what will it take for you to move to 4k?

If my GH2 could shoot 4K or HD I'd always shoot 4K if I could store the footage. It has nothing to do with the delivery size at all. The ability to crop and scale down 4K to HD is always better than shooting straight HD. Always. Working with more is always better. And editing 4K Red footage -vs- my HBR GH2 footage is no difference other than the render (debayer) time.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
If my GH2 could shoot 4K or HD I'd always shoot 4K if I could store the footage. It has nothing to do with the delivery size at all. The ability to crop and scale down 4K to HD is always better than shooting straight HD. Always. Working with more is always better. And editing 4K Red footage -vs- my HBR GH2 footage is no difference other than the render (debayer) time.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that many of the freelancers in the industry (and on this board) do "shoot only" jobs. Many of my jobs are shoot only, where I deliver unedited footage to the client for their internal editing department. Generally, this internal editing department has a specific format or formats that they prefer (or demand).

Many corporate editing departments have heavy loads, and stringent turn around demands, so workflow matters. Just because it's possible to get better looking shots out of 4k footage, does not mean it's practical, time effective, or necessary for many clients.

As a shooter, it's not my job to correct the client - they'll just work with someone else if I can't provide what they need.
 
I don't believe it makes any sense to shoot 4k if your deliver is to the internet, DVD, HDTV or even Blu-ray. If everything you aspire to is Hollywood movies it makes some sense.

But even then all the digital movies that won lots of awards like Benjamin Button, Avatar, Slumdog Millionaire and Star Wars were shot 1080p, so I don't see 1080p being a limiting factor in the movie theater.

Stories aren't told with resolution.
 
Here's my perspective. Having bought a half dozen cameras now for my freelance business, I have learned the hard way that my biggest clients pretty much determine what cameras I use. I've taken a couple of fliers on camera purchases in the past, sort of "if you build it, they will come," but it didn't always work out. The Panasonic SDX900 was a case in point. Even though it was a wonderful camera and kicked the crap out of the betacams of the day, not many clients had or wanted to invest in the infrastructure (decks) for it. A few NBC shows used it, but not enough to justify it in my inventory. I reluctantly sold it at a loss. On the other hand, I was an early adopter to HD seven years ago and that camera quickly paid for itself many times over...while some of my competitors (thankfully) dithered on what to buy.

Although the tape format wars are over, plenty of my clients now seem to have issues with different file types for whatever reason. There's also the issue with file sizes...many content producers have to deal with archiving terabytes of raw footage and it's becoming a big, expensive issue for some parts of the industry. As far as I can tell, 4K just isn't on the radar for large swaths of broadcast, cable and corporate producers I work with, for a variety of reasons. Hell, some of them were late gearing up for the current HD standard and are still paying the bills for that upgrade.

There's an old saying: Pioneers get the arrows and the settlers get the land. There's wisdom there. To me, 4K is an evolution, not a revolution. Like 3D, I'm not sure there's a good business case for 4K right now, so I guess I'm the one that will dither for awhile.
 
4K down-scaled to HD is better than native HD. 4K also allows zooming without any loss in quality. Those are both great reasons to shoot on 4K, even if the delivery target is HD. And yes, if you're just handing over footage to someone else, and they requested HD, then of course that's what you give them.
 
I might add that I don't really see anything I'd really want to buy in the current crop of 4K cameras.
While I love the images out of my F3, it's still an ergonomic train wreck and a poster child for frankencameras.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
4K down-scaled to HD is better than native HD. 4K also allows zooming without any loss in quality. Those are both great reasons to shoot on 4K, even if the delivery target is HD. And yes, if you're just handing over footage to someone else, and they requested HD, then of course that's what you give them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're making two separate points, or suggesting that those of us who have clients requesting HD specifically for "shoot only" jobs should be shooting in 4k, then transcoding for the client. If so, that frequently not economically possible. Nor would a number of clients want it.

Lenilenapi has put more eloquently than I could the position that many of us are in. For broadcasters, corporate video, and many production houses, cost is king. And storage costs money. And while the creatives love to "do it right" the suits asks "what's good enough?" So, if 1080p acquisition for 1080 delivery is "good enough," and 4k will cost more... then they're going to say "let's go with 1080. And 4k does cost more. More storage. More render time. Meaning more expensive hardware. More man hours. It's all money. It's a business decision, not a creative one.

Keeping the edit pipeline simple saves money, and as long as the end product passes muster, that's how it'll stay. And until we have 4k screens in our living rooms... that's how long many of us will be shooting in 1080.

Obviously, there are people on this board who are either in the indie film world, or working their way to it. And the movie world is different, because everyone dreams of getting screened in a theater, and there's a perception that 4K is better for that. But the truth is, even in a theater... 1080 is good enough.

Tron: Legacy was shot on the F35 in 1080. The recent Three Musketeers 3D with Milla Jovivich was shot on the Alexa in 1080. And all those award winners previously mentioned.

Content, actors, and audio will determine how far your feature makes it. Not whether the A Cam was named after a primary color.
 
Vid, yes, two different points. Shooting HD for clients who request HD is a no brainer.

And right, the make / model of the camera has never been a discussion point. My point is simply that if you have 4K footage (or anything above what you're mastering to) you have more crop/re-framing options in post. I'm not a fan-boy of anything except my GH2, but I'd edited a few Red 4K projects and the resolution is nice, even when the final output is HD.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
If my GH2 could shoot 4K or HD I'd always shoot 4K if I could store the footage. It has nothing to do with the delivery size at all. The ability to crop and scale down 4K to HD is always better than shooting straight HD. Always. Working with more is always better. And editing 4K Red footage -vs- my HBR GH2 footage is no difference other than the render (debayer) time.
Click to expand...

It would also allow for an extra ability for smoothing of 1080p video if the footage gets bumpy/shaky, as you can pan & scan the video to remove the shakes. There is also the crop zoom too. Lots of benefits related to lower resolution video if you start with a higher resolution source.
 
You guys sound like you're making a case of "If you're really going to screw it up use 4k." Just joking but it sounds that way.

You can easily pan and scan at 125% of 1080p and not notice the difference. In fact I know of several major motion pictures where the FX were mastered at 1k and no one ever noticed.
 
I was thinking the same thing...I don't shoot shaky or bumpy and I not going to shoot the whole thing in a wide shot. Hire a Monkey to push the button then.
 
Duke M. said:
You guys sound like you're making a case of "If you're really going to screw it up use 4k." Just joking but it sounds that way.

You can easily pan and scan at 125% of 1080p and not notice the difference. In fact I know of several major motion pictures where the FX were mastered at 1k and no one ever noticed.
Click to expand...

+1.

I'm chuckling, imagining someone doing an interview "We shot the whole movie on a T1.9 Arri 16mm Ultra Prime. When we wanted to push in on the action, we just did it in post."
 
bgundu said:
already switched to 4K. I shoot everything in RAW. Its hard to go back to grading anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with 4k, other than massive storage requirements if you're shooting lots of stuff and slower computer response unless you use proxies or a Red Rocket, but I don't have any problem grading any of my 10 bit files.

Even S-Log and LogC files only offer advantages in a few circumstances. For speedy turn around some clients request no Log files, just a nice color matrix. Which probably explains why Alexa and the F3 are going like gang busters on TV.

Heck, even grading 8 bit files isn't a problem most of the time as 30 years of programming has shown.

Glad you like 4K RAW but it has no siren's allure for me.
 
Last edited:
i would think there needs to be another step taken in terms of the tech available, such that the post load could be mitigated somehow. as a few have already pointed out, the additional storage and number crunching are daunting for many, and prohibitive for a whole lot more. i don't know if affordable, big, fat, fast ssd's and thunderbolt i/o speeds are really enough to change that equation, but i think that is perhaps where one should look when asking "what will it take" for this kind of shift on a large scale. it took HDV and plummeting storage costs for a lot of people to get their heads around HD.
 
Stephen Mick said:
Same here, but 5K. :D
Click to expand...

4k raw as well.

I can edit it in realtime on a late 2011 MacBook Pro off a FW800 drive if I want to and deliver same day if the target is short enough. Use the tool the job requires - and not every one needs 4k raw. But to say you need a $5,000 card or work with proxies isn't really true anymore. Not in 2012.

As said before, come in the water is fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top