How important is 4K 60p?

N

neffsrus

Member
Assuming your camera has 4K 24p & 30p, how much are you missing out if you have only HD 60p? I saw a review of a camera marked down b/c it only included 4K 30 and not 60.

I have only used 60p for very few "slower motion" shots but I am a relative newbie to video.

Just wanted to get some perspective. I can see how convenient it would be for post processing if all my footage was 4K?

thanks for any insights.
 
4K 60p is the latest buzzword.

If you need it, then you need it. Buy a camera with that feature!

But honestly..... How many successful films and or productions have been shot without it?

A good story is still a good story no matter what camera it was acquired with.

YMMV.
 
I think it is more about future proofing than actual use unless you want to shoot in 60p. I like to acquire in 60p a lot but I do not make films. So it is important to me. If I was a filmmaker I do not think it would matter as much outside of slo motion.
 
I'm overdue for a new camera but the last thing i look at is 4k in 60p. What i need is good 1080 with 60fps. On practical level i have seen my feature doc projected at IMAX scale and shot on measly 7d (with some footage up rezed from 720p) it looked great so i KNOW the resolution talk is just a marketing gimmicks. That said i also know people, including my producers, are susceptible to marketing gimmicks so at some point i'll have to talk a producer out of 4k.

Anyway, my next camera will probably be used C300 (mark I) with C100 (maybe Mark II) as B-cam. C300 only shoots 60p in 720 but i can live with that.
 
I like the smooth motion of 60i or 60P so important for me. I shoot archive of events so want it too look real not like a film so faster frame rates are important. For UHD I have the FDR-AX1 and shoot UHD 60P with my other HD cameras this allows me to crop and pan the UHD image in a 60i or 60P project and look the same without artifacts. So yes for me UHD60P is very important and means I do not even consider UHD30P of any use to me even though several of my cameras do have that option.
 
4k is great for aquisition because you can reframe, and VFX is easier (on you; the computer will scream for help). But good 1080p is just as good for final delivery. So, if you can get your framing right and are not planning to do VFX, you probably don't need 4k for those slow motion shots, you can shoot most of your stuff in 4k and have the slow motion bits upsampled and hardly anybody will notice (reframe in 1080p or upsample from 720p and yes, lots of people will notice).

Having said that, I'm finding that stuff I upload to YT in 4k gets more views just because it's in 4k (it gets featured in 4k-specific channels which people seem to be watching, no idea why).
 
If you do promos, music videos, commercials, 4K 60p can be important because it gives you the ability to do the ever so trendy speed ramps, it gives you 2.5x slow motion for projects that finish in 24p. It's handy, but whether or not you need it really depends on what you shoot. I shoot mostly behind the scenes footage on TV shows and films, a lot of interviews, so for my work, it's pretty rare that I need 60p for anything. We shoot and deliver 24p to all of the studios and media outlets. Once in a while, I will be on set and they set up a big stunt or explosion and it would be fun to have it but I rarely if ever need it. If I shot commercials or music videos, it would be nice to have. I am also with Patryk in that I shoot and deliver 1080 so I am still using the C100/300 with only an occasional rental of a 4K camera. When our clients begin demanding 4k origination and delivery, then we will upgrade to the C300 MKII probably unless something better comes along. The C300 MKII famously DOESN'T do 4K 60p but for me, who cares? I woud rather have the beautiful images of the C300 MKII than the ugly colors of the FS7 with 4k 60p. Just my preference. 1080 is technically behind the times but looks fine for 95% of applications and viewers, 4K is really just so much hype. For the average viewer, with the average screen size, viewing at average distances from the screen, 4K means nothing. https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
 
My first 1080p60 camera was my iPhone 6 which I no longer have. I discovered that I really enjoyed 60p for home videos. The goal with home videos is to capture real life memories and a higher frame rate helped do that. When I sold my iPhone 6 and switched to my cheaper LG G3, I gained 4K but lost 60p. It then became a compromise. Either I have higher resolution or higher frame rate. For a smartphone I think a prefer 1080p60 over 4K.

But I also use my personal DSLR stye cameras for home videos when not using them for work. So the ability to have 4K and 60p would be the best of both world. I always shoot client videos at 24fps and rarely do slow motion. I don't master anything in 4K for clients so I could get away with 1080p60. Though I can see where having 4K and 60p would be handy should I ever start mastering in 4K for clients. Just not there yet.
 
4k/60p is vital if you do shows that need to be shot in 4k/60p. Shows like sports, or live events, or reality TV. 4k/60p gives the same motion feel as 720/60p or 1080/60i (but, obviously, without the interlacing). Some shows need that. If you're shooting 4K film, then no, 60p may not be necessary other than for slow-motion shots. But if you shoot live footage, for a 4K client, then 4K/60p is utterly required.
 
Barry_Green said:
4k/60p is vital if you do shows that need to be shot in 4k/60p. Shows like sports, or live events, or reality TV. 4k/60p gives the same motion feel as 720/60p or 1080/60i (but, obviously, without the interlacing). Some shows need that. If you're shooting 4K film, then no, 60p may not be necessary other than for slow-motion shots. But if you shoot live footage, for a 4K client, then 4K/60p is utterly required.
Click to expand...

That's so true Barry, I had forgotten that a lot of material needs the "live" look. From the first time we shot with the DVX 100, so many years ago, all of our clients at the studios/networks have requested the 24p look, I had forgotten that there is a whole other world out there that does not want the 24p look and needs that look.
 
Of course. That's something I'm thinking about or figuring out. Branching out on my own so trying to figure out where I put my bucks into. Do I really need 4k or will 1080p be good enough. Probably so.
 
Few clients NEED 4k these days. Amazon, Hulu and Netflix seem to be the only ones I have shot for who usually require it. I deliver to Fox, Sony/Tristar, CBS, Disney, all them specify 1080, they don't want 4K yet, I tried delivering 4K to Fox and they sent it back and asked it to be delivered 1080. As far as corporate, that's a wild card, a few are going to spec it, I have one corporate client who requires 4K delivery and origination but everything I keep producing for them is AE and 3D animation, they are using other vendors at the moment for 4K shoots. Trying to land them for live action as well. They like RED. You need to speak with your clients and simply ask what they require, most clients aren't afraid to give you delivery specs.

As far as film festivals, etc. once again, all over the map. The smart money would be to buy and shoot with a camera that can deliver whatever they need, but a camera that can shoot 4K 60p is not cheap although Sony FS7 does. 1080 will be around a few years longer, but everything will eventually be 4k and greater.
 
puredrifting said:
The C300 MKII famously DOESN'T do 4K 60p but for me, who cares? I woud rather have the beautiful images of the C300 MKII than the ugly colors of the FS7 with 4k 60p.
Click to expand...

Are you shooting WYSIWYG or Log?

I'm not a fan of Sony's WYSIWYG gammas but Log can be processed beautifully, & we regularly shoot the FS7 alongside the Arri(s).

As to 4K, I've got three cameras capable of it, but so far not one client that wants it.
 
I don't see it as a question of what you 'need'. If I stuck with need I wouldn't have a lot of the tools I regularly use. For most people it's not a deal breaker (other than the specific case mentioned), but it is a factor to consider. If a small increase in budget gets you the versatility of these cameras, with no disadvantages, isn't it worth considering? Or, if a camera doesn't give you that feature and you don't save much, it's worth considering moving on. Personally, I consider it useful for the 'just in case' situation. I've started shooting either 4K or 1080 60 for everything lately, even though I consistently deliver 1080 30. If I went 4k, I now have a lot more detail captured, and the ability to reframe slightly. Not to mention future proofing. If I shot 60 fps, I can do slowed down shots if I want, or use the extra motion data in my export.

And for the off topic, I've had an easier time getting impressive renditions out of the FS7 than the C300. I'd pay more for logarithmic gamma than I would 4k at 60 fps.
 
When engineers design cameras they make certain assumptions of what the end user will need. Different assumptions are made about HD cameras v 4k cameras. By "future-proofing" your camera you are leaving certain numbers of technologies behind thus potentially hampering the system you have working for you now. For instance your beautiful production monitor might stop being useful because it only takes 60i while your 4k camera thinks 60i is so obsolete that it only outputs 60p... Bottom line: think about what you need today and tomorrow and don't speculate what you might need the next year.
 
What do yous fellas (and ladies, if any present) think of the faux slow-mo like Twixtor?

IMO, most people overdo it but, when done subtly, it looks fine.
 
DLD said:
What do yous fellas (and ladies, if any present) think of the faux slow-mo like Twixtor?
Click to expand...

We hired two techs, both recommended by Twixtor, to run some tests for a project & were never happy with the results. Footage looked like faux slomo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top