Why is 4K important?

[davidhfe]

Whoever cares about 4K should also care about t-stops (as opposed to f-stops), fluid heads, and audio quality. There seems to be a major disconnect between 4K "quality" and the remainder of the quality requirements. As a pro-video friend once pointed out, the difference between photography and videography is: when you press the shutter in photography, all your problems are over. With video, all your problems start.

That is why I don't get why people care about 4K on a dSLR, with f-stop lenses and handheld. Does not compute for me. And for snap shot videos, a cell phone is just as good.

There's a world of content between "I need to match transmission values between multiple cameras and lenses" and "snap videos on my phone." External sound is neither difficult nor expensive, and monitoring jacks on SLRs is a feature video-focused folks talk about as much as 4K. Fluid heads? There are plenty of applications where a static tripod is sufficient.

 

[foo]

In 15-20 years time..

Thing is, in 15-20 years time when you have a 256K screen, those 4K videos will look crap..... Not because hey look any different, but simply because you'll have the same bias that today says less than 4K equals crap.

Nobody buys a 24MP camera so that they can keep 2MP images ..

Your 24MP argument doesn't hold up here as you're talking about the opposite direction, as long as you have the 24MP raw you can produce 2MP today, 4MP tomorrow, all the way up to 24MP in some years time, but your 4K video will always be 4K, even in 20 years when technology has marched past you..

If you'd used film you might have had some ability to re-scan it to higher resolution as the technology becomes available... but 4K will always only be 4K

Not suggesting I'd not like 4K today, but the importance of it doesn't stand the test of time.

 

[Khalai]

As a pro-video friend once pointed out, the difference between photography and videography is: when you press the shutter in photography, all your problems are over. With video, all your problems start.

Great quote, I have to remember that

 

[padam]

1080p is good and practical from a size/quality perspective. It was a huge jump from what it was before, 4k is still going to be noticeable but mostly on bigger screens, which is really not needed for every kind of content and going even higher will show even less benefits from a practical perspective.

The problem in the case of most cameras (including the 6D Mark II) that unlike the C100 or A7S it achieved by line-skipping, loosing a lot of information in the process, looking a bit soft. And we all know that Canon is not going to release lower megapixel camera in the lower-price segment with better video possibilities, not to mention the codecs, with a good codec the size/quality ratio is still manageable (especially if it used more information to start with).
With the recent A9 restrictions, now it seems clear that neither camera manufacturer wants to produce a camera that does photo and video equally well, they prefer to sell separate products for that.

 

[Hector1970]

I find 4K overkill. HD is fine and will remain so. The high megapixels are a problem already. Editing 4K requires an expensive computer. If you are making a movie you must gut need 4K It for ordinary stuff I think it's impractical.

 

[snoke]

Nobody buys a 24MP camera so that they can keep 2MP images ..

Your 24MP argument doesn't hold up here as you're talking about the opposite direction, as long as you have the 24MP raw you can produce 2MP today, 4MP tomorrow, all the way up to 24MP in some years time, but your 4K video will always be 4K, even in 20 years when technology has marched past you..

If you'd used film you might have had some ability to re-scan it to higher resolution as the technology becomes available... but 4K will always only be 4K

1080p = 2MP
4K = 8MP.
6K = 18MP.
8K video = 33MP. Better?

Sony A9 do 20fps, maybe A9 II deliver what you want!

Future 256K screen make 24MP image tiny.

4K = 8MP
...
256K = 32768MP

Scan negative limit small. 8MP for 35mm.

 

[rrcphoto]

Everyone says 4K "not important." TV only 1080p. No need for 4K. Too much data. Too hard to process. And nobody makes video, everyone just make photos.

all you described is why video is important, not to why 4K is important. regardless of the tv resolutions as they continue to increase - your videos 15-20 years from now even if they are 4K will be out of date.

 

[Mikehit]

Nobody buys a 24MP camera so that they can keep 2MP images ..

Your 24MP argument doesn't hold up here as you're talking about the opposite direction, as long as you have the 24MP raw you can produce 2MP today, 4MP tomorrow, all the way up to 24MP in some years time, but your 4K video will always be 4K, even in 20 years when technology has marched past you..

If you'd used film you might have had some ability to re-scan it to higher resolution as the technology becomes available... but 4K will always only be 4K

1080p = 2MP
4K = 8MP.
6K = 18MP.
8K video = 33MP. Better?

Sony A9 do 20fps, maybe A9 II deliver what you want!

Future 256K screen make 24MP image tiny.

4K = 8MP
...
256K = 32768MP

Scan negative limit small. 8MP for 35mm.

I presume among all those numbers you actually had a point somewhere...?

 

[LDS]

4K may be important for *actual* needs, especially in the commercial market, even when used just as for marketing.

As a future proof format for decades to come, no. Maybe the resolution increase wills stop because the human eye won't resolve more, but virtual reality could turn movie into immersive experiences... and plain, old, flat 4K will be hopelessly outdated anyway And when memories are important, the technology usually matters very little.

When I project my father's old Standard 8mm B/W silent films, the dark room, the screen, the beam of light, the rattling projector, the occasional dust grain or hair magnified on the screen are all part of the experience. Seen on a LCD TV they are not the same thing. Maybe in forty-fifty years putting an USB stick into a player, and seeing its contents on an old, flat screen will look the same...

 

[Antono Refa]

In 15-20 years time, as my kids get older and we have parties where "remember when", I'll have videos to share of those moments. "Oh but my photos are 1893MP!" The difference between photos and videos of parties is "Oh, that's a nice photo" and "listen to them laughing!" / "look at what they're doing!". Back to those future parties. At that point in time, TVs are either going to be 4K "standard" ("Gee dad, why didn't you have good video back then?") or maybe even 6K/8K ("Wow, dad, when I was a baby that was the best video available?!") 1080p might be "ok" now but it will age and it will not age well.

There are photos of my grandpa wearing a custom of an old lady, looking very happy, my great grandmother holding my little sister, and my father's cousin when she was a year old and her family lived beyond the iron curtain.

My family was happy going down memory lane, not caring one bit the photos were printed when 4 by 6 was large, and the most I could get was 4MP.

Nobody buys a 24MP camera so that they can keep 2MP images (ok, maybe 4MP if you've got a UHD screen), everyone buys 24MP cameras to keep 24MP pictures. Even if they only ever get downres'd for monitors, by keeping the original raw/jpeg, you can re-render it for bigger screens in the future. Same with video.

Nowadays, all cameras have, at the very least, 16MP. That does not mean most people print larger than A4 on regular basis.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

"Everyone says 4K "not important." TV only 1080p. No need for 4K. Too much data. Too hard to process. And nobody makes video, everyone just make photos."

Totally agree!

 

[9VIII]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

IMAX Film is supposed to be around 12K resolution equivalent, people could recognise that there is a desire for super high resolution media as far back as the 1970's, I don't see why that should be any different now.
It's not that hard to meet the minimum requirements for an IMAX experience in your home either: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20090522a.htm

we aim for a minimum eye-to-screen distance of 0.35 times…screen width and a maximum distance to the last row equal…to the screen width.”

As long as the back row is within spec for IMAX, then sitting 6 feet from an 82" screen is within spec for a "home equivalent" to IMAX.
The back row may not be ideal, but neither is 4K, in fact if IMAX is equivalent to 12K that means 4K is actually almost exactly 10x less total pixels (12K at 16:9 would be 81 Million pixels, 4K is 8,294,400).
So if you factor in the lower image quality of 4K, it is still appropriate to be used interchangably with 1080p.
I predict 4K will be the "SD resolution" of the year 2100 and beyond.

8K is finally within the same order of magnitude of detail as IMAX, but even that is less than half the pixel count and really will probably be appropriate in 99% of home theaters at the same screen size people have today.

 

[Mikehit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

IMAX Film is supposed to be around 12K resolution equivalent, people could recognise that there is a desire for super high resolution media as far back as the 1970's, I don't see why that should be any different now.
It's not that hard to meet the minimum requirements for an IMAX experience in your home either: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20090522a.htm

we aim for a minimum eye-to-screen distance of 0.35 times…screen width and a maximum distance to the last row equal…to the screen width.”

As long as the back row is within spec for IMAX, then sitting 6 feet from an 82" screen is within spec for a "home equivalent" to IMAX.
The back row may not be ideal, but neither is 4K, in fact if IMAX is equivalent to 12K that means 4K is actually almost exactly 10x less total pixels (12K at 16:9 would be 81 Million pixels, 4K is 8,294,400).
So if you factor in the lower image quality of 4K, it is still appropriate to be used interchangably with 1080p.
I predict 4K will be the "SD resolution" of the year 2100 and beyond.

8K is finally within the same order of magnitude of detail as IMAX, but even that is less than half the pixel count and really will probably be appropriate in 99% of home theaters at the same screen size people have today.

So in a viewing room 6 meters long, you need a screen size of 18metres. Yeah, right.

 

[IglooEater]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

IMAX Film is supposed to be around 12K resolution equivalent, people could recognise that there is a desire for super high resolution media as far back as the 1970's, I don't see why that should be any different now.
It's not that hard to meet the minimum requirements for an IMAX experience in your home either: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20090522a.htm

we aim for a minimum eye-to-screen distance of 0.35 times…screen width and a maximum distance to the last row equal…to the screen width.”

As long as the back row is within spec for IMAX, then sitting 6 feet from an 82" screen is within spec for a "home equivalent" to IMAX.
The back row may not be ideal, but neither is 4K, in fact if IMAX is equivalent to 12K that means 4K is actually almost exactly 10x less total pixels (12K at 16:9 would be 81 Million pixels, 4K is 8,294,400).
So if you factor in the lower image quality of 4K, it is still appropriate to be used interchangably with 1080p.
I predict 4K will be the "SD resolution" of the year 2100 and beyond.

8K is finally within the same order of magnitude of detail as IMAX, but even that is less than half the pixel count and really will probably be appropriate in 99% of home theaters at the same screen size people have today.

I seem to recall IMAX recording some space stuff on Canon cinema gear. Seems they must think 4K is at least sufficient for some of their material.
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-cinema-eos-captures-space-in-4k-for-new-imax-3d-film/

 

[neuroanatomist]

So in a viewing room 6 meters long, you need a screen size of 18metres. Yeah, right.

Meh. We had immersive TV years ago, even with CRT.

 

[ethanz]

So in a viewing room 6 meters long, you need a screen size of 18metres. Yeah, right.

Meh. We had immersive TV years ago, even with CRT.

lol, trudat. My nephew does that and we tell him not to stand so close.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My nephew does that and we tell him not to stand so close.

Yeah, but there's probably nothing to worry about if he does (unless he's blocking your view of the TV ).

 

[ethanz]

My nephew does that and we tell him not to stand so close.

Yeah, but there's probably nothing to worry about if he does (unless he's blocking your view of the TV ).

Interesting, thanks.

 

[Talys]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

IMAX Film is supposed to be around 12K resolution equivalent, people could recognise that there is a desire for super high resolution media as far back as the 1970's, I don't see why that should be any different now.
It's not that hard to meet the minimum requirements for an IMAX experience in your home either: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20090522a.htm

we aim for a minimum eye-to-screen distance of 0.35 times…screen width and a maximum distance to the last row equal…to the screen width.”

As long as the back row is within spec for IMAX, then sitting 6 feet from an 82" screen is within spec for a "home equivalent" to IMAX.
The back row may not be ideal, but neither is 4K, in fact if IMAX is equivalent to 12K that means 4K is actually almost exactly 10x less total pixels (12K at 16:9 would be 81 Million pixels, 4K is 8,294,400).
So if you factor in the lower image quality of 4K, it is still appropriate to be used interchangably with 1080p.
I predict 4K will be the "SD resolution" of the year 2100 and beyond.

8K is finally within the same order of magnitude of detail as IMAX, but even that is less than half the pixel count and really will probably be appropriate in 99% of home theaters at the same screen size people have today.

So in a viewing room 6 meters long, you need a screen size of 18metres. Yeah, right.

It's a nonlinear growth ratio. When you're at IMAX, you aren't expected to see the whole screen. If you were at home and it were possible to have the same ratio, your seating would be elevated and for you to be so immersed your front wall (with the screen) would ideally be several times larger than the back, with the whole wall a viewport.

Of course, unicorns are nice too.