The best workflow?
I’ve been working with 4K since 2014.
Sony AX100
H264 workflow XAVC
Export to 4K HEVC 25Mb/s
Now with A6700
50p 4K HEVC 100Mb/s in 10-bit 4:2:0
Export to HEVC 35Mb/s
I also have the DJI Air2S drone, which gives me excellent 4K at 25p.
I have an AMD 3900x with Nvidia 1660 Super OC
This workflow is very comfortable with Premiere Pro and CUDA.
I use ShotCut so I can recommend it (with my knowledge) on a fairly well-known French forum.
My version of Shotcut doesn’t support graphics acceleration for my GPU.
No big deal for testing it.
Of course, I still have some DV, HDV, and Super 8 that I digitized myself.
That’s my workflow.
Which country are you from?
Hello @caraibe13420
There is probably a translation problem.
In that topic, “work flow” means the method to be performed.
The hardware equipment is irrelevant and was not the subject of discussion.
Bonjour @caraibe13420
Il y a probablement un problème de traduction.
Dans ce sujet, le “flux de travail” signifie la méthode à effectuer.
L’équipement matériel n’est pas pertinent et n’a pas fait l’objet de discussions.
Cool setup! In this case, @Xenomorf had asked long ago about the best workflow for deinterlacing footage, and it was answered in the linked thread already. “Workflow” in this case doesn’t mean the entire process from capture device to final export settings. I’m not sure how “workflow” translates in French, but it’s very context dependent to the specific process being discussed in English. I applaud your patience at communicating through a translator if you’re using one.
Naturally, do whatever works for you. But for most users, CRF is usually a better and easier option. There is an objective measurement test in another thread that explains why this is.
Yes, Austin.
I can completely understand why CFR is recommended.
But when you’ve mastered the bitrate, CBR or VBR is very good.
My exports are excellent in CBR HEVC with a bitrate of 25Mb/s in 4k 25p and 35 or 40Mb/s in 4k 50 or 60p.
Experiment, it’s free, and you’ll see.
It’s also true that when giving advice to those who aren’t familiar with it, CFR is recommended.
I hope this will be well translated.
Yes, I believe it translated well. I do agree that CBR can look great, of course. But at what cost to file size? The challenge is that it is impossible to master a bitrate when the content varies in complexity from scene to scene, as the experiment showed.
What if I wanted to encode a video of a Zoom call where the same PowerPoint slide is on the screen for two minutes at a time, and then cuts back to live video? Encoding at 25 Mb/s would be an incredible waste of disk space for a slide deck that isn’t changing. CRF would be a fraction of the size with no quality loss.
Why would I pay hundreds of dollars extra for a 20 TB drive (and the backup drives for it) when I could have the same quality video in only 10 TB? As the experiment showed, a 2x difference in size is very possible.
I don’t mean to annoy you. I simply want users to be informed from all sides before they make their decisions about encoding. I think I’ve said all I have to say on it at this point.
Sorry, Austin.
I don’t agree.
I totally agree with recommending CFR here for beginners who won’t know how to choose the appropriate bitrates.
BUT when you know which bitrate to choose:
1- CFR or CBR, identical quality.
2- CFR, a little larger.
I just tested it on a 25p 4k Air2S.
CBR 25Mb/s export size: 397 MB.
CFR 55% export size: 413 MB.
Same export time: 3 minutes 37 seconds for 2 minutes 17 seconds for 4k 25p HEVC export in CPU encoding.
And I find it’s quite reasonable regarding the size in CFR ShotCut.
We had discussions about this in the Digital Repair about Voukoder’s CFR, an export plug-in for Adobe Premiere.
We unanimously recognized that with CFR, we didn’t control the output size, which was sometimes enormous.
I don’t understand why you say That the CFR saves storage space.
Sorry, that’s completely false.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been editing videos since 2002, using Premiere Magix Edius and then RE Premiere Pro.
And Shotcut, if you’d like to recommend it.
Sincerely,
André
It is not false, as the linked test clearly demonstrated with an example you can verify. Until NEG VMAF scores and sample videos are provided to support your claims, your exported file sizes are meaningless. There is no objective metric to guarantee that equal visual quality is being compared between your exports. That’s the key to the whole comparison… file size versus equal image quality. Nothing about your test is controlling for equal image quality. Eyeballing it is not objective and does not count.
If predictable file size is that important, there is always constrained CRF which has the upper limit benefits of CBR, but the compression benefits of CRF when a PowerPoint slide is in the video.
You’re making me laugh a little!!!
If I make a clip, it’s to look at it with my eyes.
You don’t???
Is it to send it to ChatGPT??
Or have it checked by another AI??
I have a 70" 4K TV. If my clips had any flaws, I’d watch them (I still have good eyesight).
In the French forum where I’m on, we often share our clips… I’ve never had any criticism about my clips.
Even on a 2.70m screen with a Sony VP4 4K at 2.70m from the screen, it’s perfect, according to a well-equipped forum moderator.
But I really don’t want to upset you.
If you want to believe that CFR is the best option, keep it up, it’s very good.
Personally, I’ll continue with CBR.
Because for me, it’s like making me believe the Earth is flat (as many Americans think). Also know With Premiere PRO, this CFR option doesn’t exist…
Neither in H264 nor in H265 is it CBR or VBR.
Are you going to make me believe that Adobe Premiere Pro is bad software??
Best regards,
André
Yes. And with your nice setup, you will notice when image quality suffers. What you won’t notice is when image quality is higher than it needs to be.
Suppose I tested CRF 18 footage against CBR 500Mbps footage straight out of an A6700. Suppose I said CBR was an inferior technique because it was a much larger file that didn’t look any better to my eyes. After calling me a dummy (which I would be for saying this lol), you would say it’s a bad test because the 500Mbps video is carrying way more detail than the eye can detect. You would be right.
If a CRF 55% file is larger than good-looking CBR, it means the CRF quality could be lowered and the eye wouldn’t be able to tell. Then the file sizes would be more comparable. How far could the CRF be lowered? That’s where quality-controlled tests like VMAF come into play.
I understand that you’ve found 25Mbps to be a comfortable target for your purposes. That’s great. But for a high-detail action scene, 25Mbps may not be enough. For a PowerPoint slide, 25Mbps is way too much. Quality or file size is always suffering for a video of decent length and variety.
What happens when you bounce between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2, or bounce between 1080p and 4K, or bounce between 8-bit SDR and 10-bit HDR, or bounce between 25p and 50p? How exhausting is it to test and find ideal bitrates for every combination of factors? It’s not great when dealing with chaotic requirements from a multitude of clients. CRF just works for whatever randomness a client throws at you. Square video for Instagram? Custom resolution in portrait mode for an e-commerce fashion catalog? Same CRF as always, it just works.
No, I obviously can’t convince you of anything lol. But there is a reason that many Premiere users export as ProRes HQ then re-encode with Shutter Encoder or Handbrake using CRF.
To be fair, I can understand you not wanting to run a 2-pass encoding process for every video you export. Given the limited export options provided by Premiere, I can certainly see the simplicity and appeal of CBR and I don’t begrudge that. But in Shotcut where the export options are unlimited, constrained-bitrate CRF is basically CBR with better compression during the slow boring parts of a video. What’s not to like? I’m just trying to help you get the most out of your efforts, and not be limited by the constraints of previous tools.
You must be right, SO ShotCut is superior to Premiere.
I’m going to quickly advise those working with Adobe on my forum to drop their monthly fees and start working with ShotCut.
This will save them from having to tamper with ProRes HQ and then encode with Shutter Encoder (a very useful free software that I know well).
They’ll definitely benefit in terms of cost, and in quality, according to you and speed, since ShotCut will save them from having to export to ProRes HQ.
I’m a little afraid of being laughed at, but I’ll pass on your suggestions.
I don’t know anyone who does it this way.
I’ve been on the forum since 2005 and I’m at the top of the list for message recommendations. I’ll give them this recipe…and your arguments.
For an action movie, I would obviously choose a higher CBR or VBR.
Exporting to ProRes HQ is valid for later reworking the same edit.
Several times without loss.
I’m wasting my time convincing you, just as you’re wasting yours trying to convince me that exporting ShotCut to CFR is better than any Premiere CBR or VBR export. Given such stubbornness, I wonder if I’ll ever talk about ShotCut again and recommend it.
But great respect to its developer, who nevertheless made a free software that holds up.
Perhaps they should tell them to leave ONLY the CFR option since the others are so bad and should not be recommended. If it’s deleted, I don’t care at all. I only use ShotCut to advise new users looking for free software.
But you’re really putting me off advertising ShotCut in France.
Sincerely, André
PS
We also have our own annoying user in our forum who always wants to have the last word, even if he’s wrong.
That’s very kind of you, but I don’t need your advice to make good videos. At least not in terms of image quality.
However, I’d appreciate some advice on storytelling…because I’m really bad at it, LOL.