Inspiring

Question

when should you use DNxhr/hd ?

Forum|Forum|8 years ago
July 31, 2017
5 replies
19049 views

Im uploading a video to youtube soon and i heard that this format is lossless file/? does that mean it should upload via to youtube or is for if im sending it out to be colorgraded to someone so the file is still high in quality

exporting

This topic has been closed for replies.

mrrap4foodAuthor

Inspiring

what kinda camera do you use?

A

Ashley7

Legend

mrrap4food wrote
what kinda camera do you use?

Canon 70D (DSLR) in ALL-I producing H.264 .MOV with a data rate of ~85 Mbps

Canon G7X (point-n-shoot) producing H.264 .MP4 with a data rate of ~24 Mbps.

Samsung S7 smartphone producing H.264 .MP4 with a data rate of ~18 Mbps.

So the 70D is obviously the one capturing the most data from the sensor... and by common standards is far from raw... no comparison... lightweight ... more than a smartphone but not to far ahead of even that lower end device.

mrrap4foodAuthor

Inspiring

i uploaded a test to Youtube for a DNxHD and to me the quality wasnt really worth it, it looked exactly the same as a Youtube preset at 4k, but my file was about 16 gbs and it took 1 hour to upload to youtube, as a youtube export from premiere would be 1.2gbs and took 15 mins

and oh the video was only 2:33 seconds

A

Ashley7

Legend

mrrap4food wrote
i uploaded a test to Youtube for a DNxHD and to me the quality wasnt really worth it, it looked exactly the same as a Youtube preset at 4k, but my file was about 16 gbs and it took 1 hour to upload to youtube, as a youtube export from premiere would be 1.2gbs and took 15 mins
and oh the video was only 2:33 seconds

I am wondering if Jim sees better results when basing a timeline off super high-qual raw footage. I figure, if one has a camera producing compressed H.264, exporting to DNxHD isn't automatically going to yield a better upload. The only thing I can think of is that outputting H.264 mp4, uploading it to YouTube, where YouTube then renders/re-exports that highly compressed format for its own purposes might then led to re-compression that would have been less harmful had the footage started as less compressed. But I'm guessing the benefits go up with two factors: a) higher qual source footage, and b) as Jim mentioned, reasonable bandwidth to make it worthwhile. My source footage is 8bit compressed and I have limited Internet bandwidth... so 'a' and 'b' don't make for my situation.

E

excited_Genie16B8

Legend

outputting H.264 mp4, uploading it to YouTube, where YouTube then renders/re-exports that highly compressed format for its own purposes might then led to re-compression that would have been less harmful had the footage started as less compressed.

That's exactly it. You Tube reencodes everything.

E

excited_Genie16B8

Legend

I have noticed better results when uploading DNxHD to YouTube compared to H.264. If you have the bandwidth, it's worth it.

A

Ashley7

Legend

Jim_Simon wrote
I have noticed better results when uploading DNxHD to YouTube compared to H.264. If you have the bandwidth, it's worth it.

I had no idea YouTube accepted DNxHD ... it's not on their list in the docs I saw... but I do see online discussions about it (i.e., https://www.videomaker.com/article/c05/17034-encoding-youtube-videos-at-the-highest-quality ) That's great to know about... thanks.

I did a test... I have a 50 minute timeline that exports to about 6GB using the AME YouTube 1080p preset. Tests show me that a DNxHD export would be about 10 times larger, at about 60GB. I have a not untypical Internet upload speed of about 10 Mbps... I can get the 6GB mp4 up to YouTube in about 1.5 hours give or take depending on a number of factors beyond my mere bandwidth. Using that as a basis, it seems it would take me about 15 hours to upload the DNxHD of the same video (10x longer). So what you mention, "if you have the bandwidth" is really key. If you don't, it becomes prohibitive.

Perhaps, if I really wanted the quality, I could upload drafts as mp4 files and then leave a system running/uploading for a final DNxHD version. I'd have to learn the benefits first... perhaps with smaller DNxHD tests to compare with... my source footage is from 8-bit DSLR sources, and point-n-shoot stuff.

What is your source footage generally when you use DNxHD like this? Curious what sort of bandwidth you have?

E

excited_Genie16B8

Legend

Currently shooting RAW on the BMPCC. Previously shooting H.264 from the GH4 and GH2.

I'm lucky enough to have fiber-optic in my neighborhood. I get 60 Mb/s both down and up.

mrrap4foodAuthor

Inspiring

so in summary you think i should just stick with H.264 format? ive noticed the file is 13 gigs! vs my h.264 files only being 1gb

A

Ashley7

Legend

mrrap4food wrote
so in summary you think i should just stick with H.264 format? ive noticed the file is 13 gigs! vs my h.264 files only being 1gb

Forgive me... I should have added... choose the YouTube format in the AME presets and use that for uploading. I do that all the time and I think Adobe works with YouTube to come up with those settings. They are optimum for uploading mp4 (h.264) to YouTube. For example, in AME or the export dialog, I export my main timeline destine for YouTube using the "YouTube 1080p HD" preset. They have other presets as well...

Intermediate codecs like DNxHD are not for uploading to YouTube but mostly for your in-house work or collaboration as you mentioned.

A

Ashley7

Legend

It is often suggested to use DNxHD as a mezzanine or intermediate format as a relatively lossless / high quality editing format. I do not send things out for color correction so can't comment much on that workflow but I'm guessing sending out DNxHD media for color correction could be one of the positive uses of it.

I generally hear of DNxHD, Cineform, and ProRes as the intermediate codecs to consider if creating mezzanine or intermediate formats for editing or color grading. Generally, video editing applications can work more nimbly with such media, and it can sometimes help to coerce esoteric source media from odd formats, or troublesome formats into something consistent with other media within the editing experience.

Premiere suggests DNxHD by default when doing a Render-and-replace of an AE comp. That's essentially exporting the AE comp now into a relatively lossless DNxHD format which will render much faster when you render the sequence within which the AE comp resided. Sometimes people will render sequences manually into such formats to either avoid having to re-render an otherwise completed sequence, or to mitigate or workaround issues. For example, I'm currently dealing with an issue that Premiere/AME have with Open Captions, where sometimes captions export correctly, other times they don't... intermittent... I can't afford to export for 2 hours only to see missing captions... so I export those sequences with captions to DNxHD or Cineform so that I know that parts done... then the main render will always produce captions... and I don't lose visible quality given the relatively high-qual format of those codecs.

In short, those codecs are very compatible and easy going with the editing/exporting experience and can therefore be used easily in a highly compatible manner with the editing/export experience... the reasons to go to such a format are varied... to work around bugs, to coerce source media into a common format easier on the editing experience, to save time, and to send out media to others to work it (I'm guessing... I don't use the latter reason).

If you search for mezzanine or intermediate codec here or on the web you'll find plenty of good overviews of the benefits.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded