Do you care about 4K?
- Thread starter Zv
- Start date
privatebydesign said:
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.
Upvote
0
9VIII said:
Ha. My 60 foot screen in a 40 foot room was absolutely spot on for the IMAX specs!
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Khnnielsen said:
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.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
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.
Upvote
0
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)
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)
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
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.
Upvote
0
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'.
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'.
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
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...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
