Why 4K?

[ChipCurry]

My big question is: What are you all doing with 4K? The DVX 200 is attractive to me for several reasons: picture quality(Panny colors, v-log, 1080p), focus ease (a biggie), good steady shot, narrow depth of focus, bigger flip out screen. I have a Sony EX-1, thinking about getting into a newer camera just to move on. I do mostly solo shoot, run and gun docs for web and DVD, some projected for audience. I figure 4K is just a plus I might grow into, and it seems from the reviews, the HD in this camera is great.

 

[Larry Chapman]

I use it almost exclusively to allow re-frame/zoom in post. For example, I did an interview with 2 people that was un-scripted. It had to be single camera. So I framed both subjects and never panned or zoomed the camera during the shoot. I added all the motion in post and, therefore, never was zoomed on one person when the other person quickly jumped in. Extra nice because the final product was delivered in 720 so I had lots of options!

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

My big question is: What are you all doing with 4K? The DVX 200 is attractive to me for several reasons: picture quality(Panny colors, v-log, 1080p), focus ease (a biggie), good steady shot, narrow depth of focus, bigger flip out screen. I have a Sony EX-1, thinking about getting into a newer camera just to move on. I do mostly solo shoot, run and gun docs for web and DVD, some projected for audience. I figure 4K is just a plus I might grow into, and it seems from the reviews, the HD in this camera is great.

Hard to believe in Summer 2016: the I rarely ever have any request for 1080p BluRay when dealing with consumer clients. An overwhelming majority of folks still want 480p DVD! With that stat, it'll be a very long time before 4K or even 8K will make any impact to the mass.

The lowest common denominator is streaming. The infrastructure for 5G wireless to tackle 4K streaming to the mass population is still years away. 4K takes a lot more processing time for proxy files. I purchased many new 4K cams such as the Panasonic GH4, FZ300 and even the DJI Osmo. Find 4K not at all that big of a difference from 1080p on my iMac 5K. it's certainly sharper overall when scaled down. Quite sharp that I'm feeling like shooting on 2/3" deep focus cam. When compressing for YouTube and other online video services, the sharpness helps a bit.

I'm seeing a whole lot of camera grains and lens defects when editing at 100% view. Yes you can zoom in for cropping. It's useful at times but I find it a bit artificial looking vs. shooting it optically. For production that will be shown in the next decade (long form doc is a good example), 4K makes sense. But if you're producing something that will have a short lifespan, 1080p is still economically viable.

 

[KJKoncert]

For me, the answer to this question is two fold. Simply, future proofing my current work and better looking 720/1080 deliverables now. First point, I go back to things thatnive shot over the last 15 years and am constantly having to up res these to HD, if I could have shot HD in the 90s... You get the point. And on the second point, the higher resolution you shoot will always maintain better look and detail than a native camera. I.e. Shoot 4k on the dvx200, down res it and compare it to identical footage from the dvx100. Higher resolutions down converted usually look better than native res. I shot a couple weeks ago with the dvx and two hmc150s. I down converted the dvx footage to attempt to match the hmc but there was just a clarity and range that the dvx had in comparison not to mention much more detail due to aquiring the footage at a higher resolution.

Hope this helps! Happy shooting!

 

[alaskacameradude]

I'll be perfectly honest with you here. I'm not (using 4k that is.). I own a
FS700 so I could.....but I have no demand for it. I'm also just not interested
in making post take longer for no reason. I offer 4k to all clients. I have not had a single
one go for it, they all are fine with HD (and the non corporate/agency clients, are
fine with DVDs!). Once I have demand for it, I'll start using it, but that doesn't look
eminent in my location.

 

[flinty]

Yes people still use DVD sad,they keep upgrading their cars but are happy to watch soft pictures,a lot of stills people pay 7/8 grand sterling on lenses,i bet a lot of them still use DVD as well.

 

[David W. Jones]

The big thing that low cost 4K cameras offer is high resolution HD after the down-convert. Once upon a time, if you wanted an ultra high resolution HD cine camera, you were looking at the incredibly expensive Sony F35. Now by shooting 4K and down-converting to HD you can achieve a great looking HD deliverable.

 

[mapper65]

I'll be perfectly honest with you here. I'm not (using 4k that is.). I own a
FS700 so I could.....but I have no demand for it. I'm also just not interested
in making post take longer for no reason. I offer 4k to all clients. I have not had a single
one go for it, they all are fine with HD (and the non corporate/agency clients, are
fine with DVDs!). Once I have demand for it, I'll start using it, but that doesn't look
eminent in my location.

This is exactly where I'm at right now. If someone wants 4K I'll gladly provide that for them. At this time everyone is happy with the product that I am delivering at 1080.

 

[ProfessorU]

I would say about 1/3 of my work for network TV shows, 1/2 of my corporate work, and all of commercials are 4k+. Every pilot and season one I've done in the last two years has been 4k, but anything older has been 1080p. Everything I've shot for overseas clients in the US has been 4k, too.
I'm sure there will be 1080p projects for a long time, but I'm not going to be buying any more 1080p cameras.

 

[7DDude]

I would say about 1/3 of my work for network TV shows, 1/2 of my corporate work, and all of commercials are 4k+. Every pilot and season one I've done in the last two years has been 4k, but anything older has been 1080p. Everything I've shot for overseas clients in the US has been 4k, too.
I'm sure there will be 1080p projects for a long time, but I'm not going to be buying any more 1080p cameras.

I totally agree, I shoot everything in 4K, wish we had 120p in Full 4K! For me, I have always tried to use the best and highest resolution that my budget allows. I love shooting in 4K.

 

[abreu-canedo]

Chip Curry,

As you know, it all depends on what you are doing. I personally shoot 4k very often, but that is because very often it agrees with the project, budget and client. But there is still place for material that is originated in HD and finished in HD.

If I were looking for a new camera to buy as a business investment, I would certainly consider 4k options. However, if it was just 8bit 4:2:0 4k at 50mbps, well, that is not a professional spec. So as to the original question. Why 4k? Because 4k.

Well, that sounded a bit snarky. My apologies. It's just a very broad question to an already complex set of parameters. So, is it because your clients ask for it? Is it for repo? Is it for better chromatic sub-sampling from 4k to 2k? Is it because you're streaming 4k? Is it for archival purposes? Is it because it does not line-skip on certain cameras? But all these reasons come at a cost. Costs in media storage, costs in data wraning on-location, costs in post-processing, etc...

But when we were transitioning from SD to HD, people were asking the same question. Why HD? Is it really necessary? Now, it is no longer a question.

 

[combatentropy]

. . . when we were transitioning from SD to HD, people were asking the same question. Why HD? Is it really necessary?

I liked much of your post, but I can't say I agree here. I exulted in the move from VHS to DVD. I waited with bated breath for HD to finally take hold.

But it should slow down at some point, and we will not all excitedly embrace 8K, then 16K, then 32K. Each doubling requires quadruple the data but provides just a fractional practical benefit. It also cuts into dynamic range, low-light sensitivity, and the chance that global shutter will ever return.

The move from VHS to DVD was massive, and the move from DVD to HD was welcome. But I believe that each change isn't just like the last one. Instead there is a tapering off.

 

[DLD]

Sixteen and a half years ago, people were wondering about Y2K.

But, seriously, folks. There are major narrative clients and they will generally want 4K. Some commercial/promo/ENG clients may want 4K,; most won't. As one slides down in market size, the demand for 4K seems to vane. As one slides down in the longevity expectation for a product, the demand for 4K vanes.

High end pro cameras are already 6K/8K but that's the cutting edge. Most new TV's coming out are both 4K and HDR and some can be had for less than $1,000. The 4K streaming and the 4K Blu-Rays are already here. IMO, the time to jump on the bandwagon has already passed.

 

[pancam]

I do not understand the doubters!


why you bought a 4k camera?
4K shows always better
particularly important in landscape, sports, large total, wide angle shot…
Higher resolutions down converted usually look better
the client does not decide the resolution
I work best always in available best resolution
which can worsen later


I enjoy it so much that finally I can see the haulm
Do not spoil it has it




This is a good camera with good lens
sorry bad english

 

[Josh Bass]

The client can absolutely decide the resolution. Depends on who you work for. I work for both end clients themselves who don't know 4K from an elbow, and production companies with very specific specs/camera requirements.

 

[abreu-canedo]

I liked much of your post, but I can't say I agree here. I exulted in the move from VHS to DVD. I waited with bated breath for HD to finally take hold.

But it should slow down at some point, and we will not all excitedly embrace 8K, then 16K, then 32K. Each doubling requires quadruple the data but provides just a fractional practical benefit. It also cuts into dynamic range, low-light sensitivity, and the chance that global shutter will ever return.

The move from VHS to DVD was massive, and the move from DVD to HD was welcome. But I believe that each change isn't just like the last one. Instead there is a tapering off.

You make a good point.

I was trying to draw a parallel between the two, which I still think applies, but I also agree that the jump from SD to HD had a larger impact on making video a valid option for cinematic content creation...while HD to 4k is not having quite as significant an impact (by subjective measures).

But even though a lot of people were eager to jump I to the world of HD, just like there will always be folks who eagerly experiment and use the latest in digital image capture, there were definitely a lot of folks who we're not on board the HD ship in the early days. And there were a lot of folks asking this very question. it can be a very divisive approach to the subject. But I do see how it may be a more relevant question to owner-ops / solo / one-man-band folks who need to purchase a single camera and will need to use said camera for all their jobs...as opposed to renting the gear on a per project basis.

As far as whether 4k may make sense for an owner-op / solo shooter working in the lower tier, well there are things to consider.

1. Budget. Can you afford a camera with PROFFESSIONAL 4K specs (10bit) without negatively affecting other aspects of your business or life? If not, then you don't need to ask this question at all.

2. If yes to the question above, then ask yourself where you want your business or practice to grow. Do you want to grow into bigger projects with bigger budgets? If so, then it may make sense to invest in that growth by purchasing a camera that will help your product stand-out and compete with that higher tier content. Even if the clients are t paying for it right away, you will soon build your feel to reflect your higher production quality and with time, if you do it right, people will take notice. Of course, one can argue that lights or lenses may make better incestments, but that is a different conversation.

So so it all depends where you want to be, and can you afford to do it right. Of course, doing it "right" can mean many things.

Combatentropy, thanks for pushing me to clarify my statement. Very valid point.

 

[Barry_Green]

I exulted in the move from VHS to DVD. I waited with bated breath for HD to finally take hold.

As a reminder, those moves both involved far, far more than just a change in resolution. VHS to DVD meant no more tape, no more rewinding, good quality audio, surround sound, and a 4x sharper picture to boot. The move to HD also coincided with the transition to 16:9 TVs, to the ability to have truly large screens (due to the transition away from CRT and towards LCD/LED/Plasma etc), to flatscreens, and to digital broadcasting, in addition to a 4x sharper picture.

The move to 4K involves ... well, a 4x sharper picture. And nothing else. Everything that's happening in TVs (streaming, SmartTV, etc) is already there in HD.

But I believe that each change isn't just like the last one. Instead there is a tapering off.

Totally agree, for your reasons but also for so many other reasons, that this change isn't that compelling to the consumer. I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if the consumer never bothers with 4K at all.

There were compelling reasons for the consumer to move from VHS to DVD, and compelling reasons for them to move into the HD arena. Nothing really compelling about the consumer moving to 4K.

For content producers, there are many, many benefits to shooting in 4K, even if you never ever deliver anything other than an HD or DVD version of your product. And so the transition to 4K professional cameras is well underway. But this may be a transition that only affects us, the producers; it may not represent a general trend in consumer electronics, and it almost certainly won't be a quantum shift like VHS->DVD or 4:3 small CRT->16:9 large flatscreen LCD were .

 

[DLD]

From the consumer standpoint though - new TV's are both 4K and HDR and Rec2020 (when possible). There's a new Samsung model with 1,400 nits. There's a new Hisense 100" short-throw projector that uses lasers instead of LCD's and will be selling for $10,000 instead of $90,000. 4K is just one of the recent advances.

 

[firehawk]

In public I hear consumers commenting on the sharp pictures of the 4k display tvs in relationship to the HD units next to them. But few, few of them understand that 4k sharpness needs 4k source material. Up-scaled HD content will fill the screen but it won't look as good as that 4k demo material playing at the stores. Not many know why "more Ks" are better, or even what it means. But they can tell the difference in the two sitting next to each other on display and that will largely determine what they spend their money on.

Like Barry said, SD to HD included large flat 16x9 tvs which greatly helped the change.

I'm not thrilled about the manufacturers push to 4k but no point in fighting it. I like the reframing and increased shelf life of footage. Some agencies are now asking if we shoot 4k. Then I ask do they need it and they say no.

 

[Design Media Consultants]

At some point you will have to shoot 4k - starting now allows you to ease into it.

When I was shooting SD, I eased into HD over a period of time. Now I shoot almost exclusively HD and am easing into 4K - at some point, I will probably be shooting 4k exclusively.

Getting a start on it now allows you to transition smoothly.