Leaderboard

I understand that 4k gives better resolution, dynamic range and colour than 1080 - and that these benefits are transferred when 4k is downscaled to 1080 in post. But I don't understand why this is an argument for 4K for people who don't need 4K output. Surely those people would benefit much more if the greater processing power and bitrate was put into a better 1080p codec (e.g. like the Pocket's prores). They would then get the benefit of the larger files in the form of grading latitude, rather than just chucking away information from their very full cards as soon as they got home. Wouldn't they? Personally I'd rather chuck that information away after I've done something useful with it, like a bit of colour correction. I'm not hearing a lot of people complaining that the Pocket isn't 4K. I am however hearing a lot of people complaining that the Pocket is a pain in the a**e to use. Imagine if Panasonic put BMPCC-like tech inside a GH3. We'd all go completely wild. Why isn't that the immediate future? With 4K it just seems to me like we'll be starting the whole H264 journey again, just at a higher level. Why not make HD the best it can be before moving on to 4K? The whole thing smells a lot like the megapixel race to me and, to be honest, the ugly side of capitalism. Anyway, this is my question: Leaving aside reframing options, why is compressed 4K better than high bitrate 1080 for those who don't need 4K output? Just to be clear, this is a genuine question. I am genuinely hoping to learn something. I am not being pointlessly antagonistic in the hope of rubbing someone up the wrong way. That's just the card I was dealt at birth - to forever write forum posts that elicit the wrath of Hades.

Strange article. Feels like you are sucked up in the resolution hype after all... If you were talking about raw I would understand your points of view. After all we are all being fooled by the big companies. And we learned truths because of magic lanterns revelations. That relatively cheap camera's did hide a much better quality. It is the codec that is keeping us in the dark ages, partly. The main reason of all the frustration is that sony, canon etc, is protecting there product lines. Canon will not build a good moire and aliasing free (cheap) dslr because they build the c300 line. No company will do that. There will be no full frame sensor aliasing free for a long time. Even the rebels that promised us so much like Red. They all got sucked up by the big money. 4k won't solve this. But I understand why you think it does... 4k does not allow room for moire aliasing etc. Perhaps. But now everyone wants the new sony 4k cam, even if it produces interlaced. Even if it does not have an interchangeble lens, no large sensor. We don't care anymore because hey... it is 4k. So new rebels won't even think of building a 1080p raw full frame sensor camera. We all will cry that is is such a pity it isn't 4k!

Things like bit depth really matter for post. I can approximate higher bit depth by downsampling from higher resolution, but the individual precision of each pixel remains the same. So in certain cases, you won't pickup subtle changes in tone. And all else being equal, down-sampling does not afford you better dynamic range. And 4K raw is still way too much data, so you will lose something by going to 4K. As for content delivery, almost eveyone is still stuck below 1080p (besides Blu-Ray). iTunes, Netflix, Cable, almost all of their HD looks like heavily compressed 720p or 1080i. The Canon c300 is a special case, because it uses its 4K sensor not just to down-sample intelligently, but to minimize motion artifacts. Most of the 4K cameras that are going to come out won't be using the same process, and therefore won't get the same benefit from a 4K sensor.

Mirrorless camera sales in the US have slipped because in Japan they have a "smaller is smarter" mentality and love novelty, but in the US it is a "bigger is better" culture and people equate something like a Nikon D4 with quality, because of the heft and substantial size.   The biggest mistake the mirrorless market continues to make (even the Sony A7R) is that they are focussed around small size.   Mirrorless is the future direction of all cameras because digital technology is the successor to mechanical and optical technology. The mirror is not going to still be flapping up and down in 100 years time, we will have EVFs so good as they will resolve far more than an optical viewfinder and give us super-vision, better than our own eyes can see, especially in low light conditions.   Instead of driving home the fact that mirrorless is a POWERFUL technology and DSLRs are a past tech, the Japanese manufacturers gave us cute little GF cameras and dinky PENs. Ridiculous.   Only now are they on the right path going high end, but Sony are still trying to downsize their FE mount lenses at the expense of lovely fast apertures, and Olympus are still adding gimmicks on their high end cameras, and none of them have an answer to the workhorse pro cameras like the 1D X and D4. At least not for stills.   I have always found a use for mirrorless cameras because the video has often been better - both in terms of image quality and features. That hasn't changed.

I'm going with 4K too , I'm sticking with Panasonic as they make great cameras that just work , plus most of my glass is optomised for m4/3 So roll on gh4 or what ever they call it

@ch_d I'm considering cut up a rubber lens hood or trying to craft some sort of cover to stop dust getting in the gap of the close focus modded isco. I haven't been able to dream up a viable solution as yet.

Pfff. An excuse has it's roots in the mind, and nowhere else. Once you got the desired equipment, the bar rises. This is the most funny and sad reason why people want to have better resolution. They are not looking for better quality, they are looking for better excuses. Did you know: Already ten years back there was a White Paper about resolutions for digital cinema, and they said, at 10k presumably all artifacts pointing to the technical structure of the image had disappeared, and from then on an image would not only represent reality, it could then faithfully reproduce reality - only that this never was the goal of cinema! Let me literally quote the conclusion of the lengthy pdf: If you have no imagination, if you are not inventive and are just too hollow inside to produce content, you should subscribe to the automatic resolution increase into eternity. Someone a few days back sold an >Angenieux, saying in the Ebay description that it was one of the two famous Barry Lyndon lenses. Stanley Kubrick had by then made two "UHD"-films already (Spartacus and 2001), but now he cropped the negativ for the sake of this zoom, as much as he sacrificed sharpness and resolution for the sake of his lowlight-Zeiss. > the film was about the same time as Jaws and Star Wars. Those cost below 10 million $ then, Barry Lyndon cost 18 million. > Kubrick spent years to make this film. Does this tell you something?

I got my GH2 from B&H online. I likely would have anyhow but there is literally no place for a normal consumer to buy one here, in a decent sized city, or GH3 if I was to look now. Panasonic just isn't a popular enough brand here for anything but consumer A/V equipment. I had a devil of a time trying to find a back-up battery some months ago and ended up, after half a day's search, finding a small shop that carried this generic brand (that lasted half as long with no feedback to the LCD, but I wasn't about to be picky that day). They were a rental house with a small retail space up front so it was a good guess that if they had a GH2 rental package they might carry some replacement batteries. Mailorder has decimated the local camera shops and exchanges who have pretty much all shut down save for one good sized store. I just loathe to go in there because when I do I'm usually looking for something mildly unusual and the retail monkeys just look at me like I'm speaking in tongues. I kept trying to think of different ways to describe a "lens collar" to this one guy and you'd think I was asking him for a warp drive.

It's really not about the 4K that's important. it's the new processors and technological improvements that will be innovated to support 4K will bring superior image quality. And having good equipment forces your to create better content. It doesn't allow you to make excuses because of your equipment.

for fully resolving a pair of lines (one black, and one white), 2 rows of pixels should be used, right? Nope, 4 rows needed because of Bayer pattern: blue,green,blue,green. so in matter of resolution, 4k is not actually 4k, let alone 1080p. so 2 megapixel Sigma Foveon like sensor (3 layered color filter), has potential to be equal to bayer 4k. BUT, its insane to make 2 megapixel Full Frame sensor, cause every single one of pixels will have a massive area, almost 17um x 17um. that will heavily suffer from electron overflowing, and you need a thick dark ND filter for your every outdoor shot. what we lack right now, is not resolution. we lack Acuity. colors are not correct, much of that is based on mathematical guess, thanks to demosaicing, edges are soft for exactly same reason. lots of moire and false data. 4k isnt going to solve all of these, but downscaling, a decent downscaling, can give us some of that acuity we are lacking right now. the problem is, there is no camera equipped with "Built-in Best-in-Class hardware-accelerated downscaler". all the processing is on your own (PC) shoulder. otherwise, why should I care if gazillion pixels has been read out to give me my sweet 1080p?

Nice post. On top of this, when everyone has changed to 4K camera's, more things will change. Our clients will 'demand' 4K. 'Why can't you shoot my wedding in 4K? My uncle has a smartphone which shoots 4K!' It's the new 'Megapixel' for people without technical understanding. That means that we, as film makers, have to upgrade to not only 4K camera's, but also to 4K monitors, editing hardware and software, and the like. At the same time, Hollywood keeps pumping out glorious images which have been shot at the 2K-Alexa. And I have never, ever heard someone say 'Nice movie, but wasn't sharp enough' after watching Alexa footage on an 40m wide cinema screen. For me, I wish they would focus on good 1080p.

It works if the lens has an external OIS switch, at least it does on my 14-45 OIS lens.

I too am somewhat sceptical. Don't forget the electronics giants have spent the best part of the last 5 years desperately trying to REDUCE the output quality of their 1080p cameras. The specification on the side of the box has been meaningless. Here are some of the tricks that have been played: - Record only in non-standard 30.00 fps (Canon) - Record only 24fps or 25fps, depending on region (Sony, Panasonic) - No manual aperture control in movie mode (Canon, Nikon) - No manual ISO control in movie mode (Nikon) - Deliberately introduce timing artefacts into HDMI out (Panasonic) - Overlays on HDMI out (Canon, Nikon, Sony) - High bit-rate mode which results on a higher spec on the box but no improvement in quality due to inferior codec (Canon, Panasonic)

more information has always been the future of things. being it more color depth, higher resolution, higher framerates or less aggresive codecs. everybody should decide for themselves what makes the most sense to upgrade first. this also depends on what youre producing for. somebody making internet films doesnt have big advantages from mastering in 4k, because most of the people dont even watch the films in 1080p full screen. in a youtube-sized videoplayer (not fullscreen) 1080p video looks razor sharp either way, why not upgrade something else first that makes more sense in this context, like dynamic range And i have to absolutely disagree with Andrew saying that "4K means more Dynamic Range", as there is no technological aspect proving this, since its only a Resolution-based standard. The fact that those cameras who offer 4k right now have higher dynamic range than the average 1080p cam is a totally different story. see for yourself what makes most sense to upgrade first. i would much rather have a 10bit 1080p picture than a 8bit 4k picture as of right now...

Of course reviewers can have an opinion FINE But if its an ulterior motive IE Reward Revenge Snobbery then trust is lost and fine they can go on and on this way but soon not to many will listen. Being Neutral and fair is the aim of most good reviewers even if it comes at a cost to themselves. But when is a lie a lie? When you heap praise on a cameras strengths and downplay the weaknesses? When you downplay the strengths and overdo the weaknesses? Is that a lie? Often it can be hidden as an opinion But when does it become so obvious people question it then doubts set in about the reliability of the reviewer to give you information needed to make a decision. You can put up all the disclaimers you like But the only reason people are tuning in is because they want help in choosing and deciding and for those in that position like Bloom, money can be made from advertising. So why would advertisers bother giving money if it wasn't going to make them money. Because IT DOES. So who is the reviewer going to favour Those paying him or those who don't answer questions or give the time of day? In the case of the Bolex Bloom has invested I don't see any ads for BM cameras on his site but what I do seem to be seeing is a skewed review in favour of the Bolex. Money is being made from those reading the reviews If the review is skewed then the people buying those products suffer.

I would want good 1080p first, like blackmagic prores 1080p and such for very low price. I think most of the first 4K consumer cameras will have some bullshit codec with low color depth, low bitrate and sharpening pushed to the max.

This is what I don't get though. We don't have to have bad 1080 any more. None of the major manufacturers has released an affordable 10bit 4:2:2 1080p camera. It sounds like that step is going to be jumped. We're going to go straight to 4K. I can't imagine why this is something to celebrate. If it's simply that 4K uses the full sensor of a stills camera, then I have to say it sounds like it's time to start asking for video-only cameras with DSLR specs (and prices!) from the major manufacturers.

Image quality is improved everywhere, at the cost of having to deal with ever more redundant data. 12 or 14bit raw for 8bit already means having - at least! - a ratio of 10:1 between capture and delivery. But we asked for it. We complained about the heavy compression of the consumer codecs, and bingo!, we got alternatives. I don't think that 4k TV sets will soon be a standard (the net, as explained above, goes with brilliant 720p rather, and television is likely to move from broadcasting to VOD in the not-so-distant future, 4k cinema, though it was predicted long ago, will remain an exception), so 4k then means the better 1080p/720p. Hollywood meanwhile seems to use 4k a lot, as the better 2k. Even Peter Jackson mastered The Hobbit in 2k. Of course computers considered fast 2 years ago for their ability to unpack AVCHD in real time and add a lot of effects now don't suffice. Why store all this redundant data in the first place? The answer is intelligent media management and Thunderbolt2. One can still believe 4k to be a hype created by the industry to sell the next generation of crippled hardware. I tend to subscribe to that view. On the other hand, 4k will become pretty affordable. It's just a matter of staying aware that not every 4k camera will be better than a good 1080 DSLR or raw camera.

Philip Bloom had a lengthy blog on this back in October here is the link and his pros and converts philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/ Now the pros and cons of 4k PROS: Incredibly detailed images, 4 times that of HD but they are not obviously so. Fantastic ability to crop in post. Something I do on all my interviews for docs now that I shoot 4k for them. I am not shooting 4k docs – just 4k talking heads. I can then go in for tights or back out whenever I want in the edit. Way better. “Future proof†I am bit hesitant about this as I see very little need for future proofing most of my work. Now for high end drama and big docs then yes. Do it. You have a higher end format to sell to clients. Sometimes an advantage. Not always though…see cons. Scaling down to 2K in post often yields quite stunning results. CONS: Inefficient codec mean massive files. Even efficient ones are pretty big, which means expensive cards and lots of storage. Inability to edit natively for the vast majority of people. Proxies are used which of course adds time. Most production companies I have dealt with cannot take it. Almost nobody can actually watch 4k (yet). I can’t. It can lead to lazy cinematography. Although I use the crop to help me in interviews, this is not due to being lazy but to give me options. You should never forget the tight shots because you can crop. The whole aesthetic changes. The depth of field remains the same so it doesn’t look like a true close up You need to be even more skilled, as mistakes are easier to spot. Incredibly unforgiving and harsh. Showing the flaws in everything, especially people. Fantastic for beauty shots etc..for drama it’s actually too detailed and causes the DP many issues. Needs a really big screen to really see the difference. Will it actually take off as a consumer format for the home? I am very pessimistic about this.

just seen American Hustle and they do love those steady cam shots , its a superb film!! very rich colours in the grade too ...go see!

I don't know what it's like in Europe, but here in America, Panasonic's upscale cameras are not readily available in retail outlets. Not only are they absent from the "big box" American retail companies like Target, WalMart, etc., but they have limited display space in actual camera shops where the enthusiast's spend their money. In my city, San Diego, there are 4 reputable camera stores that cater to the hobbyist market. None of them sell the upmarket Panasonic cameras. A few point and shoot cams on the shelves of the consumer stores, but that's it. Fuji has a bigger presence here than Panasonic. Bad sales are not for the lack of good product, IMHO. They just don't have the penetration in retail. From where I'm sitting, it's all on the sales distribution regarding the bad numbers. It's not the feature set. I'm going to disagree with Atkin's assessment. Correlating bad sales to the product features might not be the actual causation. That said, I don't expect Panasonic to go away with their product line anytime soon. Because I believe that, I just bought two Panasonic m43 cameras and four m43 prime lenses. I expect the cams to easily get 4 years of use for the gigs I do. That's a fair investment. The lenses should have life well beyond that as other companies continue development of m43 camera bodies that support 4K video. If you want to be a "glass is half full" kind of person, you could even rationalize that these numbers might be good for Panasonic's development. If the m43 camera division needs to grab headlines because of slumping sales, perhaps really unleashing and pushing the video capabilities of their sensors will be a useful tool; mixed with proper marketing and dealership.

Do people realise that blogs are an opinion and that an opinion is entitled to be in favour of something?   It isn't always about being objective.   Personal opinions matter a lot.   Unless the skewing is for reasons other than just liking something.   When people criticise Philip Bloom for example, for being skewed in favour of a camera, it's his opinion and he can be biased if he wants. It's his choice to use what he likes. We all have our personal reasons for using something in the end...

Especially since he doesn't light, generally speaking. Being able to see where he can use available light to artistic effect is some kung fu he's really strong in.

1) Hire an experienced producer. 2) Hire an accountant. 3) Get a Production budget. 4) Talk to camera rental/ sales house. 5) Listen to their recommendations. 6) Get a package deal.

2 x Red Epic Dragons 1 x Kowa anamorphic set Massively impractical, completely pointless and it will probably bankrupt you. Might be fun though. :) Or just keep the money, move to Cuba and change your name to Miguel.