4K 10 bit 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2

Hi everyone,

I am currently editing 4K 10 bit 4:2:0 video on my 13 inch 2017 MBP running on intel 3.1GHz dual core i5 because my laptop cannot handle 4K 10 bit 4:2:2 video. Below is a recent example of my edited 4K 4:2:0 video.

Edited 4K 4:2:0 video

I can upgrade my laptop to a 14inch M2 Pro, 16 inch M2 Pro, or 16 inch M2 Max in order to edit 4K 4:2:2 video. Is there a significant benefit to editing in 4:2:2 over 4:2:0 taking into account that my camera is the Sony A1 which is 50 megapixels, which (to me) suggests that the camera would downsample from 50 megapixels to the resolution required for 4K video which may only be around 8 .megapixels (do correct me if I am wrong here). Is there a point in chasing 4:2:2?

Thanks

Why having a beast as A1 and not using it at its best?

Having more color info you would get more room for heavy color grade. Probably in the blues gradient. Last but not the least, your files will be more future proof.

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

Why having a beast as A1 and not using it at its best?

Having more color info you would get more room for heavy color grade. Probably in the blues gradient. Last but not the least, your files will be more future proof.

Thanks for your response.

I should have clarified that the old laptop will certainly be replaces at some point. I am trying to figure out if I should force the issue now, or trundle along with 4:2:0 until the laptop starts failing and replace it then be it 6 months or 12 months down the road. I really have no use for a laptop other than editing my holiday videos.

I am trying to understand how much of an improvement 4:2:2 colour sampling is over 4:2:0 colour sampling in visual terms. In pixel sampling terms, I can understand that 4:2:2 samples twice as many pixels for chroma than 4:2:0 (but the same number of pixels for luma).

Does anyone have a link to an internet resource that shows the visual difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 colour sampling?

Thanks

BTW, it has been suggested to me that because both 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 colour samplings utilise full luma sampling of every pixel, the difference between 4:2:2 video and 4:2:0 video may not be too dramatic. Think of a blue sea background. Because both 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 sample all pixels for luma, you will still get graduations in colour due to the difference in luma of each pixel.

So if anyone knows of any comparisons between 4K 10 bit 4:2:2 and 4:2:0, I'd be grateful for a link

Thanks

I am in transit between flights and have a few hours to kill. Google found the following for me:

4:2:2 vs 4:2:0

Unless you experts tell me different, it does not appear to me that 4:2:2 is significantly better than 4:2:0.

Chroma Subsampling is a very effective way to compress color information

4:2:0 achieves 75% compression while 4:2:2 50% of color information

Even today Dolby Vision 4K features are delivered in 4:2:0

However the same productions require as minimum 4:2:2 for capture this is mostly due to chroma keying that fails miserably with 4:2:0

You are not using Chroma Key and I suppose you are using 4K HS on the A1 that has a 200 mbps 4:2:2 and a 150 mbps 4:2:0 at 50 or 60 fps (as it does not have 25 or 30 but has 24 fps magic of Sony)

While HEVC 4:2:0 is hardware accelerated on most platforms 4:2:2 is not usually so machines struggle to process it

The point here is that if you correctly white balance and make minimal color changes in post there is little benefit in 4:2:2 however if you do require to make changes 4:2:2 will have more latitude

Generally you should shoot at the best output setting so 200 mbps regardless of what you want to do in edit and if you struggle to process use proxy for editing in prores

Videomaker has a good summary https://www.videomaker.com/article/f6/15788-the-anatomy-of-chroma-subsampling/

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Chroma Subsampling is a very effective way to compress color information

4:2:0 achieves 75% compression while 4:2:2 50% of color information

Even today Dolby Vision 4K features are delivered in 4:2:0

However the same productions require as minimum 4:2:2 for capture this is mostly due to chroma keying that fails miserably with 4:2:0

You are not using Chroma Key and I suppose you are using 4K HS on the A1 that has a 200 mbps 4:2:2 and a 150 mbps 4:2:0 at 50 or 60 fps (as it does not have 25 or 30 but has 24 fps magic of Sony)

While HEVC 4:2:0 is hardware accelerated on most platforms 4:2:2 is not usually so machines struggle to process it

The point here is that if you correctly white balance and make minimal color changes in post there is little benefit in 4:2:2 however if you do require to make changes 4:2:2 will have more latitude

Generally you should shoot at the best output setting so 200 mbps regardless of what you want to do in edit and if you struggle to process use proxy for editing in prores

Videomaker has a good summary https://www.videomaker.com/article/f6/15788-the-anatomy-of-chroma-subsampling/

Thanks for the link. Most useful.

I'm beginning to think that for my holiday video editing, I will not reap significant benefit from 4:2:2. If 4:2:0 is good enough, then when I eventually upgrade my computer a 14 inch 10 core CPU M2 Pro would probably be sufficiently powerful. Furthermore it also means that 512GB SSD memory would be sufficient. Who knows, it may even be M3 by the time I upgrade the laptop.