April 26, 2018, 07:45:38 AM

Poll

To 4K or not to 4K?

Yes, I need 4K video for what I do (broadcast, cinema, documentaries etc)
18 (12.2%)
Yes, I want to dabble in 4K now that I have the means to do so.
16 (10.8%)
Yes, but only to watch movies and TV in 4K.
14 (9.5%)
Waiting to see what happens with 4K before I decide.
23 (15.5%)
No, 4K-off!
77 (52%)

Total Members Voted: 148

Voting closed: May 11, 2015, 11:53:04 AM

Author Topic: Do you care about 4K?  (Read 57720 times)

pwp

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2450
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2015, 06:46:39 PM »
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.

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

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

-pw

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2015, 06:46:39 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6830
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2015, 09:10:23 PM »
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.........

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.

Nailed it.

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.........
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6830
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2015, 09:21:07 PM »

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.

"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.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Besisika

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 614
  • How can you stand out, if you do like evrybdy else
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #63 on: April 12, 2015, 10:16:10 PM »
"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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2972
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #64 on: April 13, 2015, 11:20:40 AM »
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.........

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.

Nailed it.

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.........

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

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #65 on: April 13, 2015, 02:00:13 PM »
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.

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

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

-pw

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

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2090
    • AW Photography
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2015, 04:00:30 PM »
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.

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

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

-pw

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. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2015, 04:00:30 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #67 on: April 13, 2015, 04:22:35 PM »
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.

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

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

-pw

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.
we did research on 4K broadcasting.... the project ended 3 years ago.....
The best camera is the one in your hands

Khnnielsen

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #68 on: April 13, 2015, 05:22:00 PM »
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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #69 on: April 13, 2015, 07:18:40 PM »
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.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #70 on: April 13, 2015, 08:15:28 PM »
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.

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....
The best camera is the one in your hands

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #71 on: April 13, 2015, 08:35:50 PM »
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...

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.

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....
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6830
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2015, 08:44:17 PM »

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.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2015, 08:44:17 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2015, 08:53:19 PM »
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...

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.

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....

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.
The best camera is the one in your hands

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2015, 08:54:38 PM »

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.

and don't forget one heluva big popcorn popper :)
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2015, 08:54:38 PM »