The shift to 4K is happening much faster than the move to HD did

David Jimerson said:
... People around here were making crazy claims that 4K was going to reach HD-level saturation by the end of 2014 or even earlier. Others, including myself, thought that idea was ridiculous -- and it was.

But now, late 2016, 4K is starting to make non-trivial inroads on the consumer side? I doubt anyone finds that too surprising.
Click to expand...
From the business perspective - and this includes hardware and content - the early 4K customers are the most upscale bunch. They are the ones that make the difference between barely breaking even and being back in black.

And, as a side note, Roku has a new lineup out, with the lowest 4K capable box running $79.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/roku-unleashes-five-new-streamers-some-with-4k-hdr/
 
David Jimerson said:
Which "naysayers"?

People around here were making crazy claims that 4K was going to reach HD-level saturation by the end of 2014 or even earlier. Others, including myself, thought that idea was ridiculous -- and it was.

But now, late 2016, 4K is starting to make non-trivial inroads on the consumer side? I doubt anyone finds that too surprising.
Click to expand...

^This
 
NorBro said:
Many who start working with high-quality 4K resolution files and see how much better their 2K master/delivery looks are quickly convinced. And if you're delivering for YouTube or Vimeo, a 4K file/upload is super ideal. The client doesn't need to watch it in 4K...the HD stream will look better than if you uploaded an HD master even if the images are automatically selected to play in 720p based on your internet connection.
Click to expand...
Eh, on my 17.3" 1080p laptop screen, I don't see much or any difference in sharpness between my 1080p C100 footage and my 4K C300 Mark II footage. I'm sure some cameras don't record very sharp 1080p footage, but the C100 has a 4K sensor which down-scales in-camera and does it well. Is down-scaling in post better and does it provide more detail than the down-scaling in-camera that the C100 does? Not in my experience.

If you think about it; if you're delivering in 1080 (even if you deliver in 4K, but then 95% of your audience view it on 1080 screens, so technically you're still delivering in 1080 for most), and if, in theory, the camera uses the exact same algorithms to down-scale in-camera to 1080 from 4k, as a post computer uses to do the same, then there would be no real benefit to shooting in 4K, aside from the ability to crop in post.
 
Any files being uploaded online will be compressed, and my 4K files look nicer after compression than my HD work.

Doesn't it make sense a 4K resolution file will look better than an HD file?

If there was no difference then this whole 4K thing is pointless and everyone should just shoot HD, ha.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Eh, on my 17.3" 1080p laptop screen, I don't see much or any difference in sharpness between my 1080p C100 footage and my 4K C300 Mark II footage. I'm sure some cameras don't record very sharp 1080p footage, but the C100 has a 4K sensor which down-scales in-camera and does it well. Is down-scaling in post better and does it provide more detail than the down-scaling in-camera that the C100 does? Not in my experience.

If you think about it; if you're delivering in 1080 (even if you deliver in 4K, but then 95% of your audience view it on 1080 screens, so technically you're still delivering in 1080 for most), and if, in theory, the camera uses the exact same algorithms to down-scale in-camera to 1080 from 4k, as a post computer uses to do the same, then there would be no real benefit to shooting in 4K, aside from the ability to crop in post.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you're watching stuff on a 1080p monitor. It won't resolve anything beyond that.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that with the C100, you are actually filming in 4K, but the camera is down scaling in real-time (don't know if that is accurate). But you like the results, which points to the advantage of filming in 4K in the first place, no?
 
NorBro said:
Doesn't it make sense a 4K resolution file will look better than an HD file?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

I will conduct a complex math equation to show they are equal.

4K - 2K = 2K

2K = 2K

Therefore, 2K = 2K.

To reiterate, shoot 4K, export (or view) in 1080p, result is 1080p.

Shoot in 1080p, export in 1080p, result is 1080p. Same exact result. (For ease of math, I'm equating 2K with 1080p here)


Okay, so that's based on resolution alone. Resolution is exactly the same, assuming no other variables are in effect. Variables such as, what is the quality of the camera's down-scaling from 4K to 1080? If it's perfect (or equal to post down-scaling), then this variable is eliminated. The 1DC for example shoots rather soft 1080p, while the 4K is sharp. The C300 Mark II does sharp 1080 and sharp 4K.

Another variable, 4K uploaded has a higher bit rate, so better quality. But is that true?

Vimeo recommends...

[TABLE="class: data txt_sm, width: 560"]
[TR]
[TD]1080p[/TD]
[TD]10,000 – 20,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2K[/TD]
[TD]20,000 – 30,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4K[/TD]
[TD]30,000 – 60,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So 4K has around three times as much recommended bit rate (data), but, at four times the resolution. So less data per pixel. Higher compression. Lower quality when viewing in 1080p. Pretty close, though. Perhaps not much of a difference.

So what is the real advantage to shooting in 4K if you're delivering in 1080? Cropping in post. I already said that. The second advantage is from a marketing perspective, so you can sell yourself as a 4K video maker and possibly up-charge for that service, even if it may not be making the client's video any better, at least it makes them feel like they got something more.

That's not to say 4K is a fluke. As mentioned, some cameras (GH4 is another example) don't shoot as sharp at 1080 (for 1080 delivery) so you need to shoot 4K and then downscale to 1080 to get the best results. And some projects are delivered and viewed in 4K, such as Netflix; retina screens are getting more popular, etc. And cropping in post.
 
Last edited:
stoneinapond said:
Secondly, you seem to be saying that with the C100, you are actually filming in 4K, but the camera is down scaling in real-time (don't know if that is accurate). But you like the results, which points to the advantage of filming in 4K in the first place, no?
Click to expand...
Well not really, since the results I'm saying I like are from the C100's 1080p, as it is a 1080p camera. I'm talking about the difference between shooting 1080 in-camera vs shooting 4K in-camera and then delivering in 1080, down-scaling in post. And I'm saying that for 1080 delivery, I'm find the resolution from shooting in 1080 to be about the same as if I had shot in 4k and then down-scaled in post.

Yeah, I'm watching on a 1080 monitor, like most of the world, and most of my clients. I've delivered in 4K before knowing that 95% of the people who viewed the video probably viewed it in 1080 or less. So, for those types of projects, 4K has less advantages.
 
Eric - serious question...have you ever shot in 4K and edited in 4K and uploaded a 4K file to Vimeo or YouTube?

I don't want that to sound mean, but it really just sounds like you haven't.

But I can clearly see a difference in my final products, and my clients see a difference in the final products, so that's all I care about.

Just to be clear, I am shooting and editing in 4K and my final file is a 4K file. That is what I am uploading to Vimeo. Not an HD file.

If you don't see a difference then I'm not sure...
 
Yeah, I have. Here are two projects I've shot in 4K, edited in 4K, and uploaded in 4K.



Judging from my 1080p monitor, I don't see a difference in sharpness from the C100 footage I've also shot. The second video is 4K everywhere except for the B and C cam shots in the interviews (A-cam in 4K is the wide interview shots), which I don't find to be less sharp than the 4K from the C300 Mark II. Again, judging from my 1080 monitor.


Now lets say you compare those wide 4K interviews to the 1080p (mostly C100, and some GH2) interviews in my interview demo reel. I don't find the 4K to be sharper.


There may be less artifacts because it's a better codec, though once uploaded to Vimeo Vimeo then introduces a lot of it's own artifacts, banding, etc., so to some extent you're kind of back to square one as if you had shot with a more compressed codec.
 
Here, one frame grab shot in 4K and down scaled via export to 1080, and one shot in 1080 and exported in 1080. Tell me which one is which.

Full-size: http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2016/09/27/C100orC3001080framegrab2.jpg
C100orC3001080framegrab2.jpg


Full-size: http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2016/09/27/C100orC3001080framegrab1.jpg
C100orC3001080framegrab1.jpg
 
NorBro said:
But I can clearly see a difference in my final products, and my clients see a difference in the final products, so that's all I care about.

Just to be clear, I am shooting and editing in 4K and my final file is a 4K file. That is what I am uploading to Vimeo. Not an HD file.

If you don't see a difference then I'm not sure...
Click to expand...
Also, what camera are you shooting with? As I mentioned, some cameras don't record in 1080 as sharp, such as the GH4 and 1DC. I'm not sure about the FS7's 1080 sharpness.
 
I can't tell from still frames...need motion. But I would say the 2nd is 4K if I had to guess.

But wouldn't a 4K still from a 4K timeline be better to showcase a difference?

I use many different cameras, but I haven't shot High-Definition in a few years.

On my own personal Vimeo, you can find a few test/for fun videos...here are three from the URSA, A6300, 1DX Mark II. I know that if I shot in HD on the Sony or Canon, the results would be terrible. The Blackmagics have amazing HD.

I think we can agree that some cameras may really take advantage of the oversampling of a sensor and some don't. Of course it also depends on grading, glass, lighting, codec/format like you mentioned, etc.

But I just really like 4K, ha.

https://vimeo.com/112412323

https://vimeo.com/159173964

https://vimeo.com/167513503
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Well not really, since the results I'm saying I like are from the C100's 1080p, as it is a 1080p camera. I'm talking about the difference between shooting 1080 in-camera vs shooting 4K in-camera and then delivering in 1080, down-scaling in post. And I'm saying that for 1080 delivery, I'm find the resolution from shooting in 1080 to be about the same as if I had shot in 4k and then down-scaled in post.

Yeah, I'm watching on a 1080 monitor, like most of the world, and most of my clients. I've delivered in 4K before knowing that 95% of the people who viewed the video probably viewed it in 1080 or less. So, for those types of projects, 4K has less advantages.
Click to expand...

The C100 is a HD camera in terms of recording format but it has a 4k sensor which it uses to oversample the HD image. The sensor is 8mp and uses an effective 3840x2160 pixels to create a 1920x1080 image. Basically the same thing what 4k to HD in post does. The C100 is one of the few cameras that does an exceptionally good 4k to HD from the sensor. Too bad the recording format itself sucks on the C100 but an external HD recorder helps a lot here. So yes the C100 is a 4k camera. It just doesn't record the 4k video but it has many of the same benefits as shooting 4k and down converting to HD in post.

Yes this makes a big difference and likely one of the reasons why you like the C100 so much. It can hold its own compared to 4k cameras because the HD is from a 4k sensor and is over sampled to look as good as possible.

I always said the best HD camera is a 4k camera. Lots of things come into play like the bayer sensor detail reduction, low pass filtering and artifacts where oversampling 4k to HD really benefit the end product.
 
While people are buying 4kTVs don't assume this means they expect 4k content. 4kTVs are selling well because really there is little logical reason to by a HDTV anymore unless somebody is on a really tight budget. Walk into Best Buy and the store is crammed with 4kTVs everywhere and you have to hunt for HDTVs which are kind of buried in the aisle of shame where things go to die.

When I bought my first HDTV it was over $2,500 for a 720p 50" sucker. Right now Best Buy has a 70" 4kTV for half that price. Is it really any surprise 4K is outpacing HD when the panels are that much cheaper for that large of a screen? I'm not sure 4k comes into play in the final decision to buy a TV as much as just how good they look in terms of panel quality and color reproduction. The 4kTVs seem to use much nicer quality panels. These are not your skimpy 6bit panels we used to get but exceptionally engineered panels. It doesn't shock me at all that 4kTVs are outselling HDTVs. I suspect it's only a matter of time before BestBuy scraps the HDTVs and finally removes them from their graveyard aisle.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Vimeo recommends...

[TABLE="class: data txt_sm, width: 560"]
[TR]
[TD]1080p[/TD]
[TD]10,000 – 20,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2K[/TD]
[TD]20,000 – 30,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4K[/TD]
[TD]30,000 – 60,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

...
Click to expand...
Vimeo's "2K" is really 2.5K (2560x1440).

Their 4K/1080p 3/1 bit rate ratio is fairly close (in H264, as Vimeo isn't using H265 or Google owned VP9) to what ProRes is doing with its corresponding bit rates - 4:2:2 HQ is 220 Mbps in 1080p and 770 Mbps in 4K for a 3.5/1 ratio. Some information doesn't need to be repeated and a superior compression probably needs less due to eliminating the needless data.
 
This news put me to sleep. It'll be very likely that 4K will be competing for 5G wireless bandwidth first. I have not seen a free over the air 4K broadcast TV station exists yet. I think most station owners rather have 4 HD channels vs 1 UHD channel in the super crowded spectrum. TV mfgs are desperately looking for new buyers or they'll be out of biz soon. They got to push everything they can. Yawn. Yeezzz.

I have not experienced any real benefits on my Mac Book Pro Retina 14" display. I literally have to look 1 inch from the display to tell the small sharpness difference. Sorry folks, this 4K revolution will be a tough sell for many people who are not into tech. It's not as bad as 3D TV but 4K won't make a huge impact for many years go come. I mean who would want to buy 4K now when 8K is around the block?
 
Last edited:
tough sell for many people who are not into tech

People who are not into tech but impressing their friends will want 4k - that is what will drive the label.

--
As for actual viewing quality compression is the killer.. we are a million miles from streaming low compression HD. So actually enjoying 4k is a mile off.

I have no qualms with a good HD (10bit) camera to upscale to 4k. Im not stressed about the sticker for aquisition personally.

S
 
Makes me think of when Triumph the insult comic dog asked a group of star wars nerds: "what substance was han solo frozen in"? They all replied: "carbonite". His response: No, no, i'm very sorry, the correct answer is Who gives a ****

Resolution will always be way down the list of what is important to making good content, has been that way at least since 720 HD.

On the other hand, you can't stop progress, and the need for companies to sell products, which is great for us who love new toys, but at the same time a headache to keep up with client expectations, reasonable or not.

I don't see anything beyond 4k becoming mainstream for a very, very long time. HD was a big step up from SD, you could clearly see the difference. HD to 4k isn't as dramatic, but in a fair number of viewing circumstances, it can be an appreciable difference.

I see higher resolutions being the equivalent of medium format: for the specialized purpose(though now MF is starting to become more mainstream available)

For sports it's a no brainier for the zoom-ability after the fact. Tell a documentary filmmaker he can shoot a medium wide and cut to a solid closeup with one shot. It's already being done with 4k in HD delivery, so the benefits are there for a step up. However, for consumer products like TVs i don't think they can sell 6,8K+ as a worthwhile upgrade to 4K, the TVs would have to grow in size, and i don't think wives around the world will tolerate husbands knocking down walls to accommodate.
 
Darren Levine said:
... However, for consumer products like TVs i don't think they can sell 6,8K+ as a worthwhile upgrade to 4K, the TVs would have to grow in size, and i don't think wives around the world will tolerate husbands knocking down walls to accommodate.
Click to expand...

http://www.cepro.com/article/digital_projection_previews_4k_e_vision_highlite_laser_projectors

And for those on a ... ahem ... slightly tighter budget.

http://www.whathifi.com/news/hisense-4k-projector-delivers-100in-image-50cm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top