Will 4K cameras be practical for weddings?

[Ivan Hurtado]

Originally Posted by 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.

2K is fine with careful shooting. I'm sure Whedon doesn't go applying stabilization when he can go around with a steadicam team. For us it may mean the difference between a usable shot or one with the photographer in the middle; or even a shake-fest trying to get an unexpected moment that otherwise would be unwatchable.

We buy things based on future experiences, and as Dave said, if it means less cameras to carry, less tripods, no stabilizer and a positive income due to getting rid of things with a higher value than next year, then sure, I don't need 4k for the same reason I don't need a new camera. But I want it. Now. Cue Queen.

[Nigel Barker]

I'm not convinced by the argument that you will replace 2-3 HD cameras with a single 4K & then just crop in post to reframe. The shots will still be from one camera position & won't look like three cameras just one that zooms in & out. Even then it's not going to look the same as a single camera with shots taken with different focal lengths as it will all need to be deep DoF.

Same goes for stabilisation. Software stabilisation only goes so far & is no substitute for doing wobble free in the first place. It can do a good job but often their are weird distortion effects on the background as a side effect.

[Noa Put]

It's clear that for wedding shooters and specifically solo shooters 4K does have advantages in the cropping department but I am with Nigel it does have it limitations, they won't replace multiple camera's, only add extra framing options, in continuous recordings a 2 camera set up will give you a versatility in choosing extra focallengths, eventhough the dof won't change it can come in handy to crop out certain parts on unmanned camera's (like if you are standing in the frame yourself) or to just get a better frame when your camera was not completely set up straight or the framing was off, you can easily correct framing mistakes that do occur.

I would be interested though seeing a ceremony shot with just one camera set wide and then use the cropping ability to simulate a multicam set up. for instance, I have a wedding next week in a very small chapel that seats only 25 people, I have been told I can only shoot from the back from a fixed position and wonder how that would look like in 4K shooting wide and do my thing in post. 4k in a 1080p projects will give obvious advantages to solo shooters, but I think we should be careful not to become lazy and think that we can just all do it in post. 4K will give you extra options in post but I don't think I would change my shooting style but would be happy knowing I can cover up framing mistakes and have extra framing options.

Stabilising in post is also something that will improve certain shots but it will introduce other unwanted artifacts and it will never match the natural looking stabilisation of my sony cx730's.

[Nigel Barker]

In 1920x1080 I quite often reframe by introducing a slight crop to improve the image (as per Noa to exclude junk from round the edges of the frame so it's more aesthetically pleasing) & I acknowledge that you will haven more scope to do that with 4K but it's not going to be the game changer that some proponents imagine.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Let's take the typical stage show with multiple "zones", or wedding shoot with a "wide", a tight shot here and there on the B&G, and let's toss in a couple speakers or musicians or whatever up front, but off to one side or the other.... Sort of like the shot Noa is looking forward to!

Sure, you can try to be on top of who will be where and when (we know that's always predictable)... OR have a wide shot that can be cropped in as needed. DoF does not NEED to be shallow, or DSLR like - you want to have the shot. Presuming your camera placement and height is right, ONE 4K camera will cover.

This frees the single op up for moving and getting other angles and even some shallow Dof creative stuff if you want. Or get lazy, I suppose <wink>. If you do get lazy, well, your "post" will be "interesting"...


I don't know that I'd want to rely on stabilizing in post - 4K (especially 30p) is much more sensitive to motion, and presents some challenges when shooting - there is SOME downside to the high level of detail. And for whatever reason RS/skew are worse with the increase in resolution - probably due to the longer read time for more "lines". I'm sure this will improve over time, anything available today is "1st generation", and if there weren't some potential "gotchas" in the mix, it would be quite a surprise.


A 4K cam is just another tool. Potentially useful, with the right approach. Or could be useless if it doesn't fit your particular style. Practical may be different for different people...

[Bob Drummond]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

....A 4K cam is just another tool. Potentially useful, with the right approach. Or could be useless if it doesn't fit your particular style. Practical may be different for different people...

Well said. I agree completely. But I do disagree with this idea that you need to switch to 4K if you don't want to be left behind.

I don't think it is fair to take the switch from 1080p (or 2K) to 4K and compare it to the switch from SD to HD. They're not really comparable. In the US at least, "SD" mostly meant interlaced and 4x3 and 480 (or less) lines of resolution

Now let's talk HD and above. On a modern television in the 50 to 60 inch range, the difference between 720p and 1080p is often difficult to discern. On a cinema sized screen, most of us would be hard pressed to see the difference between a 2K image and a 4K image unless we watched them side-by-side. Hell, 35mm projection, hailed as the gold standard of image quality for most of our lives, would have been at 2K or less once it got to the release print stage.

If I get "left behind" with HD and 2K, I'll be left behind with the Lord of the Rings and everything shot on the Arri Alexa. That's fine company for me.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Have you actually LOOKED at 4K samples vs HD?? On any sort of proper display (even a 1920x1080 one), the difference is obvious.

Even downrezzed, starting with 4K, the HD ends up looking better and sharper... one might argue it as "really good HD", since many "HD" cameras really aren't even resolving full HD...

I don't buy for a second that "the difference between 720p and 1080p is often difficult to discern" unless there are lots of other reasons that the image quality is not there.

I can easily see the difference between a 720 LCD panel and a proper 1080 one, most everyone either can already spot it, or be educated quickly to where the difference cannot be unseen. Sure, to someone unaware, it's just another image, but if you actually happen to care about image quality...


As I've already stated, when I was considering 4K the big question mark was what the heck to use as a monitor - 4K monitors and TV's are bloody expensive?! I had heard about the Seiki 39" before, and seen it around $400... that's not TOO pricey, I snagged a lightly used one for less. Took a lot of tweaking and adjustment, but it's noticeably sharper than my old 1920x1080 monitors, I would rank it a HUGE improvement both easy on the eyes, and for productivity from having more desktop space to work with. It cost a LOT less than ONE of my old monitors did many moons ago. All in all, a VERY good investment even if I wasn't trying to get 4K video capability in the upgrade!!

So tell me again how it's difficult to discern the difference?? Unless your eyes are a LOT worse than mine (not too likely), I find that hard to comprehend...


If your argument is that older content shot in 2K or HD or SD, or black & white is still valid, that's fine, I love old B&W TV reruns and bad old SciFi movies... CONTENT does not become less entertaining or worthwhile just because it was recorded with what was best and available at the time...

But let's say for a moment you are doing some "once in a lifetime" thing - do you want it memorialized on a cell phone, or something better? Either way, it's "captured", right? So who cares whether it was shot in SD, HD, 4K, 8K or holo-cam? Does it really matter?

Bottom line, just SHOOT! But use the best tools available...


I'm not going to say that anyone HAS to jump to 4K, but experience tells me it's coming up fast, and my eyes tell me it's an entirely different viewing experience (one everyone can appreciate, unlike 3D). To invest in a camera to upgrade/replace one (or two) already in use that can be sold for a good part of the upgrade cost makes sense to me. And I'll get better video in the bargain.

[Bob Drummond]

Dave, for the seventeenth time, I agree with you that 4K is an interesting tool that may be of use, depending on your workflow, style, gear, etc. And I also understand the benefits of shooting at a higher resolution than you deliver. My Canon C100s downsample a 4K sensor to create a lovely 1080p image.

And I'm not talking about 720p "panels" vs. 1080p ones. I'm saying sitting about 10 feet away from my decent Samsung 55" 1080p LCD TV, comparing a blu-ray copy of a film to a high-bitrate 720p rip and a 1080p rip of the same film--the differences are negligible. Yes, the blu-ray looks best, the 1080p rip looks better, and the 720p rip looks good. They all look good. There is not a dramatic difference.

In a cinema, who the heck knows what we're seeing? Even if the theater advertises that is has 4K projectors, you're probably watching something shot in 2K. And if it was shot at a higher resolution, chances are it was finished in 2K. Once in a blue moon you may actually see a movie that was shot, mastered and projected in 4K. But you wouldn't know for sure unless you scoured the internet for articles about each film's post-production pipeline.

But they all look good.

[Edward Calabig]

4K will eventually be practical, but the lack of decent cameras for it right now makes me think it's not quite there yet. A RED is not practical to bring to a wedding and the image from the GH4 is still looks like "video" with ugly highlights and doesn't grade well. The A7S will require an external recorder.

I'm excited for 4k but it doesn't fit the profile for a practical video camera for weddings... yet.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Edward Calabig

4K will eventually be practical, but the lack of decent cameras for it right now makes me think it's not quite there yet. A RED is not practical to bring to a wedding and the image from the GH4 is still looks like "video" with ugly highlights and doesn't grade well. The A7S will require an external recorder.

I'm excited for 4k but it doesn't fit the profile for a practical video camera for weddings... yet.

Well as I'm using a GH4, very successfully and being very pleased with both footage and grading, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. 4k in the right situation has proved very useful, so is it practical for Weddings? Definately. Given the extra workflow and time rendering, I'd hardly use it for Weddings if it wasn't. Now if the question is whether 4k will take off as a future standard for video, this I can't say.

[Jeff Harper]

How familiar this thread is beginning to sound. It feels like Groundhog Day. That's the problem with getting old. Everything becomes so familiar and repetitive.

Most of us do agree that the questions is not whether 4K is coming but when. Correct?

It was fun this morning to look up some old SD vs HD threads. As I recall I was on the wrong side of that argument. In my defense I felt threatened. I had a huge investment in my Sony 4:3 cameras.

Anyway, the following quote is from 2006:

Originally Posted by Chris M. Watson

Anyway don't shoot in HD unless you're ready to switch and definately don't watch said footage until you're ready to edit in it. You pretty much get ruined after that :).

Agreed. Chris' statement applies today. Don't shoot in 4K until you're ready to switch, because you will be ruined after that :).

Also from 2006:

Originally Posted by Richard Zlamany

We shoot anywhere from 1 to 6 weddings a week and nobody has asked for 16x9.

To us 16x9 is overrated unless you are going to the actual movie house.

Our studio just picked up another pd170.

:)

Originally Posted by Sheldon Blais

Only Videographers and technofiles care about this type of stuff....lol

The average bride and groom, just want it to look better than the 1-chip camera that they use.

SD is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Dan Minor

I think because we as videographers get so caught up in the technology that we think our clients actually care. My clients could care less about 16:9

Just ask Glen Elliot. I know for a fact some of his best stuff was shot 4:3 with a Sony.

It seems like it was only yesterday that the debate between SD & HD and 16:9 vs 4:3 raged.

My money is tight, I am doing very few weddings and will be doing less every year. But once I shot with a 4K camera, I sent back my new HD camera and got a second 4K. It's just very cool to have the flexibility in post.

Looking ahead, it's sad to think that the window for having the advantage of cropping 4K is limited. Once everyone has 4k televisions, then we cannot take advantage of the cropping that 4K offers when one is producing 1080 videos, at least as we can now.

[Jeff Harper]

My favorite quote from 2006:

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott

I...have yet to "see" a difference.

When it comes down to it the resolution issue is probably the LAST thing about HD that would factor into reasoning for a switch and paying a prime for the newer technology.

[Noa Put]

It will come eventually for me, only not this and next year, it toke me 3 years before I went for SD to HD and by the time I did all workflow problems had been ironed out, there was plenty of user experience to be found online and for every problem ever happened a solution or workaround had been found so if you had an issue an answer was just round the corner.

A big advantage from a business point of view (when you do weddings) is that if you wait, prizes of current camera's will come down, if you buy such a camera just before a new one comes out you can save quite a lot of money. Same applies for the pc you have, my current pc gives me a very fast workflow for 1080p but it will have more problems with a few layers of 4K. The one I use now is about a 1,5 year old and will have to last me at least 1,5 year more, by then a midrange pc will have the same performance as a high end now at a lower price so you again will save money. By then you also will know any hidden camera issues by the many user responses so you can make a better judgment on buying a camera.

I have to say the past weeks after seeing all those gh4 and ax100 videos from users I almost had pressed the (pre)order button but then I had a conversation with myself to ask if I really NEED a 4K camera right now or just WANT one, as the answer was the second I decided to invest my money in the meantime in other things i need.

So investmentwise 2016 would be the best time for me to replace my pc, camerabodies, tv, mediaplayers that can stream 4K and make the complete switch to 4K, I would save the most money and have an easy transition and happy clients eventhough I know that for every trailer I will show here the next 2 years many will say it's not that sharp. :)

[Bob Drummond]

I really don't think it's fair to compare the SD-to-HD transition to the transition from HD to 4K+. SD was nowhere near the quality of large screen cinema projection. 4K on the other hand is greater actual resolution than standard cinema projection.

But I'll happily accept 4K in my next camera. I just don't think it is ever going to make me a better videographer or help me book one extra wedding.

[Jeff Harper]

The transition time for 4K will take a few years.

The transition will be marked by less grief than what occurred during the transition from SD to HD, because the transition is simpler, IMO. Many videographers have been through the previous transition and know what questions to ask when considering the move.