# 4K, 5K, 6K and Up Video



## expatinasia (Sep 6, 2014)

I would bet that _*most*_ of us do not even have a 4K screen at home, or work. I know I do not, and I am not planning on buying one, even though many cameras already take 4K video, which is great.

All those manufacturers will have to sell off their stock, and I am sure a few won't be too pleased that Dell has just confirmed the "world's first" 5K display!!

This makes me wonder. How long do you think it will be before we are seeing cameras with more than 4K shooting ability? What is holding the technology back in terms of how far can it go in just the next few years?

Let's not discuss whether we need 4K, 5K, or 6K and more, or even whether the human eye can distinguish between them, as that cat is well and truly out of the box and there is no heading back, whether you like it or not.

I won't be upgrading my TV until I know I can get a 4K or 5K+ signal on the channels I watch (like Setanta, BBC etc), but I am very happy to buy a new camera for the videos I do (now use the 1DX) if it has more XK.

Thoughts?

Added:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

Sorry forgot the link for the 5K Display news.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 6, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> I would bet that _*most*_ of us do not even have a 4K screen at home, or work. I know I do not, and I am not planning on buying one, even though many cameras already take 4K video, which is great.
> 
> All those manufacturers will have to sell off their stock, and I am sure a few won't be too pleased that Dell has just confirmed the "world's first" 5K display!!
> 
> ...


I believe the "Red" cameras can shoot 6K video....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2014)

Just like 2K video, 4K video comes in various compression levels and qualities. Just being 2K or 4K is no guarantee that the video quality is not poor due to being compressed or even upsized from a lower quality.

I don't have a 4K screen, they are available, but the ones I've seen do not look any better than a standard HD screen. A PC monitor might, since I am typically very close to the screen. I think that the improvement is very subjective. Vision is a big variable, some can see the difference, some can't. 

However, even if reducing the resolution for publishing a video, its always best to have your original in a bit higher resolution than the output. Before digital, I used SVHS for my original video, but produced VHS output. This was due to the degradation of video when copied. Digital, to my knowledge does not significantly degrade from original to copy, so the advantage of having a high resolution original might come in the future when a high res output makes more sense.

I'd suspect that editing a 4K video that is full quality with no lossy compression will require some rather exotic editing hardware.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 6, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd suspect that editing a 4K video that is full quality with no lossy compression will require some rather exotic editing hardware.



It's only 4 times the data of fullHD.
Compared to even consumer level CG compositing that isn't half as demanding as it sounds - CG rendering is done in layers, to get a "normal" looking stream you have to blend on average a dozend layers - each a full resolution stream on its own - together. That worked fine 10 years ago.

(Working with proxies can be an option as well.)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'd suspect that editing a 4K video that is full quality with no lossy compression will require some rather exotic editing hardware.
> ...



Ten years ago? Has it been that long?

I seem to recall that Adobe had to update Premiere along with everyone else when the 5D MK II hit the market. At the time, only high end software could handle it. Most common computer software could not handle editing video from the 5D MK II in real time. Only by using work-arounds could it be done until the Mercury engine came along. There were lots of people struggling to even play the video from the 5D MK II.

Saving a continuous 200MB/sec and a lot more to a ordinary spinning hard drive is a issue as well.

Here is a post from Red about their data rates for 4.5K raw. At 24 fps, it is manageable using a SSD, but at 60 fps, it gets exotic.

"There has been some speculation on various boards as to the accuracy of our stated data rates for 4K RAW uncompressed data - i.e the data rate PRIOR to compression... The math is as follows : 

4K at 24fps RAW - 4096 x 2304 x 24 x 12 / 8 / 1024 / 1024 = 324MB/s .. 

After REDCODE RAW compression this is reduced to about 28MB/s (224Mb/s) 

From the high speed data port, our maximum uncompressed data rate is - 

4.5K at 60fps RAW - 4520 x 2540 x 60 x 12 / 8 / 1024 / 1024 = 986MB/s (7.888 Gb/s) "


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 6, 2014)

These higher res displays look radically better!

Man that new Dell sounds amazing! Maybe I got the UP2414Q too soon!

I mean think about it, these displays are like getting INSTANT, FREE 8MP and 14MP 24" and 27" prints!
It looks so much better than regular HD monitors, that it is not even funny. My PA241W HD monitor looks so fuzzy now and pixellated it's got to go!

And some of the 4k video samples I've seen are pretty amazing. It's so much more like you are really there looking at something.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 6, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



5D2 video was only slow with some programs because it used h.264 and a lot of software wasn't taking advantage of full h.264 decoding support in graphics cards. Other 1080p formats were handled with ease, even just using the CPU alone. There were even some free little programs that had h.264 GPU assist from day 1.


----------



## rs (Sep 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> These higher res displays look radically better!
> 
> Man that new Dell sounds amazing! Maybe I got the UP2414Q too soon!
> 
> ...


I fully agree - for stills, these displays with that DPI/PPI and size are getting to the point where there's no need for further improvement. It's just like a scaled up retina display. No longer are you tied to seeing pixelated images. Just everything appearing like a perfect print (if the viewing angles, colour gamut and all that are good enough).

However, I disagree about the need for 4k video (and beyond) with current frame rates. Video is usually shot with a 180' shutter - in other words 1/50th for PAL (25fps) or 1/60th for NTSC (30fps). Each frame of 4k footage is approx 8MP. How many images of moving scenes with a 1/50th shutter speed would resolve much more than 2MP? The background is typically not moving too much but out of focus, and the foreground will have motion blur. 4k (8MP) and 8k (32/33MP) are great - if the temporal resolution is there to match the spatial resolution. NHK have been playing about with 8k at 120fps (allowing for a natural looking 1/250th shutter), and that should be great.

Most 4k footage you see in showrooms uses a very clever trick - it all has minimal movement between frames - either a time-lapse with a fixed camera position, slow motion, or footage of a waterfall or some other scene which doesn't really move. In other words, with the slow frame rate they've cheated and found a way around the whole unnatural shutter speed while maximising resolution. However, watch any real life 4k footage and it'll fall apart. I remember when 1080p was a new thing - they were advertising it on standard def TV, and the footage always looked amazing. However, everything was always in slow motion to make the SD feed appear sharper. 

For stills, these displays make perfect sense right now.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 25, 2014)

I'd buy a 4k projector, when they get cheap enough and I'd project to the wall at a minimum of 100 inches... but I don't see that happening for at least 5 years... 

As for cameras... I really don't care. I don't want to save those huge files. I'm more than ok with shooting at 720p... but what I do want is faster fps for sports. I can be satisfied with 120, but give me 240 and I'll be just fine with that too.


----------



## Khnnielsen (Sep 25, 2014)

Here is the thing about 4k video.

The cameras are ready to produce 4k, but:
The consumers are not ready to use 4k material.
The the post-production companies are not ready for 4k - Some won't even go near it.
The broadcasters are not ready to deal with 4k material.

When the consumers are ready for 4k, the rest will follow, but it could take a while. I am not buying a new television anytime soon at least.


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 25, 2014)

Forum people are too funny. On one side they demand that Canon goes towards higher resolution so they can shoot another 300.000 files with 50 instead of 20 Megapixels, on the other hand 8 instead of 2 Megapixel Monitors are way too much as there's not enough things to see in that resolution? Everyone who has seen 8+ Megapixel Material on a 4K Monitor should know that this is the future, all others simply can wait until the industry doesnt offer anything else below 4K Screens in a few years, so the discussion is solved for now.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 25, 2014)

> I mean think about it, these displays are like getting INSTANT, FREE 8MP and 14MP 24" and 27" prints!



But what about DR? Smaller pixels can't emit enough light, I mean it's just physics. There will be all kinds of noise in the shadows. Hopefully it won't be that awful banding type. Not sure if Dell is using Sony tech, if not it's a lost cause, I hear Sony has the highest DR.

You have to get the FP (full panel) types to get respectible image. The smaller CP types just don't have the image quality at these resolutions. The FP are heavy, bulky, and expensive but they do have an impressive feature list. CP are lighter, cheaper, and a lot features that make it easy for the average joe to use. 

Good news is I hear they're coming out with trimmed down FP models that are more affordable. They're also pushing the technology and coming out with CP types that rival the FP types image and they have a really nice feature set. Problem is the new tech can be applied to the FP types too and they'll just jump ahead once again.

These new technologies should be hitting the market in early 2016. The technology and product announcements should happen at the New York Video Show in the fall of 2015. Despite the efforts to push the technology forward as fast as possible it won't be fast enough for the technosmarts. The technodumbs won't know anything about this for 10 years an then they'll be total confused, frustrated and affraid to do anything for fear it will be a dumb thing to do. The technoapathist will use what ever and enjoy it as long as they can then they'll go buy what they can afford that improves on their current situation.



I just bought my first flat screen HD type TV 2 years ago. My prior TV was a 26 in stereo tube type that I had for well over 20 years. I'm going to go crawl back into my techoapathist hole and come out in 20 years and see what's new (If I live that long and care at that point).


----------



## gsealy (Sep 25, 2014)

It gets back to the supporting infrastructure. I have seen pure 4K in the local Fry's electronics store and it is great. But they are using a 4K TV with a 4K player and a lossless 4K media file. Awesome! But we are not there broadcast-wise and even less Internet wise. It's going to take a while before 4K is pervasive from a distribution point of view. 

But I will say that 4K cameras are good thing. For the videographer, capturing in 4K allows the production to be re-framed as needed into HD. It provides an extra measure of flexibility in terms of cutting out extraneous or distracting areas and to position the actors in a pleasing way. Also, the 4K video frame can be captured into a still image file thus retaining a higher quality. 

The downside of 4K are the storage requirements. Couple 4K with higher color depth such as we see with ML, then we are talking huge, I mean HUGE.


----------



## leGreve (Sep 25, 2014)

awww sigh….. the same old bullshit as when HD arrived and people felt forced to go out and buy HD tvs.
Now don't we just love HD?

You will all love 4K the same way.

Now about the whole not ready for 4K thing. We are pretty close… .h265 will make 4K a lot easier to manage.
Sony have had 4K cameras out for years. RED also.

4K tvs are beginning to arrive at prices that are closer to reasonable. NetFlix will be ready for 4K streaming once the codecs, tvs and ISP come together in a glorious fashion.

Another reason to love 4K in HD land is due to increased colordepth when you downsample. Scream reframing. If you need 4K to reframe for HD you shouldn't be shooting in the first place.

And then….. you will all forget this thread.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 25, 2014)

leGreve said:


> You will all love 4K the same way.



I think your contention is flawed. The difference between 480i and 1080i was self evident.

The difference between 1080p and 4k it's only really noticeable when the two are compared side by side. If you go up into the 70+ inch tv's, the difference is noticeable, but having that much real estate is uncommon at the moment because of the ratio is tv size and ideal distance from the screen.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but the rush to 4k won't be like the rush to hd


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

i will buy a 30" UHD 4k monitor as soon as a reasonable product comes along. 
Next product I will buy will be an 8k monitor .. as soon as a reasonable porduct comes along.
After that? A 16k monitor.
And if I happen to live lng enough, after that a 32k monitor. 

Power of 2. Definitely stay away from uneven numbers in all things digital. 
5k ... most stupid thing on earth. Dell should have tried to first get a relly good 4k monitor made.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> i will buy a 30" UHD 4k monitor as soon as a reasonable product comes along.
> Next product I will buy will be an 8k monitor .. as soon as a reasonable porduct comes along.
> After that? A 16k monitor.
> And if I happen to live lng enough, after that a 32k monitor.
> ...



Not to be THAT GUY... but eventually there are diminishing returns. There are 120 hz tv's out there... and there will eventually be 240hz (if there aren't already), but does it make a difference? to some sure... but I can't imagine there are super human people who can detect the difference.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > i will buy a 30" UHD 4k monitor as soon as a reasonable product comes along.
> ...



There are 2K 240hz screens out there..... actually, they are kinda common now  $2800 will get you a 240hz 4K tv......

On other news, the latest GoPro will shoot 4K video at 30hz and 2K video at 120hz....


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be THAT GUY... but eventually there are diminishing returns. There are 120 hz tv's out there... and there will eventually be 240hz (if there aren't already), but does it make a difference? to some sure... but I can't imagine there are super human people who can detect the difference.
> ...



I video my kid swinging her bat at the softball... 60 fps is good enough when I slow it down to 24 fps... but... I definitely wouldn't mind the 120...


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I think your contention is flawed. The difference between 480i and 1080i was self evident.



IMO, the difference between historical analog 480i and digital 720p is immediately obvious. The difference between 640x480 or 720x480 digital video is much less so. The difference between 720p and 1080i or 1080p is often not noticeable unless you're looking at it on a large set. The difference between 1080p and 4K is probably nonexistent unless you're either zooming in on the image or are looking at it on a screen attached to the wall of a theater.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Oct 9, 2014)

One limit is the resolution of our eyes. If you look at a 42'' Screen from 4 meter, between 720p and 1080p there is no visible difference.

To fully enjoy a 4k Screen i have to be 1.5m in front of a 55'' screen. That's not the normal living room configuration.

4k Needs a 80'' Screen at 3m viewing distance, and it is a aestetical question if y want to have a TV in your living room, which is so domitating optically, otherwise its not giving much benefit. 

What i would realy love is a 8k Computer Display for stills, as i am sure soon even we Canon shooters will have at least 32MB resolution, but from the limitaion of our eyes, that must be a huge screen where we are standing and mooving in front of to see the details, wo won't overview such a screen (or print) in full resulution.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I video my kid swinging her bat at the softball... 60 fps is good enough when I slow it down to 24 fps... but... I definitely wouldn't mind the 120...



The current problem is the speed of the sensor readout, current (Canon) dslrs don't seem to be designed with video in mind but it's rather a later add-on. Having said that, if you're planning to do slow-motion you can crank up the fps for free at least a bit using Magic Lantern's fps override.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Unfortunately, with the WIDE angle lens on the GoPros, they would be useless at capturing your daughter's swing... unless you mounted it to the bat


----------



## Niki (Oct 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > i will buy a 30" UHD 4k monitor as soon as a reasonable product comes along.
> ...




when I checked out a 4k t.v.s from samsung and sony.. you could see the makeup on the actors…the mystery was gone...


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 9, 2014)

I saw the makeup when hd first came out... not so much lately... so I wonder if they were more careful about that after hd became more widely available.



Niki said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



The problem with the 5D2 video was that the codec h.264 required a lot of power to decode. For programs that hooked into graphics cards that had full h.264 HW support it wasn't bad though, they zipped along, other programs that used the CPU only, and super so for those using only 1 core, really bogged down. Premiere Pro originally used only the CPU and had slow code and I'm not sure it used multiple cores well at first. So PP struggled a bit to even play back a simple, single stream from 5D2 (when some freeware video players zipped it along with ease since they used full graphics card h.264 HW support). I'm not sure how many streams the video cards could handle for h.264 at once though so PP might have had to stay more reliant on using CPU even later on since they need to allow for many streams to be overlayed at once, not sure.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

rs said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > These higher res displays look radically better!
> ...



I can't agree, I've been looking at lots of 4k samples and they tend to look a lot better to me. Maybe for a 100% non-stop action movie it's less of a big detail, but for other stuff and certainly for nature videos, wow.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 9, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> One limit is the resolution of our eyes. If you look at a 42'' Screen from 4 meter, between 720p and 1080p there is no visible difference.
> 
> To fully enjoy a 4k Screen i have to be 1.5m in front of a 55'' screen. That's not the normal living room configuration.
> 
> 4k Needs a 80'' Screen at 3m viewing distance, and it is a aestetical question if y want to have a TV in your living room, which is so domitating optically, otherwise its not giving much benefit.



+1
See, nobody seems to understand that... 
Retina display is all you would ever need, and even that is not 4K sometimes... forget 6K and above...

Sure, I have no real authority... and you might think I am spouting non-sense.
So here, listen to what Phillip Bloom has to say about 4K & he shoots 4K...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct4ao5hKN-s#t=52m35s


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 9, 2014)

I'm a video geek... so I would be willing to make one entire wall a display.. so roughly 20 or 30 ft... that's what the wife gets for not letting me have my pool table. 



mkabi said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > One limit is the resolution of our eyes. If you look at a 42'' Screen from 4 meter, between 720p and 1080p there is no visible difference.
> ...


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 9, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> One limit is the resolution of our eyes. If you look at a 42'' Screen from 4 meter, between 720p and 1080p there is no visible difference.



42" for 4 meter is not right distance. I believe 55"+ is suggested for 4 meter distance. For me I can clearly tell the different between 720p and 1080p from my 58" TV from about 6 meter in my living room. I really need a 65" to 70" 4K or 8K TV for my living room. The only problem is the input source is not ready yet.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 9, 2014)

Can I just say for the record I am really glad we do not have 4ki v 4kp.

by far that was the stupidest debate I've ever participated in.


----------



## LarryC (Oct 9, 2014)

cliffwang said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > One limit is the resolution of our eyes. If you look at a 42'' Screen from 4 meter, between 720p and 1080p there is no visible difference.
> ...



I agree. I can readily tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on our 65", and could also on our previous 55". I can also see the improvement at 4K at BB, though with their made-for-4K sample content. The thing is, my wife and daughter don't care at all about resolution and are perfectly happy watching SD versions of TV broadcasts, and usually won't bother to switch to the HD versions of the same broadcasts. When I switch for them and extoll the amazing increase in detail, they just stare at me like I'm describing an invisible 6' pink rabbit. I think they are in the majority.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> The difference between 1080p and 4K is probably nonexistent unless you're either zooming in on the image or are looking at it on a screen attached to the wall of a theater.



It leaps out at me on my 24" 4k monitor never mind on 55" HDTV.

I mean look at a 1080P TV and then look around the room or outside a window and you don't notice that the 1080P TV shows a lot less detail?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> One limit is the resolution of our eyes. If you look at a 42'' Screen from 4 meter, between 720p and 1080p there is no visible difference.



Sitting 4m back from a 42" screen is wayyyy too far back. THX suggest like something like 5-7.5' range for a 55" screen.



> To fully enjoy a 4k Screen i have to be 1.5m in front of a 55'' screen. That's not the normal living room configuration.



You need glasses my friend. If you need to be only 1.5m in front of a 55" screen for 4k to make a big difference! At 1.5m from 1080p 55" screen all I see are pixels!

Even on my 24" 4k screen I can tell 1080p from 4k at 1.5m!



> 4k Needs a 80'' Screen at 3m viewing distance, and it is a aestetical question if y want to have a TV in your living room, which is so domitating optically, otherwise its not giving much benefit.



The whole point of a large set is for it to be visually dominating and not some little postage stamp view. It's to be like you are in a theater and enveloped in the content.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 9, 2014)

LarryC said:


> The thing is, my wife and daughter don't care at all about resolution and are perfectly happy watching SD versions of TV broadcasts, and usually won't bother to switch to the HD versions of the same broadcasts.



lol. Man thought vs woman thought. My wife also never care about HD things. She is also enjoying SD videos.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 9, 2014)

I can't believe people are saying you can "barely see the difference" between 4K and 1080p. The difference is huge and immediately noticeable, even on a 1080p monitor.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 10, 2014)

Axilrod said:


> I can't believe people are saying you can "barely see the difference" between 4K and 1080p. The difference is huge and immediately noticeable, even on a 1080p *monitor*.



Yeah, the keyword is monitor.
I will say it again...

Retina display is all you would ever need, and even that is not 4K sometimes... forget 5K and above...

Sure, I have no real authority... and you might think I am spouting non-sense.
So here, listen to what Phillip Bloom has to say about 4K & he shoots 4K...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct4ao5hKN-s#t=52m35s

You know I've made it so that it skips the first 52 min. and goes straight to the BIG question about 4K.
You don't even need to watch the entire thing, you can watch 10 min. of it and it will tell you everything you would ever need to know about the 4K gimmick.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 10, 2014)

BTW, just to be clear... just cause I call it a gimmick... doesn't mean that I don't want it. 
I do want it... I don't need it, but I want it.

Its like a Lamborghini, I don't need it but I want it.


----------



## Halfrack (Oct 10, 2014)

Anyone who watches NFL on Fox is already looking at a 4K capture, and it's been going on for a few seasons...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/25/5141600/any-given-sunday-the-chaos-and-spectacle-of-nfl-on-fox

4K video is amazing, and needed for lots of reasons. Having shot 4K on a GH4, it's going to tattle if your technique isn't perfect. But the footage is just stunning. To fake a 1080p HD slider shot by panning across a 4K stream allows you to pick what speed you want to move after the fact. There are things that you should capture in the highest of quality, because when you look at it 20 years later, it looks soooo much better. Pull out a VHS tape and watch a home movie from the 80's/90's ... yea, now you see what I mean...


----------



## rs (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


For any footage with minimal movement between frames, 4k at 25p/30p will yield benefits over 1080p at the same frame rate. But slow moving footage such as those samples used to sell 4k TV's is not the norm. Certainly parts of some nature documentaries could fit the bill, but not all. Almost all TV shows and films move much faster as the creators want the content to capture your attention, not the technology.

My point is merely that for the extra spatial resolution of 4k to be noticeable over 1080p for typical TV/movie footage (not slow motion/time lapses/tripod based static samples you see in TV showrooms, or, at a pinch, slow moving nature documentaries), the temporal resolution will have to increase too.

4k and beyond no doubt is the future for video. It has big benefits for big screens. But lets not have just one aspect of resolution increased with the other left in the dust. Lets keep some balance between spatial and temporal resolution.


----------



## rs (Oct 12, 2014)

Axilrod said:


> I can't believe people are saying you can "barely see the difference" between 4K and 1080p. The difference is huge and immediately noticeable, even on a 1080p monitor.


 

Try some 1080p footage taken from a 10mp 3:2 sensor (a 16:9 crop of that sensor gives 8mp) - this is effectively 4k downscaled to 1080p at capture. Ignoring compression artefacts, frame rates or subject (which we're not discussing here), how is that 1080p video worse in any way shape or form on a 1080p output device than that same 8mp 16:9 frame recorded at 4k and then downsized to 1080p on the playback device? ???


----------

