With Canon's recent announcements of the C300II and XC10 I'm wondering just how many folk are interested in 4K.
Do you care about 4K?
- Thread starter Zv
- Start date
I am not really interested in video. But for those who are, I imagine it is pretty important.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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 ...
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 ...
Upvote
0
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.........
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.........
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
TeT said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
SPL said:
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.
Upvote
0
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? 
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
