Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. at DVinfo.net

Jeff Wisener · July 23rd, 2018, 02:43 AM

I have Vegas Pro 14, i7 chip 8GB ram.

I am in the process of buying a new camera. My choice is either a Sony A6000 that has HD video or a Sony 6300 that has 4K video and slow motion 120fps.

I am shooting surf photography from the water. I was told by a pro photographer that shooting in slow motion stabilizes the movement while videoing thus a plus for the A6300 camera.

Questions:

Will editing become a nightmare in 4k in Vegas?

2. Would it be best to convert 4K to HD prior to editing?

3. Am I better off not to shoot 4k? I will be viewing at home, posting online.

I need some help. If I buy the A6300 camera it is about $350 more. I don't want to buy the A6000 and regret not having slow motion and 4K but at the same time don't want to pay $350 more for an A6300 if I never will shoot in 4k.

Thanks in advance!

Adam Stanislav · July 23rd, 2018, 08:49 AM

Sorry, this sounds like a no-brainer to me: Get the 4k camera and edit 4k in Vegas.

Seth Bloombaum · July 23rd, 2018, 08:59 AM

* 4k delivery is needed in some markets.
* 120fps slowmotion is needed in some markets.
* 4k workflow *can* slow you down, and/or, cause the need for a new computer. You really need a recent generation i7 processor or better. But, short of that, if in workflow trouble, transcoding to HD or to a 4k editing codec is always possible.

If I were shooting surfing and any “extreme” sports, I would DEFINITELY want 120fps slowmo. Totally worth $350 on its own. That’s a 4x slo, with no resolution loss, an easy edit, and no tricky tweening software. IMO that’s more important than 4k right now.

Bear in mind that the 4k cam will likely shoot in HD if that’s needed. And, you’ll really like seeing your from-the-water shots at 4x slowmo!

Noa Put · July 23rd, 2018, 09:58 AM

I don't have a sony a6xxx series but from what I have read and seen the HD mode on this camera is not very good, HD looks a lot softer in detail compared to 4K scaled down, in 4K this camera however produces very detailed images and it will look better when you downscale 4K to HD in post then to shoot HD and edit in HD, you won't be able to shoot at faster framerates then 25p/30p in 4K though.

Also slowmotion doesn't stabilize movement, if there is vibration in the shot you will see it in slow motion as well but when you do slow down you also will slow down the shake in the footage making it appear that it is somewhat smoother.

Another thing to consider is when you shoot surfers in the water the codec of the camera is being stressed a lot meaning it could break down causing artifacts, a camera that can shoot in higher bitrates might be preferable.

Personally I would use a GH5, it's HD is excellent and so is it's stabilization, there are high framerates and high bitrates available to handle more complex scenes.

George Dean · July 23rd, 2018, 03:00 PM

Hi Jeff,

I have a few questions.....

When you say, "I am shooting surf photography from the water", can you clarify this? Are you shooting surfers, or the surf along the shoreline? From the water, are you in a boat, a surfboard, or other watercraft? Is this surf coastal, as in salt water? Are you using a watertight housing? Would a waterproof action cam, something a GoPro Hero 5 be better for this project? Do you need a long lens or wide angle view?

I agree with the other replies, 4K is useful, slow motion as in 90/120/160/180 fps is useful, slow motion does not stabilize, but will somewhat mask some movement, maybe, it depends!

If your current system processes 1080 HD, you can overcome any preview slow down during post with either the use of proxies or intermediate files, editing in 1080 and then swapping out for 4K final delivery render. But as noted, the A6300 will not shoot slow motion in 4K. I'm not familiar with the A6300, but I would sure heed Noa's caution about the A6300 downscaled HD quality be poor and do a lot of research.

I would also agree with Noa's recommendation for a GH5 over the A6000/A6300, but you are going to blow your budget in comparison by a huge margin.

Noa I have a question....

I have a GH4, and any frame rate above 60p is only capable in VFR, such as 96 fps. In mov, this feature starts at 100 mb/s (at 24p), but of course splits the mb/s as the frame rated is boosted, so by the time it gets up to 96 fps the recording is down to 24 mb/s. Is this also how the GH5 achieves the higher 1080p 180 fps? And, if so, what is the recording quality down to, achieving the higher frame rate?

Jan Vanhoecke · July 23rd, 2018, 03:45 PM

There 's more troubles with the 4 K in the a6xxx series combined with speed and action scenes...severe "rolling shutter".
At least buy the a6500, wait for the upcoming (rumoured) a6700 or go Panasonic.

Jeff Wisener · July 23rd, 2018, 10:24 PM

George Dean:

I am shooting from the water, swimming with fins on. If this link below works, you can see a friend, Sidney shooting an A6300 in the video and also see other's shooting in the water the same way.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BldPedeD...=1heghcf4w7mdc

The GH5 looks like a superior camera as do the Sony ARiiiii. If I jumped up to both of those cameras, not only the cost if the camera over doubles, the cost of the water housing goes from $700 to around $1900!

Sidney shoots for a Brazilian TV station and does great videos. He never complained about the rolling problem although I have seen others complain about it online. I think the reason is most of the shots in the water are with the surfer coming towards you thus no panning.

David Peterson · July 24th, 2018, 03:05 AM

What camera do you have currently?

As if you're not locked into the E mount ecosystem already, I'd suggest the cheaper and/or more refined Panasonic mirrorless (such as G7 or G80/G85) instead.

As those Sony A6x00 series have a lot of nasty "gotchas" , which might catch you by surprise, but of course for many people they're still fine workable cameras so long as you're aware of their restrictions

David Peterson · July 24th, 2018, 03:25 AM

Ah I see. Do you really need an interchangeable lens camera then if you're only shooting underwater or in the ocean? As you're not going to be changing your lenses!

if I was you, I'd be considering a Sony RX100 (the RX100 IV is gong for some very sharp prices secondhand!):

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1289597-REG/sony_mpk_urx100a_underwater_housing_for_rx100.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801

https://www.eoshd.com/2015/10/sony-r...erely-a-bonus/

Oh, and where are you seeing a GH5S/GH5 case going for $1.9K??? You can get it for cheaper than that, only eight hundred (and they have one secondhand for just 699!):

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1320772-REG/nimar_nigh5ws_water_sports_housing_for.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801

This is even cheaper:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335433-REG/nimar_nigh5wb_housing_no_port_for.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801

Nate Haustein · July 24th, 2018, 08:44 AM

The HD on the a6300/6500 is just so disappointing in my opinion. Soft, artifacts, yuck. I would never use it on a job and would instead shoot the gorgeous 4k all the time. That being said, the a6300 overheats much sooner than the a6500 in 4K. Another consideration is that when shooting 4K the back LCD screens get VERY dark and are difficult to see in sunlight. With all the gotchas, I still use the a6500 for travel jobs because the 4K looks so great.

Noa Put · July 24th, 2018, 09:15 AM

Quote:

the back LCD screens get VERY dark and are difficult to see in sunlight

I forgot to mention that, this must be the nr one complaint from users at how difficult it is to see anything on the screen in full sunlight.

Rainer Listing · July 25th, 2018, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Peterson

Do you really need an interchangeable lens camera then if you're only shooting underwater or in the ocean?

Totally agree. Ryan Pernofski seems to make a good living shooting from the water just using an iPhone in an AxisGo housing. Stills, but still.

Sam Houchins II · July 28th, 2018, 08:10 PM

4K has the luxury of perfectly reframing your shots when cropping to 1080 later in edit, as well as emulating zooms and tracking.

Shows how little I know, but I thought most of that action stuff in harsh climates was the purview of gopros.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...2855/KBID/3801

Keith Forman · July 30th, 2018, 04:33 PM

No. You should shoot in 10 bit 4:2:2 which is far more important than 4K. Most professional cameras shoot in 10 bit for HD. There is almost no need for 4K for delivery.

Sam Lee · July 31st, 2018, 06:53 PM

I have no luck in getting rid of aliasing artifacts and moire patterns when shot in native UHD scaled down to 1080p. This is clearly seen with couple of DJI UHD cams (DJI Osmo, Phantom). When the camera is set to 1080p, the aliasing is virtually non-existence. Not sure if this is caused by the NLE performing the downconversion. But so far UHD is more troublesome for me when mixing with 1080p media. Perhaps shooting at 400 Mbps - Pro Res Raw will eliminate the aliasing artifacts.

In the real world VOD and streaming content distribution market, 1080i/p still rules. Makes me wonder why do I need to go to debt by going all 4K when the demand is very low?

July 23rd, 2018, 02:43 AM	#1
Jeff Wisener Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oceanside Ca & Bali Indonesia Posts: 158	Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. I have Vegas Pro 14, i7 chip 8GB ram. I am in the process of buying a new camera. My choice is either a Sony A6000 that has HD video or a Sony 6300 that has 4K video and slow motion 120fps. I am shooting surf photography from the water. I was told by a pro photographer that shooting in slow motion stabilizes the movement while videoing thus a plus for the A6300 camera. Questions: Will editing become a nightmare in 4k in Vegas? 2. Would it be best to convert 4K to HD prior to editing? 3. Am I better off not to shoot 4k? I will be viewing at home, posting online. I need some help. If I buy the A6300 camera it is about $350 more. I don't want to buy the A6000 and regret not having slow motion and 4K but at the same time don't want to pay $350 more for an A6300 if I never will shoot in 4k. Thanks in advance!

July 23rd, 2018, 08:49 AM	#2
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. Sorry, this sounds like a no-brainer to me: Get the 4k camera and edit 4k in Vegas.

July 23rd, 2018, 08:59 AM	#3
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. * 4k delivery is needed in some markets. * 120fps slowmotion is needed in some markets. * 4k workflow can slow you down, and/or, cause the need for a new computer. You really need a recent generation i7 processor or better. But, short of that, if in workflow trouble, transcoding to HD or to a 4k editing codec is always possible. If I were shooting surfing and any “extreme” sports, I would DEFINITELY want 120fps slowmo. Totally worth $350 on its own. That’s a 4x slo, with no resolution loss, an easy edit, and no tricky tweening software. IMO that’s more important than 4k right now. Bear in mind that the 4k cam will likely shoot in HD if that’s needed. And, you’ll really like seeing your from-the-water shots at 4x slowmo! __________________ 30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001.

July 23rd, 2018, 09:58 AM	#4
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. I don't have a sony a6xxx series but from what I have read and seen the HD mode on this camera is not very good, HD looks a lot softer in detail compared to 4K scaled down, in 4K this camera however produces very detailed images and it will look better when you downscale 4K to HD in post then to shoot HD and edit in HD, you won't be able to shoot at faster framerates then 25p/30p in 4K though. Also slowmotion doesn't stabilize movement, if there is vibration in the shot you will see it in slow motion as well but when you do slow down you also will slow down the shake in the footage making it appear that it is somewhat smoother. Another thing to consider is when you shoot surfers in the water the codec of the camera is being stressed a lot meaning it could break down causing artifacts, a camera that can shoot in higher bitrates might be preferable. Personally I would use a GH5, it's HD is excellent and so is it's stabilization, there are high framerates and high bitrates available to handle more complex scenes.

July 23rd, 2018, 03:00 PM	#5
George Dean Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Navajo County, Arizona Posts: 109	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. Hi Jeff, I have a few questions..... When you say, "I am shooting surf photography from the water", can you clarify this? Are you shooting surfers, or the surf along the shoreline? From the water, are you in a boat, a surfboard, or other watercraft? Is this surf coastal, as in salt water? Are you using a watertight housing? Would a waterproof action cam, something a GoPro Hero 5 be better for this project? Do you need a long lens or wide angle view? I agree with the other replies, 4K is useful, slow motion as in 90/120/160/180 fps is useful, slow motion does not stabilize, but will somewhat mask some movement, maybe, it depends! If your current system processes 1080 HD, you can overcome any preview slow down during post with either the use of proxies or intermediate files, editing in 1080 and then swapping out for 4K final delivery render. But as noted, the A6300 will not shoot slow motion in 4K. I'm not familiar with the A6300, but I would sure heed Noa's caution about the A6300 downscaled HD quality be poor and do a lot of research. I would also agree with Noa's recommendation for a GH5 over the A6000/A6300, but you are going to blow your budget in comparison by a huge margin. Noa I have a question.... I have a GH4, and any frame rate above 60p is only capable in VFR, such as 96 fps. In mov, this feature starts at 100 mb/s (at 24p), but of course splits the mb/s as the frame rated is boosted, so by the time it gets up to 96 fps the recording is down to 24 mb/s. Is this also how the GH5 achieves the higher 1080p 180 fps? And, if so, what is the recording quality down to, achieving the higher frame rate? __________________ Best Regards.....George

July 23rd, 2018, 03:45 PM	#6
Jan Vanhoecke Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Kaapstad South Africa Posts: 64	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. There 's more troubles with the 4 K in the a6xxx series combined with speed and action scenes...severe "rolling shutter". At least buy the a6500, wait for the upcoming (rumoured) a6700 or go Panasonic.

July 23rd, 2018, 10:24 PM	#7
Jeff Wisener Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oceanside Ca & Bali Indonesia Posts: 158	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. George Dean: I am shooting from the water, swimming with fins on. If this link below works, you can see a friend, Sidney shooting an A6300 in the video and also see other's shooting in the water the same way. https://www.instagram.com/p/BldPedeD...=1heghcf4w7mdc The GH5 looks like a superior camera as do the Sony ARiiiii. If I jumped up to both of those cameras, not only the cost if the camera over doubles, the cost of the water housing goes from $700 to around $1900! Sidney shoots for a Brazilian TV station and does great videos. He never complained about the rolling problem although I have seen others complain about it online. I think the reason is most of the shots in the water are with the surfer coming towards you thus no panning.

July 24th, 2018, 03:05 AM	#8
David Peterson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 361	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. What camera do you have currently? As if you're not locked into the E mount ecosystem already, I'd suggest the cheaper and/or more refined Panasonic mirrorless (such as G7 or G80/G85) instead. As those Sony A6x00 series have a lot of nasty "gotchas" , which might catch you by surprise, but of course for many people they're still fine workable cameras so long as you're aware of their restrictions __________________ http://IronFilm.co.nz/Sound/ (Location Sound Recordist based in New Zealand) http://www.YouTube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

July 24th, 2018, 03:25 AM	#9
David Peterson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 361	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. Ah I see. Do you really need an interchangeable lens camera then if you're only shooting underwater or in the ocean? As you're not going to be changing your lenses! if I was you, I'd be considering a Sony RX100 (the RX100 IV is gong for some very sharp prices secondhand!): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1289597-REG/sony_mpk_urx100a_underwater_housing_for_rx100.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 https://www.eoshd.com/2015/10/sony-r...erely-a-bonus/ Oh, and where are you seeing a GH5S/GH5 case going for $1.9K??? You can get it for cheaper than that, only eight hundred (and they have one secondhand for just 699!): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1320772-REG/nimar_nigh5ws_water_sports_housing_for.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 This is even cheaper: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335433-REG/nimar_nigh5wb_housing_no_port_for.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 __________________ http://IronFilm.co.nz/Sound/ (Location Sound Recordist based in New Zealand) http://www.YouTube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

July 24th, 2018, 08:44 AM	#10
Nate Haustein Trustee Join Date: May 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 1,313	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. The HD on the a6300/6500 is just so disappointing in my opinion. Soft, artifacts, yuck. I would never use it on a job and would instead shoot the gorgeous 4k all the time. That being said, the a6300 overheats much sooner than the a6500 in 4K. Another consideration is that when shooting 4K the back LCD screens get VERY dark and are difficult to see in sunlight. With all the gotchas, I still use the a6500 for travel jobs because the 4K looks so great. __________________ Nate Haustein PXW-FX9 / FCPX www.flightcreativemedia.com

July 28th, 2018, 08:10 PM	#13
Sam Houchins II Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 282	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. 4K has the luxury of perfectly reframing your shots when cropping to 1080 later in edit, as well as emulating zooms and tracking. Shows how little I know, but I thought most of that action stuff in harsh climates was the purview of gopros. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...2855/KBID/3801

July 30th, 2018, 04:33 PM	#14
Keith Forman Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Williamstown Mass Posts: 192	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. No. You should shoot in 10 bit 4:2:2 which is far more important than 4K. Most professional cameras shoot in 10 bit for HD. There is almost no need for 4K for delivery.

July 31st, 2018, 06:53 PM	#15
Sam Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 49	re: Should I use 4K vs HD? I need advice. I have no luck in getting rid of aliasing artifacts and moire patterns when shot in native UHD scaled down to 1080p. This is clearly seen with couple of DJI UHD cams (DJI Osmo, Phantom). When the camera is set to 1080p, the aliasing is virtually non-existence. Not sure if this is caused by the NLE performing the downconversion. But so far UHD is more troublesome for me when mixing with 1080p media. Perhaps shooting at 400 Mbps - Pro Res Raw will eliminate the aliasing artifacts. In the real world VOD and streaming content distribution market, 1080i/p still rules. Makes me wonder why do I need to go to debt by going all 4K when the demand is very low?