Why 4K?

I use 4K all the time, and particularly for weddings because some of the frames are good enough to make excellent stills! Also one has the advantage in post of re-framing when one of my shooters screws up! My workflow is to import into FCPX and immediately transcode and make proxy files of everything so I can edit a three or four camera multicam. Its does result in huge amounts of drive space but I have found a relatively low cost method of acquiring that...used Lacie Quadra Big disks which I upgrade with 4GB drives from Amazon or Costco!
 
Design Media Consultants said:
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.
Click to expand...
On the other hand....if your particular market/clients do not now want 4k,
waiting to adopt it until the demand IS there allows your money to
go further. As tech advances, the 4k cameras of tomorrow will be better
than those of today. Same for the computers, NLEs, and so on.
I didn't jump right into HD in its early days. As a result, I never owned
early HDV cameras. My first HD camera was a Sony FS100/700.
But I didn't need any 'time to ease into producing HD'. It's still
the exact same work I have always done......at a higher resolution.
Like a stills photographer moving from a 24MP camera to a 40MP camera,
you don't really have to relearn your craft. The main difference is
getting bigger hard drives 😉.
 
I don't really use 4K, per se.

It's there when I need it. But, really, my draw was the camera's 5K sensor debayerd to 1080p. The image is incredible.

When I do an interview and I can only use one camera, shooting in UHD is great because delivery will most likely be no greater than 720p, so I can go wide and punch in for close-ups in post.

The other thing is I can shoot DCI 4K at 24.00 fps...and at my preferred focal length of 28mil at f/2.8...plus Vlog-L, the 10-bit 4:2:2 out and the fact that the DVX200 is a helluva lot easier to use than proper cinema rigs. It's great for narrative films on a budget.
 
I have read every post and looked at a lot of your websites and links for examples of what you are doing. Complements! Many thanks for the responses, many good ideas. I guess 4K is a plus and might be of use for the reasons noted. But do you think the 4k sensor and the way it is accessed electronically will make a difference in the other resolutions? I am considering moving to a DVX 200 from my Sony EX-1. I don’t have one locally to try (anyone live in San Jose CA?) so I can’t be certain. I envision the positives are: picture quality (colors, v-log, 1080 60p), faster and better auto focus, superior steady shot, narrow depth of focus, bigger flip out screen, and just general newness of technology. The negatives I see are, worse (I’m guessing) low light capability, cost, and maybe higher data storage requirements. But you might say that even though the lens is slower, the 4k sensor is more sensitive.

I have very limited vision, so ease of focus is a biggie. The kind of stuff I do is: https://youtu.be/L-BqB2o3Cro
Or: https://youtu.be/IDmXpaSY1GE
 
5K, baby! It's a 5K sensor! The low light is fine. The video examples you linked to are precisely within the capabilities of this camera. But it can do a lot more.
 
Maybe Nothing really compelling about the consumer moving to 4K if the consumer has 1920x1080P TV,but if the consumer has a 4K UHD tv the consumer is missing a lot.There is no comparison watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHm8LjEFis0 on my 4k and 1920x1080P tvs the 4k one looks vastly superior.
 
Last edited:
I have a 4K samsung monitor, 4K images from the Sony FS& look brilliant, and when I switch to 2K the difference is really noticeable.
 
A question for Greytail: Why don't you use the dual recording feature to create proxy files while shooting: 4K on one card, low res on the other. This way you don't have to transcode. I plan to work this way. The 8 mbs files on he second card are easy to handle for most any machine and once done editing I plan to substitute the 4K files for the low-res files.

It could be as easy as editing off of an SD card. And once finished editing, removing the SD card with the 8 mbs files and inserting the SD card with the 4K files, reopen the project (in whatever editing software you are using) and then exporting to in whatever format desired. I think this will work. The SD cards can be structured to look identical, and therefore the computer will retrieve the shots unaware.

I did one simple test to prove this, but I have not yet done a big project. One could have on hand a number of sets of SD cards, one 128 GB and another 16 GB, and just swithc out the sets depending on what project you are editing that day. This is actually cheaper than working off harddrives. For me, I will have a massive harddrive mirrored RAID drive to store my originals on, but I may try and work off the SD cards.
 
I shoot 4K, and *edit* in 1080. Reasons:
(1) The ability to recompose what I shot (or, choose to use the whole frame of course). Mainly, it gives me a choice in post.
(2) edit like you have two cameras
(3) ability to do amazing keyframe moves (a nice slow zoom, or pan) that you didn't shoot in camera
'nuf said.
 
Just another point on editing 4K in a multi shoot.
When I shoot a stage function with two cameras, I use the wide shot as a 4K, then in the studio transcode the 4K back to HD and call it camera 3.
Then set up the multi cam using the HD wide shot (camera 3) and the 2nd camera, and leave the 4K shot available in the timeline but 'hidden', so the computer will play in real time.
When I cut the multi cam , and come across a shot of a talking head that the tight camera has missed, I just cut to the 'hidden 4K track' and keep multi cutting.
After I finish I can just flick through to each 'hidden' track selection, view it and frame it to get the missing talking head. Very quick and no-one has ever picked up on it!

Technology is TRULY amazing!

Cheers,

Vaughan
 
There are many reasons to shoot 4K (or more)

Most were already said here, like:

Cropping and reframing for 1080p delivery (which is the current step in Broadcast "standard)
Future Proofing material
Sharper image and more defined colors

I would also add Convergence of Stills, of Print and Video.

Canon, Panasonic and I believe Nikon or is it Sony see this potential and include still pulling capabilities to their video streams. At 4K, which equals something close to 8 Megapixels, one can get a decent still for an A5, or, stretching a bit, A4 Print.

While I mostly deliver to 1080P on my video work, I am often requested to shoot in 4K. I work in scenarios where extracting stills from the video can really raise the possibility of a bigger revenue stream.

I think the sweet spot of Convergence is 8K, with 6K being a good spot for decent prints up to A3 size.

I've been shooting in 5K and 6K and rarely shoot bellow these resolutions except for when I need slow motion. The footages I shot in 2012 in 5K are still freshly used in High end TV Commercials today.

Here's and example and advantage of this convergence- these stills are taken from documentaries and specific jobs I shot in a Red Epic MX and Dragon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126716363@N06/

Obviously this is from one of the highest end cinema cameras on the market, but the new, les expensive 4K cameras like the Blackmagic or the Canon 1DX Mark II for example really bridge the gap closer.

I would say going 4K is an opportunity. As long as the rest is there- sensitivity, color science, codec, dynamic range, having bigger resolution is better. Obviously more demanding on the whole art department in fiction, for example, but it opens many creative possibilities, beyond client required delivery format.
 
SPZ said:
I would also add Convergence of Stills, of Print and Video.

Canon, Panasonic and I believe Nikon or is it Sony see this potential and include still pulling capabilities to their video streams. At 4K, which equals something close to 8 Megapixels, one can get a decent still for an A5, or, stretching a bit, A4 Print.

While I mostly deliver to 1080P on my video work, I am often requested to shoot in 4K. I work in scenarios where extracting stills from the video can really raise the possibility of a bigger revenue stream.

I think the sweet spot of Convergence is 8K, with 6K being a good spot for decent prints up to A3 size.
Click to expand...
That's great......unless there is actual motion in the shot. Once you have some motion in the shot you
must now pick. Do you use a shutter speed for motion (1/twice your frame rate) which gives the right amount
of motion blur for motion.......but which will cause the stills to be blurry? Or do you use a faster shutter speed
so you can pull nice sharp stills from the video......but will cause the video to be stuttery? If you are doing anything
with lots of motion....you really need two cameras. Now you could use two of the same camera, but one has to
be set up as 'optimized' for stills and the other set up 'optimized' for motion. Otherwise, you are compromising somewhere.
 
alaskacameradude said:
That's great......unless there is actual motion in the shot. Once you have some motion in the shot you
must now pick. Do you use a shutter speed for motion (1/twice your frame rate) which gives the right amount
of motion blur for motion.......but which will cause the stills to be blurry? Or do you use a faster shutter speed
so you can pull nice sharp stills from the video......but will cause the video to be stuttery? If you are doing anything
with lots of motion....you really need two cameras. Now you could use two of the same camera, but one has to
be set up as 'optimized' for stills and the other set up 'optimized' for motion. Otherwise, you are compromising somewhere.
Click to expand...

Obviously, its not the end all solution that will take out the photographer's job- the art of a good still diverges from the art of film/video capture. But there definitely are moments were both worlds converge and one can take advantage of it. Those Grand Prix Shots you see in my flickr were both used in TV Commercials and printouts, for example.
 
SPZ said:
Obviously, its not the end all solution that will take out the photographer's job- the art of a good still diverges from the art of film/video capture. But there definitely are moments were both worlds converge and one can take advantage of it. Those Grand Prix Shots you see in my flickr were both used in TV Commercials and printouts, for example.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to suggest there was no use for it.
Ive pulled landscape stills from HD video for smaller
prints and they look great. But just pointing out,
'convergence' is a bit of a myth unless you accept
compromises. You can get sharp stills sure but then
the motion looks wrong. Not saying some clients
wouldn't still air the TV commercial shot with stuttery
motion. Budgets being what they are, many clients
will bend on something like that for the cost effective
'two in one' solution. I even know one 'DP'
(Obviously a stills guy who tries to shoot motion
for more income without knowing a lot about
motion shooting) who shoots motion the exact same
way he shoots stills. Crank that shutter speed up to
1/3000 of a second so he can shoot WFO. Then wonders
why the eagle flying shot looks 'wrong somehow.'
 
I think 4k is great but also think were are there too early just because the TV sets went to market. A lot of cameras have compromises like crop factors in 4k mode or less light gathering ability. Computers are struggling to keep up but you can get things done obviously. I am just looking forward to the next round of everything as it will be a lot better that the current gear imho. No crop factor full sensor readouts with minimized rolling shutter along with 10bit color will be welcomed.

As to why to shoot 4k - well that entirely based upon your project. There are many times where I still shoot 720p60 if I know it will be a DVD/Blu delivery. Then other times 4k would be fine. No doubt it can look better but a good pro camera will make all resolutions look good.
 
If you shoot UHD at 60P you can have the best of both worlds. Use a slightly faster shutter than at 30P but still have 30P in editing if that is what you want. Personally I like the smooth motion so shoot all the time at 60P for UHD and HD. Then have the option of 60i for DVD or Bluray too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top