4K, 5K, 6K and Up Video

[hendrik-sg]

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

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

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

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

 

[Marsu42]

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

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

 

[Don Haines]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Niki]

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

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

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

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

 

[jdramirez]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

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

Ten years ago? Has it been that long?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

These higher res displays look radically better!

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

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

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

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

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

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

For stills, these displays make perfect sense right now.

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

 

[mkabi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jdramirez]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cliffwang]

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

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

 

[jdramirez]

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

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

 

[LarryC]

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

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

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

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

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

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

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cliffwang]

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

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

 

[Axilrod]

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

 

[mkabi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mkabi]

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

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

 

[Halfrack]

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

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

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

 

[rs]

These higher res displays look radically better!

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

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

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

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

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

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

For stills, these displays make perfect sense right now.

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

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

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

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