4K article by Oliver Peters - Good overview

[Al Bergstein]

I know there are raging debates on many boards lately on the value of 4K and how it's 'killing' 1080 products. It's getting so bad in some places that fanboys of various cameras are hijacking competing products posts to brag about how much better there shiny new 4k is than the competition. (sigh). I post this here, since I don't see a general 4K discussion thread, but this seems as generic as possible a place.

Here's a good basic technical overview of the pros and cons of 4K acquisition. The opening paragraph...

"I’ve talked about 4K before (here, here and here), but I’ve recently done some more 4K jobs that have me thinking again. 4K means different things to different people and in terms of dimensions, there’s the issue of cinema 4K (4096 pixels wide) versus the UltraHD/QuadHD/4K 16:9 (whatever you want to call it) version of 4K (3840 pixels wide). That really doesn’t make a lot of difference, because these are close enough to be the same. There’s so much hype around it, though, that you really have to wonder if it’s “the Emperor’s new clothes”.

More 4K By Oliver Peters

[Andrew Smith]

I've already decided that I'm not going to 4K and that a very good HD will be more than enough.

Even digital cinemas with their huge screens are only projecting at 2K. (your mileage may vary)

Andrew

[Dave Baker]

Originally Posted by Andrew Smith

I've already decided that I'm not going to 4K and that a very good HD will be more than enough.

Me too Andrew.

The question is, will we be able to avoid it? If it's anything like the SD to HD changeover we will have no choice. When's the last time you saw a new SD camera for sale?

My guess is that if I buy a new camcorder in, say, 2 years' time, it will be 4K capable whether I want it to be or not.

Dave

[Andrew Smith]

I'm thinking it will be something like the difference between VHS to DVD and DVD to BluRay.

When DVD came out, all we had previously was VHS and there was such a quantum leap in quality (and fulfilling an unmet need in this are) that the format took off. All this in spite of the hurdles of purchasing expensive new gear.

With BluRay there is a visual difference in the HD format that we can see and appreciate, but we already have DVD which is good enough for most people. The "good enough" part means that there is no longer a critical unmet need for something better.

4K is nice, but so too is HD1080 done very well.

(And how many of us here have a BluRay player? I don't.)

At this stage, good compelling content on HD is going to outweigh any lesser content with more pixels thrown at it.

Andrew

[Dave Baker]

Funnily enough I do have a BluRay player but crucially, I do not have a BluRay burner.

The BluRay player replaced a clapped-out DVD player and, since the difference in price was only a few quid, I took the option. It has sat on the shelf beneath the TV for a few years, it has hardly been used and only once had a BluRay disc in it, one my son lent me.

We simply do not play the DVD collection we bought, but I occasionally play one of my SD movies or an audio CD on it. I render my HD movies to MP4 and put them on a hard drive connected to a WDTV box, or a USB stick if I want to show them to someone else and, of course, some go online. HDTV and a HDD recorder takes care of the rest of our TV needs.

The interesting bit in the clip I posted the link to is where they say that to get good 2k you need something like 4k to start with and to get good 4k you need something around 6k. It will be fascinating to see where the manufacturers try to take us on that front.

Dave

[Andrew Smith]

This kinda brings up the real issue for camera manufacturers. Once you run out of 'resolution stuffing' for the next model, then what?

Andrew

[Noa Put]

4K is not "that" better then HD, I rather choose a 1080p camera with very good dynamic range and color rendering but you can't deny the extra detail you get, even when downscaled to 1080p and the cropping ability alone in a 1080p project is worth the extra cost for me to deal with 4K right now.

But my favorite camera right now is a 1080p one, the rx10, not the ax100, The ax100 has a not so good dynamic range and has a videolook to it and I much prefer the rx10 look over it but for certain parts of a wedding day, like the ceremony, the ax100 has it's place that can't be replaced by the rx10. I just try to maximize each cameras strengths and 4K has it's place.

[Dave Baker]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I rather choose a 1080p camera with very good dynamic range and color rendering but you can't deny the extra detail you get, even when downscaled to 1080p and the cropping ability alone in a 1080p project is worth the extra cost for me to deal with 4K right now.

Pretty much underlines what they said in the clip doesn't it?

Well, I don't see how much further down the resolution road we can go, or why we would want to. I mean, how close to a TV screen would one want to sit, close enough so individual pixels are visible and become a problem? But then the viewer can't see what's going on so where's the point? Bigger screens don't need more pixels, just a greater viewing distance. Having said that, I sit very close to my full HD monitor while editing and can't see individual pixels, but I also have a 720p TV connected for comparison purposes, on that I can see them and from further away too. So, 1080 does it for me!

Somewhere I read that we don't need more pixels, just better pixels. If that means shooing in 4k and downscaling to 1080, I guess it's acceptable.

I believe we need the manufacturers to concentrate on increasing the dynamic range of cameras and producing affordable global shutter sensors, taking us back to a time when rolling shutter wasn't an issue. Along with better codecs and improved colour sampling.

Dave