How much memory is needed to edit 4K video?

[CH12671]

Proxy media is 1/4 the size of ProRes 422, which itself may be 10x the size of a highly-compressed camera native format. E.g, say the 4k camera captures in AVCHD, it is probably writing about 7 gigabytes every 10 min to storage.

That 7 gigabyte file if converted to ProRes 422 might be 70 gigabytes. Fortunately Proxy media is only about 1/4 the size, so it's "only" 17.5 gigabytes, or double the size of the camera native files. Generating those proxies is a transcode, so this also takes a long time on an underpowered system.

So proxy media does enable HD or even 4k editing on some lower-powered systems, but it's not a magic solution. At 4k you still need lots of disk space -- even for proxy files -- and you pay the time penalty of the transcode.

If the OP wants to give it a try, have at it. Before even getting the 4k camera, he can probably find some 4k camera native files to download and try editing. I think he'll find it doesn't work well (maybe at all) on his 2008 iMac, but I say give it a try and post his results here.

Understood, but (like you said) it won't cost him a penny to try. And no one else was even suggesting it. Everyone was suggesting that he spend $3k plus on a new machine, and he obviously doesn't want to.

I agree, though, probably gonna (at least) need more than 1 GB RAM.

----------

I think even a top of the line iMac with spec'ed out video card will still struggle some with raw 4k footage. The i7 will be fine, but the mobile video card will begin to choke down. Especially since the new FCPx is designed to work best with dual graphics cards.

 

[Scott2014]

I want to make sure I’m understand you correctly:

Basically, you’re saying I can use a 4K video camera now, but I can simply not capture it’s full resolution into my computer, and then everything (with my computer as it is) will work just fine… Correct?

 

[joema2]

....Basically, you’re saying I can use a 4K video camera now, but I can simply not capture it’s full resolution into my computer, and then everything (with my computer as it is) will work just fine… Correct?

No, the full 4k video content must be copied to your computer.

That is in "camera native" format, typically highly compressed H.264 or AVCHD, although some cameras use less-compressed formats resulting in larger file sizes.

A slow computer has difficulty editing most camera-native high-def formats, and 4k resolution makes this much worse.

There are three options after copying the camera files to your computer:

(1) Edit the camera files directly
(2) During FCP import, create optimized ProRes 422 media in addition to camera files and edit those. These are less compressed and easier to edit but typically 10x the size of AVCHD camera files.
(3) During FCP import, create proxy media in addition to the camera files and edit those. These are less compressed but 1/4 the resolution, so they are still larger than the camera files. FCP maintains links to the original files so makes the process transparent.

It is extremely unlikely that using proxy media will allow effective 4k editing on your 2008 iMac. This is just common sense. If you could edit 4k video on a 2008 iMac, people wouldn't buy Mac Pros and Thunderbolt disk arrays for this. That's why I didn't mention it at first.

However there's no cost in downloading some native camera files for your prospective camera and trying it out. If you look around you can probably find someone who has posted such files or will send you some. Note you need the actual camera native files, not some transcoded lower-res version that someone uploaded to Vimeo.

 

[thekev]

I want to make sure I’m understand you correctly:

Basically, you’re saying I can use a 4K video camera now, but I can simply not capture it’s full resolution into my computer, and then everything (with my computer as it is) will work just fine… Correct?

That machine is going to feel underpowered on 4K no matter what. Do not kid yourself. All you can do when it comes to testing is figure out whether it's tolerable. What I don't understand is why you haven't looked for sample footage to test this out. It would tell you much more than advice from people with no direct access to your machine.

 

[Scott2014]

What I don't understand is why you haven't looked for sample footage to test this out. It would tell you much more than advice from people with no direct access to your machine.

Okay. Can you please provide a link to anywhere online where I can download a sample of 4K footage? Thank you.

----------

It is extremely unlikely that using proxy media will allow effective 4k editing on your 2008 iMac. This is just common sense. If you could edit 4k video on a 2008 iMac, people wouldn't buy Mac Pros and Thunderbolt disk arrays for this. That's why I didn't mention it at first.

When you list all the technology of today’s world (computers, cameras, phones, televisions, etc) it’s simply too many things changing too rapidly for me personally to keep up with. Therefore, when I have a technology question, I often post on an Internet forum dedicated to the specific subject.

----------

My next question is if people think my 2008 iMac will be able to process 1080p footage well?
Again, if someone can send me a link of 1080p sample footage, I’ll be happy to try it.

 

[thekev]

Okay. Can you please provide a link to anywhere online where I can download a sample of 4K footage? Thank you.

http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16615

 

[joema2]

Okay. Can you please provide a link to anywhere online where I can download a sample of 4K footage? Thank you..

Canon 1DC 4k raw footage here. Be advised it's a 12GB download. If you're shooting & editing 4k, get used to huge files. http://nino.macbay.de/1DC_Test/2013_02_02_Canon_1DC_Test_1_WATERMARK_UNGRADED.mov.zip

 

[adamneer]

can i just ask, what is it about 4k video that you find so compelling as to entirely skip over 1080p, which is and will be the standard for still several years to come? i don't mean to sound rude at all, but it clearly sounds like you are not at the skill or experience level to really benefit much from UHD video. i give you credit for seeking out knowledge and trying to educate yourself on the matter, but my advice would be to save your money and work in 1080p for a few more years until 4k becomes a more viable workflow for prosumers.

your core 2 duo iMac should handle 1080p just fine (i was using a late 2008 macbook pro for 1080p editing just a year ago). you will certainly want to max out your ram, since most editing programs will list 4gb as the minimum requirement. and as others have mentioned, you will need to be sure that whatever hard drive you're working off of is at least 7200 rpm, but preferably SSD or fusion to compensate a bit for your slower CPU.

if you have specific needs for 4k, then by all means, do your research and make it happen. but don't just assume that because it gets so much press in tech blogs and sites like this, that it is actually a necessary technology for you. and don't forget that even if your computer were capable of handling 4k video, without a 4k monitor, you would see no benefit from it, outside of the ability to crop and scale without degradation to smaller formats.

 

[CH12671]

He said originally that he is going to buy a DSLR which will take 4k (presumably as a secondary function). So he was just wanting to work with the raw video on the machine he already has. I'm assuming he is wanting the camera for the still shots mainly....

 

[adamneer]

well, considering there are very few DSLR's that currently offer 4K raw recording without custom software, and what little choices exist cost somewhere between $4,000-$10,000, i'm confused as to how using a 6 year old computer could even be a consideration. again, this all leads me to believe that the OP is falling victim to the insane amount of tech media hype 4k has gotten in the last year. i can understand how the average consumer could be lead to believe that 4k is much more prevalent than it really is. but the absolute fact right now (and likely for a few more years) is that 4K is extremely costly to buy into, and is not simply a matter of buying a new camera. with 4K comes the need for very expensive monitors, top speed storage devices (and LOTS of it) and a computer with top of the line processor/s and GPU. i agree that things can be done with proxies, for sure, but i can only imagine the render times for media ingest and final encoding would be insane with such an old system.

i make a living in video, and i have absolutely no interest in buying into 4k any time soon. HD cable hasn't even reached 1080p broadcast standard yet (still 1080i) and as far as i know, there are no currently available movie titles that are native 4K and not just "optimized" for 4k (meaning even 4K mastered movie releases are just upscaled 1080 or 2k sources).

 

[CH12671]

well, considering there are very few DSLR's that currently offer 4K raw recording without custom software, and what little choices exist cost somewhere between $4,000-$10,000, i'm confused as to how using a 6 year old computer could even be a consideration. again, this all leads me to believe that the OP is falling victim to the insane amount of tech media hype 4k has gotten in the last year. i can understand how the average consumer could be lead to believe that 4k is much more prevalent than it really is. but the absolute fact right now (and likely for a few more years) is that 4K is extremely costly to buy into, and is not simply a matter of buying a new camera. with 4K comes the need for very expensive monitors, top speed storage devices (and LOTS of it) and a computer with top of the line processor/s and GPU. i agree that things can be done with proxies, for sure, but i can only imagine the render times for media ingest and final encoding would be insane with such an old system.

i make a living in video, and i have absolutely no interest in buying into 4k any time soon. HD cable hasn't even reached 1080p broadcast standard yet (still 1080i) and as far as i know, there are no currently available movie titles that are native 4K and not just "optimized" for 4k (meaning even 4K mastered movie releases are just upscaled 1080 or 2k sources).

Good for you. I was answering the OP's question, not your assumptions. He said he was about to buy a DSLR.

I think he has his answer, all he has left to do is try.

By the way, high end GO Pro, and even some phones capture at 4K as well, so one doesn't have to be a "professional" to have 4k footage to use.

 

[adamneer]

Good for you. I was answering the OP's question, not your assumptions. He said he was about to buy a DSLR.

I think he has his answer, all he has left to do is try.

By the way, high end GO Pro, and even some phones capture at 4K as well, so one doesn't have to be a "professional" to have 4k footage to use.

the GoPro 3 Black is only capable of shooting 4K at 15fps and while the phones that are capable of shooting 4k at acceptable frame rates do produce excellent footage for a camera phone, the very nature of their design hinders their ability to be used for anything besides casual home videos. it can be argued that there are ways to enhance their capabilities with attachments and custom rigs, but this begs the question, "is it worth poor exposure, depth and dynamic range, just for a higher resolution output?" it kind of seems like cutting your foot off to get to the shoe store.

i don't quite know why you thought that my post was an argument against whatever you said, but i can assure you, my post was meant to help the OP and nothing more. perhaps i'd rather tell an inexperienced skydiver not to jump than to help him decide which color parachute looks best.

 

[yjchua95]

well, considering there are very few DSLR's that currently offer 4K raw recording without custom software, and what little choices exist cost somewhere between $4,000-$10,000, i'm confused as to how using a 6 year old computer could even be a consideration. again, this all leads me to believe that the OP is falling victim to the insane amount of tech media hype 4k has gotten in the last year. i can understand how the average consumer could be lead to believe that 4k is much more prevalent than it really is. but the absolute fact right now (and likely for a few more years) is that 4K is extremely costly to buy into, and is not simply a matter of buying a new camera. with 4K comes the need for very expensive monitors, top speed storage devices (and LOTS of it) and a computer with top of the line processor/s and GPU. i agree that things can be done with proxies, for sure, but i can only imagine the render times for media ingest and final encoding would be insane with such an old system.

i make a living in video, and i have absolutely no interest in buying into 4k any time soon. HD cable hasn't even reached 1080p broadcast standard yet (still 1080i) and as far as i know, there are no currently available movie titles that are native 4K and not just "optimized" for 4k (meaning even 4K mastered movie releases are just upscaled 1080 or 2k sources).

Having owned and used a EOS-1Dc for some time, I've to say that 4K is pretty much overhyped for now, considering that 4K displays are still pretty expensive. Most of my clients still prefer me to shoot in 1080p, and I happily oblige their wishes, because working with 4K on my 27" iMac (3.5GHz i7, 32GB RAM, 4GB GTX780M and 512GB SSD) can still be hell sometimes.

 

[joema2]

...
i make a living in video, and i have absolutely no interest in buying into 4k any time soon. HD cable hasn't even reached 1080p broadcast standard yet (still 1080i) and as far as i know, there are no currently available movie titles that are native 4K and not just "optimized" for 4k (meaning even 4K mastered movie releases are just upscaled 1080 or 2k sources).

There are a very few native 4k movies and even fewer distribution channels for these. Your statement is essentially correct. There is no widely available distribution method for 4k, especially for smaller productions.

If you cannot distribute the 4k material to the end viewer, and if they cannot view it at 4k, then why go through the trouble and expense of shooting 4k?

There is only two reasons I can think of, and these are not something a small production or hobbyist is typically concerned with:

(1) Shooting 4k today and distributing at 2k provides (theoretically) longer shelf life for material. However the apparent difference between 2k and 4k is much less than between standard def and 2k high-def. The 4k shelf life issue is something a major studio would be concerned with, not a small production team or individual hobbyist.

(2) In certain cases shooting 4k and down sizing to 2k allows trading resolution for increased dynamic range and chroma space. Supposedly the new Lumix GH4 will allow shooting 8-bit 4:2:0 at 4k then in post this can be converted to 10-bit 4:4:4 at 2k. Again, this is an esoteric issue, not generally applicable to most small productions and hobbyists.

Over the duration of this thread, the OP could have easily downloaded 4k material and tried it in FCP X. The chance of this being practically workable is so remote it's essentially a red herring to suggest otherwise. However it has stimulated some thoughtful discussion which hopefully has been educational for some.

 

[kathyricks]

Thank you. I checked, and I have:
-iMac 7.1
-1GB memory
-2.4Ghz Processor Speed
Does it sound like this computer is just hopeless for editing 4K video? Or does it sound like I could add memory and get it work?
If the latter, roughly how much money do you think I’d need to spend on adding the right amount of memory?
Again, thanks so much.

I have the same exact iMac as yours. The RAM is inexpensive to buy and easy to install on that model. Some of the RAM vendors have self help youtube installation tutorials. I put 2 GB of RAM in mine and I edit 1080p movies all the time using iMovie '11 (it's also called iMovie 9.0.9) and I use the old Snow Leopard operating system. My guess is that working with 4K video on your old iMac would be agonizingly slow, even if it was physically possible, regardless of how much RAM you put in. They folks on this forum http://www.avsforum.com/f/161/camcorders have 4K video cameras on order and they have also been discussing 4K video editors and computers suitable for editing 4K. You might want to spend time on that site to learn what computer software and hardware you'd need to buy to edit 4K.

By the way even a base model iPad Air can import, edit and export 1080p video with the latest iMovie application for iPad and iPads have only 1GB of RAM. The iPad version of iMovie is considerably less sophisticated than the iMac and Macbook versions, however.

 

[adamneer]

There are a very few native 4k movies and even fewer distribution channels for these. Your statement is essentially correct. There is no widely available distribution method for 4k, especially for smaller productions.

If you cannot distribute the 4k material to the end viewer, and if they cannot view it at 4k, then why go through the trouble and expense of shooting 4k?

There is only two reasons I can think of, and these are not something a small production or hobbyist is typically concerned with:

(1) Shooting 4k today and distributing at 2k provides (theoretically) longer shelf life for material. However the apparent difference between 2k and 4k is much less than between standard def and 2k high-def. The 4k shelf life issue is something a major studio would be concerned with, not a small production team or individual hobbyist.

(2) In certain cases shooting 4k and down sizing to 2k allows trading resolution for increased dynamic range and chroma space. Supposedly the new Lumix GH4 will allow shooting 8-bit 4:2:0 at 4k then in post this can be converted to 10-bit 4:4:4 at 2k. Again, this is an esoteric issue, not generally applicable to most small productions and hobbyists.

Over the duration of this thread, the OP could have easily downloaded 4k material and tried it in FCP X. The chance of this being practically workable is so remote it's essentially a red herring to suggest otherwise. However it has stimulated some thoughtful discussion which hopefully has been educational for some.

thank you, i couldn't agree more. i was unaware of the chroma exchange benefits of 4k, though hopefully it isn't exclusive to Panasonic. 4:4:4 would be so much more beneficial to me than 4k.

 

[CH12671]

Over the duration of this thread, the OP could have easily downloaded 4k material and tried it in FCP X. The chance of this being practically workable is so remote it's essentially a red herring to suggest otherwise. However it has stimulated some thoughtful discussion which hopefully has been educational for some.

Agreed. And if he or she hasn't done so already, then they don't really want the answer. And if they have, and haven't reported back, then shame on them.