Does UHD Resolution Make Up for Frame Reordering Turned Off?

I’m rendering my project with frame reordering turned off and the quality restricted so that I can minimize artifacts appearing in the final product. Will rendering in a higher resolution (e.g., UHD vs HD) make up for the frame reordering option being turned off as far as video quality is concerned for YouTube uploads? In other words, will a render at “UHD frame reorder OFF” be the same or better quality as “HD frame reorder ON” for uploading to YouTube?

This is from the manual.

I’m rendering my project with frame reordering turned off and the quality restricted so that I can minimize artifacts appearing in the final product.
Will rendering in a higher resolution (e.g., UHD vs HD) make up for the frame reordering option being turned off as far as video quality is concerned for YouTube uploads?
In other words, will a render at “UHD frame reorder OFF” be the same or better quality as “HD frame reorder ON” for uploading to YouTube?

Based on your assumptions:
1) No. UHD vs HD has no influence on frame reordering and frame reordering has no influence on quality in the context of UHD vs HD.
2) No.

Based on reality:
1) Youtube allocates higher bitrate to UHD video, even when viewed at HD. So yes, the higher resolution gives you better quality for the viewer. Frame reordering has no influence on that specific question.
Like Charles said: Frame reordering does increase quality in the final output file.

2) No. Same reason as above.

The best way is to render to a mezzanine codec (DNxHR/grass valley/cineform/prores), then upload that file to youtube, to minimize quality loss in davinci, as youtube will re-encode your video no matter what you do beforehand.
If you happen to have a nVidia card you can select the nVidia encoder with Constant QP of 15 in them all that way you get visually lossless encoding but don't get the huge files from a mezzanine codec.

I’m rendering my project with frame reordering turned off and the quality restricted so that I can minimize artifacts appearing in the final product.

Restricting the quality will have an adverse affect on quality (as the term implies).

Sooo....there's that.

This is from the manual.

Thank you, Charles Bennett- I read that part, but that's what I'm curious about (whether I can make up for the "expense of visual quality" by rendering at UHD).

Based on reality:
1) Youtube allocates higher bitrate to UHD video, even when viewed at HD. So yes, the higher resolution gives you better quality for the viewer. Frame reordering has no influence on that specific question.
Like Charles said: Frame reordering does increase quality in the final output file.

2) No. Same reason as above.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, rendering at UHD will indeed make up for some (or all) of the quality lost with frame reordering turned off as far as the viewer is concerned. The files I'm working with are mostly from films shot in the early nineties, with a few scenes from more recent ones in the 2010s (with all of these scenes being recorded off my screen with OBS Studio), so this project is not dealing with files that are of particularly high quality to begin with. I am guessing that this means frame reordering turned off will have less of an impact overall on the quality of my project?

The best way is to render to a mezzanine codec (DNxHR/grass valley/cineform/prores), then upload that file to youtube, to minimize quality loss in davinci, as youtube will re-encode your video no matter what you do beforehand. If you happen to have a nVidia card you can select the nVidia encoder with Constant QP of 15 in them all that way you get visually lossless encoding but don't get the huge files from a mezzanine codec.

I don't doubt this, but if I am able to achieve a sufficient quality with MP4 UHD Frame Reordering Off, I do not want to risk artifacts using another codec, especially since I'm essentially out of time as far as working on this project (close to 1.5 years now ). I did a test upload to YouTube with Quicktime MPEG4 HD, with the quality looking pretty decent. I don't think MPEG4 has frame reordering (?), so by implication, MP4 UHD Frame Reordering Off should be the same or better quality?

Restricting the quality will have an adverse affect on quality (as the term implies).
Sooo....there's that.

From what I've read and seen from other YouTube uploaders, restricting the quality to double the frame rate (e.g., 30 fps = 60,000 kbs) ensures high quality while minimizing chances for artifacts. That's why I have it on there, but maybe having frame reordering turned off without any quality restriction may be perfectly sufficient for eliminating artifacts?

Thank you all for the amazing info and responses!

What a strange name for simple B frames feature?
Long GOP encodes without B frames have massively reduced quality for given bitrate (whole efficiency behind such a encoding lies in B frames). You need to at least double bitrate to get same visual quality if you have no B frames.

What a strange name for simple B frames feature?
Long GOP encodes without B frames have massively reduced quality for given bitrate (whole efficiency behind such a encoding lies in B frames). You need to at least double bitrate to get same visual quality if you have no B frames.

Andrew Kolakowski, when you say "double bitrate", are you referring to the 60,000 kbs I mentioned, or something else?

The best way is to render to a mezzanine codec (DNxHR/grass valley/cineform/prores), then upload that file to youtube, to minimize quality loss in davinci, as youtube will re-encode your video no matter what you do beforehand.
If you happen to have a nVidia card you can select the nVidia encoder with Constant QP of 15 in them all that way you get visually lossless encoding but don't get the huge files from a mezzanine codec.

Holy Toledo, I just test rendered a snippet of my project (Quicktime DNxHR, UHD) using this method, and the file size was insane (for 22 seconds, it was like 5 GB). Windows wouldn't play it, so I used Handbrake to reencode from DNxHR to MP4, which resulted in the cleanest, crispiest quality I've ever seen on this 6 year old laptop (no artifacts or shimmering whatsoever).

Thank you for the suggestion again!

EDIT: I would love to just upload the DNxHR file directly to YouTube, as you suggest, but I imagine it would take a ludicrous amount of time to upload? My project is 100 minutes, and if a 22 second snippet is close to 5 GBs, then we're talking a file of over 1 TB uploading to YouTube! I mean, do people do that kind of thing?

What a strange name for simple B frames feature?
Long GOP encodes without B frames have massively reduced quality for given bitrate (whole efficiency behind such a encoding lies in B frames). You need to at least double bitrate to get same visual quality if you have no B frames.

Andrew Kolakowski, when you say "double bitrate", are you referring to the 60,000 kbs I mentioned, or something else?

Yes, this is bitrate.

The best way is to render to a mezzanine codec (DNxHR/grass valley/cineform/prores), then upload that file to youtube, to minimize quality loss in davinci, as youtube will re-encode your video no matter what you do beforehand.
If you happen to have a nVidia card you can select the nVidia encoder with Constant QP of 15 in them all that way you get visually lossless encoding but don't get the huge files from a mezzanine codec.

Holy Toledo, I just test rendered a snippet of my project (Quicktime DNxHR, UHD) using this method, and the file size was insane (for 22 seconds, it was like 5 GB). Windows wouldn't play it, so I used Handbrake to reencode from DNxHR to MP4, which resulted in the cleanest, crispiest quality I've ever seen on this 6 year old laptop (no artifacts or shimmering whatsoever).

Thank you for the suggestion again!

EDIT: I would love to just upload the DNxHR file directly to YouTube, as you suggest, but I imagine it would take a ludicrous amount of time to upload? My project is 100 minutes, and if a 22 second snippet is close to 5 GBs, then we're talking a file of over 1 TB uploading to YouTube! I mean, do people do that kind of thing?

Depends on your upload speed
And yes, I've done that multiple times.