve Studio, but I would imagine Resolve Freebe does the same if that's what you're using. I'm a bit of a quality over quantity freak. PS WB is very important, try and work in Degrees Kelvin. As a starter, try ~5500 for sunny days. [Your light will be different to the light here in AUS, due to different contaminants in the air ] Don't use Auto WB. You're better off using a good quality ND 8 or ND 16 filter. Make sure you set your ISO to operate in a range, e.g. low of 100 to a high of 400. This depends upon the lighting situation of any given ride. i.e. In and out of shade or not. It's all about ISO, trust me on this, everything else can be a fixed setting, controlled by ISO. Good luck. If you get around to doing all that, maybe pop that up on your channel and see if people notice the difference. Enjoy. Al.
I really could not tell at all between the 2 videos. I'm curious what you use for your video editing
Davinci Resolve
Stumbled on this video. Have you compared 2.7k / 60fps / High Bitrate ? Upscaled to 4k ? Thank you (PS: Trail looks like central FL)
TL;DR if you aim to get the ultimate video quality, shoot and render at the maximum possible bitrate.
A very simple experiment to figure out how bitrate may affect the image quaility. take a video captured with ANY bitrate. import it into a new project using your video editing tool (I use LumaFusion). Now export it specifying the lowest possible bitrate in the export settings. Then export the same project specifying the maximum possible bitrate. Compare the two video. You will notice the difference.
This, always max out everything you can. As youtube always re encodes your video its even worth exporting in ProRes 422 or similar. The lower compression means a faster render at the expense of a slower upload, but thats a choose your poison decision.
Very helpful - thank you!
I could not tell the difference personally. Watching on YT on a 43" Samsung OLED TV, at 4K in full screen. I imagine the higher bitrate would be useful for post processing and editing if you are doing color grading or something like that. But for general youtube videos I don't think spending the battery and storage is worth using high bitrate.
Hi! You're moving fast and taking your footage with only 30fps. That means you get a lot of motion blur. Encoding unsharp frames with a high bit rate doesn't make things much better. Perhaps you can repeat this test at 60fps (and 10bit). This should give better results.
I like 24 or 30fps because it’s closer to what the human eye sees. 60fps looks unrealistic to me.
@@ClintGibbs Waaat? lol
@@SzyxYank 60 FPS looks like you’re watching a soap opera
@@ClintGibbs yeah, thats looks great, 120fps looks much beter too
@@ClintGibbs The motion blur you mean isn't dictated by the fps, rather by the shutter speed being double the frame rate. I would be very surprised if the go pro isn't using a dynamic shutter speed to control exposure, possibly up to like 1/10000 at times. For cinematic you usually want the blur, for fast paced action you nearly always want more fps so the video is smooth.
Looks the exact same. Any differences that someone notices will disappear when you don't have the clips side-by-side. A blind test would be nearly impossible to tell. Great video
thank you, man
There’s a noticeable difference around let’s say the 20% on the edges. Maybe like 15% on the left and 15% on the far right. It looks like the middle portion of the video looks largely the same around the center of view. but I see significantly more detail in the leaf structures on highbit rate, when they are on the far edges of the screen. Anyways, I’m only about 2 1/2 minutes into this video and that’s what I notice.
Wait…. This is supposed to only be video bit rate right? The audio seems like the sampling sections are significantly smaller on high bit rate. There is much more vocal definition. I don’t understand this. There should be no difference because that should be independent of video bit rate, unless somehow they are related together.
Audio quality is improved by setting the Raw Audio to High
Quite different! Each leaf has clear shining under the high bitrate, but blur under standard.Thanks for your Video!
I’m watching on a fifth generation iPad. There is no discernible difference.
Great advice! I'm going to try that on my Gopro Hero 9! Check my video out!
Nice forest. Are there a lot of garbage and shit?
San Felasco state park is kept very clean. It's a 7,000 acre nature preserve.
@@ClintGibbs Great. Nice to hear.