1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?

[HockeyFan12]

Why is it then that none of the major networks (tv and cable) broadcast in 4k? And the majority of DCPs are 2k, even when the source material is 4k and above?

Sure there are 4k tvs everywhere (as there were 3d ones everywhere a few years ago), but in terms of content creators and distributors, it's really only Netflix and YouTube Red that care about 4k. For everyone else it's a buzzword. Sure there are 4k tvs, it's planned obsolesce and marketing. But how much 4k content are people watching on those tvs in 4k is a good question...

Netflix's 4k streams look imo worse than a good blu ray. More high frequency detail but worse tonality, with more mosquito noise and compression. YouTube 4k looks worse.

For network and cable tv and for normal wide theatrical release, 4k doesn't matter. For IMAX it matters, but only maybe 20-30 features get IMAX releases a year. For YouTube and Netflix it matters, but not for image quality so much as marketing (again, a good 1080p blu ray looks better 90% of the time).

Almost anywhere else? Not really a factor. I can see 4k mattering more for Vimeo than for theatrical release, since laptops have high res screens and you hold them close to your eyes. But most staff pick are still 1080p and resolution doesn't seem to drive how they're chosen... so I'm still confused by why you place so much value on a fairly insignificant feature.

I do understand the need for 4k. For the occasional vfx background plate or stock footage that might get punched in on, absolutely. On a GoPro you need all the resolution you can get for stabilization and de-fisheying. 4k on GoPros is great. I just don't understand the wider need for 4k on production cameras outside IMAX features, and YouTube Red and Netflix shows, where I would still argue it's mostly a buzzword. And that's such a narrow target where next to nothing is sourced on consumer-grade cameras anyway (Netflix's cheapest acceptable 4k camera is the BM 4.6k). So the purpose of 4k on consumer cameras to me is and always has been marketing. 

I dunno. I don't see the appeal. Diminishing returns in image quality for a massive increase in time spent in post. 

[BTM_Pix]

22 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Why is it then that none of the major networks (tv and cable) broadcast in 4k?

Bandwidth has always been a blocker in the UK at least but thats changing.

Sport - predominantly football - drives the subscription broadcast market in the UK so both of the primary rights holders SKY and BT broadcast the games in 4K. SKY through satellite and BT through their fibre broadband infrastructure. SKY also do the F1 in 4K, one of their movie channels and their on demand box sets. BT do similar with Netflix through their STB.

BBC are trailing their iplayer in 4K for their big docs like Planet Earth and their dramas will follow.

People use iplayer through their smart TVs as well as apps on the SKY and BT STBs.

So in the UK at least, there is definitely an increasing amount of content to fill those 4K TVs as using the football as a hook is as reliable a way to drive technology uptake here as adult entertainment ever was.

Whether that equates directly to having 4K being utterly imperative within the context of what people might use this new camera for is a completely different story as its going to take a long time for 4K in what is still relatively niche programming to become the defacto standard for all content.

[Trek of Joy]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

In Magic Lantern raw, not stock form.

BIG difference.

It's not all about content actually. People want to buy a future proof TV or best spec for the price. All my friends who have bought a new TV in the last couple of years have gone for a 4K model without exception, especially as the prices now are similar to a decent 1080p set and start at around £350 in the UK. Why wouldn't you?

Various set to boxes, PCs, laptops, game consoles have a 4K picture and they want to make use of that, so it's not all about watching TV even.

The awareness of 4K on consumer market is very high and even the PS4 Pro, etc. capitalise on the hype with their upscaling modes.

That gives them all the more reason to upgrade to 4K if they don't have it already.

Not many people keep the same TV for 15 years in today's fast moving age of cheap consumer goods.

Sony have a smartphone with a 4K display now and it's a selling point in the eyes of the consumer.

Whether you agree it makes sense or not.

Sounds like the research you've seen is out of date by at least 2 years.

Sony is not even top 5 in smartphone sales, nobody cares what Sony puts in a phone and they're one of the few phone makers that can't make a profit selling them - go figure since they make the sensors for just about everyone else. Top phone makers in order - Samsung 23% share, Apple 14%, Huawei 9%, Oppo 8%, Vivo 7%, Lenovo/Xiaomi/LG all between 5-6%, the rest far behind....

My TV numbers were from 2016, the most recent year available, forecasts for 2017 are flat - about 1/3rd UHD vs HD. Smart TV are outpacing 4k tv's, people want connectivity, not 4k. That is crystal clear, don't know why some refuse to see it.

I'm not saying what makes sense or not, just what people are actually buying vs. what delusional posters here seem to think people want instead of what they're actually purchasing. Canon is following what the larger market wants with major releases like the 6d2 and the APS-c line, not what niche users want. But they do cater to niche markets with the C1/2/3/500's and the 5dsr. 

What anyone's friends are doing is irrelevant as there are 200 million TV's sold annually, anyone's circle of friends is so insignificant compared to the big picture its laughable to even mention them. Plus you have to look at what's happening in China and India - since those two countries account for 2.6 billion people and are the fastest growing markets for most consumables. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube and Vimeo don't even exist in China (blocked by the Great Firewall of China, poof no 4k in the worlds largest market) and most of their content is unavailable in India.

Cheers

[HockeyFan12]

40 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Bandwidth has always been a blocker in the UK at least but thats changing.

Sport - predominantly football - drives the subscription broadcast market in the UK so both of the primary rights holders SKY and BT broadcast the games in 4K. SKY through satellite and BT through their fibre broadband infrastructure. SKY also do the F1 in 4K, one of their movie channels and their on demand box sets. BT do similar with Netflix through their STB.

BBC are trailing their iplayer in 4K for their big docs like Planet Earth and their dramas will follow.

People use iplayer through their smart TVs as well as apps on the SKY and BT STBs.

So in the UK at least, there is definitely an increasing amount of content to fill those 4K TVs as using the football as a hook is as reliable a way to drive technology uptake here as adult entertainment ever was.

Whether that equates directly to having 4K being utterly imperative within the context of what people might use this new camera for is a completely different story as its going to take a long time for 4K in what is still relatively niche programming to become the defacto standard for all content.

Agreed. I used to work for one of the bigger mastering and tape/film distribution houses and their libraries are all 1080p excepting maybe 1% of the deliverables are 4k. We'll transition to 4k content for sure, but it's going to be very gradual and 1080p will remain a viable master format for older content. 

[Justin Bacle]

8 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

Was just looking at some 5DII ML on vimeo earlier. Amazing for an almost 10 year old camera.

Think about the 50D. The thing didn't even have a video mode when it was released ! Now, it is a great option for anamorphic raw :D

[jonpais]

So I've got like two questions to ask, but first - when I returned to the States last year, I went to a Best Buy and was watching a demo on one of their massive tv sets. I told the salesman that the UHD quality was spectacular, at which point he told me I'd been watching HD! Still, I'll be getting my first 5K iMac this year, and reviewers almost universally agree that the screen is much better than the older 2K resolution screens. Several here also say that their own footage shot with the GH5 when viewed on a large 4K tv is incredible.

Question 1) Even with a lack of televised content, how about the satisfaction of being able to watch your own videos at home on a UHD set? Prices for a 40" model start as low as $500, less than I paid just a few years ago for an HDTV.

Question 2) I was actually surprised at how small file sizes were shooting 4K with my GH4. Soon, h265 will be the standard, reducing file sizes by as much as 50%.Even now, I think I'm getting over an hour of footage on a relatively inexpensive Sandisk 64GB SD when shooting with the G85. The cost of storage is also gradually declining. So is storage for a hobbyist really a big concern?

[HockeyFan12]

45 minutes ago, jonpais said:

So I've got like two questions to ask, but first - when I returned to the States last year, I went to a Best Buy and was watching a demo on one of their massive tv sets. I told the salesman that the UHD quality was spectacular, at which point he told me I'd been watching HD! Still, I'll be getting my first 5K iMac this year, and reviewers almost universally agree that the screen is much better than the older 2K resolution screens. Several here also say that their own footage shot with the GH5 when viewed on a large 4K tv is incredible.

Question 1) Even with a lack of televised content, how about the satisfaction of being able to watch your own videos at home on a UHD set? Prices for a 40" model start as low as $500, less than I paid just a few years ago for an HDTV.

Question 2) I was actually surprised at how small file sizes were shooting 4K with my GH4. Soon, h265 will be the standard, reducing file sizes by as much as 50%.Even now, I think I'm getting over an hour of footage on a relatively inexpensive Sandisk 64GB SD when shooting with the G85. The cost of storage is also gradually declining. So is storage for a hobbyist really a big concern?

1) The 5k iMac is a great machine. Perfect for 4k editorial. I still don't see the advantage of 4k tvs unless you stand three feet from them (not for me), have better than 20/15 vision, or spend so much money that you're also getting the benefits of other technologies too (4k OLED? yes please... but if not, 1080p kuro plasma). Past a certain size (maybe 100" or so, mostly for projectors) they will have an appreciable advantage in terms of resolution, but below that not really unless you stand close. For monitors and smart phones (very close to the face) then the retina advantage is huge, though, imo. For web deliverables 4k makes sense to me if you can handle it in post.

2) Depends on your workflow. I transcode everything to ProRes or DPX so for me it would be a huge problem for me. You can always switch to 1080p for less important content, though, or if you're editing in Premiere just use the native codec.

[sam]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Question 1) Even with a lack of televised content, how about the satisfaction of being able to watch your own videos at home on a UHD set? Prices for a 40" model start as low as $500, less than I paid just a few years ago for an HDTV.

 

My experience is similar to HockeyFan12.

I have a 65" 4k lg oled that I view from 6ft, which from what I've read is the max distance that the resolution bump over hd is perceivable.   It's really more about the dynamic range and gamut of the display coupled with media desiged to take advantage of those capabilities. (Like dolby vision)that make a dramatic difference.  There is already a ton of streaming 4k content on both Netflix and Amazon, but actual resolution seems equivalent to hd bluray.  Even with uhd bluray one might not see a real advantage.  I watched the newish film "Arrival"on uhd bluray and the resolution was worse than many regular blurays.  So, imho, the 4k can be noticeable especially as you intend by showing your own content. If anything though, I find the 4k files from my 1dc and raw fs700 to look somewhat worse on the oled compared to viewing them on a 1080 panny plasma (2nd to the kuro?).  It should be fairly easy to find scientific info(or at least reasonably informed perspective)  regarding 4k hdr displays vs alternatives on the various avforums.  

[joema]

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

....I was actually surprised at how small file sizes were shooting 4K with my GH4. Soon, h265 will be the standard, reducing file sizes by as much as 50%.Even now, I think I'm getting over an hour of footage on a relatively inexpensive Sandisk 64GB SD when shooting with the G85. The cost of storage is also gradually declining. So is storage for a hobbyist really a big concern?

For a hobbyist playing around, 4k storage and processing is no problem. For a feature film shooting 200 hr of ProRes or raw and an IT team to handle it, also no problem. But for a large swath of production -- including documentary and news gathering -- 4k H264 post processing and storage is a big problem. It is too compute intensive to edit natively so requires transcoding to proxy or optimized media. This in turn greatly increases storage size, post processing time, general IT requirements and complexity. I just spent a week testing a 12-core Mac Pro seeking a better way to handle this and just ordered a 32 terabyte Thunderbolt 2 RAID (on top of many other RAID boxes). 4k is the driver for this.

In a sense I wish 4k had never been invented since good quality 1080 is really good. In fact everything ABC, Fox and ESPN shoots and broadcasts is 720p/60. All that beautiful Hawaiian cinematography on the ABC TV series "Lost" was broadcast in 720p, but it looked very good.

However 4k is the new standard and there's no sense fighting it. Discussions about 4k image quality vs 1080 are just the tip of the iceberg. All that 4k content must be processed somehow. It can take a long time to develop post processing hardware, software and procedures to adequately handle a large 4k production. That's why my doc team started two years ago on this, and we are just now getting a handle on it.

[HockeyFan12]

2 hours ago, sam said:

My experience is similar to HockeyFan12.

I have a 65" 4k lg oled that I view from 6ft, which from what I've read is the max distance that the resolution bump over hd is perceivable.   It's really more about the dynamic range and gamut of the display coupled with media desiged to take advantage of those capabilities. (Like dolby vision)that make a dramatic difference.  There is already a ton of streaming 4k content on both Netflix and Amazon, but actual resolution seems equivalent to hd bluray.  Even with uhd bluray one might not see a real advantage.  I watched the newish film "Arrival"on uhd bluray and the resolution was worse than many regular blurays.  So, imho, the 4k can be noticeable especially as you intend by showing your own content. If anything though, I find the 4k files from my 1dc and raw fs700 to look somewhat worse on the oled compared to viewing them on a 1080 panny plasma (2nd to the kuro?).  It should be fairly easy to find scientific info(or at least reasonably informed perspective)  regarding 4k hdr displays vs alternatives on the various avforums.  

Damn it I was hours away from putting up on eBay my P50ST60. Now I think I'll just move it into the other room instead. 

 

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, joema said:

documentary and news gathering -- 4k H264 post processing and storage is a big problem. It is too compute intensive to edit natively so requires transcoding to proxy or optimized media.

Well, this ain't my experience.  Granted, editing 4K h.264 natively isn't fun, so I avoided that, but.... 

My wife and I completed a six part documentary series this year for regional PBS.  6 30 minute docs shot on 4k with 2 GX85's.  Edited in Premiere with proxies.  

I disagree that it's a troublesome post process.  The tech side of things all worked easily for me (creative was a whole 'other thing) and would recommend to anyone dealing with large amounts of footage and wanting a simple workflow.  Storage is cheap and the proxy file sizes are quite modest to create, store, and edit with.  win-win-win.  Slow and cheap hard drives work fine, so you can buy the inexpensive drives and build virtual RAIDS with 'em, no problem.  4TB hard drives are barely $100.  That's $600 for 24TB.  So, 12TB for working and 12TB for simultaneous RAID backup.

12TB will hold a lot of footage and proxies.  I had 6 months of shoots on those drives.

And my PC is pretty strong pushing numbers so the proxy transcoding was no big deal.  Happens rather fast, actually.

We even were able to edit with the proxies over LAN, so we had two edit seats working in tandem.  One was the PC, the other was a 9 year old iMac.

If anyone is interested in the geekier side of this cheap-o set-up, PM me.  For me it was do-able and VERY practical.

Keep in mind this was not a system for a fast-turnaround-daily-grind.  Our doc series had the luxury of a long deadline.  If you're trying to do something instantaneous you'd require something more robust.  TV "broadcasting" stuff has more intense schedule requirements, so you'd need to pay for gear that can keep pace.  

[joema]

On 7/2/2017 at 3:52 AM, fuzzynormal said:

Well, this ain't my experience.....My wife and I completed a six part documentary series this year for regional PBS.  6 30 minute docs shot on 4k with 2 GX85's.  Edited in Premiere with proxies....I disagree that it's a troublesome post process....Storage is cheap and the proxy file sizes are quite modest to create, store, and edit with....12TB will hold a lot of footage and proxies...Slow and cheap hard drives work fine, so you can buy the inexpensive drives and build virtual RAIDS...I had 6 months of shoots on those drives....

 

180 minute final program length, 12TB storage and two GX85s using a 100 megabit/sec codec implies an approximate 60:1 shooting ratio, which is typical for a documentary, or even a bit low by today's standards. Your hardware shows it is possible to do quality professional work on a "shoestring" budget and with fairly low cost equipment.

However I think most people who previously did large documentary projects on DV and H264 1080 (which did not require transcoding for performance on FCPX or Premiere) have been or will be shocked at the huge IT and workflow burden imposed by large-scale H264 4k. This has three components (1) Camera native material can no longer be smoothly edited but requires time-consuming transcoding, and (2) Camera file sizes are much larger (3) Even at 1/4 size, proxy files themselves take considerable size.

I edited a documentary in 2010 shot on DV by multiple DVX100 cameras. The whole thing was about 500 gigabytes, about 40 hr of material. Initial post processing was trivial -- just capture the tapes, import and edit directly in CS4.

By contrast I'm now working on an all-4k documentary which will ultimately be about 20 terabytes. Just to transcode the material of each shooting location to proxy takes days. It cannot be handed off to downstream editors on a portable hard drive -- we must use a complex FCPX proxy-only workflow, all the while testing and verifying the final relink will work. Right now I have 96 terabytes of Thunderbolt 2 RAID arrays connected to my iMac, and another 200 TB of off-line storage (part for other concurrent projects). I tested a 12-core Mac Pro last week and it was no faster for the time-consuming transcode phase.

In the old days -- esp. after Premiere's Mercury Playback Engine -- things were very simple. We'd just import and edit. Part of this was the ability to edit camera native, and part was the lower volume of material. We didn't even need an assistant editor. Today (whether on Premiere or FCPX) H264 4k requires time-consuming transcoding to proxy, and the higher shooting ratios require even more time-consuming organizational steps to tag and log. It takes two assistant editors continuously busy handling this, and our storage capacity rivals some datacenters from the 1990s.

If we shot the same footage in all 1080p H264, it would still require major logging and tagging but the IT issues in transcoding, proxy management, storage management and media distribution for collaborative work would be vastly easier. Thus the thread title is very valid -- is 4k really necessary? As an editor I like 4k. As an assistant editor, DIT and Data Wrangler I hate 4k. Good quality 1080 is so good I don't think most people on most viewing devices will spontaneously notice a difference. But 4k is the mandated future and content producers must eventually figure out how to handle that. As of today virtually no computers or editing software are fast enough to smoothly edit H264 4k without transcoding. That is a big adjustment for people coming from 1080.

[User]

On 7/1/2017 at 2:40 PM, Trek of Joy said:

Plus you have to look at what's happening in China and India - since those two countries account for 2.6 billion people and are the fastest growing markets for most consumables. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube and Vimeo don't even exist in China (blocked by the Great Firewall of China, poof no 4k in the worlds largest market) and most of their content is unavailable in India.

Cheers

Wrong. It is available in India. And India just overtook China as the world's most populous country.

[bootsie]

Does Resolution Matter? || Geoff Boyle || Spotlight

 

[jonpais]

At 2:40, he says if he wants a 2K image, he'll probably shoot at 4K. At 3:30, "what's the first thing any DP with a really sharp lens does is put a diffusion filter on."

[mercer]

8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

At 2:40, he says if he wants a 2K image, he'll probably shoot at 4K. At 3:30, "what's the first thing any DP with a really sharp lens does is put a diffusion filter on."

???

[Arikhan]

Guys, now it's time to sell out your 4K bullshit and jump on the new 8K bandwagon...Last chance for you - because not later than 2020, 16K will be the new standard.

--> https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3782-a-generational-leap-in-bandwidth-makes-8k-part-of-the-conversation <--

Hehe, same endless bullshit marketing loop as 2013 and same claims: you can crop in, you can get rid of artifacts, etc....and you can pay 100.000+ for the new standard - manufactured by RED, Ikegami and others...

My POV: There are some guys who should urgently call the drug helpline.... 

[jonpais]

@mercer Now you're using my trick.  At 2 minutes and 40 sec., he says ta dee ta dum, at 3 minutes and 30 sec., he says tweedle dee... But the reason he says he'd shoot 4K for a deliverable in 2K is not the reason I expected to hear.

[mercer]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

@mercer Now you're using my trick.  At 2 minutes and 40 sec., he says ta dee ta dum, at 3 minutes and 30 sec., he says tweedle dee... 

So you don't trust his opinion because in one statement he says that he downscaled to 1080p from 4K but then in another sentence he says he doesn't like the ultra sharp images from some lenses? I don't see how they are conflicting statements?

I have been thinking long and hard about 1080p vs 4K. As you know I have been shooting Raw for the past couple months. I don't even shoot at 1080p... I'm shooting 2:35 at 1920x810 and IMO it has a better image than any 4K I have ever shot... but it is Raw, so it isn't a fair comparison.

So I'll digress... Over the past 6 months, I've had 2 FZ2500s. The first time I bought it, I purchased it two weeks after release and paid full price for it. I specifically tested the 200mbps, all-i 1080p vs 100mbps IPB 4K. I downscaled the 4K to 1080p and on my 40" TV, I noticed absolutely no difference between the downscaled 4K and the high bitrate 1080p... in fact, if anything I found the all-i 1080p had slightly better motion cadence at true 24p. The problem with that camera is that I think it's too expensive for what it is, so I returned it. I bought it again, a couple months ago, for a casual camera after I got my 5D3 and the image looked so brittle in comparison that I returned it again.

So, I really don't think 4K is a necessity and I believe that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't be able to tell the difference nor care.

With that being said, I still love gear and I want a 4K camera. I have yet to see any 4K image, less than $4000, that looks better than the 1DC. That camera has some special mojo going on. So I will probably save up for that and hopefully can find one for $3000 this time next year.

In the meantime, to quench my unexplainable desire for 4K, I may pick up an LX100... because the 4K out of that camera also has some special sauce going on. I keep wanting to test the 4K out of the D7500 because I just simply love the Nikon Flat 1080p... seriously one of the best images for the money, but with the crop and its inability to meter older Nikon lenses, the camera is overpriced for my needs... or desires.

So since I can't justify Nikon 4K and can't afford Canon 4K yet, another option for me is the Fuji X-T20. It's in a comfortable price range for me. I should be able to sell it for not much of a loss next year and put that money towards the 1DC. As much as I am tired of the fat adapters laying about, in the end Fuji color and my Nikkor 35mm 1.4 could make a perfect little combo. 

But then again, I want IBIS too... will the madness ever stop?

I think regardless of what tech is available, people should really look to what is most important to them in a camera.

If they need 4K at 10bit... get the GH5. If they need really good 1080p, maybe get a Nikon or Sony a7s.

If they need great auto focus, get a Canon 80D.

If someone needs 4K or even really wants it... then that's what they should buy. But since the title of this post specifically asks... is it really necessary? Nope. It is not. 

[jonpais]

@mercer Actually, it's around midnight here, and I thought it would be fun to transcribe the video. Seriously, I wasn't making any statement at all. I don't see any contradiction in what he said.