# Do you care about 4K?



## Zv (Apr 10, 2015)

With Canon's recent announcements of the C300II and XC10 I'm wondering just how many folk are interested in 4K.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 10, 2015)

I am not really interested in video. But for those who are, I imagine it is pretty important.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 10, 2015)

Just me, but never have and never will shoot video.


----------



## Besisika (Apr 10, 2015)

Not sure but your question seems not being asked properly, in my opinion.
The majority of those who says that he doesn't need 4K doesn't even need video.
You might as well ask who needs video, and your result would be almost the same.


----------



## Nitroman (Apr 10, 2015)

I need video but don't really feel many of us need 4K yet.

I'd love raw video but 4K needs very fast download speeds or high compression for tv broadcasts, hefty and expensive hardware to edit and watch it on and mega amounts of storage.

To be honest, I'm happy with HD quality.

If and when we get 6k+ raw then i'd be interested as i can shoot video for clients and then take off the perfect frame for a stills image. But think we have a way to go yet ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2015)

No, not one iota.

4K is completely over hyped, who the hell wants to see a newscaster's pimple from 30ft'?

I can well understand it, and higher resolutions, for big budget productions where the visuals are a vital component of 'the experience' but 4K footage of your dog on the beach, you can keep it.

Two core reasoning's for 4K are pretty weak too. The first is, I need to shoot 4K so I can edit down to HD in post for cropping and stabilization purposes, is akin to saying I shoot with a 100mm lens so I can crop down to a 400mm fov for my wildlife shooting, or, I shoot medium format stills so I can edit down to 135 format! Can you imagine somebody suggesting that? If you use either of those reasoning's then you no longer have 4K quality anyway so what was the point of shooting it? 

Linked to that is the comment "it is inevitable". Well the HD standard works pretty well for the screen size viewing distance coc calculations that are based on human vision, so most of the time we see very little difference. Sure in the store when you stand next to a 4K and an HD screen the difference is dramatic, and we have progressed towards larger screens and shorter viewing distances, but for most people when they get the 4K screen home and in their normal position the differences are not so big and often not actually viewable with the naked eye. Which puts 4K into perspective and gives higher resolution systems a very real limit to practical applications.

The second reasoning is the "I can take still images from my 4K footage", really? The 1DX was hyped with that capability and every still I saw from it looked pretty weak in comparison to an 18MP still from the same camera.

But it is a great way of selling media cards, HDD's, and computing power.........


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 10, 2015)

Eventually, it will become a standard


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 10, 2015)

Pull a frame from a properly done 4K video and you'll get an 8MP photo. That 8MP photo is more than enough for an 8x10 or larger. You don't miss the moment, or that smirk that was there and gone.

I LOVE 4K - I had a client put in an 84" JVC, everything is stunning. The 50" screen size that is $1,000 is worth it - especially if you're showing images.

Here is a frame grab from a GH4 in 4K 



from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv4dxR6SXXk


----------



## jefflinde (Apr 10, 2015)

while i see the benefits of 4k in that you can crop down and what not. I feel that it is a just a way for the tech vendors to sell new TV's and cameras. When we first saw TV sales stall out, 3D was all the rage. Now that everyone knows 3D was a bust, 4k is the next "thing" to get you to replace that flat screen TV. Until storage as we know it today is basically free ( i mean 10tb drive cost what a 500gb drive does today), i don't see 4k catching on even if a good compression format is standardized.


----------



## TeT (Apr 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ... who the hell wants to see a newscaster's pimple from 30ft'?.........



That's what we were saying when HD was taking over the airwaves....


----------



## Tinky (Apr 10, 2015)

I had burned out an hd dvc-pro Eng camera before a client ever actually asked me for it.

Broadcasters for most normal tv is just about catching up now in the uk.

My next camera will probably be 4k, but until I'm asked, or my present kit breaks, I'm in no rush.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2015)

TeT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ... who the hell wants to see a newscaster's pimple from 30ft'?.........
> ...



And many people were quite happy with 480 before 720 and 1080 HD were forced upon them. Besides, the HD and bigger screen acceptance makes some sense from the coc and regular eyesight perspective, however as I pointed out, in many cases that is just not true with 4K.

Pay more for something you can't see or hear is not a business model that has proven very robust for most high volume consumer entertainment companies.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 11, 2015)

I would like to shoot my videos in 4K purely so I can pull better stills from the video and also future proof the media to some extent.

Plus, more and more people have monitors that can display 4k, so of course I want the media I create to look the best on whatever they use.

What concerns me is that 4K might already be passé. Apple has 5k monitors and Dell recently announced 8k monitors, and I would expect more companies to follow suit. I wonder whether we are only seeing the continued push of 4K because so many companies have invested in it.

Whether we like it or not, this push for higher and higher resolutions will continue, as will the need for faster and faster processing power and stupendous amounts of storage. That's just the way it is.


----------



## SPL (Apr 11, 2015)

JumboShrimp said:


> Just me, but never have and never will shoot video.


Me also!!, tired of all the video talk!! Blaaaaahhhhh!


----------



## MJ (Apr 11, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> ...What concerns me is that 4K might already be passé. Apple has 5k monitors and Dell recently announced 8k monitors, and I would expect more companies to follow suit. I wonder whether we are only seeing the continued push of 4K because so many companies have invested in it....




Personally I would think that one needs the proper hardware to display/edit before even shooting in 4K, otherwise what's the point? 

And whether it is going to be outdated like 480 or 720 by 1080, only the the future will tell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

MJ said:


> And whether it is going to be outdated like 480 or 720 by 1080, only the the future will tell.



There's no doubt it will be outdated. Got any 8-track tapes? Can you play them?


----------



## Tinky (Apr 11, 2015)

SPL said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > Just me, but never have and never will shoot video.
> ...



The clue was in the thread title. why even butt in?

I don't do BiF or Weddings. Do I moan about Tracking AF or portrait profiles? Naah. I just don't use them and get onwith tne bitsI need / enjoy.


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 11, 2015)

yes, I care about 4k... If I had 4k to spare I'd probably get a 100-400 ii, or maybe even hold out for the 5d mark iv. Plants of things I could think of to do. 8)


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 11, 2015)

Whether you need 4K or not, I think the general population gravitates towards new tech. In that regard, yes, canon needs 4K because everyone else it getting it. 1080p is OLD news. Nothing wrong with 4K, in fact it looks amazing. Everyone knows that if Canon doesn't implement 4K into the next dslr (full frame -> 5DIV) its just going to flop with the reviews. That's how some of the market growth is like. Either new tech, or getting into the same playing field as everyone else. I can sense 6k or 8k making a major step into the consumer video market soon.. hopefully Canon can lead it?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> MJ said:
> 
> 
> > And whether it is going to be outdated like 480 or 720 by 1080, only the the future will tell.
> ...



Yes, I have about 8 of the players and hundreds of tapes. All the players work fine. The tapes are the problem, many of them get brittle.

The ones that are hard to play are the original RCA cassettes. They never sold and became obsolete almost immediately. They look similar to the tape cassettes that became popular, but are larger.

I also have a Sony Reel to Reel Video tape recorder/player as well as several Reel to Reel Audio tape recorders. I have plenty of tapes for them.

I sold my Ampex 1/2 track professional audio reel to reel.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 11, 2015)

if only we had some analogous format that could be rescanned or as display technology progresses....

great point about 8 tracks. except that 8 tracks weren't ever really a mastering format in the amateur or domestic arena. i.e. the material contained therin would usually exist elsewhere.

Mini-disc or zip drive is probably more like the thing.


----------



## sanj (Apr 11, 2015)

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.


----------



## pwp (Apr 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.


+1 Obviously stated by one who knows...

I shoot 4K on the Panasonic GH4. It leaves anything I shot on 5DII or 5DIII choking for air. The Canons are strictly for stills now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

There is a whole lot more. I could go on for pages. Yes, it's an obsolete question. Next please!

-pw


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 11, 2015)

If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.


----------



## Zv (Apr 11, 2015)

pwp said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.
> ...



But you just stated that you publish in 1080p. What was the point of owning something that shoots 4K if you are showing the video in 1080p? Clearly 1080p is not dead. 

To put it another way - if we had very very good HD quality video (like the down sampled 4K mentioned above) to begin with how many of us would be satisfied? 

HD looks pretty darn good and I don't know about most of you guys but I don't want a 60" TV in my living room to get the benefits of 4K. Sure, I'll take a 4K monitor to edit photos but other than that I just want solid HD video straight out of my existing camera without having to meddle with expensive software. 

The goal is just good video that most people can enjoy, right? 4K shouldn't be a means to get good 1080p we should just have good 1080p to begin with.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> MJ said:
> 
> 
> > And whether it is going to be outdated like 480 or 720 by 1080, only the the future will tell.
> ...



You want 8-track? I got 8-track -- and a way to play it!!


----------



## rpt (Apr 11, 2015)

I hardly do video. Usually only to document storytelling sessions my wife holds. So HD is fine. However in 7 years time when I buy my next camera I guess I'll get one that shoots 4K (or may be 16K) video...

The only plus I see is to do a frame grab like @Halftrack said. But it has its limitations as sitter speed would be low...


----------



## Tinky (Apr 11, 2015)

hilarious that gh4 shooters are getting all ken burns over outputting 1080.

a) you dont have the colour fidelty

b) you dont have the motion fidelty

c) your codec sucks ass more ferociously than Gillian McKeith on commission

theres 4k and theres 4k. canon at least aren't trying to do it via the latest h.26whatever.

i'd rather shoot good hd than sucky 4k.

"hi, i have 4k"
"great. do a crash pan or tilt mo-fo"

.


----------



## dash2k8 (Apr 11, 2015)

If I can shoot 4k with great color and detail, sure, why not? Resolution will only go higher and higher, and fighting a new trend does no one any good. While I don't have a 4k monitor/TV yet, this is an eventuality in this tech-mad society we live in, so might as well embrace it.


----------



## sanj (Apr 11, 2015)

Zv said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I missed anyone saying 1080p is dead. But there is a better way to get there.


----------



## pwp (Apr 11, 2015)

Zv said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



_B e c a u s e_ of a quality margin that simply cannot be ignored. The jury is in on this. Try it.

1080p is far from dead as a currently appropriate delivery means. Hardware, software and bandwidth all need to catch up and that process is well under way right across the planet. Shooting 4K also future proofs your work to some extent. Here's a very rough analogy. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in JPEG only. He weeps. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in RAW. He breaths a sigh of relief, re-processes the image and delivers a quality file to his client. The concept is not hard to grasp.

-pw


----------



## gsealy (Apr 11, 2015)

pwp said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 11, 2015)

gsealy said:


> I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.



That's not always possible though is it! Sometimes flights are needed to get to the client, and the client may not want you to reshoot if no changes have been made other than the hardware you are using. Are you going to do it for free?!!

Future proofing is real. I remember when people used to ask why I shoot in 1080 and not in a lesser format. I also still have 32MB CF Cards in my drawer, yet my camera today has two 64GB 1066X Cards. Most of the components in my laptop can be upgraded. All this is about future proofing.


----------



## sanj (Apr 11, 2015)

gsealy said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Perhaps for your work it does not apply. For many many it does: Documentary makers, Marriage shooters, Personal event shooters etc etc.


----------



## pwp (Apr 11, 2015)

gsealy said:


> I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.



True, goals, context and situations do change quickly, but not necessarily towards irrelevance. A given image or video's relevance and currency can go from zero to hero overnight. Say I shoot an interview and mini doco of a reasonably prominent artist which is planned for 2-3 minutes web publication. Fast forward a few years and the artist either catapults to global prominence or (hopefully not) passes away. That archive of 4K material will become gold. 

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.



Indeed, that's been effectively demonstrated by the responses to the poll above.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 11, 2015)

Tinky said:


> SPL said:
> 
> 
> > JumboShrimp said:
> ...


I _do_ agree with your sentiments here... but... I'm really surprised by how many have voted and shown antipathy to the whole 4K debate, especially considering that the poll is in the "EOS Bodies - For Video" part of the forum. I have no interest in video, and I'm pretty sure that this is my first post in these parts.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 11, 2015)

I have 4k on my phone... but I never use it. I don't need more quality in my videos... because my videos are mediocre at best.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 11, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.



This is a poor analogy due to the diminishing returns of 4K vs average display size. 4K requires around 120" screen to start really noticing a difference over 1080p from normal seating distance (source: Joe Kane), which is over double the average display size end users have. Technology has evolved a lot but eventually displays just get too big for a living space, and for 99.9% of people 120" will be too big.

About the only good argument for 4K video is if you are going to crop a lot, as it will allow you to do a significant crop while retaining acceptable pixel density. It can also be used as a marketing tool to differentiate yourself from your competition, but it is not something the end user will significantly benefit from.

For the vast majority of end users, though, there will be no noticeable difference between 4k and 1080p. An analogy to the audio world: 4k is like DVD-Audio and SACD - technically better than standard CD, but differences that are not audible. 24bit/96khz may be useful to the producer, but for the end user anything more than 16bit/44.1khz is a waste.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 11, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.
> ...



I have a 133" projection screen setup in my living room... well, one of my living rooms. It is really nice... but the projector is only 720p... so I don't see any benefit with upgrading to 4k until there is more end user content.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 11, 2015)

I like to shoot video occasionally, but nobody in my family has a 4K TV. Even if my camera had 4K video, I would still set it to FHD.


----------



## Roo (Apr 11, 2015)

I appreciate that some people would like 4k capability but I have zero interest in shooting video.


----------



## andrewflo (Apr 11, 2015)

Mainly want 4K for 1080p deliver that is superbly sharp. Also would make shooting interviews easier as they could be done with 1 camera in a pinch instead of 2.


----------



## mkabi (Apr 11, 2015)

This is to answer the original question.
Do you care about 4K?
Not particularly, but like most people here have said, if I was to buy a camera now, I'd rather be prepared then be left behind. Some people have embraced it, but most still are not convinced. 

I've said this plenty of times, as have so many people here...
You can't see the difference between a 1080p & 4K TV after about 6 to 8 feet away (on 50 inch, 60 inch TVs).
So, this so called "better 1080p" from 4K doesn't matter about 6 to 8 feet away. Most people will lie that they can see the difference about 6 to 8 feet away on a 50 to 60 inch TV, I don't know why... and same can be said with 720p (but thats much further like 10 to 12 feet away) and so on and so forth.

Not enough 4K content, TV cable is still broadcasting in 720p & 1080i still... their so called HD channels is still 720p. No 4K discs or 4K players at the local bestbuy, only 4K TVs and may be a 4K camera...

Nothing other than a computer plays 4K... you can't record it on disc and play it on a 4K player (cause no such thing exists)... so you basically have to connect your computer to the TV.

Then there is the storage problem... how much 4K can you store?
One project takes about 320Gb to 500Gb for me (normal 1080p - h.264), then redundancy makes it about 1.5Tb.
Not to mention the conversion from h.264 to ProRes, so I can only imagine h.265 conversion to ProRes (mind you that there isn't anything current that will edit h.265). Gh4 and NX1 users enlighten us, how big do the files get from ProRes Coversion. Lets just ask for a 1 min. video.
Everyone will argue that storage is getting cheaper... whatever... if you want 4K now, better have cheap storage now. You know how much a 2Tb SSD cost??? Look it up and get back to me... cheap???

But again, if I was to buy a camera now... I dont want to be left behind... just in case it is adopted by the masses in the next couple of years.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 11, 2015)

First off, to add to the speculation about the future of 4K, I suspect that 4K is going to be the "Standard Definition" of the future, very, very long term.
Before the 90's display technology moved in generational steps, then we had a burst of new technology and now we're back to the slower pace again, except this time I don't see a lot of room for improvement beyond top quality 8K and 4K content. 10bit colour will be great but that's (theoretically) already in the spec for 4K, all we need now is better hardware, the signal doesn't need to change.
I've read that 8K is basically equivalent to IMAX, so I still want that for premium multimedia content, but everything else should be standardized to 4K.

Am I ready to use 4K? Not for daily content consumption, I can't use anything more than the lowest quality available simply due to archaic bandwidth restrictions, so I wouldn't want to record any higher than 1280x720 either. I want everything at 60fps as well.

4K games and movies? Definitely yes.
4K home video? Probably not for another 5-10 years.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 11, 2015)

mkabi said:


> Most people will lie that they can see the difference about 6 to 8 feet away on a 50 to 60 inch TV, I don't know why...



Now them's fight'n words.

I can continue to see detail on a 100DPI screen from over 9 feet away.
That's equivalent to a 42" 4K display.
That's testing with my own eyes, which are only slightly better than 20/20, and I don't dismiss the results just because someone else testing for something completely different says differently.
The two results are mostly unrelated.

The primary mistake the "experts" make in trying to apply their data to video resolution is they base their data on line pairs.
If you read the section on human vision in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition-Kandel/dp/0071390111
You will see that human vision is highly tuned to detect high contrast borders and movement, not consistent texture.
If your image sensor requires movement to work, what do you expect to get from results on line pairs? If each photocell has to pass over the equivalent width of several lines to detect one line, of course the signal will be muddied with multiple lines.
When people say you can't see the difference between "HD" and 4K at anything but close range, what they're actually talking about is your ability to see consistent repeating texture, so for example a picture of a flat cloth with no irregularities will look roughly the same.
Outlines and any patterns of lower frequency continue to gain detail far above that limit.

According to my testing I wouldn't want to be using a 60" 8K screen from much more than six feet away, but 4K is basically interchangeable with your standard "HD" display in the average livingroom.


----------



## TeT (Apr 11, 2015)

MJ said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > ...What concerns me is that 4K might already be passé. Apple has 5k monitors and Dell recently announced 8k monitors, and I would expect more companies to follow suit. I wonder whether we are only seeing the continued push of 4K because so many companies have invested in it....
> ...



I still download and play movies in 720.. 1080 is often available but file size + TV size etc... I am good watching 720. If & When I get larger tv, maybe we will think about 1080 or not...


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2015)

4k is one of the big features I'd like in the 5d4 along with DPAF. Otherwise another 1080p cam isn't much incentive for me to buy.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 12, 2015)

TeT said:


> I still download and play movies in 720.. 1080 is often available but file size + TV size etc... I am good watching 720. If & When I get larger tv, maybe we will think about 1080 or not...



This really is not about what you watch today, though I expect most people will have full HD TVs at home, even if the majority do not yet have 4K TVs.

I also doubt that anyone shoots in 720, even if you are watching them at 480 or 720.

This is about future proofing your work. To be able to shoot in 4K and take stills from that, or downsize it to 1080p while still keeping the 4K files is valuable.

I recently did a shoot which was stills plus video. There was one shot in the video that my client really liked which I had not taken a still of. If that video was in 4K I would be able to give him a very good quality still. That is just one very small example.

I am sure that those who do not understand will ask the same about 8K video when the time comes, and on it goes.


----------



## Zv (Apr 12, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > I still download and play movies in 720.. 1080 is often available but file size + TV size etc... I am good watching 720. If & When I get larger tv, maybe we will think about 1080 or not...
> ...



TeT has a valid opinion. The poll question is open to anyone, those who shoot video and those who watch video. The purpose is to see who cares about 4K right now and TeT's response is that he doesn't.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2015)

My first video card was a home made (wire wrapped TTL logic) 512 bit by 192 line monochrome output that could be displayed on an ordinary TV.... at the same time 4K was a lot of memory and we stored programs on audio tape....

Since then, my computer has gone from and 8 bit processor at a 500Khz clock rate to a 4 core 64 bit processor running at 3.8Ghz.... about 6 orders of magnitude more computing power.... and that doesn't even consider 1000 CUDA cores running at 1.1Ghz on my video card....

My memory has gone from 4K to 16Gbytes, about 6.5 orders of magnitude.

The first hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10Mbyte hard drive. Now for $200 I can get a 4Tbyte drive... about 8 orders of magnitude more storage for the dollar.

My first commercial video card/display was 640x400 pixels. A 1080P video display is 7.7 times the number of pixels, or an increase of less than 1 order of magnitude.

Compared to everything else, the improvement of displays and video absolutely sucks! 4K is long overdue and I, for one, welcome it.


----------



## sanj (Apr 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.
> ...



Hahahaah. How convenient that is indeed. Countless times you state that the opinion of people in this forum does not count in the real world and manufactures do their own research to determine future products. But now, since the poll results matches your thinking, you point to that. Effective response, not!

Does not the 5k of the iMac or the crystal clear trend of most new cameras putting 4k in their camera's not make you face up to the fact that 4k is not the future but is _now_? 

Personally I rarely shoot 4k on DSLR (I use on Alexia and Red) except for when using them at second camera for quick cuts. I need 4k for that. 1080p would just crumble and die. 

As the owner of 2 Canon 1dc I know how popular 4k is because producers now grab jobs by saying they will shoot on 4k which will not only make the product better and future proof. 

Are you even a videographer? 

Strong coffee time.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> No, not one iota.
> 
> 4K is completely over hyped, who the hell wants to see a newscaster's pimple from 30ft'?
> 
> ...



Shoot a scene with lots of foliage (or some other non regular detail) in it with a wide angle (not of large objects) in HD and 4K. Then view the scenes on an HD panel and a 4K panel of the same size. The difference will be immediate and stark, because the HD footage cannot resolve the detail you are looking at.

The mistake people make is looking at something like a person or some other large object close to the camera with a narrow field of view. And in a situation like that visually your brain will register the large object over detail, and may not "notice" the stark differences between the two clips. That completely changes when you look at a scene shot with a wide angle of view with lots of small detail that is the focus of attention.

Frankly, the people who say "oh, you can't tell the difference" just boggles the mind. They either have bad eyesight or have never actually seen 4K footage and base their opinion on stuff they have heard as opposed to actual experience.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 12, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.
> ...



Instead of quoting someone who probably hasn't really compared what stuff actually looks like, why don't you compare directly. And don't do the stupid thing that most people do, which is to compare HD to upscaled HD and say "there is no difference". Of course there is no difference - it is the same footage for gods sake - they will both like HD because they *ARE* both HD. Just being displayed on a 4K panel doesn't magically turn HD footage into something other than HD footage.


----------



## sanj (Apr 12, 2015)

Tugela said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, not one iota.
> ...



Nailed it.


----------



## TeT (Apr 12, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > I still download and play movies in 720.. 1080 is often available but file size + TV size etc... I am good watching 720. If & When I get larger tv, maybe we will think about 1080 or not...
> ...



agree; was speaking more to his comment about 4K becoming outdated soon.. it won't.


----------



## mkabi (Apr 12, 2015)

I don't know why you guys are wasting time on 4K... seriously....
8K is around the corner, I'm serious... thats what I am waiting for... No joke.
Actually, and this might sound stupid and/or crazy, but I'm waiting for Holograms to start taking off... the future can't come soon enough for me.

I'm actually contemplating on getting this for my driveway... but its a bit out of my price range 
Don't mind the corny commercial, just that this tech. actually exists???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU


----------



## slclick (Apr 12, 2015)

Option 6: No, stills shooter only


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2015)

I am sick and tired of all those crappy video clips of bigfoot, UFOs, and the Loch Ness Monster. 4K and 8K video would solve the mystery.... bring it on!


----------



## Besisika (Apr 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Two core reasoning's for 4K are pretty weak too. The first is, I need to shoot 4K so I can edit down to HD in post for cropping and stabilization purposes, is akin to saying I shoot with a 100mm lens so I can crop down to a 400mm fov for my wildlife shooting, or, I shoot medium format stills so I can edit down to 135 format! Can you imagine somebody suggesting that? If you use either of those reasoning's then you no longer have 4K quality anyway so what was the point of shooting it?


Interesting point of view.
I shoot raw at 5184X3456 but I end up saving it as a JPG at 3840X2560 as a photographer, so why not shoot video at 4K and get final result at 1080? Especially if that gives you advantages.
I am interested in 4K mainly for the sake of stabilization but would have my final footage at 1080.
Please give me a reason not to. I must be lost somewhere. People do shoot raw but publish JPG and TIFF.
Not sure how many times have you found yourself having a footage that is just a touch shaky. 
I have been thousands of times, and I would take any technology that would save me from that pain.
Not sure if the current technology will give good enough result but when it is widely available I would certainly try it.
I do not intend to crop it, but stabilize it - definitely.
Another reason is grabbing stills from video for Fusion. Many times I find it a lot faster to shoot a bunch of short videos and grab stills from them for the sake of fusion.

Stabilizing 1080 for a finalized 1080 or grabbing stills from a 1080 for the sake of a 1080 fusion is what I use today and the image quality suffers. I do believe 4K would give me better solution than 1080, again for a final 1080 (not a final 4K as some assume); similar to shooting in CR2 but publishing it on web page in JPG.
You come up with a good way to stabilize a handheld 5s video, please share I am listening. 
Using hardware to stabilize video is definitely the right way, but as a photographer I always prefer having chances to be able to fix or improve things in post - the only reason I shoot raw, as opposed to JPG.


----------



## pwp (Apr 12, 2015)

mkabi said:


> I don't know why you guys are wasting time on 4K... seriously....
> 8K is around the corner, I'm serious... that's what I am waiting for... No joke.
> Actually, and this might sound stupid and/or crazy, but I'm waiting for Holograms to start taking off... the future can't come soon enough for me.
> 
> ...



;D ;D Hah hah! you crack me up. Sit tight and wait a _bit _longer for 12K...

-pw


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You are right, I have never been to a TV sales room, a Sony store, or passed one, or even seen any of the in your face displays at practically every single store in the USA. 

I 100% agree, up close there is a dramatic difference. My opinion about there being less visible difference at 'regular viewing distances' is actually backed up by physics so forgive me for being quite firm in my opinion. I suspect you spend a lot of time editing 4K footage on high res monitors on your desk, again, doing that there is a dramatic difference, however that is not how I, or the majority of TV viewers actually view most of their video content.

The 'best' 4K footage for detail of foliage and dof landscapes, by far, that I have seen has all been timelapse that was, no doubt, actually shot at much higher resolutions, further weakening the case for 4K. Sure it is going to happen, but not because it is needed, it will happen because that is first world marketing and manufacturing. Besides, am I the only one that finds the highly detailed full dof timelape 4K big screens very unnatural? That isn't how I see the landscape in nature, ever, so why would I want the video to look like that?

Watch 'The Darjeeling Express' on 1080 and you are in India, watch a timelapse of pretty much any world famous scenery on a 4K big screen and you are looking at some Hollywoodesque over sharpened caricature. But, whatever.........


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2015)

Besisika said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Two core reasoning's for 4K are pretty weak too. The first is, I need to shoot 4K so I can edit down to HD in post for cropping and stabilization purposes, is akin to saying I shoot with a 100mm lens so I can crop down to a 400mm fov for my wildlife shooting, or, I shoot medium format stills so I can edit down to 135 format! Can you imagine somebody suggesting that? If you use either of those reasoning's then you no longer have 4K quality anyway so what was the point of shooting it?
> ...



_"I end up saving it as a JPG at 3840X2560"_ why would you do that? 

I actually answered your questions in my post, but whatever. As for stabalisation and downsampling, my point was you don't need to shoot 4K to do that to get really good 1080, you are potentially throwing away up to 75% of your capture, my point was you video shooters are being pushed into it. What would be the downside to shooting the 1440 standard? If your end goal is stabalised and downsampled 1080, absolutely none.


----------



## Besisika (Apr 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> _"I end up saving it as a JPG at 3840X2560"_ why would you do that?
> 
> I actually answered your questions in my post, but whatever. As for stabalisation and downsampling, my point was you don't need to shoot 4K to do that to get really good 1080, you are potentially throwing away up to 75% of your capture, my point was you video shooters are being pushed into it. What would be the downside to shooting the 1440 standard? If your end goal is stabalised and downsampled 1080, absolutely none.



Understood!


----------



## sanj (Apr 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Hahahahaha. You are so so right. Your statement is hilarious. And so true. The only difference is that I view it in a preview theater. Different equation entirely. Hollywoodesque is indeed over sharpened and over chromad. (I just invented a word.)


----------



## mkabi (Apr 13, 2015)

pwp said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why you guys are wasting time on 4K... seriously....
> ...



Yes... yes.. it sounds funny, but as I said earlier I was being serious. 
NAB 2015 showing us everything over 4K.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 13, 2015)

pwp said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why you guys are wasting time on 4K... seriously....
> ...



You know, a while ago, like 8 years ago, way before 4k was a common (or not so common) term, and 1080 was still in the infancy stage, i watched a low quality webinar and it had all these tv's and they had a 1080 HD tv, and that was the smallest tv they had... they had a 4k tv, they had even larger tv's with greater resolutions... of course, they represented the larger resolutions by physically bigger tvs... why have 4k in a small 32" tv, right? back then, this is what the webinar said all the manufacturers had their sights on... bigger tvs, more resolution... back then, if you were still focusing on 1080, or 720, gasp, your missing the boat. i kinda brushed it off, thinking they were nuts.... and sure enough it's coming to fruition before my very eyes... To ignore it, your missing the boat or have your head in the sand... is 4k even fully here yet? no... will these initial cameras be as good as cameras to come out in the next 3-5 years? not even close... but it is something to get familiar with, especially if your a working pro... back then, if you were focusing on 1080, you were already 1 step behind... now if your still only thinking 1080, then you might as well not be relevant.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2015)

awinphoto said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...


we did research on 4K broadcasting.... the project ended 3 years ago.....


----------



## Khnnielsen (Apr 13, 2015)

I am sure that you can go back in the internet archives and find a forum discussion like this, except it's about HD video. 4k will be the next standard whether you care or not - just look at the line up at NAB this year.

I for one welcome more resolution. It really nice to have more resolution to work with, and 4k it's great when you are working with a multiview screen in a multicamera production.

So I care about 4k, since more resolution makes it easier for me to get better results.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 14, 2015)

Khnnielsen said:


> I am sure that you can go back in the internet archives and find a forum discussion like this, except it's about HD video. 4k will be the next standard whether you care or not - just look at the line up at NAB this year.



Hd was widely accepted because the difference between standard definition and hd was dramatic. It was worthwhile to make the upgrade. 

Now... If your hd set beaks, sure it is cost effective to buy a 4k set, but to upgrade from a perfectly functional hd set... There is less of driving factor.

So yes... It is coming, but it's adoption rate will not be comparable.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Khnnielsen said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that you can go back in the internet archives and find a forum discussion like this, except it's about HD video. 4k will be the next standard whether you care or not - just look at the line up at NAB this year.
> ...



Standard resolution - 640 by 400 pixels
HD (720p) - 1280 by 720 pixels, a 3.6 times increase
HD (1080P) - 1920x1080 pixels, an 8.1 times increase

8.1X is a significant difference.... and since "standard definition" is no longer broadcast, it is safe to say that 1080p is the new standard

But 4K video is another 4X the number of pixels.....
5K video (5120x2880) is 7.1X the number of pixels
6K video is 9X the number of pixels
8K video is 16X the number of pixels

and before anyone says how far into the future this is, IMAX theatres use 8000x4000 resolution....


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 14, 2015)

I love image quality... I'm nuts over it... But at some point you can't really see the difference... So you have diminishing returns. My Canon projector is basically 720p and I long for a 4k one, but I don't feel like throwing down 28x the cash of the Canon...



Don Haines said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Khnnielsen said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> and before anyone says how far into the future this is, IMAX theatres use 8000x4000 resolution....



And as soon as we are getting 60 foot screens in our 40 foot front rooms I will remortgage my house to get one.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> I love image quality... I'm nuts over it... But at some point you can't really see the difference... So you have diminishing returns. My Canon projector is basically 720p and I long for a 4k one, but I don't feel like throwing down 28x the cash of the Canon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 4K projectors are still at a premium.... heck, the 2K projectors are still at a premium.... right now 720P is about the best bang for the buck, but 2K isn't that far behind..... give it a few years and it will be 4K at around the same price....

Personally, I think 2K to 4K is the sweet spot. Beyond that, it becomes really hard to see the difference. There is a noticeable jump from 2K to 4K, but I think you are right about diminishing returns, it is nowhere near the jump from standard resolution to 2K.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and before anyone says how far into the future this is, IMAX theatres use 8000x4000 resolution....
> ...



and don't forget one heluva big popcorn popper


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 14, 2015)

Blackmagic has just unveiled details of the URSA Mini 4.6K Camera:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursamini

Maybe that is what the Canon XC10 should have been!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2015)

Get real, the Blackmagic viewfinder is an extra $1,500, the XC-10 is $2,499 complete.

They are completely different tools.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Get real, the Blackmagic viewfinder is an extra $1,500, the XC-10 is $2,499 complete.
> 
> They are completely different tools.



Of course you don't have to buy the viewfinder. And with the 4K version with EF mount available for US$ 2995, there is not much difference in price.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Get real, the Blackmagic viewfinder is an extra $1,500, the XC-10 is $2,499 complete.
> ...



Er, apart from the need for a lens.......

They are completely different tools.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 14, 2015)

True, but most of us here will already have Canon lenses. In fact, some would say the ability to swap lenses is a definite advantage.

I mentioned it in this thread mainly to highlight the 4.6K capability as I felt it was fitting in a thread questioning 4K.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> I love image quality... I'm nuts over it... But at some point you can't really see the difference... So you have diminishing returns. My Canon projector is basically 720p and I long for a 4k one, but I don't feel like throwing down 28x the cash of the Canon...



You are better off getting a high quality 2k projector than an entry level 4k projector, and that is basically the spot the market will be the next few years.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and before anyone says how far into the future this is, IMAX theatres use 8000x4000 resolution....
> ...



You should really look at the actual FOV of an IMAX screen.
According to this article: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20090522a.htm The minimum horizontal FOV for "IMAX" is 60 degrees, that would put you at five feet from an 80" 8K screen (no, it's not "ideal", but it's within the original spec).
Probably impractical for more than four viewers, but definitely not an unreasonable concept to pull off for a dedicated home theater, and those figures aren't drastically different from my own calculations (a limit of 6 feet for a 60" screen).
Of course my figures are with slightly above average eyes, but the point is that 8K in people's homes isn't completely out of line, and a similar standard of image fidelity has been on display in professional venues for a very long time.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 14, 2015)

Ruined said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I love image quality... I'm nuts over it... But at some point you can't really see the difference... So you have diminishing returns. My Canon projector is basically 720p and I long for a 4k one, but I don't feel like throwing down 28x the cash of the Canon...
> ...



If it were April 1st, I would have serious concerns that yall were pulling my leg... but 12 days later...

I didn't know there were 2k displays/projectors... but that is interesting to know. I'll keep an eye open.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2015)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Ha. My 60 foot screen in a 40 foot room was absolutely spot on for the IMAX specs!


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 14, 2015)

But you could get a lap dance while comfortably seating two people. 



9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 14, 2015)

> Do you care about 4K?


Nope!


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 14, 2015)

Yes, my next PC monitor will definitely have 4k. I would prefer 8k as a matter of fact, so i can see more of the megapixels in the stills images i capture. 

No, i am not interested at all in Video/4k capture in my cameras. I never have and never will capture video. I'd rather would buy a strictly stills-optimized FF mirrorless system camera from Canon provided it was as compact and fully competitive with the (upcoming) Sony A7R II or A9. And i would buy a native Canon adapter to use my EF/L glass on it. Along with some new native short flange distance lenses - provided they are positioned like EF-M lenses: small, optically decent and attractively priced.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Yes, my next PC monitor will definitely have 4k. I would prefer 8k as a matter of fact, so i can see more of the megapixels in the stills images i capture.
> 
> No, i am not interested at all in Video/4k capture in my cameras. I never have and never will capture video. I'd rather would buy a strictly stills-optimized FF mirrorless system camera from Canon provided it was as compact and fully competitive with the (upcoming) Sony A7R II or A9. And i would buy a native Canon adapter to use my EF/L glass on it. Along with some new native short flange distance lenses - provided they are positioned like EF-M lenses: small, optically decent and attractively priced.



Since this is the "EOS Bodies - For Video" section, your opinion is irrelevant. If you post here, or voted in the poll, then the presumption is that you *ARE* interested in video from your cameras, otherwise you have no real business being here.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 14, 2015)

Khnnielsen said:


> I am sure that you can go back in the internet archives and find a forum discussion like this, except it's about HD video. 4k will be the next standard whether you care or not - just look at the line up at NAB this year.
> 
> I for one welcome more resolution. It really nice to have more resolution to work with, and 4k it's great when you are working with a multiview screen in a multicamera production.
> 
> So I care about 4k, since more resolution makes it easier for me to get better results.



They had the same discussion when flat panels first came out. The initial screens were around 32". All the "experts" claimed that 720p was overkill and you could tell the difference between that and 1080p. But then came 40" panels and BluRay, and it turned out the "experts" were wrong - you COULD tell the difference. Within a few years of the first 1080p panels appearing, 720p had all but vanished.

The same thing is going to happen to HD with 4K. The standard size of panels is no longer 40" anymore, it is 55-65", and you can tell the difference. HD on these larger panels looks soft with pixilation clearly visible. If you want a high quality image on these larger panels you have to have 4K footage. TV sizes are still increasing, in a few years we will probably be looking at 70-75" screens as the norm.

The problem we have at the moment is that broadcast is resisting change due to bandwidth considerations. It has nothing to do with HD being "good enough", not with panel size ever increasing. It is a line they sell to try to convince themselves that they don't need to invest in higher resolution and higher bit rates to accommodate the new standards in physical displays.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Khnnielsen said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that you can go back in the internet archives and find a forum discussion like this, except it's about HD video. 4k will be the next standard whether you care or not - just look at the line up at NAB this year.
> ...



It was only dramatic because TV sizes increased when the shift from CRTs to flat panels happened. Prior to LCDs the average TV size was small, so SD looked relatively OK. Once LCDs arrived, screen sizes increased to the point where the deficiencies of SD were visible. The same thing is happening now. With the average mid to high end panel being around 60-65" the deficiencies of HD are clearly visible. Everyone accepts it for now because the broadcasters are not putting out 4K content, so viewers don't have real 4K content to compare HD against. But when they do people will watch those 4K channels rather than the HD channels since it will look so much better on the large TV panels people have now. 

Ultimately you want to provide as lifelike a viewing experience as possible, so that the watcher has the impression of looking through a window at a real scene. It is the same principle that Apple used for their Retina screens. In "theory" according to the "experts" you don't need such a high resolution, but when people see it they immediately fall in love with it because it creates that illusion of reality that lower resolutions simply cannot achieve. The same thing applies to TVs. I find it ironic that most of the people fighting tooth and nail to resist the incoming 4K tide probably themselves went googly eyed at the first retina displays and drool at the 5K monitor on a Mac. Apparently what is good for them is not good for everyone else.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 14, 2015)

The killer is the CFast 2.0 cards.

The only consolation maybe the 'budget' atomos CFast 1.0s which should be fast enough for APR @ 1080.

I'm tempted by the URSA mini. I'll maybe buy one if one of my current cameras breaks, or if a client asks me for 4K.

I'm careful with my gear so it could be a wee while.


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2015)

It's worth having moving forward. Still need to unload my old CF cards though so I hope CFast will be limited to Cinema EOS.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 14, 2015)

if you are in the market for a camera just now, yes, I woukd buy 4k. I wouldn't buy a new canera just to get 4k though.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 19, 2015)

Tinky said:


> The killer is the CFast 2.0 cards.



It's possible to record 4K video to SD cards that support UHS Speed Class 3, and SD cards can go much faster with UHS-II cards.

That would have the benefit of smaller cards, backward compatability, and no pins or board to bend. IMHO, the use of CFast in the in the XC10 is bad news.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 20, 2015)

Yes it is possible, but not at a colour depth that most editors would want. Fine for run and gun if you have your WB absolutely perfect in every single scene.

Want to do a little colour correction or a little grading.... the 4k lite codecs are bad news.

And you are looking at the very latest chipsets and NLEs and fast drives to do anything with them.

I agree that the CFast cards are bad news, financially, but then there is more to shooting 4K than plugging a camera into a 4K tv.

If you want to edit you will probably want a new post set up, with SSD system drives and big striped RAIDs for storage (even if you can live with 4k luma resolution with poor chroma space, you do not want to go down the route of editing, compositing -something as seemingly simple as adding captions is technically compositing with alpha- rendering and outputting the avc based codecs, unless you plan to lose all your hair by pulling it out)


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 21, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Yes it is possible, but not at a colour depth that most editors would want. Fine for run and gun if you have your WB absolutely perfect in every single scene.
> 
> Want to do a little colour correction or a little grading.... the 4k lite codecs are bad news.
> 
> ...



For me, 4K run & gun is a bonus, video editing as welcome as watching paint peel, and CFast cards are deal killers.

I'm sure quality 4K video would do a world of good for 5Dmk<whichever> sales, but that recording would better be done in an external recorder, rather than CFast cards.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 22, 2015)

I see your point but disagree.

An extra device is an extra connection or unit to fail, an extra device to charge and to remember to hit record on.

I think internal recording is the way to go, especially with a DSLR, where the compact form is one of the huge benefits.

I'll no doubt see lots of folk using comical mecanno sets on plinths that will disagree, but thats for them. I'm shooting my way.

Of their type the new blackmagic monitor / recorder looks EXCELLENT. Shame it's only 1080p. I say 'only'.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 23, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I see your point but disagree.
> 
> An extra device is an extra connection or unit to fail, an extra device to charge and to remember to hit record on.
> 
> ...



A flash is an extra unit that has greater power requirements, higher chances to fail, and an external recorder shouldn't be larger than a flash. Actually, I would be surprised if it had to be larger than a grip, as it should contain just a battery, a CFast card or two, and some electronics.

I don't see a reason for two record buttons to be pressed. If you don't want to record to the SD memory cards, there could be just one on the external device.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 23, 2015)

I don't particularly want to get into semantics. A flash adds an essential additional function that you would not reasonably expect the camera to have built in. An external recorder is less essential, or at least should be.

I would have a recording in two places in case of camera shut down, or some failure with cables popping out, batteries running out.

Anyway, we are now in the realms of the hypothetical, and sledgehammers and nuts.

I think external recorders are cumbersome, expensive and defeat the purpose of a compact DSLR. But thats for me, have fun with whatever works for you.


----------



## syder (Apr 24, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Anyway, we are now in the realms of the hypothetical, and sledgehammers and nuts.
> 
> I think external recorders are cumbersome, expensive and defeat the purpose of a compact DSLR. But thats for me, have fun with whatever works for you.



External recorders also give your director a monitor though. If you're not a one man crew they're hardly cumbersome.

4K-wise, if I was buying a camera now I'd probably think long and hard about a Sony fs7. That said, I much prefer the image out of the C100+ninja blade to anything I've seen (bar the slo-mo) come from an fs-700. The BM cameras have consistently failed to work for long enough to scare me well off them. And they're studio only cameras, whereas I've shot usable footage in nothing but moonlight at ISO10K on the C100.

At the moment 4k isn't needed or even desirable for broadcast, is a resource-hog (space and cpu/gpu), isn't supported by the vast majority of people's screens and in NZ you'd struggle to stream 4k online due to our crappy internet even if people did have 4k monitors/tvs. 

That said, there are a few occasions where the extra resolution would be nice for some cropping/stabilsation when the output is going to be HD. But I'm not convinced that outweighs the negatives yet. And I'm still very happy using the our two year old C100s (which are light years ahead of using the 5d mark iis and panasonic p2 small sensor cameras we had before), so I see no need to upgrade now. That said, in a few years time more people will be able to view 4K content, internet speeds will be faster, computers will be faster and 4K will probably look a lot more necessary. And then the C100s will be four/five years old and probably need replacing...


----------



## gsealy (Apr 24, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I see your point but disagree.
> 
> An extra device is an extra connection or unit to fail, an extra device to charge and to remember to hit record on.
> 
> ...



I use the Atomos Ninja2 a lot. It is no problem whatsoever and the 'record' is synched with the 5DIII record start. The huge benefit to external recording is that the storage is cheaper and more can be recorded on the media. Sometimes we are recording for hours at a time. I don't want to fool around with a pocketful of expensive CFast cards. When the BMD URSA supports external recording, then I will definitely give it some consideration.


----------



## gsealy (Apr 24, 2015)

syder said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, we are now in the realms of the hypothetical, and sledgehammers and nuts.
> ...



I agree with all of this. We also use the C100 (and 5DIIIs). For me the biggest benefit of 4K right now is the framing capability for HD. But that is hardly a reason to jump on a camera now. We can do framing the old fashioned way.


----------



## Moulyneau (Apr 24, 2015)

I don't care but we live in a world of fast technological advances and, whether reasoned or not, people are wary about this. So, give them 4K! (as long I can take stills, I'm fine...)


----------



## sanj (Apr 24, 2015)

Brilliant thread. Nice viewpoints and pointers.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 24, 2015)

Just to clarify, I'm not against external monitors where they are required, my point was that I don't think it's ideal when a canera relies on peripheral devices to achieve its headline specification (i.e. that need an external recorder for say, 4k) I'd rather use a single unit.

DSLRs are absolutely a godsend for certain kinds of work, their caveats are many, but their advantages sometimes outweigh these, primarily cost and portability.

Just an opinion but when I see external recorders, zooms, matte boxes, french flags and follow focus attached to a 550d with an 18-55 lens, or even a 5d3 with 24-70 f2.8L, my opinion is that they are missing a trick.

I love using my ENG's, but they are a backbreaker, especially with a set of sticks, I guess thats why I can't fathom why folks want to big up their nice compact light dslrs.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 24, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I love using my ENG's, but they are a backbreaker, especially with a set of sticks, I guess thats why I can't fathom why folks want to big up their nice compact light dslrs.



+1

right tool for the job!


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 24, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I don't particularly want to get into semantics. A flash adds an essential additional function that you would not reasonably expect the camera to have built in. An external recorder is less essential, or at least should be.



Canon seems to think the second sentence applies to higher end cameras, e.g. G series Powershots & DSLRs, but not to lower end cameras, e.g. A series Powershots. Same with grips, integral in some cameras, optional in others.

If most 5D owners are interested in neither spending cash on CFast nor in recording 4K, it would make sense having this ability supported only by adding an additional accessory.



Tinky said:


> I think external recorders are cumbersome, expensive and defeat the purpose of a compact DSLR. But thats for me, have fun with whatever works for you.



Well, I'm not interested in recording 4K video, so I couldn't care less what it would entail.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 24, 2015)

In my opinion, 4K video today is as useful as 120 megapixel photos. Can serve for some (few) companies able to edit and watch content truly 4K.

I leave the future for when it comes future.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 24, 2015)

syder said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, we are now in the realms of the hypothetical, and sledgehammers and nuts.
> ...



Yeah, I"m drooling over the BM Ursa Mini....but I'd be looking at 4K mostly for the ability to crop/stabilize for the foreseeable future.

From reading other posts, however...I'm a little surprised. I'd not heard before that 4K has color problems, etc..that would affect grading/correction...? I'll have to research that to see what that's all about.

I'd not heard that till reading this thread. Then again, I'm new to the 4K thing...

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Apr 24, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> No, not one iota.
> 
> 4K is completely over hyped, who the hell wants to see a newscaster's pimple from 30ft'?
> 
> ...



Many valid points...however, I think it isn't a direct comparison with still imagery you gave with lenses, etc...vs video. With a still, you have time to set up and compose, and a still freezes motion in time. With video, you are often moving, especially with run and gun, where you have to deal with a continuous image that may have been hand held, etc...

And with stills, maybe its just me, but I find I crop and level most every pic I have at least just a little. I guess I'm not good enough yet to get most of my in camera. So, for video, It would really help me where I suffer from that too a bit, even on controlled shoots...to have that little extra so that I could frame the shots better while in edit.

And to me, and this is just a personal thought on it....it may become similar to the argument we used to have of RAW vs jpg......in the past many said "RAW is too big, not needed....too much processing needed in post"...etc.

I foresee that 4K vs HD (and someday 6K, etc)....would be analogous to the arguments many had with jpg vs RAW for stills.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Apr 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> MJ said:
> 
> 
> > And whether it is going to be outdated like 480 or 720 by 1080, only the the future will tell.
> ...



LOL...well, to be honest, I am saving my money for the old muscle car of the 70's I wanted as a kid.

I'm looking around for a fully restored '75-'76 Pontiac Trans Am 455 4-speed. With a little work on the cam and exhaust, you can beef it up to near 500hp.

But many of them, a selling point is finding them with the original 8-track in there. When I buy mine, I'm hoping to find on ebay and old 8-Track (maybe with smokey and the bandit soundtrack), put on a goofy cowboy hat, throw a case of coors in the rear seat and drive home with the sounds of "East bound and down...."

 ;D 

Cayenne


----------



## Tinky (Apr 24, 2015)

cayenne said:


> LOL...well, to be honest, I am saving my money for the old muscle car of the 70's I wanted as a kid.
> 
> I'm looking around for a fully restored '75-'76 Pontiac Trans Am 455 4-speed. With a little work on the cam and exhaust, you can beef it up to near 500hp.



Awwww Naw. A car analogy. We were doing so well!

Just to pick up on the 4k colour issue, it's not 4K generic, it's overcompression in some codecs, which is used to keep the data-rates low enough to work on consumer cards.

They do this through a combination of temporal (not saving repeated details across groups of frames) and spatial compression (using colour sampling in each frame across an area of pixels. The higher the compression the larger the area that is averaged out)

It makes things like compositing or colour correction more difficult because you have less sharp definitions between colours - a nightmare for bleed on green screen is an obvious example - or in some cases slightly false colours, and it can bring in moire as the codec juggles the information about. Even more so if you are shooting with one single bayer sensor rather than say a 3 ccd or 3 cmos system (and I haven't seen a 3 chip 4k camera as yet...)

But folk get hung up on the headline number...4K... forgetting that it won't be any sharper on your average 40" tv, and if you go to 60" or large projection, then the mushy edges, ghosty detail is even more apparent.

Even for basic cutting, colour depth and de-bayering etc issues aside, as you don't have complete frames, or contiguous complete frames, every time you do a cut, add a filter, add a caption, your edit suite is having to rebuild complete frames in the sequence. Unless you have a top end system with very fast multiple storage drives (or pref RAIDs) your edit suite is going to be really frustrating, stuttering as it chucks all that data around.

4K is ultimately a great thing, another tool to tell stories which we can choose to use or not. The issue at the moment is the cost of early adoption (yes the cameras are tantilisingly cheap, but they are not the whole story) I'm less interested in having 4K than having a stable workflow.

I could drop £2K on an URSA mini without blinking. But then I would also want to drop around £5K on a mac or hack capable of using it to it's full potential. A tiny wee tear in the blink there. Add £1.5K for on camera storage. It's just a lot of money to spend when my clients aren't looking for 4K.

Yes, if I was buying kit from scratch today I would buy 4K, as I want to get 5 years at least out of my kit, and four of those years would probably be waiting for blackmagic to deliver and then get the firmware sorted.. I jest.

4K is like megapixels. Big is technically better. But waiting for the new ACR is a pain. Then you realise you need to upgrade photoshop. And then you realise you need to upgrade your OS. blah blah blah.



The price will drop as the technology is more widely adopted.


----------



## Joe M (Apr 24, 2015)

No, zero, zilch, nada, zip. I'm a dino who cares about still image quality.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 25, 2015)

I retract all previous statements that it means nothing to me. I could use it for the type of stuff I do... but I also could use raw video and 4K... and i realize the size of the file... but for what I do... I do small files at high quality... so it would be perfect.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> But folk get hung up on the headline number...4K... forgetting that it won't be any sharper on your average 40" tv, and if you go to 60" or large projection, then the mushy edges, ghosty detail is even more apparent.



That is nonsense. I had 1440p monitor and my 4K footage shows none of what you say. HD footage on the other hand is all mushy.

The problem with HD on a 40" screen is that any scene with sharp widescreen footage (such as vegetation at a reasonable distance) looks totally crappy. It is only effective in close shots or shots of relatively large objects where detail is less critical. Anything where the focus of attention is small detail as opposed to large scale detail it completely falls apart. That is where 4K becomes important, because 4K does not do that.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 26, 2015)

Over compress your 4k and it will.

I would be interested in knowing the production chain of codecs.

I have 10 bit digibeta SD footage which looks utterly fantastic on a 40" monitor.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 26, 2015)

I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing. 

Most videos will never be viewed on a television. In case you haven't noticed, most videos are seen on smart phones or tablets. If you are worrying about how your videos will look on a 60 inch television your wasting your time unless you are shooting movies for theatrical or DVD release, which applies only to Sanj and maybe a couple of others here.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 27, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing.
> 
> Most videos will never be viewed on a television. In case you haven't noticed, most videos are seen on smart phones or tablets. If you are worrying about how your videos will look on a 60 inch television your wasting your time unless you are shooting movies for theatrical or DVD release, which applies only to Sanj and maybe a couple of others here.



I have a 5 inch screen on my phone... I'm thinking the benefits of 4k will be lost by watching it on my phone.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing.
> 
> Most videos will never be viewed on a television. In case you haven't noticed, most videos are seen on smart phones or tablets. If you are worrying about how your videos will look on a 60 inch television your wasting your time unless you are shooting movies for theatrical or DVD release, which applies only to Sanj and maybe a couple of others here.



Or for terrestrial broadcast, or for conferences, or for presentations... and those customers aren't asking me for 4k.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 27, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing.
> ...


If any human being can see differences between 1080P and 4K, on the same screen of a cell phone, so he is the Superman with his Crypton vision.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 27, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



4K should still be discernible on a 5" screen from 1 foot away. I could actually use 8K at 6" from my face if I wanted to (I can focus as close as 3"), but I have to admit 8K is probably outside the realm of practical usefulness on a cell phone, and it sounds like most people can't focus as close as 6" anyway.

4K should be the high end standard on large phones and "HD" on smaller or cheaper devices.
Tablets can be 8K.


----------



## LOALTD (May 15, 2015)

Who needs 4k? I still mistake 1080p screens for reality, all the time! Boy, if I had a nickle for every time I bumped into a 1080p video scree, mistaking it for a window!


In all seriousness though, 4k is the future. Weather you care about it or not.


Some folks are just thinking too small! My first HDTV was a 27" 4:3 tube 1080i set. It cost me $800.


If you told me there would be 1080p tablets for $200 that were faster than my Playstation 2 in about 7-8 years, I would've called you insane! Cellphones that could shoot 4k? I wouldn't even...


It's not too crazy to consider people having wallpaper-like screens in the future. There are already paper-thin OLED prototypes. Even 4k would start to look a bit rough at sizes that large, bring on 8k!


And for "content creators" (hate that term, but I guess I just used it) 4k is great for added flexibility in post! It also looks extra-crispy when downscaled to 1080p


The real barrier to 4k adoption right now is not really cameras or screens, it's more the infrastructure. How do you GET the content to the screen?


Media/Disk space: is unsettled
Bandwidth: is slow
Codecs: not much hardware-based H.265 support right now, which will bring even the highest of end computers to their knees


Great thread, btw!


----------



## 49616E (May 15, 2015)

9VIII said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



While I can't disagree with what you are interpreting as discernible, I would like to point out that it is not really physically possible to out resolve a 5" 4k screen with the human eye at 1 foot away.

Here is some of the math behind it, I can provide more details if requested:

Let's give the gracious benefit of assuming 20/15 vision here too. That would mean the degrees of acuity this person would have is .0125 degrees. Next the 5" screen would have dimensions of 4.35788" by 2.45131". This would result in a pixel pitch of .001134865 inches per pixel. Viewing this screen at the closest point of 12" while having .0125 degrees of acuity would result in being able to resolve .00261799 inches of detail (using trig). Notice that .00261766" is roughly twice that of the .001134865" of the screen. Remember this is 10/15 vision, which is not really all that common in the population.

Now if you personally did have 20/15 vision, and for some reason really enjoyed watching a 5" display at let's say 5.2" away from the screen, you would actually be able to resolve the detail as you claim. While if you do that, more power to you if you like it. However, I would like to note, under most normal viewing conditions, this would require people to move their eye around in order to actually see what is happening with the Fovea of their eye, which is responsible for detailed vision. This activity is usually considered uncomfortable.


----------



## SwnSng (May 15, 2015)

49616E said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Well if VR becomes mainstream on how we view images/data etc...I believe the holy grail in that space is 16k!


----------



## 49616E (May 16, 2015)

I just wanted to note that I read one of 9VIII's posts in a different thread and they pointed out the eye's ability to identify pixel structure on shapes rather than textures. Which is a valid point. So under that premise, and assuming the average person has a angular cone cell size of 31.5 arc seconds with corrected or gifted vision (ends up being 20/10.5 vision) would be able to then resolve the 5" 4k screen at about 7.5" inches. Which I would like to point out is still fairly different than 12". 

I did want to say thanks to 9VIII for bringing that point to my attention though. 

It is also worth understanding that some peoples cone cell density can be better or worse than the 31.5 arc second assumption. In order for the 12" view distance to work, someone would need an angular cone cell size of 19.5 arc seconds (considering both optics and cone density on the Fovea). Which I am not sure has been observed.

Not trying to pick on the 12" example specifically, just going through examples and providing different scales.


----------



## 9VIII (May 16, 2015)

49616E, thanks for noticing.

I just did a slightly more detailed post on the subject so I may as well get as much out of it as I can and post the relevant info here as well.




9VIII said:


> You need to differentiate between the finest high frequency detail that a person can see and the finest low frequency detail.
> The issue is that our eyes are designed to work by moving our receptors across the image, not holding steady.
> Here, I'll quote the opening sentences of chapter 29 from "Principles of Neural Science: Fifth Edition" (Yes, Neuro used this book as a source in one of his posts once, I took him up on it, the book agreed with me; but more importantly it's chock-full of information relevant to the "4K Debate".)
> 
> ...


----------



## mnovaksan (May 23, 2015)

I care about 4k. That said I'm on the advisory board of an LA motion picture studio, so maybe it's not for everyone. A few reasons why.

*Quality* - 1080p looks better when the original footage is shot on 4k, and then downsized for distribution.
*Becoming ubiquitous* - Even my iPhone 6 can shoot 4k. The quality issue is important
*Better Compression available* - HEVC/H.265 encoding is becoming increasingly the standard for distribution. Much better compression than h.264. So not nearly the drain on broadband distribution.
*Archive quality* - When I'm shooting footage of my family or professionally, I want it to look good on the screens of 2025, not just the ones of 2015.


----------



## asmundma (May 28, 2015)

mnovaksan said:


> I care about 4k. That said I'm on the advisory board of an LA motion picture studio, so maybe it's not for everyone. A few reasons why.
> 
> *Quality* - 1080p looks better when the original footage is shot on 4k, and then downsized for distribution.
> *Becoming ubiquitous* - Even my iPhone 6 can shoot 4k. The quality issue is important
> ...


----------

