#1 YouTuber uploads videos in 720p

combatentropy said:
Ten years from now, people will not be putting their faces four inches from their laptop screens, nor will they be sitting two feet from their big-screen TVs. Therefore, 10 years from now, 4K will be just as invisible as it is today.

TVs may grow and grow, but having the screen cover more than 30 or 40 degrees of your angle of view is uncomfortable. And that is right at the cusp of where you start to see the pixels of 2K. So I think for most people, 4K will continue to be just a gimmick.
Click to expand...

To me, 4K looks superior and the difference is not invisible at all/even if downscaled 4K>HD.
After viewing enough 4K, HD starts to look soft.
 
GHKAM said:
After viewing enough 4K, HD starts to look soft.
Click to expand...

yup...I argue with someone at least once a day about it, ha.

I also shoot and upload in 4K so the HD stream will look better, especially if for any reason these wacky video players choose 480p or 720p based on various connections.
 
GHKAM said:
PewDiePie, now with over 52.5 million subscribers uploads 720p videos in 2017. Typically with a mediocre quality camera, no attention to quality such as locking exposure, framing, etc.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean that he's wrong. Scoreboard -- he's not wrong. He's learned something that you haven't learned yet. But you can... if you want to pursue it and figure it out.

There's a whole heck of a lot more to video (or still photography) than simple resolution. Or correct exposure. And just because you don't like the framing doesn't make it "wrong".

There are whole swaths of art that I don't like. For example, abstract expressionism. I've never found any that I like. But I don't think the artists are inept. Instead, I know that I just don't "get it". That's on me, not the artists.
 
Last year I was lucky enough to have my feature get a theater release. I saw my FS7 footage (4K downscaled to 2K because there are almost no 4K theaters yet) on a HUGE screen projected by a state of the art projector. It convinced me to stop upgrading for higher resolution (as I've done every couple of years for the last 6 years) and concentrate on lighting, camera movement, script, etc. The footage looked absolutely breathtaking. I believe 2K or 1080P is the "sweet spot" of the cinematic image. Higher resolution to me looks less filmlike. I recall 35mm film is only around 2.5K equivalent.
 
GHKAM said:
To me, 4K looks superior and the difference is not invisible at all/even if downscaled 4K>HD. After viewing enough 4K, HD starts to look soft.
Click to expand...

I just don't see how that's biologically possible.

Are we talking about the same thing? First of all, I'm not saying that shooting with a camera whose sensor is a 4K Bayer sensor is a total loss. It decreases moire and looks a little nicer when downconverted to 2K. Although, still I've watched plenty of beautiful footage on Vimeo from the Blackmagic Pocket, whose sensor is 1920x1080 raw. Second of all, are you talking about viewing 4K on some kind of editing set-up, where you're at a desk, with a 24" or 27" 4K monitor a couple feet in front of you, and sometimes you're leaning forward to inspect the pixels?

I'm talking about the format for distribution, to be viewed by audiences at normal angles of view (30-40 degrees in a theater, 10-15 degrees in living rooms). I don't see how they can tell the difference between 2K and 4K. The resolution of the human eye has been measured again and again, and in best cases it turns out to be 60 pixels per degree.

I can test it right now every time I'm in front of my laptop. I know my laptop's resolution (2560 x 1600) and I know how close I have to get to start to see the pixels. I can imagine the pixels being half as wide and half as tall, and even with my nose four inches from the screen, I can't imagine it making hardly any difference, because I am only just barely starting to see pixels at that distance. And I would never want a movie screen to surround me as much as my laptop screen is surrounding me at that point.

The reason I keep bringing it up is because higher resolution is the cheapest upgrade manufacturers can make. Making more meaningful upgrades like better dynamic range or global shutter are harder work. And I would rather that they focus on that. And every time they up the res, from 2K to 4K, and from 4K to 8K (?!?!?!?!?!?!) it pushes dynamic range, global shutter, more affordable media, etc., farther and farther away.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
And every time they up the res, from 2K to 4K, and from 4K to 8K (?!?!?!?!?!?!) it pushes dynamic range, global shutter, more affordable media, etc., farther and farther away.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This the point I've debated with people on forums. Many seem perplexed about why we wouldn't embrace higher resolutions with open arms, but it does come at a cost. I feel like I've finally hit a practical, affordable workflow for RAW at 2K, and now I have to start at all over from the ground up with 4K.

I get it, but it's frustrating.
 
The video is from September 2016, but yea, haha...crazy. Not sure if they kept it up. I actually don't watch those people much, but I remember finding that link somewhere at some time because of the Weapon being used.

I thought it was a good example to show a 4K video upload. Is it necessary? I would say no.

But no matter if you're a fan of SD, HD, 4K or 8K, I think everyone must see the high-quality of the 4K upload (even when watching in HD) or they are in the wrong business. But I also guess it doesn't hurt that they are using one of the best cameras in the world.
 
PweDiePie's 720 looks good on a computer screen. He actually has something interesting to say, but I do a lot better watching something else while I listen to him. Too jumpy, but kids like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top