Jump to content

What is music's equilvalent to "4K is the best!"


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

 Just shoot in 4K and make him happy :).

That's the answer.  Simple.

4k is dime a dozen these days.  If you have client demand just get a 4k camera and instantly increase your credibility.

My problems at work are a lot more complex than this.  If all I had to do was shoot 4k to make my problems go away I would consider myself blessed.  Heck I would have been shooting 4k years ago and TELLING clients they need it and they need to pay a premium for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

That's the answer.  Simple.

4k is dime a dozen these days.  If you have client demand just get a 4k camera and instantly increase your credibility.

Sure, if you just want "4K" and don't care about the compromises then they're dirt cheap. 

But what if you want one or more of raw, ProRes, high FPS, ND filters, timecode, DPAF, SDI, etc then you'll have to pay a pretty penny for the premium of 4K vs a very affordable 1080 version instead. 

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

If you're looking for something where the presence of it was previously only available at the highest end so was also a reasonably good indicator of overall performance but when incorporated into cheap products is not only not a magic bullet but can be completely rendered pointless by the rest of the junk that makes up the product?

Got to be the resurrection of valve mic pre-amps for me . 

On both points, nailed it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronFilm said:

Sure, if you just want "4K" and don't care about the compromises then they're dirt cheap. 

But what if you want one or more of raw, ProRes, timecode, DPAF, SDI, etc then you'll have to pay a pretty penny for the premium of 4K vs a very affordable 1080 version instead. 

BMPCC 4k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronFilm said:

A camera that doesn't (yet) exist and still will mean a compromise in a few of the areas.

The camera was announced and put in the hands of journalists back in April at NAB.  You can preorder it now.  It exists.  They even recorded 4k to a SSD via USB C in an auditorium full of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

There where numerous debates in the late 90s about bit depth & sampling frequency in audio. The majority of professional audio engineers today will agree that a 24 bit, 96 khz audio recording is more than enough for music, except sound design applications where you may want to slow down the recording. With a proper parallelism, a musician will get this. A 1080p video will be totally "fine" for every web application just as 16 bit/44khz will be more than enough for an audio track that will end up in Spotify or Soundcloud in a shitty audio codec.

But if your client/musician are one of those guys who are considering analog equipment as superior due to it's "warmer" sound, or he is trying to justify a 10000 $ investment in a single rack audio unit which magically adds wonderful harmonics on a poorly mastered track, then don't try to explain anything. Just shoot in 4K and make him happy :).

 

Yup, due to the nature of audio vs video computing demands, the progressing edge of technology hit the limits of human abilities (to hear/see a difference) for audio long long long before that happened in the video world (it is only just now starting to happen in the obtainable mid range cameras, & arguably has already happened for the high end).

10 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

The camera was announced and put in the hands of journalists back in April at NAB.  You can preorder it now.  It exists.  They even recorded 4k to a SSD via USB C in an auditorium full of people.

Yes, I know that, but still isn't applicable for a person who wants to record 4K *today*.

 

And like I said, it still has limitations that doesn't exist in some other sub $3K 1080 cameras. So while I'm very sure the BMPCC will be a great camera it isn't the perfect answer for everything 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Is that a good analogy though? Seeing as we often go higher than 4.0 now

 

Also 4K is in this discussion about the capture tech not the delivery format. 

 

 

+1

4k is not even a capture tech - it's just a sampling rate. '4k' can be HD 8bit 4.2.0 in a 25mbps badly compressed codec up sampled or it can be derived from 8k RAW 4.4.4 16bit. It's not a standard of image quality at all unless you start referencing broadcast standards where resolution, chroma sub sampling, bit depth and data rate are objectified and testable criteria. Thus a client who requests '4k' in image terms is like a client who requests 'hi-fi' sound in audio terms.......

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution is to ask them what their delivery format is: If it's the internet, then 90% of people will be watching on their phones/tablets (are there any 4K capable phones/tablets?) & so the increased resolution is absolutely pointless; If it's TV, then standard broadcast is HD not 4K, so again pointless; If it's cinema, then yes it's worth it, but come on!

You could also state that the majority of Film trailers are HD on the internet & if it's good for them....only Netflix/Amazon show stuff in 4K & they don't do music videos full stop.

If it's a band with loads of money, charge them more (do tell them it's going to cost them more money for 4K), then take their money and run. If they haven't got loads of money, then state that there is added cost of shooting in 4K - it's the editing/storage time etc... Money always speaks & push this with the Manager, as they are always out to save cash & are normally more level headed than the band, who tend to think they're going to get a Hollywood movie on a budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I thought about this too. Although it's almost impossible to hear the difference in 96 and 48. 4K does improve image quality if you're looking for pure detail at close range.

Sure. That's a mere comparison though. Sound and image don't compare at all as much as hearing and sight are senses of a very different nature. With much distinct limits indeed. See the example between animal species of unrelated kind as far as their sensory system range concerns.

Therefore, perception is the main key element then. That's all about that.

Fair point anyway, Aaron (E :- ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yes, I know that, but still isn't applicable for a person who wants to record 4K *today*.

And like I said, it still has limitations that doesn't exist in some other sub $3K 1080 cameras. So while I'm very sure the BMPCC will be a great camera it isn't the perfect answer for everything 

Rent.

Rent whatever camera you need right now and buy a BMPCC 4k in September.  Simple.

$3K is peanuts.  If someone came to me with a HOT business idea but they said they couldn't afford to spend any more than $3K on their most critical tool I would pass on that amazing opportunity.

People need to get serious about their craft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Thus a client who requests '4k' in image terms is like a client who requests 'hi-fi' sound in audio terms.......

I put -1 against my previous comments and replace them with agreeing with the above.  This is completely it.

Hi-fi used to mean something back in the day but now it's taken over by mediocre (and occasionally very poor) equipment providers and is now basically a marketing term.  People that used to do hi-fi now either don't use that phrase anymore, or have replaced it with 'high-end audio' or 'ultra-fi' due to the inflation in the term.

Hi-fi used to mean a minimum level of subjective quality across a range of different aspects of sound reproduction, and there were a few things that the technology of the day were weak on, one of which was frequency response.  Then what followed was an arms-race of sorts to get the widest and flattest frequency response, but unfortunately the other things that used to be assumed fell by the wayside in pursuit of this very marketable measurement, and now hi-fi is basically populated with products that do this one measurement well and everything else atrociously poorly.
The kicker is that frequency response (and a few other common 'marketable' measurements like THD) are actually very poor representations of sound quality.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 12:11 AM, Damphousse said:

Rent.

Rent whatever camera you need right now and buy a BMPCC 4k in September.  Simple.

$3K is peanuts.  If someone came to me with a HOT business idea but they said they couldn't afford to spend any more than $3K on their most critical tool I would pass on that amazing opportunity.

People need to get serious about their craft.

Renting vs owning is an entire big debate of its own. 

I feel both renting and owning each have their place, and I do a bit of both. (welllll.... much more owning than renting)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...