JackCarter
Well-known member
Shoot56, if you could film 4K out of your F3, would you? Or would you stick with 1080p?
what will it take for you to move to 4k?
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
Viddovation
Veteran
A large percentage of my work is "shoot only", and the client organizations tend to have fixed budgets for each shoot. Some of these clients still expressly request 720p! You seem to suggest that as owner operators we're fools for not acquiring in 4k. But if my client is going to pay me the same rate for 720p as they will for 4k, why spend the extra money and hassle?
I'm going to get paid exactly the same amount. I'm going to ship the footage overnight to the client and never see it again. And they're not going to call me in three years and complain about me having followed directions. What's supposed to be the incentive here?
You logic makes a certain sense for business that archive and reuse their own material, but I tell you, a lot of corporate video communications has a short shelf life, or they just don't care about pixels. Greetings, training videos, plant tours, how to content, internal communications, etc... 1080 is typically plenty.
And of course, in a few years - if the clients demand 4k, yes - we will shoot it. But many of them are not requesting it yet.
Know your market, and use the right tool.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I never said that. There's no denying that you have to deliver what the client requests, but broadcast/theatrical/streaming clients who have productions that they expect to have a life beyond the next few years need to start looking farther down the road and thinking 4K acquisition. I don't charge anything extra for 4K because it cost me nothing extra. And 4K is nearly just as easy to edit as HD. In fact, when I show clients how 4K material in an HD edit offers several cropping and rescaling advantages, they immediately see the light. it's all about educating the client and acting as an advisor rather than just being a day-rate button-pusher.
THIS IS NOTHING NEW. I already went through this whole same thing going from SD to HD. And keep in mind that I'm not pushing 4K finishing (yet), just 4K acqusition for producitons that will have a long life ahead of them. Also, I make a good income from stock footage, and I would be a complete idiot to be acquiring in HD today when the only extra hassle of 4K is a few more drives. And if I would be an idiot to shoot stock in HD, then why wouldn't my clients be idiots to continue to shoot their stuff in HD. Sure, a lot of stuff will be useless 6 months from now, but a lot of client video footage has a very long shelf life as it is incorporated into future productions.
All things being equal (although they never are) if someone else can sell your clients on the advantages of 4K, how long are they going to want your medium-definition 720P?
Last edited:
Viddovation
Veteran
How did you not say that?
You say it costs you nothing more to shoot 4k than 1080. You own a Sony F55! Did you not pay retail for it? That's easily a $35,000 to $50,000 investment depending on how you rig it. Meanwhile, used Sony PMW-F3 cameras can be bought today for $6,000 or so on eBay. It's not unrealistic to having a working F3 kit for $10k in today's market.
The acquisition cost of the hardware for 4k is more expensive than for 1080. If you opt to charge the client the same rate, that's great - but someone who either buys 1080p equipment today, or keeps using older 1080p equipment they already own, doesn't have the same to earn back the $30k+ you've spent in upgrading to 4k.
In the scenario I presented, the clients hire me because they like me, my attitude, and my work, not the model of camera I own. Some of these clients have been with me a long time, and we made the transistion from SD to HD together. If they decide that 4k is desirable, they are almost certain to ask me if I can do it, instead of being won over by someone else who happens to already own a 4k camera. And at that time, I expect I would switch to 4k, because it will make me money to do so.
I think you gravely misunderstand the market for corporate videography. As I stated - they expressly ask me for 720p, when I can easily give them 1080p. They don't want it. They have an editing workflow and a distribution path based on 720p. They're only going to ask me to change codecs when they change their post or distribution.
My point isn't that 4k isn't nice for some people - it is, but that many of us make a real living shooting what the client wants today, not guessing at what clients may want three years down the road. Every month/year I can wait on upgrading means lower costs when I do so.
Am I really a fool or an idiot to give my client exactly what they're asking for?
starcentral
Veteran
Happy Friday everyone!
I've started a few "4k or no-4k" threads here in DVX and from what I gather the general consensus is that for consumers, 4k will not fly for a long time but for acquisition most would agree that 4k seems to make a lot of sense.
Reasons given that consumers won't bite are that; 4k is not much of a benefit over HD for the home, there is nothing to watch in 4k anyway, and probably not as obvious but the need and desire for the consumer to throw out their floor-space-taking TV to replace it with something they can hang on the wall has passed. ie. most people didn't upgrade to "HD" because they cared about "HD" - they wanted something to hang on the wall or in general take up less space and feel like they were modern. Ok that's not entirely true because Sports fans also really helped fuel "HD fever" in the early 90's and even now, but there were those who wanted a flat screen more than they wanted "HD".
While agree with most of those points I listed, there is always another way to look at things. In the 90's cable networks were a big part of the "HD revolution" in some cases even getting funding from government and given DEADLINES to make it happen. Today cable networks may not be overly keen on moving to 4k, but despite that it's a totally different landscape technology-wise and 4k may in fact still come sooner than we all think and cable companies may have very little to do with it! (If cable companies even survive the next decade)
Companies like Apple, Roku, Zulu, Sony (SEN), and NetFlix have already launched their own networks providing streaming shows or movies and access to these services are either built right into the TV or purchased separately though a small media appliance - heck my new Sony receiver/amplifier has wifi and an ethernet port built-in and easy access Sony's SEN network incase I want to rent a movie for $5.99. My Samung blu-ray player has a NetFlix button built right into the remote control. There are APPS for the blu-ray player incase I want to watch other streaming networks through it... the options are endless.
All of these use the internet for delivery and you can bet once content becomes more available in 4k they will add it to their services, or launch a new "box" that will let you watch it. These guys WANT sales and will do anything to get it. NetFlix has been testing 4k this year with plans to start streaming it in early 2014. Then looks at how many smart phones, tablets, and other consumer devices like video cameras can display or record "4k" further pushing the consumer towards it? 4k is somewhat senseless we all know it, but it doesn't matter what we think. Movies shot on film or on Alexa were finished in 2k and projected in theatres and now they will be up-rezzed magically to 4k so that companies can deliver it to the "consumer". That's going to happen whether we like it or not, so the argument of "logic" doesn't apply here I'm afraid. You, me, and everyone in this forum understand this charade way more than the average consumer does, but they are masses, not us.
4k will be here whether we like it or not. The only question is for our corporate and commercial clients if it even matters. I sense that for the majority of us 4k doesn't matter to us on this forum or our clients. But if you're into shooting film type stuff, wildlife, or stock footage, then probably you have already moved to 4k with a RED EPIC or have been shooting with an older RED cameras since 2007. 4k is not that "new" after all.
It's 100% true that a few of us here on DVX upgraded from the F3 to the F55 and don't always necessarily shoot in 4k. We may not be shooting 4k for every project and every client but there were still a dozen great reasons to do the upgrade and make the switch to the newer camera.
I've started a few "4k or no-4k" threads here in DVX and from what I gather the general consensus is that for consumers, 4k will not fly for a long time but for acquisition most would agree that 4k seems to make a lot of sense.
Reasons given that consumers won't bite are that; 4k is not much of a benefit over HD for the home, there is nothing to watch in 4k anyway, and probably not as obvious but the need and desire for the consumer to throw out their floor-space-taking TV to replace it with something they can hang on the wall has passed. ie. most people didn't upgrade to "HD" because they cared about "HD" - they wanted something to hang on the wall or in general take up less space and feel like they were modern. Ok that's not entirely true because Sports fans also really helped fuel "HD fever" in the early 90's and even now, but there were those who wanted a flat screen more than they wanted "HD".
While agree with most of those points I listed, there is always another way to look at things. In the 90's cable networks were a big part of the "HD revolution" in some cases even getting funding from government and given DEADLINES to make it happen. Today cable networks may not be overly keen on moving to 4k, but despite that it's a totally different landscape technology-wise and 4k may in fact still come sooner than we all think and cable companies may have very little to do with it! (If cable companies even survive the next decade)
Companies like Apple, Roku, Zulu, Sony (SEN), and NetFlix have already launched their own networks providing streaming shows or movies and access to these services are either built right into the TV or purchased separately though a small media appliance - heck my new Sony receiver/amplifier has wifi and an ethernet port built-in and easy access Sony's SEN network incase I want to rent a movie for $5.99. My Samung blu-ray player has a NetFlix button built right into the remote control. There are APPS for the blu-ray player incase I want to watch other streaming networks through it... the options are endless.
All of these use the internet for delivery and you can bet once content becomes more available in 4k they will add it to their services, or launch a new "box" that will let you watch it. These guys WANT sales and will do anything to get it. NetFlix has been testing 4k this year with plans to start streaming it in early 2014. Then looks at how many smart phones, tablets, and other consumer devices like video cameras can display or record "4k" further pushing the consumer towards it? 4k is somewhat senseless we all know it, but it doesn't matter what we think. Movies shot on film or on Alexa were finished in 2k and projected in theatres and now they will be up-rezzed magically to 4k so that companies can deliver it to the "consumer". That's going to happen whether we like it or not, so the argument of "logic" doesn't apply here I'm afraid. You, me, and everyone in this forum understand this charade way more than the average consumer does, but they are masses, not us.
4k will be here whether we like it or not. The only question is for our corporate and commercial clients if it even matters. I sense that for the majority of us 4k doesn't matter to us on this forum or our clients. But if you're into shooting film type stuff, wildlife, or stock footage, then probably you have already moved to 4k with a RED EPIC or have been shooting with an older RED cameras since 2007. 4k is not that "new" after all.
It's 100% true that a few of us here on DVX upgraded from the F3 to the F55 and don't always necessarily shoot in 4k. We may not be shooting 4k for every project and every client but there were still a dozen great reasons to do the upgrade and make the switch to the newer camera.
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I've said all I care to say on this thread. Take my comments for what they are worth or ignore them entirely, it makes no difference to me. We all need to choose our own path.
Darren Levine
Veteran
anyone ever think that DSLRs actually made 4k more attractive?
The 5d mark 2 being arguably the widest used thus far, and only resolving 7-800ish lines, a good chunk softer than proper 1080 which even HDV camera were capable of... I wouldn't put it outside of reason to see how some people would look at DSLR video footage and then see 4k and be blown away, but if going from canon C or sony F cameras to 4k, the difference is far less brilliant. So imagine your client doing his or her research and whether or not they compared 4k to true 1080, or a DSLR 1080.
i don't think many would argue against the statement that true 1080 is roughly the beginning of the limits of human vision at typical viewing distances. I could have made my projector screen 200 inches, but because of the size of my living room, i made it just 72", and it looks very proper for the room size. there will of course be those who like bigger just for bigger, and that's really the only end user i see getting any 'benefit' from 4k delivery. But that's probably not in the minds of most clients
In the end if i have a client that talks resolution, i pose the simple question which usually gets perspective and relativity back into reality: will anyone who is viewing the final video be watching a 1080 and 4k version of it side by side? no? then they no matter which you chose, it will look great and there is no way any person watching it will have a complaint about it's crispness.
of course im talking just about final delivery aspects, not any raw, post cropping, etc...
The 5d mark 2 being arguably the widest used thus far, and only resolving 7-800ish lines, a good chunk softer than proper 1080 which even HDV camera were capable of... I wouldn't put it outside of reason to see how some people would look at DSLR video footage and then see 4k and be blown away, but if going from canon C or sony F cameras to 4k, the difference is far less brilliant. So imagine your client doing his or her research and whether or not they compared 4k to true 1080, or a DSLR 1080.
i don't think many would argue against the statement that true 1080 is roughly the beginning of the limits of human vision at typical viewing distances. I could have made my projector screen 200 inches, but because of the size of my living room, i made it just 72", and it looks very proper for the room size. there will of course be those who like bigger just for bigger, and that's really the only end user i see getting any 'benefit' from 4k delivery. But that's probably not in the minds of most clients
In the end if i have a client that talks resolution, i pose the simple question which usually gets perspective and relativity back into reality: will anyone who is viewing the final video be watching a 1080 and 4k version of it side by side? no? then they no matter which you chose, it will look great and there is no way any person watching it will have a complaint about it's crispness.
of course im talking just about final delivery aspects, not any raw, post cropping, etc...
starcentral
Veteran
Here's some food for thought, one thing 4k cameras will let you do is shoot center-crop which is perfect for shooting in HD using super 16mm lenses. I know that is a pretty exciting feature coming to the F55 this month in the December firmware release.
So is the ability to shoot HD/2k/4k in super 35mm and HD/2k in super 16mm of any persuasion to move to "4k" even if not for 4k itself?
So is the ability to shoot HD/2k/4k in super 35mm and HD/2k in super 16mm of any persuasion to move to "4k" even if not for 4k itself?
Grug
Veteran
They're always nice features to have. Though I can't say it's a feature that would 'win' me over, just a nice option to have. I shot 2K on the Red One with S16mm lenses for one project and that was an aesthetic choice by the director that I think worked nicely.
Sony has a fantastic deal on a NEW Sony F3 with Gemini 444 and 2 512GB convergent SSD cards and optitek adapter and case, all for $14K. B&H price. WOW! I would have bought that two years ago in a snap. But Now?? Hmmm. It's a good deal. For corporate work and industrials, I'm sure it would be a really good buy. For NARRATIVES? I think it might be a tough sell here in LA next year 2014. What's the shelf life of an HD camera for shooting feature films? One more year? I thought about it. I sold my Epic and only have $8K leftover in cash. Oh well, I'll just rent.
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
Whilst everyone is arguing about 4k......
http://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/InterBEE_Japan_Broadcast-8K-Olympics/1
http://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/InterBEE_Japan_Broadcast-8K-Olympics/1
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
Let me think 6 years ago ......Arri 535s sold for over $300k plus, Sony F35 $200K(?), Red One 25kish and a little camera called the Canon 5D ii was just released.
So just keep telling yourself nothing is going to change in 6 years and if does its not going to matter........
So just keep telling yourself nothing is going to change in 6 years and if does its not going to matter........
Viddovation
Veteran
I could write up my resume twice, on two separate computers, one current, and one system from 1995. The 1995 system may have sold for $3500 new, and is worth only $75 today. The current system might cost $895, and be 100x more powerful.
If I only hand you the resumes, are you sure you could identify which system I wrote them on? I bet an employer wouldn't notice. Or care. And either might land me the job.
There is a point at which technical capability outstrips necessity for the general use task. Cameras are beginning to reach that point.
Duke M.
Veteran
Sporting events and animal docs are two places where higher resolution really pays off. It's not 8k delivery that's attrative, it's reframing a fast subject and being able to present close ups of the face as though you had two or more cameras at the same time that makes 8k and 4k worth while.
Delivery will still be at 2k or 1080p, but with no loss in resolution for those close ups and reframed shots. They are already doing it in football, soccer and animal docs.
Oh yeah DUKE M. I was serious. I would love to see 8K. As a director, I love re-cropping. As a DP, I gotta say I have mixed feelings about it. That's one thing I like about the Blackmagic 2.5K camera. It's just a "sensor in a box" with a weird battery arrangement. And it has a lot of other faults. But it has enough resolution that you can crop it a bit to get those close-ups a little bit closer which is often what you need.