1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?

[Zak Forsman]

41 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

The only time i've seen/experienced a 4K image properly is at the cinema.

TV or Streaming is HD & 720p at that.

Buy a 4K TV? Why? I can't watch anything worth watching in 4K on it, so where does that leave me?

I'm still waiting for 1080p HD TV/Streaming......

I'm in the color and dynamic range camp myself, but will say that when it comes to televisions sets, 1080p on my 4K set looks a little better than it did on my 1080p set. it tends to smooth out jagged diagonal lines.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-resolution/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared

 

[Sekhar]

25 minutes ago, Zak Forsman said:

I'm in the color and dynamic range camp myself, but will say that when it comes to televisions sets, 1080p on my 4K set looks a little better than it did on my 1080p set. it tends to smooth out jagged diagonal lines.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-resolution/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared

 

Yes, and upscaling has improved a lot now as well. I have a Sony 70" XBR 4K TV and a Marantz receiver, both of which upscale to 4K really well. Broadcast HD (including the 720p ones) looks great, as do even some of the DVDs (remember those, with 480p?) with the scaling. I understand people are also increasingly using 4K TVs as monitors (I don't, yet).

[Bioskop.Inc]

38 minutes ago, Zak Forsman said:

I'm in the color and dynamic range camp myself, but will say that when it comes to televisions sets, 1080p on my 4K set looks a little better than it did on my 1080p set. it tends to smooth out jagged diagonal lines.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-resolution/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared

 

I wear glasses - if I want things smoothed out, I just take them off.

On a serious note, until TV is properly 1080p, I'm just going to stick with a HD TV - 720p upscaled to 1080p looks fine & Blu-Ray is about as sharp as I can handle. Also, 4K TVs are waaaaaay more expensive than HD TVs.

As far as filming things goes, BM Pocket produces one of the best images that I've seen/used for quite a long while (10yrs or so) - it's not about sharpness, never has been, never will be. Look at what most DPs say - they're trying to soften the image & that's for cinema, which you would've thought needed a bigger/better resolution for the bigger screen. So you can take your sharpness and.......

If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera. I'd prefer to rent a proper 4K camera with a decent codec, instead of using something with a crippling 8-bit mess.

[fuzzynormal]

47 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera.

Don't disagree, but I'll add that re-scaling is certainly useful when shooting a documentary.  Run'nGun shooting is all about circumstances and compromise.  I can be happy with 95% of my shots, but if I can make a shot better with a bit of judicious cropping I'll do it.  I ain't proud.  Give me a technique I can exploit, I'll exploit it.

I'm not shooting with a 4K camera because I want to re-frame all my documentary shots, I'm shooting 4K because it offers options if need be.  --And then there's this whole thing, as if this thread needs to go more sideways:  http://www.eoshd.com/2014/02/discovery-4k-8bit-420-panasonic-gh4-converts-1080p-10bit-444/

[PannySVHS]

To the cheap equipment filmmakers it is great to have Panny 4K at hand. To the cinema pros their high end 2K, 4K+ Arris, Reds etc are fantastic.

1 hour ago, Sekhar said:

Yes, and upscaling has improved a lot now as well. I have a Sony 70" XBR 4K TV and a Marantz receiver, both of which upscale to 4K really well. Broadcast HD (including the 720p ones) looks great, as do even some of the DVDs (remember those, with 480p?) with the scaling. I understand people are also increasingly using 4K TVs as monitors (I don't, yet).

So for fun I uploaded a screenshot of footage shot with my G6 uprezzed from HD to UHD.

Bad shooting conditions for image quality and resolution: very low light setting, had only one 500W photolamp to bounce on a golden sheet,

China Speedbooster and Canon 28mm wide open at F2.8 involved, at 1600ISO, so all image quality suckers involved, plenty work in post as well:)

But to me it seems appealing enough to make a 8x10 (20x30cm) print from it.

So great consumer 4K is fantastic for us who go the cheap route of nice HD.

[UHDjohn]

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I wear glasses - if I want things smoothed out, I just take them off.

On a serious note, until TV is properly 1080p, I'm just going to stick with a HD TV - 720p upscaled to 1080p looks fine & Blu-Ray is about as sharp as I can handle. Also, 4K TVs are waaaaaay more expensive than HD TVs.

As far as filming things goes, BM Pocket produces one of the best images that I've seen/used for quite a long while (10yrs or so) - it's not about sharpness, never has been, never will be. Look at what most DPs say - they're trying to soften the image & that's for cinema, which you would've thought needed a bigger/better resolution for the bigger screen. So you can take your sharpness and.......

If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera. I'd prefer to rent a proper 4K camera with a decent codec, instead of using something with a crippling 8-bit mess.

Agree on the BMPCC - tiny sensor which shouldnt be 'cinematic' but is better than many 24x36mm sensor based cameras.Nothing wrong with capturing in UHD and down sampling to achieve better HD as lots of 'pro' cameras do this internally. As for cropping then it's just another tool in the box and stills photographers do it all the time. Infact if you look at stills equipment then all cameras are capable of resolutions beyond what most people view the final image on. Arguments that you don't need more than 8mp (which is 4k/UHD) won't get you very far. HD will be the output format for some time to come I think but how you get to that end point has may different paths. Expensive cine cams do it nativity, cheap DSLR/mirrorless need to capture UHD to be converted in the NLE - it's just the state of the current tech. 

[tugela]

4 hours ago, sudopera said:

I agree that 4K is far less important for a great image than some other features mentioned above, but there are also two kinds of 4K. There is 1Dc or most cinema cameras type of 4K that has the detail but not in camera sharpening, so it can still look very pleasing even in closeups, and there is 4K that is oversharpened on top of big resolution and that tends to look not so good. I believe you once already wrote about this Ebrahim. What I am trying to say is that for me 4K is a great feature if it is the right kind of 4K.

The argument has never been that 4K is the only thing that is important, it has been about the idea that 4K is unnecessary and even undesirable.

For me personally, the acid test is when friends watch footage I have shot on my TV, and all of them, without exception, are blown away with the resolution and detail. Now, no doubt my filmmaking skills are no where near the level of many here on this forum, but for me the proof of the argument is pretty clear in the comments of my friends. That is why I say over and over that the individuals who keep slagging 4K are living in a cocoon and are out of touch. I think it is somewhat disturbing that these are people who potentially produce content we might watch, and they just don't get it.

[Mattias Burling]

Ive had the same cameras as you use to wow your friends. I've also had several 4K cameras that outshoot it in every way. Still 4K isn't anything more than a feature in my book.

Dontvsee what exactly it is that I/we don't get? 

Isn't it just that I/we have a different opinion than you? Isn't that OK?

I just don't see how you could be "right" and we just "don't get it".

(speaking of blind tests  )

[tugela]

16 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:

I'm not sure if the conversation has gotten far from the original post but interesting points here.  As an amateur, I jumped off the 5d3 bandwagon just to ride the GH4 one.  After spending too many hours reading and watching for "sharpness" I have come to realize I, and all of my layman friends, prefer color, cadence, and highlight roll-off to sharpness.  In an unscientific test a group of documentary and movie fan friends of mine chose canon over Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony when comparing sub $10K cameras.  

I did this independent of each other as to avoid group-think or "mob mentality" and without question: color, is what was the number one factor for them.  I think paralysis by analysis and spec-sheet intellectual meandering gets away from what matters to the unbiased brain processing images.  

Again, in the video I posted the fact of the matter is world renowned DP's try to soften the image and focus on lighting, motion, and color to get an image that appeals to the audience.  So the original question:  is 4K necessary if most DP's and audiences are choosing HD images that demonstrate superior color to 4K sharpness?  

I'll weigh-in and say that unless 4K is demanded it is NOT needed at all and color space is where its at when looking at an image.  While many Sony Fx cameras may boast specs superior to canons, the color depth of canon at 8-bit looks better to me and others.  I may bypass 4K until a 4K camera combines color with sharpness at an image and price that is reasonable.  The NX/A7S/GH series need too much to become appealing.  I'll pass for now.

The issue with that panel discussion is that it is a bunch of people trying to recreate the work of their heroes from the 60s (or whenever), because that is what they grew up with and learned as the "right way". Whenever these debates are held, it is pretty much always about copying someone else's style, and never about having one of your own. IMO those sorts of people are basically hacks, and they lack enough creativity and vision to forge their own path, so instead they follow. Perhaps skilled technicians, but technicians none the less, not artists.

4 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

 

(speaking of blind tests  )

Still making stuff up I see. It never ends does it. I suppose you are one of those people who think that if you say something often enough it becomes true.

 

[tweak]

It's amazing how many people twist to how they like it what the OP was asking.

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

On 6/22/2016 at 7:15 PM, Mattias Burling said:

For me resolution is nowhere near the top of the list of what makes a good image.

When I compared the 4K NX1 and RX100iv to the 5Ds HD Raw, the Canon won.

The BMPCC or Bolex runs circles around GH4s and Sonys, imo.

Same thing happens with still cameras.

Plus I don't know how many times I've done blind tests and not even the biggest 4K evangelists of this and other forums can tell the difference.

Now, if we have HD vs 4K and all else is equal, both shooting Raw, wide DR, nice color science, etc.. Then 4K might come in handy. But its not needed for any of the work I do personally. Not until its a standard, and thats years from now.

So with that said, I still buy HD cameras and have gone back and forth from 4K many times.

So true. I share the exact same opinion. the race for resolution is somehow a non-sense. For cinema most of the times we deliver in 2k dci standard (flat or scope). So 4k maybe it's good for reframing, digital pans and tilts, but not much more.  I rather  have a camera with good motion color science dynamic range, etc than this resolution race. 

 

[Justin Bacle]

Seeing the file sizes of DNxHD 1080p recordings. I just don't want to get 4k. I mean, what for ? 

For the content I make,
Best case scenario, it'll be seen on a big screen in festivals (1080p projector with the movie/documentary in 1080p blu-ray like quality).
Worst case scenario, it'll be on youtube/vimeo and most people will watch it on their phones in 480p or laptop in 720 or 1080p...

As soon as you don't crop of do crazy VFX, I really don't see the point of 4K.

[kidzrevil]

I shoot 4K to deliver to vimeo in 1440p. Computer monitors,TV's and streaming services are capable of displaying resolutions up to 4K and it doesn't hurt to take advantage of that. I personally do not think 4k or "consumer" 4k is overrated or some how makes your work look less pro but I seen that flying around this thread and found that to be very interesting. As for cropping/reframing in post I stay away from stuff like that because its usually a sign of bad composition on my part. If your 4K looks too sharp you can try using a diffusion filter, softer lens (at your own risk) or a gaussian blur filter.

all in all I see great benefits in 4K but I would agree it isn't the only thing that makes a great image. Figure out how it fits into your workflow or get a camera with 1080 full pixel readout. 

[Sekhar]

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

As for cropping/reframing in post I stay away from stuff like that because its usually a sign of bad composition on my part.

Not always. I recently shot a stage event where we had dancers moving wildly left to right on stage, making it it next to impossible to cover them with pans alone. I was able to provide wide shots and then close in to follow a dancer as she moved, resulting in some great video. Makes the viewer believe the camera knew exactly how the dancer was going to move, but it didn't!

I wish I could show that to you because it explains my point beautifully, but unfortunately we're selling that as Blu-Ray, so I can't post. However, another example is in this video that has wide shots interspersed with tight ones, including fake pans (e.g., at 2:25). I don't see how you can do this with just shooting in HD unless you use multiple cameras.

 

 

[kidzrevil]

@Sekhar this is why I said "I" as in myself. Reframing in post doesn't work for ME. It is not MY style so I always aim to get my composition right in camera or I just delete the clip. im glad that it works for you though as it does for other people :-)

[dbp]

Ahhh the 4K discussions. They always bring out a lot of emotion!

It's a tool, like anything else. Very useful at times. Less so at other times, depending on what it comes at the expense of.

I make use of re-framing alot with weddings, because things happen fast and you don't always get the chance, or even the placement, for perfect framing. Having that security is welcome. I also quite like it with low budget talking heads, because you can get 2 angles in one shot. 

I also concede that my frame of reference is watching things on a 24inch 1080p monitor from 3 feet away. Perhaps a larger, 4K monitor would blow me away and the difference would be obvious. Even if it's more detailed, it's hard for me to see *good* 1080p (ie: C100/300, bmpcc, downscaled 4k etc..) and see it as not good enough. From my perspective, that's plenty detailed and more would simply be a bonus. I don't think you can ever have too much, to the point that it's detrimental, because there will always be certain filters and lenses that can take the edge off. 

But yeah, 1080p BMPCC raw image beats 4K GH4 image pretty much 10/10 times. Resolution certainly isn't everything, and becomes exponentially unimportant past a certain point. I *really* cannot imagine caring that much to jump from 4K to 8K with video. 

[dhessel]

On 6/23/2016 at 0:24 PM, tugela said:

The issue with that panel discussion is that it is a bunch of people trying to recreate the work of their heroes from the 60s (or whenever), because that is what they grew up with and learned as the "right way". Whenever these debates are held, it is pretty much always about copying someone else's style, and never about having one of your own. IMO those sorts of people are basically hacks, and they lack enough creativity and vision to forge their own path, so instead they follow. Perhaps skilled technicians, but technicians none the less, not artists.

I certainly hope you are not refering to the panel in the video posted in this topic. 

[Mattias Burling]

5 minutes ago, dhessel said:

I certainly hope you are not refering to the panel in the video posted in this topic. 

Think its best to let it go. I dont know how many times I've seen the argument that the biggest filmmakers, biggest producers of nature films, TV etc is just "less informed", " don't know better" or "unaware" of the awesomeness that is low bitrate, low DR, bad RS but surprisingly overly sharp image from a consumer stills camera.

[tweak]

hahaha

[Zak Forsman]

4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@Sekhar this is why I said "I" as in myself. Reframing in post doesn't work for ME. It is not MY style so I always aim to get my composition right in camera or I just delete the clip. im glad that it works for you though as it does for other people :-)

Agreed. my wife is a film editor and much prefers working with filmmakers who go out and shoot exactly what they want, rather than gathering a bunch of material to be sorted out later. One of the first features she cut, the director asked "why didn't you use the close up here?"  my wife's answer was, "you didn't shoot one."  and the director's replied, "then punch in on the 2 shot."

now she has a scene with these reframed close-ups and every now and then the other actor's nose creeps into frame. she did the best she could but it's still awkwardly composed. I realize for Sekhar covering an event is one thing, because he has no second takes. But shooting narrative benefits from specificity. unless you *are* on the level of david fincher and all the post resources he has available to him, this approach will start to undermine the experience of the movie. similar to deciding you wanted to slow a shot down in post back when all we had available to us was "frame blending" to smooth it out. few things signaled "digital video" louder. optical flow brings us much closer, but it's still better to do it in camera. and to have the vision to know that you need it that way.