Why I DON'T like 4k. The other side of the story.

StMad said:
I see where the op is coming from. Most other upgrades in the industry have added some real world value, whereas there is little value in 4k other than in special circumstances. It seems like the industry is running out of ways to generate new revenue. And this backlash, while small now, will certainly grow when 8k starts being heavily marketed.
Click to expand...

I'd say if you shot some 4k you'd be singing a different tune.

Give it a try.
 
Not everybody can afford to shoot fully automatic weapons, as you go through ammo so quickly. But once you shoot your first machine gun, something inside makes you want to keep on shooting them.

Oh, wrong thread! :kali:
 
Okay, I will try to be civil. Those of you complaining about 4k should go to a good museum and start looking at what painters working in oil can achieve. Start with "The Gleaners" by Millet. There is a reason it is the most expensive art in the world. It is because oil can approach the limitations of human perception. 4k is getting us close. What is not to F****** like about that? I don't get all the naysaying. I want the wholesalers and retailers to shove this down peoples throats, it will be a much better world visually.
 
Today I went to a breakfast meetup for local filmmakers and the speaker was head of a branch of Sony films. He said, "From now on, shoot everything in 4K- it's coming". I resent the whole thing almost as much as the OP due to the fact that no one can tell the difference at NORMAL distance from their TV screen. At the same time, I do love me some high resolution. My solution was to buy the FS700. If 4k takes over, I'll get a 7Q and keep on truckin'. My next computer purchase (happening very soon) will take possible 4k editing requirements into consideration.
 
lightstrum said:
"I"m not interested in 4k. I want XLR inputs and built in ND filters. I would definitely take 2k raw with those features."

A Canon C500 with Odyssey q7 has just what you want, but you'll have to live with the 4k features. I'll bet they sneak up on you.
Click to expand...

That's out of my price range, but I'd be very happy with that set up if I could afford it for sure.
 
I ordered my dad a REDray player this week so he can have more 4k content on his sony 65" 4k tv besides his sony 4k player. He says he can't get enough 4k content and wants to see what odemax on the REDray can do, and wants to watch some stuff I shot too in 4k. So I ordered him one.
 
"No one can tell"??? I can tell and everbody that I introduce to 4k can tell. They basically drop their drawers. It is a progression into how people actually perceive things so they feel right at home with it. This carping over keeping visually inferior displays around is- sorry not to be- "civil" just plain stupid and an elitist attitude of protecting the franchise. That those working in the industry invested in display technology that is inferior somehow know better than "people" what they "the people" want is fear manifested as arrogance. And is passé. Get over it.
 
mcgeedigital said:
I'd say if you shot some 4k you'd be singing a different tune.

Give it a try.
Click to expand...

Oh I lust for a better image, and I do notice the res increase in well shot 4k footage, even viewed at 1080p. But that's when I'm 1m from a 24" screen. The viewing distance from my tv would make the upgrade pointless in my lounge room. The home theatre would benefit, but well shot 1080 looks great now...spending 1000s more on a new projector and player (when they come) isn't on the cards. So as a consumer I'm not too bothered, but if I was running a business, and I had to worry about all the new expenses involved in keeping my business model afloat, I'd probably be a little annoyed too. Similar to megapixel marketing for still cameras, the "real value" slice of the pie chart is losing ground to the marketing slice.
 
I'm remembering what I spent on my Panasonic SDX900 oh so many years ago, thinking how much better it was than the guys across town still shooting on Beta sp. I even traded setup presets with a few folks on dvxuser and dvinfo, for that elusive film look. You can now pick up one of these cams on ebay for $500.

Sad buy true, in a few years your expensive HD cameras will sell on ebay for pennies on the dollar, and not too many years after that so will your 4K cameras. Something better always comes along.
 
David W. Jones said:
I'm remembering what I spent on my Panasonic SDX900 oh so many years ago, thinking how much better it was than the guys across town still shooting on Beta sp. I even traded setup presets with a few folks on dvxuser and dvinfo, for that elusive film look. You can now pick up one of these cams on ebay for $500.

Sad buy true, in a few years your expensive HD cameras will sell on ebay for pennies on the dollar, and not too many years after that so will your 4K cameras. Something better always comes along.
Click to expand...

It seems like cameras are becoming similar to computer hardware. Which is why I find it strange that people will invest 30-50k on Red camera packages for themselves. I can understand big businesses with major clients doing it, but individuals... it just seems like they depreciate so quickly these days.
 
DBP said:
It seems like cameras are becoming similar to computer hardware. Which is why I find it strange that people will invest 30-50k on Red camera packages for themselves. I can understand big businesses with major clients doing it, but individuals... it just seems like they depreciate so quickly these days.
Click to expand...

because;

A, they (usually) have high end clients who pay big bucks for such toys

B, RED has specifically modeled itself under an ideal of endless upgrades. change out the sensor, new modules, etc...
 
REC2020 UHD 4k standard is the first display format change since NTSC to bring us a major increase in DR and color gamut. Forget the resolution increase, at normal viewing distances it doesn't make much difference. But the massive increase in MTF and color gamut at HD resolution detail levels sure does.
 
Yup, I get it. 4K for the average small video business doesn't add any income, but adds a ton to your
costs. That's cause your clients are just people who want a promo done for their website or a video
showing how great their new beer is, or why you should give money to this nonprofit organization.
If you work making big budget films or for high end ad agencies or clients, than 4K is awesome and
you can charge the $$$$ to make it work for you. So to the OP, here's some advice. Resist the
onslaught. Seriously, just say no. I've seen this movie before, and I know how it ends. See, I just
moved to a FS100/700.......from SD. When a client or potential client asks for a 4K video, tell them
'Sure.....and this will be the price for it'. Once they are willing to pay the price, THEN you jump in
to 4K with both guns blazing. This is EXACTLY what I did with my move to HD. Tons of others
grabbed a Sony Z1 or JVC 250, or Panasonic HVX200, then onto the Sony EX 1, then Canon 5D and
7D, then Panasonic AF100 and so on. Never ends. When I would bid on jobs, I had ONE client from
2000-2009 that would pay for HD. ONE. And that client was the federal government. So I rented.
In 2011, I had 3 clients in the first 6 months that would pay for HD.....time for me start getting
ready to jump on the HD bandwagon. Once people actually wanted it.....then I supply it. If you are
running a business, it's foolish to supply something that costs you a good deal of money and makes
you nothing. If clients want it, then they can pay for it. If someone asks you for 4k, then quote them
an 'appropriate' price. If they are looking for something 'cheap' because 'phones will shoot 4k now' then
trust me, you don't want to be working for them anyways. You have to learn to say 'no' to cheapskates,
tirekickers, and those looking for a 'deal'. I don't want to work for people that hire the 'cheapest'
guy, because then, that's the only time you get work, is when you are the cheapest. Then, when
they get a bunch of money and want a 'good' video made,.......they fly someone in from out of town.
The bonus is, by the time my clients got around to wanting HD, I was able to buy a Sony FS700...
instead of a JVC 250, a Sony Z1, a Panasonic HVX200 or the other 'new' HD cameras. The same
could happen to you with 4k. Maybe by the time your clients actually will pay for 4k,.....the 4k camera
you get for your dollar will be MUCH better than what you can get by being on the 'bleeding' edge.
Just some advice, take it or not, I can't guarantee it will apply to you, but it worked for me.
 
i love 4k.

what i don't love is the current data caps imposed by the cable companies that will make it impossible to stream 4k with any regularity.
 
If you're against 4K, maybe you should move to Sweden?
Most of our TV transmissions are still SD and we just got TiVo a few months ago over here.
 
ugafan said:
i love 4k.

what i don't love is the current data caps imposed by the cable companies that will make it impossible to stream 4k with any regularity.
Click to expand...

It will take a year or two to migrate browsers and streaming codecs to the new H.265 standard. When that is in place 4k will take no more bandwidth than HD does now with H.264.
 
Darren Levine said:
because;

A, they (usually) have high end clients who pay big bucks for such toys

B, RED has specifically modeled itself under an ideal of endless upgrades. change out the sensor, new modules, etc...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as cost effective as they made it out to be. When you look at the price of a new camera compared to upgrading a Red, and the cost of the original Red parts and pieces you need so that you can upgrade them, it's not like you're saving a lot by upgrading instead of just replacing every so often. You're paying more in the first place because it's upgradeable. I think the savings is mostly lost in the higher up front cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top