So, the GH4 samples and hands on reviews are piling in now.

What do we think?

Heres a wedding specific example.

The guy isn’t the best camera operator in fairness.

Shot at 4k, delivered in 1080.

[NEW] Panasonic LUMIX GH4 Wedding Video in 4K by William InnesBr - YouTube

For me, the fact it has very little moire and aliasing and zebras and focus peaking is almost enough as it is nevermind 4k.

4k is reported as being a little under 1minute per GB. So I doubt I would shoot full service and speeches in 4k.

But everything else - possibly!

It seemed to be a clouded sky so no harsh highlights to deal with but it looked like nice clean and sharp image, the only thing I would worry about is how it would match with my other camera's, if it would be too sharp (even as downconverted 1080p) I couldn't use this camera in combination with my other not 4k ones and I don't plan to upgrade all my camera to 4k for at least another few years, so that's something to consider.

Like I said in another gh4 thread is that this camera still is a dslr, still no ND's, no inbuild stabilisation like the Olympus omd series have, no stepless exposure changes (unless you get some samyang cinelenses but then you"ll loose autofocus, lensstabilisation).

This camera is a good evolution of a already great camera, the zebra's, possibility to crop the footage (but from what I have seen so far the footage just seems softer when you do that) and better low light performance (which they claim is better but I'd like to see a comparison at 6400 iso between the gh3/4) are 3 of the main features that could justify me to get a gh4 body only.

But honestly, at this moment I"d prefer just my gh3 in combination with the sony rx10, that last one has a nd and stepless exposure changes, stabilisation, zebra's, good incamera sound etc, I have been complaining a lot about the slow zoom but it does have a wide to long constant f-stop reach so you don't need to switch lenses (well you can't :) but at least you got a focal length choice), it only can't do very shallow dof shots like you can with a f1.4 lens. if you deliver in 1080p I"m sure the rx10 can deliver a image close to what you see in that weddingvideo but it does have the advantage of having features and functionality a "real" videocamera has.

At this moment I would be happier even with a Olympus omd em10 and it's 3 axis camera stabilization, that would be more useful for me currently then 4k, even if it only could do 30p and has a not so great codec, but for any smooth stable closeups and beautyshots handheld with a 75mm prime or macro lens due to its in camera stabilization, that would be a function in camera I could use more then all those extra pixels.

I'd really like to see some graded footage (I hope footage isn't graded).

The camera's clarity and sharpness is great and all but the footage looks too clean. The footage still looks like dslr footage and the dynamic range is very poor.

Also would like to see the low light capabilities of the camera.

The footage still looks like dslr footage

Maybe that's because the gh4 is a dslr? :)

Yeah I know but they've been pushing the whole 4K thing like it's going to revolutionize the way DSLRs shoot video. 4K doesn't change much except in brand name if the footage can't be pushed beyond cropping, especially with a $3,000 price point. I guess it would sell to consumers though :)

the quality is stunning. no maybes and no buts. The colleague must be a still photographer, the clip is fresh , even if he was "trying too hard" with the wides and the slider, the stills "philosophy" of telling the story, but the quality is (simply put) stunning. Like another poster said it will probably match only another GH4 for multiple. But from that quality there is no coming back. it's a new era, people : way ahead of my EX1 (not even close) , better than my ea50 , in another planet compared to the small sensors (all of them). Now if we distribute on DVD then I believe that the quality will still be stunning, on blur-ray as well , on youtube of course , on private flash cards just MP4 and still stunning.

I guess it would sell to consumers though :)

You can always put a 4k sticker onto your camera :)

the quality is stunning. no maybes and no buts.

Agreed but I thought Dan's footage of the rx10 (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-nxcam-avchd-camera-systems/522121-rx10-rx100ii-royal-caribbean-jewel-seas.html#post1835979) looked just as good and that's "only" 1080p and has a smaller sensor, I still want to see some footage in other more demanding light, the wedding sample was shot in a perfect environment for any camera, a cloudy sky that blocks any direct sunlight.

I can't believe this video is being used as official Panasonic promotion.

0:17 slider shot - is he focussed on the reflected over exposed chandelier rather that the dress???
0:25 zipper shot - really dull and underexposed
0:59 bride/groom meetup - he skipped her turning around. A mistake was obviously made that had to be taken out
1:26 pull down to the car - some left/right jolts either by camera operator or a poor stabiliser plugin interpreting something wrongly.
1:32 highlights very blown out! The GH4 has zebras right? He could have at least tried to do SOMETHING with it in post.
1:40 table top shots again all seem a little dull


I don't think this has been graded at all. Perhaps because the guy doesn't have the expertise. Perhaps because Panasonic want to be honest about what they are selling.

In fairness, on Zacuto, the Panasonic rep said he didn't want to give the impression the GH4 would have fantastic range. I certainly wasn't expecting it anyway.

Like Noa, I wan't to see low light stuff and some comparisons.

Noa, if you want it to match, maybe it would match ok with the Sony AX100?

I noticed these user errors as well, not exactly good demo material but some shots outside did look stunning, but like you said a bit weird that this is used as a panasonic promo. Maybe they wanted to bring something out in a hurry to get weddingvideographers ordering the camera.

About the camera matching with the sony, I have no idea as I have not shot with any 4k camera. It is just something that would worry me, I guess for people that use Canon 5d/7d alike camera's should have a reason to worry, even though they do have a nice look it's no secret the image is softer and lacks fine detail, unless you'd start shooting in raw with the ml hack but that's not an easy workflow for weddings. It's something to consider when moving to 4k to be sure your 1080p camera's will match up.

Its all starting to bother me a little. Even my 6D is looking soft these days and leaving me feeling under quality. My 550D is nearly unbearably soft.

But the file size is the thing that is most concerning for me.

But tbh, I'd only go 4k for consumer work and selective parts of the day. For the vast majority of my wedding dvd product I wouldn't be worried about 4k.

But I would like my highlights to be that level of quality.

I shot with a 550d as well and compared to my sony cx730 the resolution difference is apparent, my panasonic gh3 produces a sharper image then my sony cx and my sony rx10 is about the same as my gh3/g6. Currently I only use my 2 sony cx730 together but I happily mix my rx10/gh3/g6 footage together without any problems. Probably a 4k GH4 would do fine as well when used in a 1080p project but a raw 4k file I used recently did not play realtime in my nle so that wouldn't be fun editing, but you could always shoot 1080p with the gh4. I will let it pass for the time being and see what other weddingshooters do with it.

Im not convinced all this sharpness and 4k is the way to go for weddings.
Espcially the closeup shots on a brides face (imagine 4k closup of the last bride you worked withs face on a 50 inch screen)
I like the lack of sharpness and detail my 5Dmk3 gives me. Its just about right I feel.
Combined with the shallow DOF of full frame I feel it just might be making brides look as good as they can look , and any better detail could in effect be counter productive.

You" be using blur filters to smooth out all those imperfections in her face for sure in 4K. :)

Im not convinced all this sharpness and 4k is the way to go for weddings.
Espcially the closeup shots on a brides face (imagine 4k closup of the last bride you worked withs face on a 50 inch screen)
I like the lack of sharpness and detail my 5Dmk3 gives me. Its just about right I feel.
Combined with the shallow DOF of full frame I feel it just might be making brides look as good as they can look , and any better detail could in effect be counter productive.

+1

The dreamy look is what sells in my opinion .... everyone wants to look good in video. Nobody wants their imperfections amplified.

I know this has been said before but i think its very important. How many clients are going to be searching out 4k video, realistically? I have been filming professionally for almost two years now and have yet to sell a wedding film on blu-ray! People hardly invest in a blu-ray player let alone a 4k set up.

I was far from impressed with the footage from the gh4, the operator definitely didn't do the camera any favours either! I believe it is in many videographer's nature to over analyze the video we produce. Is upgrading all equipment to 4k standards going to get you more clients at a higher price? Not likely. A good camera operator who can predict where he needs to be, at the time he needs to be there, with the right focal length, and sharp focus. That camera operator will be the one attracting clients.

There will come a moment where it all will be 4K, but only because you have no other choice when you upgrade your camera's, it's just a next step in camera evolution, 1080p only camera's will slowly vanish, just like dv camera's did when the transition to hdv occured.

You even might compare the magnitude of change from sd to hdv with 1080p to 4K, as long as you stayed on dvd a hdvcamera was just a ilittle sharper then dv camera when viewed on a crt screen, often you hardly noticed any difference. But once viewed on the right screen and in the right format the difference was obvious.

On a dvd and a 1080p screen full HD and 4k will be difficult to tell apart, some 4k camera might be a bit sharper as opposed to 1080p camera's, but once you start viewing it on these massive screens it becomes much more obvious, the only question remains is, how long will it take before all people have 55+ inch 4K monitors in their living room?

A lot on here are talking about how it will match up, and what the need is for 4k for weddings. But surely most of you, like me, do the occasional corporate work. It would certainly be a good idea to up your quality for instances like that. Use the GH4 to shoot 1080 at weddings, and still have 4k as an option for certain eventualities.

It is only £1300 body only....

Also, I found it interesting to note how big a 4k tv you need to buy to even see the difference at a distance of 2/3 meters

http://www.rtings.com/images/resolution-4k-ultra-hd-chart.png

The shops certainly aren't going to tell consumers this!

http://www.rtings.com/images/resolution-4k-ultra-hd-chart.png

I have done a occasional corporate job the past years but gave up on it eventually and doing weddings only right now. I see 4K only really useful for high end corporate clients and for those you don't show up with gh4 but you hire a red camera and a crew.

And a lot of people sit too far away from their 1080p tellies. I have read elsewhere on DVInfo discussion about whether to use a DVD or BD as the delivery medium, with most people, in the UK at least still owning a DVD player rather than a BD player.

I wonder how many here own a 4K TV, 1000? 100? 10,000? I bet not a lot.


I do my own "strictly amateur" wildlife videos. 4K would be lovely, and £1250 a snip. But then a 4K monitor/TV and a 4K projector. Pricey!


Ron

I want to watch a football match on a huge 80 inch screen in 4k from only one wide camera angle covering the whole pitch!

Now theres a use for 4k!

On a slightly different point, the ability to crop is a point I have heard being made for a long time now (it was one of the big selling points of HD vs SD at the early stages of that transition, some will well remember). And sure it can be useful but not very often in my opinion. When you get truely good at what you do you'll never need to crop in post. A slight scale up and slight rotation is all I ever need to do, and we can get away with scaling up to 105% no problem.

I just did two interviews today where having one camera instead of two would have been very welcome in a tight area. Sure I could have shot with just one camera and then re-shot the entire interview to get the different framing, but then I wouldn't be able to cut smoothly between them because the head & eyes would be in a different place, the sentence could have been different where I wanted to cut etc.

Re-framing is the real big one for me.

Just doing a 105% or a little rotation is Ok for some things (and yes I use that too), but I do miss the ability to reframe in post like we did a few years back, or I still do today when I know I'm only filming for DVD. The web has really made people expect full HD nowadays, so getting away with delivering even a reframed 720p is no longer viable for many corporate gigs.

Fair enough Dave in your applied field it seems quite useful to have it.

(Sorry guys for any confusion, I accidentally replaced my last post with another point)

Is this a discussion on the merits of the GH4 or 4K in general? If the latter, then I agree that 4K isn't an essential upgrade, far from it. Wait a little and Canon and Nikon will no doubt incorporate it now the doors been open so chances are a future upgrade will have it anyway. No one should buy the GH4 right now for 4K alone unless for petty bragging rights - commercial value is minimum to none in my opinion.

That said, as an owner of the GH3 and GH2, I'm interested in the GH4 for improvements beyond 4K, like focus peaking, low light and a flatter cine profile among other things. How much I shoot 4K will be down to the Wedding. If I'm being asked to provide stills from the video, then 4K has its place. For Marryokes, which are internet only I can see the benefits, either for future proofing or for resizing. There's also an idea floating about that you can convert 4:2:0 4K footage into 4:2:2 HD footage. How successful this is in reality, I don't know - I'm sceptical but intrigued by it. What I'm not in doubt is that I shall be giving the GH4 serious consideration when released.

Is this a discussion on the merits of the GH4 or 4K in general?

Same difference to me. Any of the other features wouldnt cause me to want to change cameras. I would of course upgrade from a GH3 but not from a 5dmk3, I dont think.
Its such an ordeal to change over Ill avoid it if I can at all.

Same difference to me. Any of the other features wouldnt cause me to want to change cameras. I would of course upgrade from a GH3 but not from a 5dmk3, I dont think.
Its such an ordeal to change over Ill avoid it if I can at all.

I agree; if I didn't have a GH3, I wouldn't go for the GH4 either. Besides Canon will join the 4K game soon enough. For me the GH4 isn't really about 4K, its just another feature I can use.

Also, I found it interesting to note how big a 4k tv you need to buy to even see the difference at a distance of 2/3 meters

http://www.rtings.com/images/resolution-4k-ultra-hd-chart.png

The shops certainly aren't going to tell consumers this!

http://www.rtings.com/images/resolution-4k-ultra-hd-chart.png

I am not sure whether to be pleased or not to see that I am just on the cusp of seeing benefit from upgrading our current 60" TV that we watch from about 2m. To justify the upgrade I only need to move the settee nearer to the set although apart from home movies I cannot see any 4K viewing materials being available for many years.

I'm always a bit skeptical of charts and graphs that attempt to quantify what you can and can't see with your own eyes....

Whether the upgrade to 4K is evident to the "average Joe" or not is immaterial - if YOU can see the benefits in image quality, it might be worth it, depending on your pocketbook! I suspect that In 3-5 years, low rez screens of all sizes (from a 4" cell phone to a 1000" video wall) will be hard to find... Sure, there will probably be the equivalent of 720 "HD" screens, that meet a low end spec that "average Joe" can't tell the difference in, but generally people can see when a screen is "crisp" and easy on the eyes, and when it isn't...

I'm not thrilled that 4K is coming so quickly, and I think "HD" will be "fine" for most viewing purposes for a LONG, LONG time... but looking at the output from 4K cameras, even on 1080 screens, it's hard to ignore the image quality... and I don't think it's something you can "chart"!!

Also, I found it interesting to note how big a 4k tv you need to buy to even see the difference at a distance of 2/3 meters

http://www.rtings.com/images/resolution-4k-ultra-hd-chart.png

The shops certainly aren't going to tell consumers this!

http://www.rtings.com/images/resolution-4k-ultra-hd-chart.png

Soooo.... a 60" 4K TV at the end of the bed would make a difference then :)

Not sure if you've all seen this elsewhere, but I'm adding it here for those who haven't...

Zacuto's First Look: The Panasonic GH4 | Zacuto USA (http://www.zacuto.com/panasonic-lumix-gh4?utm_source=zacuto&utm_medium=slide&utm_campaign=gh4-slider)

I did a survey on a bridal forum sometime ago and most brides had no idea what high def was and said that they really couldn't tell the difference even on fairly big screen TV's. We have to remember that brides look at content not resolution!!

Clive's chart is very interesting ...Come on, who in their right mind sits 3' away from a giant screen. In our living room I have a paltry 32" LCD TV and the nearest couch is maybe 3 metres away.

I wonder what the medical profession would say about sitting for ages in front of a 100" screen only 2 or 3' away from it??

However regardless of whether brides will actually notice the difference, the facility to be able to crop a badly composed shot would be a huge asset!!

Just for interest does anyone know the current limit one can crop 1080 footage so the viewer would not see any major difference when rendered down to SD ? Technically HD is "supposed" to be 4 times the resolution of SD so a 25% crop of a frame technically is possible without any perceived loss by the viewer? So with 4K down to SD DVD could one crop right down to just 1/8th of the picture??

Chris

Just for interest does anyone know the current limit one can crop 1080 footage so the viewer would not see any major difference when rendered down to SD ? Technically HD is "supposed" to be 4 times the resolution of SD so a 25% crop of a frame technically is possible without any perceived loss by the viewer? So with 4K down to SD DVD could one crop right down to just 1/8th of the picture??

Chris

Err.... well.... how far away from the TV will you be sat? < grin >

Hi Dave

Nice one ...seriously though, I have never found cropping really practical as you lose resolution so fast .. the simple expression " I need to go in just a tiny bit more and it will be perfect" ends up as a nightmare even doing a very mild crop on 1080 and rendering out to our PAL DVD format. I'm not sure how much better a crop in 4K is going to be as cropped image even twice as sharp as it was can still look crappy.

Compared to pretty standard DSLR's with anything from 12 - 36 million pixels we can safely cut a chunk out of a still image and blow it up without any adverse effects! I think I'll wait until we get to that level on video ...sorta Ultra, Ultra, Ultra, Super High Def ... I guess by then still cameras will be quoted in GigaPixels??

Chris

I believe there is a difference, and it's this:

If you're editing 1080p on a 1080p timeline and then zoom in you DO lose resolution.

When you export this 1080p sequence to DVD it's merely resizing from the final image, i.e. an image with lost resolution, so it carries through to the DVD. The NLE isn't smart enough to un-zoom, figure out the crop you wanted and then export to DVD.

If you're editing 1080p on to an SD timeline and scaling the 1080p down to SD for the edit then you can of course zoom in a little without loss of resolution. There may still be an apparent loss of sharpness due to the export not downsizing quite as much but in reality it will be minimal. This is what I do if I know I'm definitely only going to be shipping DVDs (i.e. a dance recital) because it gives the most flexibility in post.

So what about 4K?

I don't expect many people to be editing 4K footage on a 4K timeline any time soon if they are also mixing it with 1080p footage, so in reality you're going to be downsizing the 4K to fit a 1080p timeline, just like editing 1080p to an SD timeline.

Zooming in on 4K won't lose quality provided (and this is a BIG thing to watch) you're actually zooming on the native footage and not 4K that's already been downsized to 1080p by your NLE prior to zooming, otherwise it's zooming on the 1080p scaled version and not the 4K version. There is a difference!

When ever you want to zoom you'll need to make sure that this clip is not being resized automatically to fit the frame, but is added at 100% (meaning you will automatically be getting a crop) then zoom OUT manually to get the part you want.

I believe there is a difference, and it's this:

If you're editing 1080p on a 1080p timeline and then zoom in you DO lose resolution.

When you export this 1080p sequence to DVD it's merely resizing from the final image, i.e. an image with lost resolution, so it carries through to the DVD. The NLE isn't smart enough to un-zoom, figure out the crop you wanted and then export to DVD.



Actually, that isn't the case. At least with premiere. Someone mentioned it in another forum and I had to test it to believe it.

I put a 1080 clip on a 720 timeline without downscaling it. Then I put a 1080 clip on a 1080 timeline and zoomed in 150%. So the framing was identical to the 720 timeline example.

Rendered them both to a 720 file, compared results and what do you know... they were the exact same. Even with pixel peeping. I would not have assumed that's how it worked without testing it. Results may vary depending on NLE.

Place a 1080p file on a 720p timeline and downscale (size to fit) and THEN zoom in...... you will find that Premiere Pro first downscales it to 720 and then zooms in on the 720p version, not the 1080p version, at least it did up to CS6 which is the latest version I have. This is why you need to make sure that any over sized clip (i.e. 4K on a 1080p timeline) is sized from it's native resolution and not first downscaled and then resized.

There will come a moment where it all will be 4K, but only because you have no other choice when you upgrade your camera's, it's just a next step in camera evolution, 1080p only camera's will slowly vanish, just like dv camera's did when the transition to hdv occured.

You even might compare the magnitude of change from sd to hdv with 1080p to 4K, as long as you stayed on dvd a hdvcamera was just a ilittle sharper then dv camera when viewed on a crt screen, often you hardly noticed any difference. But once viewed on the right screen and in the right format the difference was obvious.

On a dvd and a 1080p screen full HD and 4k will be difficult to tell apart, some 4k camera might be a bit sharper as opposed to 1080p camera's, but once you start viewing it on these massive screens it becomes much more obvious, the only question remains is, how long will it take before all people have 55+ inch 4K monitors in their living room?

I agree. We (all) said the same things about the HDV (remember?) , all of us, myself included. By then was the "what do I need HDV for when there are no TVsets for it?"
Boy was I wrong!
4K is here to stay , no doubts about it.
if only we had a better distribution media: DVD are way obsolete, Blu-ray was killed by the greed and all the idiotic restrictions that scare people away. MP4 on flash is our only option, and all considered is way more reliable than any CD/DVD/Blu-ray disc that last a year tops.
So for me custom flash cards (with my logo and everything) are the next thing , and maybe it will last for a decade or so.

and all considered is way more reliable than any CD/DVD/Blu-ray disc that last a year tops.
So for me custom flash cards (with my logo and everything) are the next thing , and maybe it will last for a decade or so.

Sorry if I misunderstood this, but are you saying that the discs you ship don't last more that a year? Time to buy better discs I think. Unless you're storing them in sunlight, extreme heat or cold and aren't printing to them with corrosive inks then DVD & Blu-ray last a LOT longer than a year and 10 years should be no problem. If yours are only lasting "a year tops" then you are doing something wrong.

Flash OTOH is proving to be fairly unreliable, We had another thread on this not too long back with several people having (name brand) flash drives failing very quickly.

My 256MB (yes MB!) from the 90s still works, but I have several 8GB, 16GB and 32GB sticks bought in the last couple of years that don't. A friend of mine runs a mail order company and is seeing around 25% failure with warranty periods. So just be aware of this and make sure you're in a position to replace them when needed, since flash drives also cost more than optical discs, so it also eats in to your bottom line.

Having said that, notwithstanding the reliably issues, flash is certainly one of the better options going forward, but so are download options for those with fast connections. As more people move to devices (tablets) with no USB ports and no optical drives, they are expecting to be able to download and view without the hassle of physical media.

What exactly are consumers going to be able to watch on their 4K TV sets? Apart from wedding videos on flash drives from forward thinking videographers or home movies there will be zero 4K material available. Broadcast 4K is a non-starter due to bandwidth demands whether cable, terrestrial or even satellite. There is no 4K disc standard & it will take years to agree one.

What exactly are consumers going to be able to watch on their 4K TV sets?

I seem to remember the same questions of HD. 4K will come, though not likely in free to air channels any time soon.

H265 will reduce bandwidth requirements and other channels of distribution will be developed to fill the need.

Whenever the customer is willing to pay for something, someone will find a way of delivering it (and charging for it).

It's not going to happen over night, and i suspect the UK will be on the trailing edge of this, as usual, but it will happen.

What will people watch? Hmm, one can shoot with... 4K tablets, cell phones, brilliant new consumer (albeit higher end) cameras like the GH4 and the AX100... You Tube is delivering in 4K... there will be PLENTY of "content", just not from the traditional sources, or via traditional "channels"!

4K might well be the "people's format" that changes video the way that word processing, digital cameras, digital audio recording solutions, MP3 players and so on have altered the way we read, see and listen, and who we read, watch and listen to.

The TV's are already in the stores, there's a 39" one for under $500... people are getting used to high-rez screens on everything from cell phones to tablets (monitors seem to be lagging?!), and are expecting sharper crisper content delivery.

And as we're already finding on the threads on the above cameras, the 4K downrezzed still looks sharper than most if not all 1080 cameras when displayed as 1080....this from "consumer" level 4K cameras.

Sure, there will be an adoption curve, I won't upgrade perfectly good HDTV's (unless these earthquakes pick up a bit more!), but my aging computer monitors are certainly up for review. For my use, one AX100 will replace several other cameras, as did the RX10 - less gear, better output, done! OK, so the RX10 only outputs stills to 4K....

No cheap cell phones with 4K this year, but most seem to have 1080p/HD as a feature, maybe by next year....

Spec'ing a new computer, many boards talk about having 4K output...

Yes, bandwidth will be put to the test, but it would be a foolish content producer/provider that was not rapidly working to figure out how to make it work. I agree that there really needs to be a reliable "hard format" delivery method - digital delivery is fine and good, but there's something about a chunk of plastic one can hold in their hand that is oddly reassuring.... I seem to recall that there is already a disc format being worked on... can't come soon enough!

"The TV's are already in the stores, there's a 39" one for under $500..."


this is the point of the graph/chart I posted. 39" 4k tvs are a con. Its like buying a chocolate teapot!

I hate when manufacturers and consumer outlets knowingly take money off people under a false premise.

Its like selling a PC to a pensioner with 16gb ram and a 3tb hard drive so they can surf the net.

Sorry if I misunderstood this, but are you saying that the discs you ship don't last more that a year? Time to buy better discs I think. Unless you're storing them in sunlight, extreme heat or cold and aren't printing to them with corrosive inks then DVD & Blu-ray last a LOT longer than a year and 10 years should be no problem. If yours are only lasting "a year tops" then you are doing something wrong.

Flash OTOH is proving to be fairly unreliable, We had another thread on this not too long back with several people having (name brand) flash drives failing very quickly.

My 256MB (yes MB!) from the 90s still works, but I have several 8GB, 16GB and 32GB sticks bought in the last couple of years that don't. A friend of mine runs a mail order company and is seeing around 25% failure with warranty periods. So just be aware of this and make sure you're in a position to replace them when needed, since flash drives also cost more than optical discs, so it also eats in to your bottom line.

Having said that, notwithstanding the reliably issues, flash is certainly one of the better options going forward, but so are download options for those with fast connections. As more people move to devices (tablets) with no USB ports and no optical drives, they are expecting to be able to download and view without the hassle of physical media.

no the CD-r and DVD-r are not reliable, they just don't last. Even my cat knows that.

no the CD-r and DVD-r are not reliable, they just don't last. Even my cat knows that.

Then you are doing something wrong. What brand are you buying? How are you writing / verifying them? What are you using to print on them? Is your cat the main user?

I have CDs written in the 90s that still work and DVDs that are now 10 years old that still work. In fact, the only DVDs I've shipped and had back as non working are because of physical damage (scratched) or people's finger marks all over them. Once cleaned they worked perfectly.

We use only TY (Tao Yuden - now made by JVC) water shield discs bought in bulk packs of 50 or 100, and while they costs a little more, they work, they're reliable and I get zero rejects when duplicating on to them with full verification also turned on. You can't buy these at Walmart etc, you need to order them from specialist suppliers. If you're using cheap discs, I've no sympathy, but that could well be the reason.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy exists as a 2K master. The DCP of Ender's Game was 2048x880. Why exactly does a bride need 4K? For her 55" TV??

That being said, I am an avid devotee of shooting at 1080p, editing on a 720p timeline, and re-framing, zooming, etc. I can certainly see that 4K footage would be a great starting point for editors to have maximum flexibility for a 1080p or 2K final product.

"The TV's are already in the stores, there's a 39" one for under $500..."


this is the point of the graph/chart I posted. 39" 4k tvs are a con. Its like buying a chocolate teapot!

I hate when manufacturers and consumer outlets knowingly take money off people under a false premise.

Its like selling a PC to a pensioner with 16gb ram and a 3tb hard drive so they can surf the net.

Well, a 39" 4K "monitor" seems like it might work... even with that chart!

And I'm sure whoever came up with that lovely chart wants to sell their 1080 stock while they can <wink>.

MAYBE in a casual view, most people can't tell the difference, but that's NOT scientific or a reliable "yardstick" actually it's about a 28.9357" yardstick, if you catch my drift...

My "corrected" distance vision isn't "that good", but I am VERY happy to see good quality HD on an HDTV, and can easily see when something was shot poorly and looks "SD" on an HDTV... I can see the "so called HD 32" panels that are actually only 720p a long way off... My wife on the other hand keeps putting on the SD channels on cable, and doesn't seem to notice the difference... my kids know HD and SD when THEY see it, instantly...

There are SO many variables - was 4K output put on a 1080 panel and a 4K panel for the chart testing? Or was 1080 put on both panels to be voted upon? What was the criteria and profile of the "viewers"?

Certainly here in DVi-land, we are mostly looking at 4K on 1080 panels/monitors, but it STILL looks better than footage shot with most 1080 cameras... it's subtle at first, and I wouldn't expect an "average" viewer to pick up on it at first, but to toss up a chart and proclaim that 4K isn't going to be visible to the viewer at certain distances/panel sizes is just as much "junk science", AKA "marketing" as you suggest selling a 39" 4K TV is, perhaps even moreso...

Again, CONTENT will always be the determining factor whether someone will continue to view... but 4K does provide a different experience, more like looking through a window. IF the content benefits from that is another question entirely, but to say that 4K isn't coming, and fast is rather silly...


And about those CD/DVDs - don't let the cat play with them, they'll last longer... proper care and storage does wonders! But this is just one more reason for backing up important "data" in the digital age!

And about those CD/DVDs - don't let the cat play with them, they'll last longer... proper care and storage does wonders! But this is just one more reason for backing up important "data" in the digital age!

you understand that we are talking about distribution, right? it doesn't matter if you take good loving care of your own stuff (and also with loving care they do lose data anyway). DVD-r and RW just don't work. If you backup on those I strongly suggest you to migrate to hard disks, pretty much immediately.

Then you are doing something wrong. What brand are you buying? How are you writing / verifying them? What are you using to print on them? Is your cat the main user?

I have CDs written in the 90s that still work and DVDs that are now 10 years old that still work. In fact, the only DVDs I've shipped and had back as non working are because of physical damage (scratched) or people's finger marks all over them. Once cleaned they worked perfectly.

We use only TY (Tao Yuden - now made by JVC) water shield discs bought in bulk packs of 50 or 100, and while they costs a little more, they work, they're reliable and I get zero rejects when duplicating on to them with full verification also turned on. You can't buy these at Walmart etc, you need to order them from specialist suppliers. If you're using cheap discs, I've no sympathy, but that could well be the reason.

I distribute TaoYuden only, the Fujifilm brand (made in Japan - hard to find now, never heard that JVC used the TY until now) : and still I get Clients back asking for another copy because they either skip tracks or the nasty digital artifacts and blocks take over the show now and then. But at least they keep playing , unlike other brands that won't even start in the player. So the TY are indeed a little more reliable. Still we're in the hands of some unreliable technology. I can't wait to distribute on flash cards only!
I used a batch of TY (supposed to be original) bought on ebay and they were actually no better than the staples brand. I believe that the TY for Fujifilm need to meet higher standards (and I imagine the same for the ones made for JVC -which is Panasonic actually). In any case always check if they are made in Japan (the Fujifilm sold by bestbuy are not, for example). If you can get the JVC make sure that they are made in Japan as well. As of today I only have 400 DVD's left (TY Fujifilm). After that I hope that I will never ever have to search for those again, being that technology the most unreliable and unprofessional that I can remember (second only to the microdrives (tape-microcassettes) of the Sinclair QL , back in 90's)

To the other colleague reporting about the audio CD : they are completely different animals compared to the CD-r and DVD-r (and RW). Audio CD and DVD processed by the music and video industry do last pretty much forever. Again here we are talking about our distribution (with a PC and a burner to be clear)

P.S.:
for the future Dave keep the sarcasm for yourself or somebody you know. Here I am sharing my experience, and seriously, like many others do for the good of our practice. So idiotic sarcastic remarks need to be avoided when talking to me. No exceptions. I hope that I made myself clear.

Watched this last night and was very surprised at how indepth it is going to be to capture 4K on a GH4. For whatever reason, I was expecting it to be fed to a SD card, not all those cables etc these guys show towards the end of the vid.

Panasonic GH4 Hands-On Field Test - YouTube

DVD-r and RW just don't work. If you backup on those I strongly suggest you to migrate to hard disks, pretty much immediately.

I know it's not OT but just to share my own experience, over the past years I have had several usb sticks fail on me for no apparent reason with no way to retrieve the data on them, same for internal harddrives that just stopped working, otoh I do have dvd's more then 10 years old that still play fine in my pc. Every year I get phonecalls from clients saying their external harddrive died (with their wedding on it, and they had no backup) and I have yet to get a client that calls me saying their dvd stopped working.
I have burners that can burn onto m-discs which are supposed to last a lifetime, I would have much more trust that those will keep my data safe for a long time but I"d never trust any harddrive of flash drive for that.