Do you care about 4K?

[Tinky]

if only we had some analogous format that could be rescanned or as display technology progresses....

great point about 8 tracks. except that 8 tracks weren't ever really a mastering format in the amateur or domestic arena. i.e. the material contained therin would usually exist elsewhere.

Mini-disc or zip drive is probably more like the thing.

 

[sanj]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

 

[pwp]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

+1 Obviously stated by one who knows...

I shoot 4K on the Panasonic GH4. It leaves anything I shot on 5DII or 5DIII choking for air. The Canons are strictly for stills now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

There is a whole lot more. I could go on for pages. Yes, it's an obsolete question. Next please!

-pw

 

[Halfrack]

If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.

 

[Zv]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

+1 Obviously stated by one who knows...

I shoot 4K on the Panasonic GH4. It leaves anything I shot on 5DII or 5DIII choking for air. The Canons are strictly for stills now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

There is a whole lot more. I could go on for pages. Yes, it's an obsolete question. Next please!

-pw

But you just stated that you publish in 1080p. What was the point of owning something that shoots 4K if you are showing the video in 1080p? Clearly 1080p is not dead.

To put it another way - if we had very very good HD quality video (like the down sampled 4K mentioned above) to begin with how many of us would be satisfied?

HD looks pretty darn good and I don't know about most of you guys but I don't want a 60" TV in my living room to get the benefits of 4K. Sure, I'll take a 4K monitor to edit photos but other than that I just want solid HD video straight out of my existing camera without having to meddle with expensive software.

The goal is just good video that most people can enjoy, right? 4K shouldn't be a means to get good 1080p we should just have good 1080p to begin with.

 

[distant.star]

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?

You want 8-track? I got 8-track -- and a way to play it!!

 

[rpt]

I hardly do video. Usually only to document storytelling sessions my wife holds. So HD is fine. However in 7 years time when I buy my next camera I guess I'll get one that shoots 4K (or may be 16K) video...

The only plus I see is to do a frame grab like @Halftrack said. But it has its limitations as sitter speed would be low...

 

[Tinky]

hilarious that gh4 shooters are getting all ken burns over outputting 1080.

a) you dont have the colour fidelty

b) you dont have the motion fidelty

c) your codec sucks ass more ferociously than Gillian McKeith on commission

theres 4k and theres 4k. canon at least aren't trying to do it via the latest h.26whatever.

i'd rather shoot good hd than sucky 4k.

"hi, i have 4k"
"great. do a crash pan or tilt mo-fo"

.

 

[dash2k8]

If I can shoot 4k with great color and detail, sure, why not? Resolution will only go higher and higher, and fighting a new trend does no one any good. While I don't have a 4k monitor/TV yet, this is an eventuality in this tech-mad society we live in, so might as well embrace it.

 

[sanj]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

+1 Obviously stated by one who knows...

I shoot 4K on the Panasonic GH4. It leaves anything I shot on 5DII or 5DIII choking for air. The Canons are strictly for stills now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

There is a whole lot more. I could go on for pages. Yes, it's an obsolete question. Next please!

-pw

But you just stated that you publish in 1080p. What was the point of owning something that shoots 4K if you are showing the video in 1080p? Clearly 1080p is not dead.

To put it another way - if we had very very good HD quality video (like the down sampled 4K mentioned above) to begin with how many of us would be satisfied?

HD looks pretty darn good and I don't know about most of you guys but I don't want a 60" TV in my living room to get the benefits of 4K. Sure, I'll take a 4K monitor to edit photos but other than that I just want solid HD video straight out of my existing camera without having to meddle with expensive software.

The goal is just good video that most people can enjoy, right? 4K shouldn't be a means to get good 1080p we should just have good 1080p to begin with.

I missed anyone saying 1080p is dead. But there is a better way to get there.

 

[pwp]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

-pw

But you just stated that you publish in 1080p. What was the point of owning something that shoots 4K if you are showing the video in 1080p?

B e c a u s e of a quality margin that simply cannot be ignored. The jury is in on this. Try it.

1080p is far from dead as a currently appropriate delivery means. Hardware, software and bandwidth all need to catch up and that process is well under way right across the planet. Shooting 4K also future proofs your work to some extent. Here's a very rough analogy. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in JPEG only. He weeps. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in RAW. He breaths a sigh of relief, re-processes the image and delivers a quality file to his client. The concept is not hard to grasp.

-pw

 

[gsealy]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

-pw

But you just stated that you publish in 1080p. What was the point of owning something that shoots 4K if you are showing the video in 1080p?

B e c a u s e of a quality margin that simply cannot be ignored. The jury is in on this. Try it.

1080p is far from dead as a currently appropriate delivery means. Hardware, software and bandwidth all need to catch up and that process is well under way right across the planet. Shooting 4K also future proofs your work to some extent. Here's a very rough analogy. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in JPEG only. He weeps. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in RAW. He breaths a sigh of relief, re-processes the image and delivers a quality file to his client. The concept is not hard to grasp.

-pw

I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.

 

[expatinasia]

I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.

That's not always possible though is it! Sometimes flights are needed to get to the client, and the client may not want you to reshoot if no changes have been made other than the hardware you are using. Are you going to do it for free?!!

Future proofing is real. I remember when people used to ask why I shoot in 1080 and not in a lesser format. I also still have 32MB CF Cards in my drawer, yet my camera today has two 64GB 1066X Cards. Most of the components in my laptop can be upgraded. All this is about future proofing.

 

[sanj]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

Like most GH4 shooters, you shoot in 4K and publish in 1080p. The quality difference between downsampled 4K and actually shooting in 1080p is astounding. You simply wouldn't bother to shoot 1080p. 4K quality allows you to crop into your frame, and equally importantly allows you to crop and pan across a frame. Nice!

-pw

But you just stated that you publish in 1080p. What was the point of owning something that shoots 4K if you are showing the video in 1080p?

B e c a u s e of a quality margin that simply cannot be ignored. The jury is in on this. Try it.

1080p is far from dead as a currently appropriate delivery means. Hardware, software and bandwidth all need to catch up and that process is well under way right across the planet. Shooting 4K also future proofs your work to some extent. Here's a very rough analogy. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in JPEG only. He weeps. A photographer pulls out an archive image and realizes he had shot it in RAW. He breaths a sigh of relief, re-processes the image and delivers a quality file to his client. The concept is not hard to grasp.

-pw

I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.

Perhaps for your work it does not apply. For many many it does: Documentary makers, Marriage shooters, Personal event shooters etc etc.

 

[pwp]

I've heard the 'future proofing' concept many times previously. For my work I don't feel it has much merit. If there is any time lag of significance, then I would shoot something fresh. Goals, context, and situations change quickly.

True, goals, context and situations do change quickly, but not necessarily towards irrelevance. A given image or video's relevance and currency can go from zero to hero overnight. Say I shoot an interview and mini doco of a reasonably prominent artist which is planned for 2-3 minutes web publication. Fast forward a few years and the artist either catapults to global prominence or (hopefully not) passes away. That archive of 4K material will become gold.

-pw

 

[Loswr]

Absolutely yes. This question is obsolete now.

Indeed, that's been effectively demonstrated by the responses to the poll above.

 

[lintoni]

Just me, but never have and never will shoot video.

Me also!!, tired of all the video talk!! Blaaaaahhhhh!

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.

I do agree with your sentiments here... but... I'm really surprised by how many have voted and shown antipathy to the whole 4K debate, especially considering that the poll is in the "EOS Bodies - For Video" part of the forum. I have no interest in video, and I'm pretty sure that this is my first post in these parts.

 

[jdramirez]

I have 4k on my phone... but I never use it. I don't need more quality in my videos... because my videos are mediocre at best.

 

[Ruined]

If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.

This is a poor analogy due to the diminishing returns of 4K vs average display size. 4K requires around 120" screen to start really noticing a difference over 1080p from normal seating distance (source: Joe Kane), which is over double the average display size end users have. Technology has evolved a lot but eventually displays just get too big for a living space, and for 99.9% of people 120" will be too big.

About the only good argument for 4K video is if you are going to crop a lot, as it will allow you to do a significant crop while retaining acceptable pixel density. It can also be used as a marketing tool to differentiate yourself from your competition, but it is not something the end user will significantly benefit from.

For the vast majority of end users, though, there will be no noticeable difference between 4k and 1080p. An analogy to the audio world: 4k is like DVD-Audio and SACD - technically better than standard CD, but differences that are not audible. 24bit/96khz may be useful to the producer, but for the end user anything more than 16bit/44.1khz is a waste.

 

[jdramirez]

If you need help selling a 4K recording, pull out a VHS tape and see how good it looks on your 60" HDTV. In 10 years, HD will look the same - antiquated, low quality. We capture once in a lifetime events, generally speaking, I want to offer my clients the very best possible currently. Otherwise, might as well get out the 8mm camcorder.

This is a poor analogy. 4K requires around 120" TV/projector to start noticing a difference over 1080p from normal seating distance. Technology has evolved a lot but that is not going to change how big of a TV is comfortable for someone in their living room in 10 yrs.

About the only good argument for 4K video is if you are going to crop a lot. For the end user, there will be no noticeable difference between 4k and 1080p.

I have a 133" projection screen setup in my living room... well, one of my living rooms. It is really nice... but the projector is only 720p... so I don't see any benefit with upgrading to 4k until there is more end user content.