Do you care about 4K?

[gsealy]

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'.

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]

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...

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]

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]

Brilliant thread. Nice viewpoints and pointers.

 

[Tinky]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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...

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]

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.........

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

 

[jdramirez]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.