Viability of 4K?

F

firehawk

Veteran
Thought we could start another discussion about 4K.

Over the last 1.5 years I've transitioned to 4K acquisition. I was a late-comer transitioning from SD to HD (2012) and so far the move to 4K has been easier and less costly. Eventually I'll need a new NLE since I've yet to post complex multicam 4K footage, but hopefully by the time I need to be able to do that I'll have it solved.
Thus far in my market, 4K is not required so I am mainly using it for reframing advantages.

In your markets is 1080P (or 720P or SD) still what is in demand? Or is 4K required?

I know manufacturers will be pushing 8K along with other improvements, but I am hoping that finally I can stick with 4K for years to come. What are your thoughts on this? There are people on here from lots of locations.
Do you foresee being able to stick with 4K for a while? It sure would be nice to not have to buy any new cameras for a few years like it used to be many years ago when I got into this.
 
Personally I an sticking which 1080P HD. Most of the work I do gets as far as the Internet /viewing on computers and/or 40-50 inch TV screens and is "corporate" rather than "artistic".

The Still photography industry had a similar race.... theirs was megabytes of pixels. Eventually the race stopped. Whilst there are some Nikon cameras with 36MB the flag-ship Nikon DSLRS have 20 and 16MB.
There are a couple at 36MB DSLR's, aimed more at the Studio/medium-format users. Strangely most of the prosumer ones are around 25Mb.

In much the same way I expect that HD will be around for many years to come with 4K being a small (but significant) market. 8K? not for a long while, if ever. It will go the way of 3D, curved screens and other Good Idea's (tm)

The problem is to go 4K there will have to be a complete overhaul of the infrastructure of both the internet, TV and Cinema infrastructure. Some countries, like China are ahead of the game with 4K as they are not *replacing* a system but building one as many areas didn't have much in the way of TV or internet to start with.

Few in China will have to upgrade their system as they had no system to upgrade. For most in the 1st world it means a complete upgrade and replacement. Well TV manufacturers may like this (as do camera manufacturers) but... for most of us who are only just getting to grips with Terabytes of storage rather than gigabytes (and more RAM, bigger monitors and faster computers) we will have to start looking at Pertabytes.

As fire hawk says having 4K is usefull for shooters for "re-framing" advantages but for me it is not worth having to upgrade all the storage, computers, screens etc, etc, for the occasional time 4K might have been an advantage. Lets face it for talking heads and other corporate videos (other than wildlife, magnificent scenery etc) 4K, never mind 8K, is just not needed.


As with DSLR's more useful would be able to shoot with "available light" at night in the country side or not having motion blur, and other enhancements. etc
 
jagraphics said:
As with DSLR's more useful would be able to shoot with "available light" at night in the country side or not having motion blur, and other enhancements. etc
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't care a bit about 4k. What I want is more dynamic range. Better tonality, especially tonal transitions. Better reach into shadow details, better handling of highlights.

The very last thing on my list is more resolution. That's because 3D didn't make my list at all. :thumbsup:
 
I think it really depends on who you work for and your personal goals, honestly.

If you find a client that pays you $XXX,XXX for producing videos for him or her in HD, you're all set. Who cares about 4K then.

If you want to pursue big projects in big markets and you're competing for the job, most clients will probably require 4K because that's all you hear now.

Regarding viability, I think 4K will be around for many years, but it's tough to predict anything. The transition from HD to 4K was slow, but the one from 4K to 8K should be much faster.

Some people like to stay on top of the tech. I can picture an 8K camera in 3 years for around $10K. But at some point it has to stop, lol.
 
NorBro said:
. The transition from HD to 4K was slow, but the one from 4K to 8K should be much faster.
Click to expand...

Was slow? IS slow! A lot of people are not going to 4K(yet). As you say it depends on your target market and clients. There are many other things that are more useful. Also a lot of people only ask for 4K because it is a buzzword. they don't actually have the infrastructure or delivery systems to use it even if you do shoot 4K.... that said ticking the 4K box gets you the job.
 
Most broadcasters in the USA are skipping 4k, not worth the money when 8k is right around the corner. I believe the ATSC 3 specs. have 8k written in already to future proof the spec.
 
Of much more interest (for me and many of my colleagues) is HDR, which like most new technologies will have a certain amount of gimmick and hype attached but is overall a much more interesting set of possibilities visually than resolution increases. Improved tonal range is much welcome. I've yet to post a project in HDR but I've had a few demos and I'm excited to explore.

I was not particularly interested in the 4K end of things until I revved up my projector (a JVC DILA that is 4K-ish, via their pixel shift tech) by installing a Roku into my system. On a 100" screen, the difference is apparent and, with properly shot material, worth it.
 
Pixel shifting 4K projectors are, at least, in the "affordable" range for a lot of people. The pure UHD are still $10,000'ish and DCI laser powered can run well over $20,000.

As to resolution vs. the dynamic range, I say one has to do what s/he can afford. These days HDR (10+ stops) and 4K can be had for under $2,000 camera wise (a hard working editing station would be more). To "be against the grain" might be cool for some but, basically, you ought to work with the best equipment in your niche.
 
This is going to depend a lot of who you shoot for... for most end-to-end productions if you are delivering a final product to a small/mid size business, start-up, organization, etc. "4K" won't even come up. It's not on most end clients radar who are looking for a video or marketing piece. (In my personal experience).

However for larger corporate clients, or agencies delivering for larger clients, they sometimes want to make sure we are acquiring in 4K. Yet I find that this still isn't a huge thing... I just finished a small video for a major brand that delivered the final social media video in 720p. Everything else is still rendered and stored in 1080p ProRes and this is a major international brand.

YMMV. I do think 4K final delivery is going to become the standard within in a few years but right now I still find it doesn't come up too frequently as a concern.
 
NorBro said:
I think it really depends on who you work for and your personal goals, honestly.

If you find a client that pays you $XXX,XXX for producing videos for him or her in HD, you're all set. Who cares about 4K then.

If you want to pursue big projects in big markets and you're competing for the job, most clients will probably require 4K because that's all you hear now.

Regarding viability, I think 4K will be around for many years, but it's tough to predict anything. The transition from HD to 4K was slow, but the one from 4K to 8K should be much faster.

Some people like to stay on top of the tech. I can picture an 8K camera in 3 years for around $10K. But at some point it has to stop, lol.
Click to expand...

1) Exactly. I'm a hired gun. I don't do turnkey productions. I shoot and hand the footage over, so I need to be able to service HD and 4K clients. The bulk of what I do is still HD, but I've gotten work just because I had a 4K F55. I'd say that after I bought my F55 I had an UHD shoot within a month for an overseas client and I've done several UHD/4K shoots for network, broadcast and (large)corporate clients.

2)Do you mean the transition from SD to HD was slow(GLACIAL)? I know of TV stations in major markets that just finally got off of SD field transmission in the last few years. I have a friend who runs the govn't ch here in-town and they are still SD. The move from HD to 4K to 8K is happening at a light speed pace, in comparison. I'd say 4K was just coming into the mainstream lexicon a few years ago and now almost anyone with an internet connection can view 4k/UHD content and I watched an 8K presentation from NHK at NAB probably three years ago.

Also agree with Charles regarding HDR and better color.
 
Last edited:
I caught the tail-end of SD only shooting it for a year or so (professionally) before moving to HD, so I'm not sure about that transition, but it only makes sense the transition for everything older took longer.
 
Thanks for all the great input.
Yeah I agree I would rather see improvements in dynamic range etc than more resolution but it's not up to me.
8K has some uses but for what most of us produce seems way overkill.

It's great to hear input from people in various locations and levels of work. I expected 4K would be standard in the large markets.
In my market a few people ask if we can do 4K but don't really want it.
The main use I have for 4K is aerial footage, where it is really much better than shooting in HD.
The 2nd best use I have for it is for a wide static shot during events. It gives me much greater flexibility in post when the end product is HD or SD.

At some point jobs will depend on can you do 4K? No? Then no go. Yes? Then you can do the job.
So I went ahead and moved into 4K.
But beyond that I am not looking forward to at all.
 
I think any future transitions are going to get increasingly slower. SD to HD was really a huge and perceivable jump in image quality for most people, even lay people like grandma and grandpa and the non tech savvy. It just looked remarkably better.

Now, 4K does look nice and crisp and clear. I can see a difference, but even as one who is working with this stuff daily and really cares about quality... I don't think the difference is all that worth it. I couldn't wait to buy a new HD tv... I'll buy a 4K one when my HDTV eventually dies, but I'm not running out to upgrade. I hate watching YouTube videos in SD, but if a 4K youtube version is available I usually just watch it in HD and can't tell much of a difference.

Make of that what you will, but I think after 4K (or maybe 8K if that happens to be where the industry lands) there's going to be a lot less focus on resolution. We've already started to hit the point of minimal return, and I simply can't see the resolution race lasting for another cycle in anything but the most specialty use case scenarios (giant billboard screens, massive 100ft+ event screens, high end VFX work, etc.) The vast majority of people are consuming media on tablets, smart phones, laptops, and TVs under 70". I don't see this trend changing for a very long time. As well, given that in my experience, 2K DCPs shown at my local theater's 75' screen still look great, mainstream 8K display/delivery format seems like a pretty long shot anytime remotely soon.

I think we'll be landing at 8K acquistion, 4K delivery, and sticking there for a pretty long time...
 
I need y'all to start mentioning global shutter specifically, not just dynamic range, whenever you talk about characteristics of imagery besides resolution. That way we can create a groundswell of support for this feature and manufacturers will make it more of a priority. </half-joke>
 
A global shutter and HDR don't play well together, so I think that's we haven't seen more cameras with the two.
 
NorBro said:
A global shutter and HDR don't play well together, so I think that's we haven't seen more cameras with the two.
Click to expand...
Right, but let's not conflate the dynamic range of the camera and the dynamic range of the monitor.

HDR (in its various formats) are attempts to steer away from the limited Rec709 dynamic range because monitors begin to be capable of displaying more dynamic range (from almost 0 to 1000 nits and up). But monitors have a long way to go before they would catch up with the dynamic range that professional cameras, even with a global shutter, can currently handle.
 
Last edited:
You have literally conflated the conversation by bringing up monitors, lol.

He is talking about cameras.

We want cameras to handle luminosity better. And in his case, he wants a global shutter in one too.
 
:)

Yeah I am a global shutter fan as well. One reason I still have some Panasonic HMC 150s.
I think we all know one major factor with this resolution race is that while we content producers want better colors, range, tonality, etc etc but it's much easier to promote things like resolution. The general population understands it better than the other things. It's easier to market. More resolution = better. But we know that is not always true.

I suspect filmguy123 may be right on it landing on 8K acquisition and 4K delivery for a while.
I'm not looking forward to working with 8K footage for sure. Seems that computers today struggle with 4K if it's more than a simple project.
Hard to imagine working a project with 7 layers of 8K footage plus effects. Yikes! :shocked:
 
Cary Knoop said:
monitors have a long way to go before they would catch up with the dynamic range
Click to expand...

Do you really want a monitor with more than 7 or 8 stops of dynamic range? A city street at noon is around 11 stops. If your TV could reproduce 11 stops, would it not need to be as bright as day?

I think that's the beauty of film's S-curve. It preserves details of shadows and highlights but is still comfortable to watch for hours, because it shows those areas in reduced contrast. It shows midtones in regular contrast, or even higher contrast than real life, certainly higher contrast than most video I see nowadays, which is one of the main reasons digital still looks digital, in my humble opinion: your midtones are too low contrast.

But yeah, I think I would rather have a scene remapped from 12 or so stops to 6 or so stops, through use of an S-curve a la film, than have a TV that actually has 12 stops and reproduces tones linearly. My eyes hurt just thinking about it.

That's the whole concept behind Ansel Adams's Zone System. Photographic paper has 5 or 6 stops. Much of his art was in mapping the realities of a scene into the constraints of a piece of paper. His photographs can be more pleasant to behold than the real thing. By emphasizing some aspects and reducing others . . . why, you could argue that that is what art is all about!

Sorry, I don't mean to take this thread on too far a tangent. Back to your regularly scheduled broadcast (in 720-highly-compressed-p)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top