Hi Shaun Davies,
Edit: Have a look here
Since I’m a RED shooter I visit often reduser.net, and 8K was since a while a main theme there, so here is an example with 8K. Even I get a error currently, but you can see that the resolution options are given in the cogwheel-icon settings options. Not that I’m aware of any 8K VR from YouTube yet. But perhaps one day. If so the format would be something else:
My hint was a little nudge to your numbers, OK, I will be clearer, 13653x7680 is not a number that I would use. First it seems not to follow any dividable and secondly there is a 3 as last digit, a clear problem. The hight seems pure fantasy, perhaps I miss something, since this is a fast changing subject.
The producer/Cinematographer is Luke Neumann
Anyway, if 4K and then it is UHD, which is 3840x2160 and that will be recompressed. I use normally the highest lose less compression I can get uploaded in time. You have to make tests. Not all compression methods are equally good, some might be nice for some footage, then it might suck (really) for something else. Again, if YouTube gives you 4K and thing larger is a waste of time. If they have to sample it down, it might be not as good as After Effects could do. Yes, quality gets better when sampling down, but only if one knows what and how to do it. YouTube is not equipped with a human controlled system, it is certainly all automated.
Since the footage is for motion, but without motion blur, a high AntiAliasing creates less effective compressions. If you work with data rates, those crisp details will take space in the file. So, perhaps reconsider what really needs to be super sharp.
The discussions what works and what not will differ, and I will not even pretend to get it done the first two times in most cases. Trial and error. Learn the compressions-philosophies, e.g., is it run-length or mpeg based, etc. Form there you might have a first evaluation. Or just render different versions out. But never with a loss. Youtube can’t repair anything that is loss.
You see it on a 4K monitor, but the key questions is, how is it finally seen. My iMac has a 5K and when I look at any Facebook image I think of crumble cake, as they place a patter over it, grain makes an appearance of sharpness, to me it looks horrible, compared only to G+ which is also not the best.
As a subjective note: I tend to have my images (practical/still) in 26+Kx13+K/16bit Adobe RGB at the moment and my footage (practical/motion) in capture 6K/16bit down-sampled to deliver 4K/UHD, and it shows (camera UHD-movie stuff is more 3K, if at all, but we all know that), most people will see it on an iPhone - at least so far I get from my “followers at G+” (close to 300M views currently), and there goes the whole beauty of hi-res. But I digress.
Well rendering, if done well is better in quality, and there we need to soften sometimes areas of little interest to get the size (MB-wise) down.
All of that, just suggestions. Keep for now the the VR-Cam render sizes and render more—upload even more —than getting slowed down by 15K stuff. IF you get more savvy with the compression and which image content suffers less from which compression format, you might explore larger sizes. At the moment the bandwidth is certainly not ready for that, nor the majority of devices. Well, that is my idea about. Toss it or explore it, that is just up to you.
Besides, test different frame rates:
The more frames, so far I got it, the better the quality. But I might be wrong, as things have changed constantly, as ai Said above already. Perhaps 60fps is better than 24fps. Test, test, test. Testing means to use all kind of devices, as nothing is more annoying than using a device that is overwhelmed with the data flow, and your head movement is not followed.
The less compressed, the higher the bandwidth needs to be
The higher compressed, the better the decoder must be (faster)
The higher the frame rate the more natural motion will show
In anyway, I hope you get your work showcased and find people who admiring it. Isn’t that what it is all about?