High definition video is approximately 2 megapixels. Most of Canon SLRs are 18 megapixels or more. 4k video is 8.3 megapixels. Why don't all the current body's feature 4k or higher video resolution?
Why not higher resolution video?
- Thread starter Tristan944
- Start date
- Status
I'm not a tech guy, but just think about how many fps your average DSLR shoots stills, then think about how many are needed for video..
Upvote
0
All the reasons above, plus how many people have TV's which are 4k or above? How any TV stations can broadcast at such resolutions?
While 4k might become mainstream at some time, it is pushing the boundaries at the moment, so not many cameras record it, and not many monitors/TV's can display it.
Ps - the new GoPro does 4k at just 15fps - no where near fast enough to create the illusion of smooth video.
While 4k might become mainstream at some time, it is pushing the boundaries at the moment, so not many cameras record it, and not many monitors/TV's can display it.
Ps - the new GoPro does 4k at just 15fps - no where near fast enough to create the illusion of smooth video.
Upvote
0
Filpside: Why higher resolution video?
Am I the only one still using a CRT TV bought new (by my parents) in 1986? I watch it so seldomly, and with only half-attention when I do, that any expense on buying a new one is pointless. Money better spent on lenses, film, and travelling to photogenic spots.
Maybe if there were something worth watching on TV nowadays, I'd be inclined to watch it more. Even if they're already broadcasting in 1080p, it might be technically 'better' than an analogue TV, but the stories sure as hell aren't. And even if the stories were worth watching, how much do more pixels add to the plot?
[/oldmanrant]
Am I the only one still using a CRT TV bought new (by my parents) in 1986? I watch it so seldomly, and with only half-attention when I do, that any expense on buying a new one is pointless. Money better spent on lenses, film, and travelling to photogenic spots.
Maybe if there were something worth watching on TV nowadays, I'd be inclined to watch it more. Even if they're already broadcasting in 1080p, it might be technically 'better' than an analogue TV, but the stories sure as hell aren't. And even if the stories were worth watching, how much do more pixels add to the plot?
[/oldmanrant]
Upvote
0
-
a. AFAIK there are no TV's that can play "18 megapixels or more" video resolutionTristan944 said:
b. The processing power required for shooting "18 megapixels or more" video resolution will be so huge that it would:
[list type=decimal] - cost a fortue
- the camera would probably have to be massive in size and weight
Upvote
0
There's still major stations broadcasting at upscaled 720P, and considering how TVs have gotten massive and a lot more affordable, simultaneously a vast majority have migrated to portable devices that one can't even perceive HD on. Yes Pixel density counts but even 720P I think is overkill for handheld devices. But that doesn't stop the world from wanting 4K, and speaking of broadcast, Japan's NHK is working on 8K cameras!
Though more resolution really begins to make sense when it comes to editing, higher bit rates and better color spaces all help with grading and creating an image you like, but for cropping or any fine edits the higher the resolution the better indeed. Then again, did more MPs in our photographic cameras mean much? At that point where it became more than enough (when we broke 10MP?) it's not like anyone's pictures got that much better, yeah there's more detail and you can print a lot larger, even save a too-far shot by cropping more and more.
For now it's a big boys game where full out production companies can show off their muscle of 4K against the poor indie film shooters who can't go past 1080P when on a budget, like when 3D was all the rage (haha what on earth happened to all that?) it was meant to be a feature that only Hollywood & friends could touch so would protect them, and the marketing gets them back enough anyways, like all the views an incredibly boring video gets just because it has a 4K tag
Though more resolution really begins to make sense when it comes to editing, higher bit rates and better color spaces all help with grading and creating an image you like, but for cropping or any fine edits the higher the resolution the better indeed. Then again, did more MPs in our photographic cameras mean much? At that point where it became more than enough (when we broke 10MP?) it's not like anyone's pictures got that much better, yeah there's more detail and you can print a lot larger, even save a too-far shot by cropping more and more.
For now it's a big boys game where full out production companies can show off their muscle of 4K against the poor indie film shooters who can't go past 1080P when on a budget, like when 3D was all the rage (haha what on earth happened to all that?) it was meant to be a feature that only Hollywood & friends could touch so would protect them, and the marketing gets them back enough anyways, like all the views an incredibly boring video gets just because it has a 4K tag
Upvote
0
Because Go Pro Hero 3 can only shoot 4K video at 15 fpsTristan944 said:
The sensor size of Go Pro Hero 3 is a puny 1/2.3" ... now compare that with a cropped frame 18 MP DSLR sensor size which is 22.3 x 14.9 mm
Upvote
0
Just to put sensor sizes in perspective see the below pic for comparison between the Go Pro 3 sensor size and an 18 MP DSLR sensor (as well as the full frame) ... now think of the processing power & costs required to make an 18 MP DSLR do 4K video let alone 8K or higher:Rienzphotoz said:
Attachments
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
I bought a Sony fx1 in 2005 when you only really saw 1080 tv's at trade shows.
It was coming we were told, and so we bought fx1s and z1s in our droves.
I usually shot at 1080 hdv and downscaled to dv for most clients, so I always had the hdv master.
In my time of using the camera nobody really asked me for hd.
Since shooting on eos cameras i still shoot hd, and it looks great played on my 1080 telly through a brd player, but its not fall off my chair great (i have a puny 40", difference from sd is barely apparent) when viewed at an event on a 20 ft screen the difference is very obvious.
We put up with .4mp for television for years because the motion blur masked the low resolution (interlacing played a part too) and is partly why on smaller screens there isn't a massive jump.
Forget the camera processing power, think more about our brain processing power.
4k is on it's way. But like trying to edit hdv in 2005, present consumer gear isn't up to it, and for most folk watching on even 50" tellys, the difference isn't all that obvious.
When we have an entire wall of our living room as a tv then 4k might be worth it, but what would the viewing distance be?
Sure if you are shooting for projection, as I do for work, then 4k might make some sense, but be prepared to budget for make up. Be prepared to budget for much sharper lenses.
It was coming we were told, and so we bought fx1s and z1s in our droves.
I usually shot at 1080 hdv and downscaled to dv for most clients, so I always had the hdv master.
In my time of using the camera nobody really asked me for hd.
Since shooting on eos cameras i still shoot hd, and it looks great played on my 1080 telly through a brd player, but its not fall off my chair great (i have a puny 40", difference from sd is barely apparent) when viewed at an event on a 20 ft screen the difference is very obvious.
We put up with .4mp for television for years because the motion blur masked the low resolution (interlacing played a part too) and is partly why on smaller screens there isn't a massive jump.
Forget the camera processing power, think more about our brain processing power.
4k is on it's way. But like trying to edit hdv in 2005, present consumer gear isn't up to it, and for most folk watching on even 50" tellys, the difference isn't all that obvious.
When we have an entire wall of our living room as a tv then 4k might be worth it, but what would the viewing distance be?
Sure if you are shooting for projection, as I do for work, then 4k might make some sense, but be prepared to budget for make up. Be prepared to budget for much sharper lenses.
Upvote
0
LostBoyNZ said:
Black Magic also announced 2 years ago that it would deliver their products on time.
Some people are STILL waiting for their Gen 1 products when they are out announcing their Gen 3 versions.
What good is a $4000 camera if you have to wait for 18 months + to use it?
Upvote
0
Tristan944 said:
Processing power depends a lot on the algorithm used. The GoPro HEAVILY compresses it's video.... that's why it fits hours of video onto a microSD card. Also, the goPro shoots 4K video at 15FPS..... that's the same data rate as 2K video at 60FPS. Also, the GoPro is a VIDEO camera..... hardware is optimized for shooting VIDEO, as opposed to a DSLR which is optimized for shooting stills.
I don't have it with me to check file sizes, but on Sunday I shot a 55 minute long video (one continuous recording) on a GoPro..... compare that to a Canon DSLR where you can reach the 4G file size limit in about 2 minutes....
With such a lossy algorithm, you skip on trying to conserve the smallest details, so you need a lot less cpu power.... if Canons provided poor quality, they could speed up too
Upvote
0
The other question to ask is why does the current 1080p video frame look so infinitely crappier than the equivalent 2mp still? If they can give me broadcast quality or better 1080p, people would not be waiting for 4k as much as they are.....
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
K-amps said:
Have you taken a 2MP still on your camera to compare it with a 1080p video grab? (and I mean taken the image at 2MP, not resized in PS)
That's the only fair way to compare because of pixel binning etc. Oh and at JPEG as well. And at 1/50th or 1/60th shutter too.
And for complete parity can you also enlarge the 2MP print of your still to the size of your TV screen? Remember to keep everything sRGB for equivalence.
As I alluded to earlier, we put up with 400k resolution tv pictures for decades because the illusion of motion and the motion blur caused by the relatively slow shutter (not to mention the interlacing) was all too much for our lowly brain power to handle and so it looked all crisp and sharp and detailed and that. We only see each image for 1/25th or 1/30th of a second, so our brain is filling in a lot of the gaps at quite a rate. A bit like temporal compression in reverse.
Why isn't my tractor as fast as my coupe on the motorway? Why can't I plough a field with my bike? All similar questions.
And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years?
Upvote
0
- Status
