BoomOp is correct. Most pro editors are geared to edit with raw uncompressed video. It kind of throws them for a loop when trying to use them to edit pre-compressed material. ProRes is a good format (editing wise). However it seems that the GoPro only outputs compressed files to begin with which makes it more difficult to work with edit wise. So if you're going to use something like Resolve or Premiere to edit it seems using the GoPro you're stuck with doing a recode of all material to a format that is edit friendly. Or use a cuts only edit app to edit the compressed material directly. Personally, if the material in question can be edited cuts only the final edit will look much better only going thru a single encode (i.e. the encode that the GoPro put on it initially). Using a cuts-only app that won't recode your final you'll basically end up with an edited version of what came out of the GoPro initially. Always keep this little fun fact in the back of your mind when working with video - with every recode pass using a compression type codec you lose a little in the translation. The least amount of compressive recoding the better for overall video quality.

Yes YT will take their own liberties with ever they get uploaded to save the most space and bandwidth on storage and playback.

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2023

You should transcode your rendered -finished or temp- movie to a playout codec, and upload that to Youtube. So an extra step.
And because they re-transcode anyhow, you don't have to pay much attention to transcoding settings.
The file just should have enough bandwidth, only when your footage has difficult fast elements, you'd want to change standard coding parameters. But if it looks good, it is good enough.

You only need to keep a RAW/ProRes/DNxHD format for backup, or when sending to audio postproduction or color grading.

 

Exactly. They used to let us choose between compressed H.264 or H.265. Now only H.265
But I guess most consumers don't even know what it is and don't really care. GoPro 11 was the only option in that price range with 4k @ 120 fps on board. I think youtube doesn't even support 120 fps yet and converts everything to 60 fps. But I can do 60 fps timeline + cool slo-mo and feel like Neo or Max Payne

Yep. That's what I suspected. That's why it was so important to understand which codecs would not compress already compressed source footage. As far as I understood, Avid DNxHR HQX won't harm anything (if I'm on PC).

 

I just can't understand how youtube transcoding from playout codec like H.265 can give the same result as transcoding from Avid DNxHR HQX (even upconverted from H.265).
Hypothetically, feeding youtube DNxHR should give better results. Because we avoid one extra compressive recode pass that Saccamano is talking about

 

My thinking:

1. H.265 source -> export from Resolve in H.265 (or any other playout codec) -> Youtube VP9 conversion
looks like
320 kbps MP3 -> converted to 320 Kbps MP3 again -> converted to AAC

2. H.265 source -> upconvert to DNxHR HQX -> Youtube VP9 conversion
looks like
320 kbps MP3 -> upconverted to Wav -> converted to AAC

The second variant on paper looks safer to me. But I'm not sure if it's a correct parallel from the audio world