Jump to content

Why I am going with 4K and why you should too


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

Is that aimed at me? I guess not because I never made that strange assumption. ^

My comments were originally aimed at the article that states that 4K is better because........
While technically the codec has the capacity to carry an image with higher DR, assuming that one camera is better than the other just because one in 4K and the other isn't is incorrect. I know and you know that the sensor needs to be able to produce the high DR in the first place, many people reading this site to collect knowledge on the subject matter may not.
No point having a codec that can produce 15 or even 20 stops of DR if the sensor in that camera can only provide 12.
The title 'why I'm going 4K and why you should too' seems to suggest that if you but a 4K camera, you will get all the advantages listed. Yes, the codec has the potential but most cameras for now, especially at the consumer level, will not make use of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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 co

I'm of the belief that if greater image quality than what can be had from true fullhd from the black magic pocket, or hacked canon 5dmk3 is required, then it's time to hire a camera for the job.  The

No point having a codec that can produce 15 or even 20 stops of DR if the sensor in that camera can only provide 12.

 

 

The codecs are developed independent of the sensor hardware.  A company could build a 4K sensor that only used 10 steps of dynamic range.  Another company could build 4K sensor that shot 20 steps.  They could both use the same codec for their video.

 

How they implement that codec in their hardware is the thing.  In the meantime, the codec must be licensed with hardware manufacturers and software developers paying a fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

It's like some people have skim read the article. I'm clear that any image quality is camera dependant. Taken in a general sense if you are going to get 4x the data off the sensor and onto the card, you will gain a lot of other attributes if the camera's image processor and codec are up to scratch.

 

For DSLRs to move away from line skipping and binning to a 4K video signal from the sensor, that avoids one of the ways so much dynamic range is lost in the first place, the throwing away of lots of pixel data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments were originally aimed at the article that states that 4K is better because........
While technically the codec has the capacity to carry an image with higher DR, assuming that one camera is better than the other just because one in 4K and the other isn't is incorrect. I know and you know that the sensor needs to be able to produce the high DR in the first place, many people reading this site to collect knowledge on the subject matter may not.

 

I see, that makes more sense. :-) regarding codec, it's the BT2020 specification's transfer curve that it would appear to allow the transport of the wider DR, if available. The codec would preferrably need to be 10bit to distribute those 'stops' over a decent levels range. Why I mentioned we can bet 8bit log maybe some manufacturers choice even.

 

No point having a codec that can produce 15 or even 20 stops of DR if the sensor in that camera can only provide 12.


The title 'why I'm going 4K and why you should too' seems to suggest that if you but a 4K camera, you will get all the advantages listed. Yes, the codec has the potential but most cameras for now, especially at the consumer level, will not make use of it.

 

What a manufacturer chooses to offer in their product line, how they choose to implement 4k is their business, we choose a camera to suit ourselves. The UHD specification of which 4k is a part of, it's not just resolution will it is suggested by smpte and ITU provide the 'space' for the things Andrew lists.

 

The codec is just the transport, codecs take years to develop, time and resources, what codec devs choose to do is their business, if someone's not happy with that there's always the option to join opensource development, write a specification, start a website enthusing over why that persons codec specification is 'better', start a kickstarter whatever or far more realisticly make the choice of whats available within the wider considerations of camera choice and work with what's been offered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer should have been: Because is quickly becoming the new normal. And much quicker than even the host was imagining, since he could not realize that 4k TV were costing already 3/4000 usd when he was assuming they were 20k.

4k playback devices will be blooming all over the place on the next few months.

The new Sony 4k player is costing only 700 USd like a good Blue ray player. The Koreans will do some cheaper version very soon.

Fiber optics in Asian countries is almost a standard at home, in Tokyo cost only 30 dollars per month , including 2 phones lines.

To deal with 4k footage all you need is a faster 2000 dollars PC, with one or two nvidia cards. Of course storage as well.

Big deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like some people have skim read the article. I'm clear that any image quality is camera dependant. Taken in a general sense if you are going to get 4x the data off the sensor and onto the card, you will gain a lot of other attributes if the camera's image processor and codec are up to scratch.

 

For DSLRs to move away from line skipping and binning to a 4K video signal from the sensor, that avoids one of the ways so much dynamic range is lost in the first place, the throwing away of lots of pixel data.

since  I want to shoot 4k…the 5d mark 3 raw and bmpcc are now obsolete??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Samsung: Blu-Ray 4K UHD Standard Could Be Commercialized by End of the Year

 

In a bid to distribute UHD content, Samsung Electronics proposes to use more advanced Blu-ray media that complies with the BDXL standard that supports triple-layer 100GB RE (rewritable) and R (write-once) discs as well as quad-layer 128GB R discs for commercial applications

Another technology that is needed for distribution of 4K movies is high efficiency video coding (HEVC, also known as H.265 and MPEG-H part 2) technology that is used for UHD video compression. Being 51% -74% more efficient than currently used MPEG4-AVC/H.264, the HEVC technology allows to compress 4K movies to around 80GB – 90GB, which means that 100GB – 128GB BD media should be enough to store it. The H.265 is currently supported by numerous decoder/encode chips that can be used inside players.

extract from Xbit

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20140113232834_Samsung_Proposes_to_Use_Multi_Layer_Blu_Ray_Discs_for_4K_UHD_Video_Distribution.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL, you are sucked into the resolution war,you are only comparing resolution and sharpness, 

 

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

There is no "resolution war."   Anyone on this forum would take an Alexa over ANY widely available 4K camera.  For there to be a "war" there needs to be two sides.  The only side as far as I can tell is a small but vocal group of people that are allergic to 4K.  Everyone else just uses what looks good... which at certain price points and in certain situations happens to be certain 4K cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't, you're correct there.  The Black Magic 4k has less dynamic range because of the global shutter.  If it had the standard rolling shutter it would have 13 stops like the pocket cam and original Black Magic camera.

 

A lot of 4k is marketing hype and gadget lust, but even for those among us who see little use, it still has benefits.  It encourages more data throughput and pushes technology forward.  In a few years working in HD will be as trivial as working in SD is now.  For now I like 4k because it mashes down into a very nice HD image. 

 

 

 

Not sure how a 4K recording has more DR than 1080p?

The BMCC has 13 stops of DR and the 4K version has 12. Different sensors but the 4K version has LESS dynamic range. What I'm saying is that just because something wears the 4K badge, does not automatically mean it is better.

4k for the masses is marketing hype driven to get your money wether you need it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Another excellent post, and discussion here. Much appreciate the forum.

 

One thing I haven't heard anyone talk about much is the price of storage (and backup), at 4K resolution. In practical terms, my M.O. is a lot like the short film running on the Apple home page at the moment (which was shot on an iphone and looks great, by the way!). They shot about 72 hours worth of material for this (excellent) short (1:26) internet piece. You can read about the BTS here:

 

http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/#video-1242014-film

 

.....which is pretty interesting, in terms of how they pulled it off, technically. My point is, they shot a lot of material and cut it down to 1:26, so they essentially threw out 99% of what they had shot. Sounds extreme, but as a documentarian, that's kind of what they (Ridley and Jeff Scott) and I, too, do.

 

So yes, no question that 4K looks better than 1080 HD. And for a scripted, narrative film or project (with a budget to handle it), sure. But as a documentarian (who travels) and has to think about portable drives to store and backup the material I shoot.....maybe not so practical for me. Price out some portable (powered from USB or Thunderbolt) drives, and you'll see what I mean.....plus backup. I am not aware of anything in this category with more than 2TB, anyway. I'm sure it will come, just not there yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Another excellent post, and discussion here. Much appreciate the forum.

 

One thing I haven't heard anyone talk about much is the price of storage (and backup), at 4K resolution...

 

... But as a documentarian (who travels) and has to think about portable drives to store and backup the material I shoot.....maybe not so practical for me. Price out some portable (powered from USB or Thunderbolt) drives, and you'll see what I mean.....plus backup. I am not aware of anything in this category with more than 2TB, anyway. I'm sure it will come, just not there yet.

 

You could always convert the H.264 4K to H.265 - reduce file sizes while maintaining same image quality.

 

I'm hearing from early GH4 shooters in the US that they can get 29 minutes of 4K on one 64GB card. That doesn't tally with my maths. I'd through you'd get more on the card than that. But let's see.

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...