Z190?

[Cliff Totten]

Y'know, on the issue of "pixel peeping", I got into a debate with one of my Arri fan-boy coworkers last year. He was VERRY persistent that Arri 2.7k is all that any camera ever needs. In fact, he tried to argue with me that 4k is crap and something that only "pixel peepers" care about. Its not necessary and standard 1080 is all he will ever deliver in and that 4k "hurts his eyes". He is so anti-pixel peeping that he believes that he will go to his grave never working in 4k.

Me?....sure, I do love pixel peeping on wildlife and landscapes. If I can see an ant's antennas flickering when it's going up the side of a detailed tree trunk,...yeah that kind of stuff makes me say "wow".

Everybody is different and not everybody is as impressed with resolving power as I am.

That's cool. I get it.

[Leslie Wand]

i'm not sure that age hasn't got some part to play in this...

at 70, after a lifetime in tv and video i too am left less that impressed by 4k - i have seen breathtaking hd that's been shot with the best possible equipment and edited without unnecessary grading (and here i'm referring to hdr, which to my eyes looks hilarious), that looks incredibly lifelike (take any modern-day attenboruogh extravaganza)', whereas, a lot of the 4k stuff i've seen looks 'brittle', oversharpened, and plastic.
true, i haven't seen 4k straight out of the camera on a proper 4k monitor, but i've carefully (albeit it subjectively) assessed what i've seen in both showrooms and friends/associates homes and am disappointed. perhaps my eyes aren't what they used to be, perhaps i don't ever feel the need to pixel peek, perhaps i'm just too tired of 'hype' to make me buy more stuff (and nonsense).

[Simon Denny]

What is interesting on my side of video production is: clients don't want 4K due to editing turn around delays cause by computers not handling 4K and storage cost with 4K. All of my work now goes to social media, Facebook etc... and has its roots firmly implanted in mobile devices. I still shoot for DVD distribution in HD (which is converted to SD) although it's days are in sight of finishing.

All my live gigs are shot either in SD (YES) or HD and converted to SD.

For my line of work currently, mobile devices are were my clients want video directed to so good HD is great from me.

[Doug Jensen]

The more resolution for acquisition the better. Period. It doesn't matter what the final deliverable will be because starting with a higher resolution "negative" is always going to allow more options in post and ultimately better quality final output. When I hear people say they don't care about 4K; they can't see the difference; clients don't need it, etc. it all sounds like the same silly stuff people said about HD a few years ago. A lot of those people stuck with SD too long and fell behind and never caught up again. If you think you don't need 4K today (at least some of the time) you are probably working at very low tier of production (I don't mean that as an insult) or else simply not appreciating the many advantages 4K acquisition provides to the business side of the equation.

If I could shoot 8K, 10K, or 12K right now with the same ease that I can shoot 4K and with the same affordable cameras, I'd be doing it. Higher resolution is always better. Just ask any professional still photographer if they are still shooting on a DSLR that has less than 6MP. 6MP is enough to satisfy 90% of print requirement except for posters. I've had photos published in books that look great and were shot with my old Nikon D1H which was less than 3MP. So why did Nikon announce new mirrorless cameras this week that can do 45MP? Who needs that? Well, I've never heard a serious professional photographer say that they didn't need more resolution because clients didn't ask for it. Clients should not drive your equipment decisions anyway, any more than you would tell an artist which brushes or paints he needs or s sculptor what chisels he should buy.

BTW with cameras like the Z190 and Z280 you can record 4K and HD simultaneously.

[Cliff Totten]

You are a member of the 4k "pixel peeper" club too...just like me!! I welcome everybody to join!

Seriously, I have been accused of loving detail too much. It "wows" me, it opens my eyes bigger and makes me "hunt" or explore for tiny subltle things in an image. Like, texture in a rock formation, texture in fabric or animal fur...all kinds of subtle things like that. Its just more "rewarding" to see landscapes and beauty shots in 4k and 6k.

Yeah.....there are plenty of people that say; "Oh God....why do you pay attention THAT much? Just take a quick, casual look and move on. There is no need to analyze it that much"

I dunno,...its just me, I guess.

[Doug Jensen]

I don't think I'm a pixel peeper because I don't monitor in 4K and the only thing I edit and deliver in 4K is stock footage. And I'm not even going to stand up and say there is a gigantic difference between viewing 4K television and HD. But I stand by my advice that all video professionals should have 4K capability today even if they don't choose to shoot in 4K all of the time. Again, I would compare our needs to a photographer who doesn't always print everything at billboard size but who still wants to shoot at the highest resolution that is conveniently available.