The answer is simple, you need a 4K camera and not necessarily 4K footage. Two totally different things.Mikehit said:That is my biggest question in these discussions - how many need 4K and how many want it because it is the new cool tech?dash2k8 said:If you need 4k,
From what I see customers don't give a damn if something is 4k or high-res 1080. And watching in youtube who can see the difference? Given most pros use 1080 for things like films and documentaries and no-one watches those and whines about lack of detail. This looks to me like a guy who knows what is good enough and what customers will accept.
Yes, some people need it but 'most'......m'eh.
Look at behind the scene of your favorite directors for the past year or two and tell me any that doesn't use an external recorder, unless using a big camera?
Canon 1080P footage are soft (don't get me wrong - I am a Canon fan), while 1080P on an Atomos via HDMI is really fantastic. C100 and C100 II are built that way; these are 4K camera but record in 1080P, bypassing the need for an external recorder. That's why they are so popular; you have everything you need in one body.
On the other hand a 5D III output to the same Atomos delivers the same poor result as internal recording.
When I first got my 1DX II, I did enough test under different conditions to convince myself for the need to rig a Ninja plus 2-3 big Sony batteries around.
Additionally, sometimes you record in 4K so that you can stabilize, zoom in or pan/tilt in post, but your result is still 1080P.
It is not exactly, but similar to shooting photos in raw but publishing in JPG. Why don't you shoot straight in JPG? Why not buy a camera that shoot only in JPG and no raw? You know the answer.