Is 4k needed, or is 2.5k good enough? (Philip Bloom can't watch 4k footage either)

R

Robert Bentley

New member
With the Blackmagic Production 4K Camera coming out on July 25th this year, do you think 4k is needed or is 2.5k good enough? I've been waiting patiently to get a 4k camera but today I woke up and realized, I could buy the 2.5k cinema camera, a nice lens and a battery and begin shooting. I'm not really looking forward to shooting 4k on 12tb of footage and then needing 12tb for redundancy/backups. Then you got the transfer and dumping times of your SSD hard drives going up while on set. I don't even own a 4k TV and even if I did, I don't own a 4k output card/device either. I did a google search, and came across a great write up from Philip Bloom on the subject. I was shocked to see he can't watch 4k footage either! That made me feel a little better. If anyone could watch it, you would think he could.




from: http://philipbloom.net/2013/05/28/4kraw

Now the pros and cons of 4k

PROS:
Incredibly detailed images, 4 times that of HD but they are not obviously so.
Fantastic ability to crop in post. Something I do on all my interviews for docs now that I shoot 4k for them. I am not shooting 4k docs – just 4k talking heads. I can then go in for tights or back out whenever I want in the edit. Way better.
“Future proof” I am bit hesitant about this as I see very little need for future proofing most of my work. Now for high end drama and big docs then yes. Do it.
You have a higher end format to sell to clients. Sometimes an advantage. Not always though…see cons.
Scaling down to 2K in post often yields quite stunning results.

CONS:
Inefficient codec mean massive files. Even efficient ones are pretty big, which means expensive cards and lots of storage.
Inability to edit natively for the vast majority of people. Proxies are used which of course adds time.
Most production companies I have dealt with cannot take it.
Almost nobody can actually watch 4k. I can’t.
It can lead to lazy cinematography. Although I use the crop to help me in interviews, this is not due to being lazy but to give me options. You should never forget the tight shots because you can crop. The whole aesthetic changes. The depth of field remains the same so it doesn’t look like a true close up
You need to be even more skilled, as mistakes are easier to spot.
Incredibly unforgiving and harsh. Showing the flaws in everything, especially people. Fantastic for beauty shots etc..for drama it’s actually too detailed and causes the DP many issues.
Needs a really big screen to really see the difference.

Will it actually take off as a consumer format for the home? I am very pessimistic about this.
 
Robert Bentley said:
Will it actually take off as a consumer format for the home? I am very pessimistic about this.
Click to expand...

It will, but it will be another 3-4 years imo. Content is king (as always) and when there is a good amount of 4k content that isn't overly compressed you will see the 4k tvs take off.

For now the BM and other HD cameras will be fine.
 
In my opinion, it depends on your age and exp you have.

if you think you are on an experimenting/learning phase ( from as early as 15 till 30ish I believe), go with 2.5k, learn something.

if you are on an senior exp phase, and looking for some fun toys to play with, go 4k.
 
The main problem with 4K, as I see it, is that the human eye can't resolve much beyond 700 or 800 lines anyway. Sure, 4K systems will show more detail and more intense, realistic colours, but it must be
borne in mind that the vast majority of HD signals, particularly broadcast signals, are compressed to some degree or other. As a result, detail and quality is lost, so naturally 4K would look better to most people,
even if it might seem 'too detailed'. Unless and until the broadcast sector is prepared to pump out truly uncompressed HD signals, 4K remains little more than a marketing gimmick that will be used to push new TV
sets in a market that is already close to its saturation point.

Personally, I'm not sure that I would want to see TV shows or movies presented in such a vivid, hyper-real way. There's something to be said for the almost hazy, watercolour-like impressionism of film
and HD video that is produced to look filmic.
 
Panasonic is a pretty big player in the broadcast camcorder market and their next Varicam 3 (PX5000G) is still 1080p! They are indeed very pragmatic, know the broadcast market and worthwhile to investigate. If you have a lot of disposable income to burn, by all means waste it all away on 1st gen 4K gear. My instincts tell me that that those are brave enough to spend $80K on pro-grade 1st generation 4K gear will NEVER recoup their investment back. It may take them 4-5 years just to be at the half point. In 2018, they probably say to themselves "Geez, what a foolish investment w/ no profits at all. I should of spend on real estate or some other tangible investment." During 2018-2020, 2nd gen 4K will be out and probably will cost half to 1st gen. It will be even is better than 1st gen. Your 1st gen body is practically depreciated so much that it's too depressing to state the amount. Definitely not a good investment.

Some argue the demise of 3D won't be the same for 4K. I will give them benefit of the doubt. But it's likely that 4K will take at least a decade for it to sunk in to the mass public. Everywhere I go most people still have no clue on Blu-Ray disc. This is in 2013.

I already have a hell of a time archiving to LTO-6 on AVC-I 100 1080p raw content. The LTO-6 media cost is soaring to the sky. And of course you'll need a bunch of RAIDed 3 & 4 Tb hdds for field offload and online edit. That will cost at least $20-30K easily. And it's only at 1080p. 4K will cost 3-4x that much and I don't think the majority of the producers are willing to pay for it - especially in this fragile US economy.
 
Last edited:
ZuluTime said:
The main problem with 4K, as I see it, is that the human eye can't resolve much beyond 700 or 800 lines anyway.
Click to expand...

Huh? 700 or 800 lines on what screen size and at what distance? Sorry but this is incorrect, the human eye can't resolve beyond X pixels per inch at X distance, i.e. 300 ppi @ 10inches (the exact distances and numbers are debated). 4K will make a big difference on 65" TVs in the living room once the content is there and compression doesn't hinder things.


As for the OP's question. I would get 4K if you intend to use for re-framing your shots or adding smooth cam/warp stabilizer to smooth shots and have plenty of room. Or FX work. Otherwise, for right now, the 2.5k is a good way to go if the other features in comparison all look good to you.

4K is barely in its infancy as a viewing format and I do believe it will take longer to take off than HD did.
 
I'd get 4K simply for downsampling which looks better in post than it does internally from any camera.
 
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com said:
Panasonic is a pretty big player in the broadcast camcorder market and their next Varicam 3 (PX5000G) is still 1080p! They are indeed very pragmatic, know the broadcast market and worthwhile to investigate. If you have a lot of disposable income to burn, by all means waste it all away on 1st gen 4K gear. My instincts tell me that that those are brave enough to spend $80K on pro-grade 1st generation 4K gear will NEVER recoup their investment back. It may take them 4-5 years just to be at the half point. In 2018, they probably say to themselves "Geez, what a foolish investment w/ no profits at all. I should of spend on real estate or some other tangible investment." During 2018-2020, 2nd gen 4K will be out and probably will cost half to 1st gen. It will be even is better than 1st gen. Your 1st gen body is practically depreciated so much that it's too depressing to state the amount. Definitely not a good investment.

Some argue the demise of 3D won't be the same for 4K. I will give them benefit of the doubt. But it's likely that 4K will take at least a decade for it to sunk in to the mass public. Everywhere I go most people still have no clue on Blu-Ray disc. This is in 2013.

I already have a hell of a time archiving to LTO-6 on AVC-I 100 1080p raw content. The LTO-6 media cost is soaring to the sky. And of course you'll need a bunch of RAIDed 3 & 4 Tb hdds for field offload and online edit. That will cost at least $20-30K easily. And it's only at 1080p. 4K will cost 3-4x that much and I don't think the majority of the producers are willing to pay for it - especially in this fragile US economy.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your information about investing in 4K gear. But it didn't take me 4-5 years to pay back my epic package. Hell, it didn't even take a year for the investment to pay itself back and more. And yes, I also paid mine in cash, no credit card, no loan, no mommy and daddy money. And my investment paid off. I'm not looking back asking where my money went.

4k is already here and is the future. I haven't been in a movie theater that didn't have a 4K projector in the past 1-2 years.

Also films have been being mastered in 4K for over 10 years by the studios. They have the content, storage, way to distribute it for years now. Just waiting on the home market to pick up before releasing it.

heres a little insight of mastering 4K throughout the years
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...hoot-on-Red-4K-and-love-the-idea-of-Dragon-6K
 
Joncarr said:
I don't know where you get your information about investing in 4K gear. But it didn't take me 4-5 years to pay back my epic package. Hell, it didn't even take a year for the investment to pay itself back and more. And yes, I also paid mine in cash, no credit card, no loan, no mommy and daddy money. And my investment paid off. I'm not looking back asking where my money went.

4k is already here and is the future. I haven't been in a movie theater that didn't have a 4K projector in the past 1-2 years.

Also films have been being mastered in 4K for over 10 years by the studios. They have the content, storage, way to distribute it for years now. Just waiting on the home market to pick up before releasing it.

heres a little insight of mastering 4K throughout the years
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...hoot-on-Red-4K-and-love-the-idea-of-Dragon-6K
Click to expand...

I'd say 2 of 5 people I run into just couldn't make any profit from it in my area. It's not for everyone unless you have your client or a nice contract job in place. Only a few can survive w/ 1st gen 4K gear.

It also depends on the industry you're in. High chances that you won't be needing 4K in the 24/7/365 broadcast TV industry. But if an indie post house or freelance cam op, it's more likely 4K will be utilized. It's much more feasible to produce smaller quantity 4K program than 24/7/365 network TV scenario where you'll have to squeeze every possible bitrate to conserve storage and satellite transmission.

it appears 4K is more suitable for drama, theatrical type of content. I don't see much exposure in live sports, concerts where 24-32 cameras are common. Holy moly. Not sure how much will that cost in 2013 for a 32-camera 4K live shoot & broadcast.
 
Last edited:
I've been debating this for several weeks and I'm shooting a feature. Questions that come up are: Will this likely ever be seen in a theater? (no) What will the primary avenue of distribution be (DVD, maybe Bluray and download) Will shooting 4K improve the end product much on those end formats (not likely) Will I be cropping in post (not much) Will the story be made better by shooting 4K (no) Is it worthwhile to shoot 4K when it requires a 10K or more investment in computer/display/storage just to handle the footage? (no) Does 4K origination make any difference whatsoever to a prospective distributor (no, at least not in my genre, faith based film where consumers have not even discovered Bluray yet) These are just my answers to those questions, yours may of course differ.
 
how long does it take for another resolution thread to pop up? a month?

same old song and dance, resolution won't improve a production, make it sell, grow money on trees, or otherwise do anything magical that 1080 can't.

reframing in post isn't a freebee. just because you have the resolution doesn't mean you can crop to 1080 with no sacrifice. every pixel you crop by, you're enlarging any defects or limitations of the lens, and making the noise profile of the sensor more prominent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top