Will 4K cameras be practical for weddings?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Bob Drummond

Think of the storage space and computing power and time that would be needed to handle just one interview? All for what? being able to extract a close up and a wide shot from one camera setup? I'd take two or three C100s over an unwieldy 4K workflow.

The gh4 shoots 4k at 100mbs so that datarate is not such a dealbreaker as you can shoot to cheap cards and harddiscs are not that expensive today, also three c100's will set you back 15.000 euro, 2 gh4's could give you at least 4 different frames if you use a crop or the full frame and it will set you back 3000 euro, what does sound more interesting here? :) I could buy a small car with the price difference and have more options in post, or I could get myself a brandnew expensive macpro with a raiddrive to deal with the workflow and still have money left in the bank.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@Noa -

That is my thinking as well. also for event/stage - the ability to have a "wide/safety" shot that ALSO could provide acceptable closeups at HD and even "SD" (DVD delivery) crops means one camera vs. several. Yes the perspective wouldn't change, but suddenly operating a second camera for such things is "free" from stress - the main camera should be getting most of what you'll need, now you can get additional angles more creatively. Should give more to work with in post, and less stress on the shoot! I think that qualifies as "practical"...

At the moment this is "theoretical", but I should have some opportunity to test this shortly... end of school year/graduation...had very little time to play with or test the AX100... what little I've done is impressive enough to continue on this path.



@Bob -

As far as "unwieldy" post... EVERY "new" workflow is a little daunting at first, EVERY new piece of equipment has potential challenges and issues, does that mean I should just go dig out my old film and tape based cameras and go back to shooting with them? Ebay them, maybe, but not shoot with 'em. How about go back to my i7 920, a 386 or even an 8088 computer, since this 4770K has been a bit of trouble to build and dial in? Um, nope... in fact I'm getting far more done, far more efficiently on this new system. This even though the 920 is still a very capable processor!

Yes, you will need larger faster memory cards, you may need newer, faster, larger Hard Drives, and you may have to upgrade processor/motherboard/memory/monitor/video card... These things will happen EVENTUALLY, anyway...

My old early 720 "HDTV" is having some issues, I may pick up another of these cheap Seiki 39" to replace it if one comes up cheap enough (it will STILL cost less that what the 26" 720 model did "back in the day"). I won't likely buy another 720 "HD" set, even though they are out there still, and pretty cheap, it just wouldn't make much sense. I've seen lame "sales" people and articles try to say you won't see the difference on "smaller" screens - pffffftt! Complete and utter fertilizer!

I still like to watch old B&W movies, stuff shot in 4:3, vintage stuff shot on old tech, etc. etc. etc. If the CONTENT is good and entertaining, sure, why not? But looking at things I shot years ago in SD sure makes me "happy" I can shoot in HD or 4K TODAY - I can't go back and reshoot those things, so the less than stellar image quality will have to suffice, it is what it is. But if I were shooting them TODAY...? The AX100, RX10, and RX100 would be the "go to" capture devices. Maybe even that PJ760 if I'm handheld!

On a different level, I'm looking at stills on this 4K display, and realizing that some of those "cell phone" and lower resolution shots are showing their age, and their lack of quality... they look quite dandy on a 1080 display... the memories are "priceless", and irreplaceable, but realizing what I can shoot with a "pocket" camera today, and I'll take the RX series cameras (that eat big fast memory cards... 8 Gb isn't "comfortable"...) anytime! A fast 32G SD card costs less than what I used to pay for an 8G...

3D didn't make sense, goofy glasses and headaches (I get 'em with 3D, as do many family members) aren't going to fly. 4K is NOT 3D, not by a long shot - it IS "new", but when you see "the future", you can poo-poo it, or embrace it. Shooting and posting 4K is a bit of a challenge, but worth exploring, IMO.

[John Wiley]

Reading through this thread it's a bit funny to see all the exact same arguments as 10 years ago when HD first started entering the mainstream... "It's not practical to edit"... "what about storage"... "you can't tell the difference at a practical viewing distance anyway" etc.

Same as back then, people will either evolve or get left behind. Hardware will get better and cheaper, software will become more powerful - and it will happen in the blink of an eye. There will be early adopters who will regret spending the big $$$$ so soon, and there will by people who stubbornly claim that "HD is good enough for anything" even when they start losing clients. Personally I'll try to sit in the middle ground - wait until the technology matures a bit and costs come down, but still try to beat the tide of customers asking if we shoot in 4K.

I still deliver most of my content at 720p max, even though most of it is shot at 1080p. My DVD deliveries look a whole lot better now than when I shot DVCAM, and I anticipate my 720p/1080p deliveries will look a whole lot better when I'm acquiring at 4K - even If I am only delivering 1080p max for the next decade.

[Tim Palmer-Benson]

I am wondering about the implications for wedding photography in all this. From what I've read, the GH4 can take stills while videoing and freeze frames from a 4K image appear to be pretty good. So can a videographer with a GH4 compete with a photographer for complete wedding coverage at a lower cost?

Many photographers are using expensive Nikon or Canon glass and expensive Nikon and Canon bodies. Some of them are now offering video, but I don't see them jumping over to Panasonic en masse

[Dave Blackhurst]

Aside from the issues of framing and portrait/landscape, the prospect of "frame grabs" from 4K footage will be possible. Increasingly the still and video mediums will intersect - it's "imaging". There's still plenty of "space" for both disciplines and both delivery forms.

More and more though, that delivery will be on screens rather than paper or discs. So it is wise to consider how and what you will be "delivering" in the future.


@ John -

I don't know that "early adopters" will be regretting anything, the AX100 will easily cover for at least two "HD" cameras in many current shooting scenarios delivering in 1080/BR or SD/DVD. The overall performance, features (including higher bitrate 1080/60p), and handling make it a decent purchase even without the 4K. The cheap Seiki 39" TV that is my new monitor was also an inexpensive way to get a 4K display, and I have the equivalent of 4 20" 1920x1080 screens to work on! The new faster 4K capable computer "core" should result in better productivity.

I don't know if the GH4 body upgrade would hit similar points, but I suspect it might if one had investment in that system.

You are correct that the arguments are pretty much the same as the SD to HD transition... and 4K is definitely a "bleeding edge" proposition, but the improvements in resolution are hard to ignore. You can "do" 4K on the cheap, or I wouldn't have!

[Jeff Harper]

Joining this thread late, but it's a good one. I'm excited about 4K, but have reservations about it insofar I haven't shot or edited anything yet!

I've been watching 4K for almost two years or so at the local cinema. They've been using 4K at The Esquire and at The Kenwood Theatre and it's fantastic. You do get spoiled. Is there a difference? I don't know, it look pretty darned good. Some films there seems to be no difference, but on others it's like looking through a window, very very clear.

I have a 4K cam on order but of course am apprehensive about the workflow. Storage not too much of an issue, since it's only one camera.

I'm more concerened with editing, obviously. Workflow will be all thrown off due to likely need to create proxies.

The ability to zoom in on the hi-rez footage is intriquing. As a solo shooter it's very appealing, at least on paper. The potential flexibility is great.

No downside to ordering a 4K camera. If it doesn't work out, I send it back.

Similar arguments as I've seen here were made when HD was new. I hated it the very idea of it. I didn't want to have to buy new equipment. I had just settled into having three matching cameras and was very happy with my VX2100s and PD150 when along came the FX1, FX7 and FX1000. I jumped on the FX1000 and was pretty happy with it after I got used to the inferior low light ability.

Today I'm purchasing $2K cameras instead of $3500 cams. The market has changed. The lines between consumer and pro cams has blurred, at least at for me.

"They" have been working on 8K for years. I have read that 4K is the reasonable limit for quality, that the human eye can't resolve much more detail then 4k offers. I don't know if that's true, but I'm hoping it is.

But the argument for 8K will probably be that 4K is not truly full 4K, and that 8K will fill in the gaps to make it truly stunning. I don't know. I do believe that 4K is here already (it's in the theatres) and there is no need to upgrade yet. It won't be long before my AX100 will be outdated, but for now I hope it works out for a year or two.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Jeff -

4K is already past the resolution of my nekkid eyeball, contact corrected vision! My 4K capable computer setup is actually quite nice, and it took my eyes a week or so to adjust to how sharp it is in comparison to my old dual 1920x1080 setup. Actually think it gave me headaches at first!

Don't worry about storage, my old WD "Green" 5400 drives I use to "archive" seem to be able to deliver enough throughput! Storage is cheap, even fast SDXC cards are not bad, and I actually just stuck an "SDHC" (albeit class 10 UHS1) card I already had in the AX100, and it works just fine!

I had forgotten I had experimented a bit with Vegas 12 and editing while still running W7 - while Vegas still needs a reinstall, I was able to launch from the .veg file... and previewing at VERY acceptable quality was no problem choosing (auto). I've got ZERO concerns about being able to edit without issue!

Doing a 1080 crop yields a very good looking image on the preview screens, certainly as good as, if not better than a "native" 1080 frame. Pan/crop/scan is definitely a viable proposition - making this a good way to replace at least a couple "HD" cameras for event work - just for giggles I decided to try inputting 720 (lower rez HD) and 480 (SD) in the height settings in crop... you could probably get away with those on a lower rez project! OK, so SD rez isn't super pretty, but....it never really was...

You'll like the AX100, I was almost ready to abandon "video" cameras once I got the RX10, but I quite like the AX100. Makes me wish for an extra right arm so I could shoot both at once!

Not sure what your system specs are, but I collected all the bits for a new system core, reused my HDD's, PS, and case ( so... new motherboard with the intel integrated 4K graphics, CPU and memory). I only started the adventure when I found a 39" Seiki 4K TV could be had under $400, no $2-3K monitor in my budget!! Long story short, if the AX100 can be budgeted, you probably can put together a cheap computer upgrade similar to mine without the piggy bank squealing too loudly!

Of course there's a good deal of tweaking to get things working - graphics drivers have been "interesting", but I think the latest one I got from Intel finally got things looking pretty smooth!

Moving to being able to work with 4K is actually going better than I expected, and with selling off a few HD cams and my old computer core, I may actually make a few extra bucks!



I'm not even sure that there ARE consumer cameras anymore - they are rapidly being replaced by phones and tablets - I think Sony at least understands they HAVE to return to professional features for their higher end offerings, even if they are at price points that at one time were considered "consumer" - there's still an "enthusiast" market, but the expectations from those buyers are WAY higher than your average "consumer", who somehow is "happy" with the output from that phone or tablet!

[Jeff Harper]

Well Dave, I'm very very fond of my CX900, and since the AX100 is essentially the same camera I'm pretty sure I'll love it also.

I really appreciate you sharing your experiences.

Tell me Dave, do you edit multicamera projects with 4K? I can see one line of 4K footage working OK, but I'm wary of it bogging down a multicamera project.

Camera arrives tomorrow so I'll try it out right away on a current project.

[Craig McKenna]

Still waiting for my GH4 to arrive. After reading the reviews, I believe that I may also trade in my GH3 and pick up a second GH4... or more likely, buy an extra GH4 and keep the GH3 as my third camera.

Despite this, it is my very humbling understanding that my 4TB GRAID Thunderbolt Drive hosts nowhere near enough storage once my footage is converted to Apple ProRes. Therefore, I think it's unlikely that I'd be able to shoot 4K unless I pick up a 16TB server as my main storage and use my G RAID to edit from. Then I'd do the back ups that everyone else seems to do here with the small portable HDD.

Ultimately, video calls for so much extra storage compared to our photographer counterparts. It's for this reason that I think / feel that whilst 4K will be practical for weddings, it'll only ever be truly practical once 64TB are available for your HDD - even if we're talking a server. Otherwise, our footage is going to become so great through a wedding season, that we're really going to struggle for space. I may be alone in thinking this - as I'm still an amateur (but with a Comp Sci background), but I just don't see this happening in my workflow any time soon.

That said, it's exciting... but I'm more so excited for 1080p 100mbps 24p/30p. I think I'll be shooting this over the course of the next few years... and I doubt that I'll be downscaling from 4K. That said, you're all years ahead of me, so maybe I would adopt sooner if I had your experience.

Ultimately though, it's a costly transition and I'm not the type to skimp on quality in any part of my workflow - probably the reason that I'll never make any money if I did turn pro.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@Jeff -
Only have one 4K camera so far, though another AX100 at a cheap enough price might tempt me - I'm hoping for an RX10Mk2 with 4K, though that may be a bit optimistic since the RX100M3 only got high bitrate 1080p.

I suspect that multiple cams could slow things down a bit (heck even the switch from 17Mbps to 28Mbps was noticeable with multi-cam), but only in the initial layout - once you get the cuts so you have one "stream" to deal with, shouldn't be a big issue. I'll know more once I get this new build 100% stable and functional - just seems to be down to squishing little bugs now, so should be soon!



@Craig -
I'm guessing you are planning to create uncompressed files to work with? 4K files are bigger, but storage options are a lot bigger now, and as 4K becomes a bit more common, it should be possible to work with the XAVC S files "native" - Hardware and drivers are still in flux from my experience so far, but I'm at the point where it's already obvious that working with 4K on this new system will be as easy as HD was on my old one.


As a very practical matter, I expect to be working with 28Mbps files as a minimum, and 50Mbps files, either 1080/60p or 4K/30p, in the VERY near future. You're talking about even higher bitrates from the GH4...

The bottom line is that we demand higher quality, and that takes more data points - more digital bits that have to be dealt with SOMEHOW... it's NOT just 4k, it's "better" HD too!

[Ivan Hurtado]

4k on a global CMOS would give the ability to leave the stabilizer in home. Just pop the Monopod and crop the image after post-stabilization if needed. Perfect for one-man-bands.

I'm also considering now the AX100 paired with the ninja star. It would give backup in 1080p prores and still be portable enough. The benefit of the internal ND is that it leaves me the front to add just the polarizer or an ultracon (or both) instead of a fader. Does anybody now if you can have just one option in auto? As in just gain?

[Steven Davis]

A couple of years ago I stood in line before the Sprint store opened up. It was the only time I've stood in line for technology. Two days later I took the phone back because I figured out it did not have the functionality I needed.

And 4k feels like that, sortof like the lemmings who stand in line at the Apple store for days waiting for the newest gizmo. It's not to say 4k isn't here to stay, personally I'm going to be patient till the dust settles. I will stand on the sidelines a bit till I see what Apple will do with FCPX, and to a lesser degree, Sony's Vegas. Both of which I use.

I bought two Canon XF300s this year, and did so after they'd built a reputation of solid performance. Is there a time to buy 4k, probably, but I'll wait a bit.

Just my two cents.

[Bob Drummond]

Again, I ask the question no one will answer: If 2K is fine for Avengers 2, when will anyone reading this actually need 4K?

Fun? Yes, maybe. But anyone who thinks they NEED it is suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

[Mark Whittle]

Craig, why are you converting to ProRes?

What are you editing on, FCPX or Premiere? If so does editing native not work?

Just curious.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@ Ivan - as near as I can tell, yes you can control individual settings... just poke the appropriate button on the lower left side of the cam and adjust.


@ Bob - I remember when Bill Gates made some remark about never needing more than 256K of RAM...

I'd prefer higher bitrate, sharper, cleaner video. Since the cost is not excessive over buying something only capable of HD, and the technical side of it is doable, why not? I bought a cheap 4K TV for a monitor - I have 4x the workspace vs. 2x "HD" monitors, am getting more done, my photos look phenomenally better, it's easier on my eyes, and oh yeah, the 4K video looks HUGELY better than the HD...

Benefits of cropping to reframe are obvious, and I've actually DE-acquired gear in the process, as a single 4K camera can easily cover for 2-3 HD cameras in a multicam shoot scenario... after I get done selling off gear I won't need anymore, I actually will come out ahead in the $$ department!

Did I "need" the upgrade... I suppose not, but if you tried to take it away, I do believe I'd have to hurt you! There are HUGE benefits I did NOT expect in the 4K upgrade process...

I don't NEED to eat a nice breakfast of steak and eggs, a bowl of oatmeal will "do"... but the choice is sort of obvious if you've had both and the option is available and affordable/feasible within budget.

SO what was your point again?