Is 4K Worth The Tradeoff?

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

That equation counts much more than some other nonsense math for the subject matter strictly based on 4K vs 1080p or 720p acquisition.

 

Yup, who here wouldn't rather shoot with an Arri Alexa in 1080 than a RED ONE at 4K?
 

[webrunner5]

I don't think the argument ought to be 1080p versus 4K, it ought to be how sharp is the output of the final product. It is like the difference between a Canon C100 1080p, and say a Canon 5D mk II, or even a 80D. Heck the C100 looks like 4K because it is automatically downsampled from 4K. Night and day difference in 1080p. The A7s versus the A6300 is another good example.

Sharpness is what determines resolution nearly as much as the resolution its self. I know it is more complicated than that, but you get my point... I hope lol. ? Heck even brigtness determines it a lot. Look a that latest Game of Thrones thing. Hell it is so dark it could have been 12K and it would not have made a crap. You can't see resolution when you can't even see the output.

[dbp]

43 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think the argument ought to be 1080p versus 4K, it ought to be how sharp is the output of the final product. It is like the difference between a Canon C100 1080p, and say a Canon 5D mk II, or even a 80D. Heck the C100 looks like 4K because it is automatically downsampled from 4K. Night and day difference in 1080p. The A7s versus the A6300 is another good example.

Sharpness is what determines resolution nearly as much as the resolution its self. I know it is more complicated than that, but you get my point... I hope lol. ? Heck even brigtness determines it a lot. Look a that latest Game of Thrones thing. Hell it is so dark it could have been 12K and it would not have made a crap. You can't see resolution when you can't even see the output.

Yep, this. It's an interesting "all things being equal" discussion, but it rarely is.

I'd rather shoot 1080p with the C100 or the Blackmagic pocket than 4K with many cameras.

And this may be blasphemous, but I'm much less keen on the really heavy lesser compressed codecs in 4K. The storage space and media requirements are just too much. I'll be happy with my 150mps on my GH5. 

 

[Mark Romero 2]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So we're making an argument for 720 now?

see... Canon is ahead of the game with their 120fps at 720p.

[Django]

This is exactly how i shoot with EOS R. Mostly FHD mixed with a few 4K close-up shots and 720p 120fps bursts.

If the editing is tight, nobody will notice the gap in resolution, even on a 4K 55" OLED TV.

Does that mean 720p = FHD = 4K ? of course not, but when mixed together if shot & edited smartly they fit fine and your brain sort of gets fooled into thinking its all 4K because of the high detail close up shots. So it's kind of a trick but hey whatever works..

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think the argument ought to be 1080p versus 4K, it ought to be how sharp is the output of the final product. It is like the difference between a Canon C100 1080p, and say a Canon 5D mk II, or even a 80D. Heck the C100 looks like 4K because it is automatically downsampled from 4K. Night and day difference in 1080p. The A7s versus the A6300 is another good example.

Sharpness is what determines resolution nearly as much as the resolution its self. 

4

Agreed. C100 has some of the sharpest detailed FHD (i've seen some tests where it even beats the C200's FHD by a margin) and EOS R with RF lenses also does very sharp FHD. Unlike the soft 1080p from 5D2/5D3 era.

[kaylee]

14 hours ago, Django said:

This is exactly how i shoot with EOS R. Mostly FHD

ive been looking at some eos r 1080p, its really nice. how do you like it?

[BasiliskFilm]

Shooting dialogue or a talking head, the option of capturing the equivalent of a midlength shot and a portrait shot simultaneously is a no-brainer for saving time in shooting and edit.

Mostly I deliver in 1080p, but oversampling for best quality never hurts: C100 does it in camera and produces a nice result, but that is for technical reasons that should no longer apply. If you could have the full sensor output, why would you not?

[Adam Kuźniar]

Didn't watch the video but what's the tradeoff of shooting 4k? Bigger files? Come on, hard drives are cheaper than ever before. Longer upload times? Maybe in the rural US because here average upload speed is 25Mbps, so it's quick to upload anything. Tougher to edit? Just proxy it. 

 

I shoot vlogs, I shoot event recaps, I shoot music videos and not once did I think "oh man, I'll purposefully degrade the quality of my shots because no one will even notice in the end". When I do have to go lower (for slowmo for example) I always hate how it looks like compared to 4K. 

[Video Hummus]

I’ll take 4K simply for the ability to re-frame, correct horizons, image stabilize, keyframe crops and zooms and panning motions in post any day of the week. Storage requirements for 4K aren’t terrible, especially if you have some kind of archive the only the best and delete the rest workflow. Hanging onto every scarp or footage indefinitely is wasteful. 

[m43forme]

One thing not mentioned in Matti's clip is that he's likely using his EOS R - which has soft 4k with the in camera 8 bit recording. It shows pretty starkly if you watch his EOS R review where he shows a face shot of A7III->X-T3->EOS R. The R looks like 1080p. 

Now, this speaks to a different point that people don't think about - 4k isn't all created equal and some 1080p is better than other camera's 4k. I'd take the EOS R's 1080p over the Panasonic G7's 4k. 

Another issue is the double edge sword of YouTube compression. Yes, 4k gets compressed on YouTube that may bring it closer to 1080p. But if you only upload in 1080p, you don't get the higher bitrate tranche that YouTube affords you for uploading in 4k. A camera with great 1080p like the BMPCC upscaled to 4k in post and published to YouTube may be the best of all worlds.

[Django]

it's not so much that EOS R's 4K is soft but that other mirrorless 4K is supersampled & oversharpened. 

5 hours ago, kaylee said:

ive been looking at some eos r 1080p, its really nice. how do you like it?

like i said much better than 5D2/5D3. there is also a crop mode where the 1080p supersamples from 4K and gives an incredibly detailed image.

i have my 3 custom movie modes set to FF FHD / 4K / 120fps and i just switch between these 3 modes depending on the shot i need. i don't worry so much about resolution.

with EIS you can crop even further, this can turn a 35mm/50mm into a 70-85mm with almost macro abilities. lot's of creative fun!

[m43forme]

1 hour ago, Django said:

it's not so much that EOS R's 4K is soft but that other mirrorless 4K is supersampled & oversharpened. 

For some, yes, that's why I said I'd take the 1080p from an EOS R over a G7's 4k all day long. Same with the G85 and the GH4. 

But the X-T3's 4k is clean, high bitrate, and is far more detailed without looking digital/over sharpened. Canon's video has always been soft in their consumer oriented cameras. Their 4K in the C200 and the 10 bit 4k from the R on an external recorder look very nice. So there is a difference. Even Canon's own 1080p has come a long way, where it lagged behind others for ages.

[ade towell]

In the 1080p crop mode on the EOS-R how is the RS, is it similar to the 4k or pretty good like I presume the 1080p full frame is? Can you use ef-s lenses in this mode?

Also can you use ef-s lenses on the 4k full frame to reduce the crop?

[Django]

you can use EF-S lenses in any mode but it won't "reduce the crop". automatically jumps to 1.74x for video. RS stays about the same. Bummer on both, i know!

[newfoundmass]

I have a 55 inch 4K TV. When I'm within 2 or 3 feet of it I see a difference between 1080p and 4K. Sitting a normal distance away the difference is almost negligible and I think has as much to do with the higher bit rate than higher resolution. 

4K is still nice in post. I do think it results in better 1080p. I just think, in order to really appreciate 4K on a television or monitor, without being inches away from the screen, you have to have a giant television most of us don't have and can't afford. 

[thebrothersthre3]

2k movie screens never looked bad to me ?

That's why I think the entire thing is pretty silly.

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

2k movie screens never looked bad to me ?

That's why I think the entire thing is pretty silly.

I think, at the very least, it's overblown. I know that Griffin Hammond has talked about his Sriracha documentary looking good on movie theater screens even though it's only 1080p.

It's wild that we're hearing more and more about 8K, given I think most of us are still delivering in 1080p and I notice very little demand for 4K from my clients. Are there even stations that air in 4K in the US? 

 

[andrgl]

On 5/5/2019 at 12:53 PM, Django said:

If the editing is tight, nobody will notice the gap in resolution, even on a 4K 55" OLED TV.

It's shocking how shit my old FHD footage looks upscaled on a 43" UHD panel.

Even on YouTube the difference is obvious.

[Django]

@andrgl  I do own the 55" 4K OLED TV but I don't edit on a 4K/5K display for those very reasons you mention since i mostly shoot FHD.

that might change when i get a C200 though.

 

[Kisaha]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I have a 55 inch 4K TV. When I'm within 2 or 3 feet of it I see a difference between 1080p and 4K. Sitting a normal distance away the difference is almost negligible and I think has as much to do with the higher bit rate than higher resolution. 

4K is still nice in post. I do think it results in better 1080p. I just think, in order to really appreciate 4K on a television or monitor, without being inches away from the screen, you have to have a giant television most of us don't have and can't afford. 

Our monitors literally are inches away from us though..

For me, the big difference is the HDR, not so much the resolution. I think OLED makes such a huge difference to all that; human eyes can adapt to darkness (except GOT!) but they can not stand too much brightness, so the absolute black is more valuable to higher brightness technology.

Also, have you people noticed how bad the 80s and 90s and even early 00s, series look right now? They are almost difficult to follow, while the 60s and 70s remastered from film look stunning!