6K RAW is over-rated. Here's why...

[Skip77]

14 hours ago, kye said:

This isn't click-bait BS, let's actually talk about why 6K RAW cameras aren't really needed.

I see two main reasons:

• Many cameras already shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output (and the GH5 even has a lower-processed 5K anamorphic 4:3 mode) so the resolution benefits of 6K debayer resolution for a 4K delivery are already being enjoyed by many people
• For those who are claiming you need 6K to reframe for a 4K output, it is likely you don't know what reframing actually looks like

There is a third reason - that resolution has absolutely nothing to do with how good your film is, but I'll just assume that people who are desperate to get more resolution are probably not yet ready to hear this and I'll move on and pretend it somehow matters.

Much analysis has been done of the 6K -> 4K downsampling cameras, so I won't replicate those conversations, but instead let's look at the reframing argument.

If you're shooting 6K to reframe and get a 100% 4K crop out, you can reframe into the image up to 150% .  ie, if you want to match the same re-framing with only a 4K source, you must scale up that 4K source to 150%, effectively using a 2.5k source.  It sounds terrible, and despite people repeatedly saying that ARRI cameras capture at 3.2k and upscale to 4K (a 125% upscale) people still dismiss upscaling out-of-hand without actually knowing what difference this scaling makes, and being too lazy to actually test it themselves.

So I did it for you.... 

I look forward to people arguing their point in the face of overwhelming evidence....  ???

That is, unless you're delivering in 6K and also want to re-frame heavily in post, but seriously - who would be doing that?

One -The cameras that shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output like the A6500 still does not deliver a 6K file. Sorry but that's the truth. 

Two - Reframing from 6K to 4K is a valid argument for 6k and you must not edit much if you're using this as an argument. You always have limits when you reframe and you have to follow the rules. 6K shooters will also be delivering content in 2K so you have even more options. 

All the other stuff you said is not overwhelming evidence that we don't need 6K. It's only your opinion and unless you give us your background and work history your opinion is just that.

If BMD gave us 100Mbps and crapping image quality and only wanted to deliver 6K as a gimmick then I might agree with you. The P6K is not a gimmick camera and actually looks amazing on paper and the sample footage we've seen so far. 

6K is not that far from 4K and the same distance away from 8K, so it makes sense that this 6K footage will be relevant when 8K starts invading the market.

And the Gh5 test footage is apples to oranges compared to 6K footage reframing to 4K.  try again.

I would much rather all the cine companies continue to improve 4K and make it better and better with each release but that's not happening.  It's also not - let's have BMD 6K that's crappy vs really good 4k from another company.   For the price of the S1 you can get the BMD 6K that blows away the S1 and S1H. 

[Dunjoye]

8 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I see GAS all over the place. Happens every time a new product is released. If anything it will help keep the companies afloat ? (this comment is brand agnostic). As long as BM releases better products at low prices (even if I don’t buy them) it’s a win down the road. 

!!!!!

[Skip77]

9 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I see GAS all over the place. Happens every time a new product is released. If anything it will help keep the companies afloat ? (this comment is brand agnostic). As long as BM releases better products at low prices (even if I don’t buy them) it’s a win down the road. 

Could you imagine if Canon released a C200 replacement for $ 3,500 that did what the BMD 6K could do?  How many of those would Canon sell?  

[kye]

3 hours ago, Skip77 said:

One -The cameras that shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output like the A6500 still does not deliver a 6K file. Sorry but that's the truth. 

Two - Reframing from 6K to 4K is a valid argument for 6k and you must not edit much if you're using this as an argument. You always have limits when you reframe and you have to follow the rules. 6K shooters will also be delivering content in 2K so you have even more options. 

All the other stuff you said is not overwhelming evidence that we don't need 6K. It's only your opinion and unless you give us your background and work history your opinion is just that.

If BMD gave us 100Mbps and crapping image quality and only wanted to deliver 6K as a gimmick then I might agree with you. The P6K is not a gimmick camera and actually looks amazing on paper and the sample footage we've seen so far. 

6K is not that far from 4K and the same distance away from 8K, so it makes sense that this 6K footage will be relevant when 8K starts invading the market.

And the Gh5 test footage is apples to oranges compared to 6K footage reframing to 4K.  try again.

I would much rather all the cine companies continue to improve 4K and make it better and better with each release but that's not happening.  It's also not - let's have BMD 6K that's crappy vs really good 4k from another company.   For the price of the S1 you can get the BMD 6K that blows away the S1 and S1H. 

I suggest you carefully read my post again - many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make, but you obviously thought that I did.

Also, I'm aware that GH5 files aren't 6K RAW, but the logic you're failing to recognise is that a 4K crop is to 6K the same that a 150% crop of 4K is to straight 4K.  The argument goes that if you're outputting 4K and are going to crop in by 150% then you need 6K, but what the logic fails to recognise is that you can scale 4K by the same amount and if you add a small amount of sharpening then it's practically indistinguishable from the straight 4K file.  Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up.

It's funny when discussing things like this - you and @thephoenix both went to the extreme and then criticised that.  That is called a 'straw-man' argument, and although neither of you did it explicitly, you both reacted like I had said things I didn't actually say.

Let's examine the title of this thread and break it down: "6K RAW is over-rated. Here's why..."  

• 6K RAW
  I'm not really talking about compressed 6K.  If you're delivering 4K it will likely be compressed.  If you're shooting compressed 4K then grading it and then re-compressing it to deliver codec then that's a lot of damage to the image.  If you're shooting 4K RAW then you're already miles ahead of compressed 4K.  6K RAW is miles ahead of that and yet apparently it's "argue on the internet" levels of critical, despite that 4K RAW is already miles above the compressed 4K files that the world is awash in.
• overrated
  This is a key point - I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying that it's overrated.  To break this down further, I'm saying that there's a rating of some kind (in the direction of shiny-thing mania), and that that level of rating is above what rating it should have.  Not that it should be zero, just that it should be below what is has.
• Here's why
  This is where the arguments live, and I don't mean people fighting, I mean rational points designed to explore and explain thinking.

In terms of context, yes, it depends on what you're shooting and what it's for, but if I was a betting man I'd bet a serious amount of money that you're not delivering anything in 6K and couldn't tell a 2.5K crop upscaled to 4K from a 4K source in a blind test.  

[Skip77]

22 minutes ago, kye said:

I suggest you carefully read my post again - many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make, but you obviously thought that I did.

Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up.

It's funny when discussing things like this - you and @thephoenix both went to the extreme and then criticised that.  That is called a 'straw-man' argument, and although neither of you did it explicitly, you both reacted like I had said things I didn't actually say.

 

WOW! 

So you say you say "many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make" and that I made a "straw-man" argument.  And then you go on to say "Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up." 

I never said 6K is required for 4K reframing and keeping the same quality. What I said was "Reframing from 6K to 4K is a valid argument for 6k and you must not edit much if you're using this as an argument. You always have limits when you reframe and you have to follow the rules. 6K shooters will also be delivering content in 2K so you have even more options. "

Which means you have rules to follow when reframing.  And one rule is having higher resolution then what you're delivering too will allow reframing with the same quality. Ie. using 4K to reframe to 2K. 

So you called me out for supposedly a straw-man argument but you do the same-thing? What's that called? It starts with an H

You seem like you're reaching to try and be the hero that makes a valid point as to why we don't need 6K. 

We have more advantages for 6K from the BM P6K then we do against it. 

12 hours ago, DBounce said:

I'm not spitting on it,  but I'm not buying it.  I do this for fun, it's just a hobby for me. I'm a prosumer... a enthusiast that will buy pro gear. But the P6Ks cameras plastic build,  lack of good AF, bulky proportions and absence of any weather sealing makes it a pass for me. It's also doesn't help that it's been beaten hard with the ugly stick. 

The Panasonic S1H, Sigma FP or the Komodo(pending specs) are more my speed. 

The S1 has horrible AF.  How can you depend on that?  

[DBounce]

6 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

WOW! 

So you say you say "many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make" and that I made a "straw-man" argument.  And then you go on to say "Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up." 

I never said 6K is required for 4K reframing and keeping the same quality. What I said was "Reframing from 6K to 4K is a valid argument for 6k and you must not edit much if you're using this as an argument. You always have limits when you reframe and you have to follow the rules. 6K shooters will also be delivering content in 2K so you have even more options. "

Which means you have rules to follow when reframing.  And one rule is having higher resolution then what you're delivering too will allow reframing with the same quality. Ie. using 4K to reframe to 2K. 

So you called me out for supposedly a straw-man argument but you do the same-thing? What's that called? It starts with an H

You seem like you're reaching to try and be the hero that makes a valid point as to why we don't need 6K. 

We have more advantages for 6K from the BM P6K then we do against it. 

The S1 has horrible AF.  How can you depend on that?  

I do not own an S1... so I don’t depend on it. No one knows what the S1H will bring... because it’s not out and all we know are teasers that Panasonic gave us. 

That said, my Canons have fantastic AF. 

[Video Hummus]

4 hours ago, Skip77 said:

Could you imagine if Canon released a C200 replacement for $ 3,500 that did what the BMD 6K could do?  How many of those would Canon sell?  

A shite ton because I would buy one. But you are throwing out a dream spec camera and not some incremental improvement with a smallish resolution bump.

[Skip77]

40 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

A shite ton because I would buy one. But you are throwing out a dream spec camera and not some incremental improvement with a smallish resolution bump.

I think Canon could release a stripped down C200 version that has C200 specs and also relate a C200 upgrade with 6K.  Canon won't do that.

[Video Hummus]

I’d take a C100 Mark 3 with those striped down C200 specs.

[Leica50mm]

You don’t know what you are talking about until you have seen 8K monstro FF downscaled to 2 K ProRes . 

[Video Hummus]

34 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

You don’t know what you are talking about until you have seen 8K monstro FF downscaled to 2 K ProRes . 

It’s sweet! Let me just get my credit card out and pay for this bad boy....$60,000 a bargain! Why isn’t everybody shooting on this! ?

Pretty sure that there something more to that image than 8K.

 

[leslie]

3 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

It’s sweet! Let me just get my credit card out and pay for this bad boy....$60,000 a bargain! Why isn’t everybody shooting on this! ?

hmm, you could buy 33 bmp4k's  @ $1800 australian for 59400 but you probably want to only get 30 and have some change for memory cards and a couple of rig solutions  and a tripod perhaps

[Skip77]

31 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

It’s sweet! Let me just get my credit card out and pay for this bad boy....$60,000 a bargain! Why isn’t everybody shooting on this! ?

Pretty sure that there something more to that image than 8K.

 

I assume it has to do with how much data is captured at 8K and them squeezed down to 2K.  This makes me think the P6K down to 2K delivery will look better then the P4K.  How does the Canon 1 DX look better then it's completion at the time?  Canon's bloated files have more data information in them.  

[kye]

3 hours ago, Skip77 said:

Which means you have rules to follow when reframing.  And one rule is having higher resolution then what you're delivering too will allow reframing with the same quality.

Did you watch the video I posted?  Please tell us all how you can see that the reframed shot is visibly less quality.

Quoting the 'rules' when they are contradicted by actual footage is a bit of a strange argument, wouldn't you think?

[Leica50mm]

I do not have one but have been reading posts by owners who are astonished by how good the 2 K pro res looks straight out of the camera . 

[kye]

5 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

I do not have one but have been reading posts by owners who are astonished by how good the 2 K pro res looks straight out of the camera . 

If it's downscaled from 6K it should look lovely.  

Queue the people saying they'll upgrade to 6K, and 8K, and 12K just to deliver 2K ???

[Skip77]

38 minutes ago, kye said:

Did you watch the video I posted?  Please tell us all how you can see that the reframed shot is visibly less quality.

Quoting the 'rules' when they are contradicted by actual footage is a bit of a strange argument, wouldn't you think?

You're using compressed GH5 footage to make your case.  That right there is the issue.  Go get 6k RAW footage and then make your case.  People reframe 4K to 2K all the time and not loss in quality.  Yes you have rules to go follow but you would rather try and be right and hypocritical then wrong. 

You also need to show footage before you reframe it.  Show the footage as shot and then reframed to match the same framing.  Your test does not work for reframing. It's confusing because it's not the a complete test.

[kye]

3 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

You're using compressed GH5 footage to make your case.  That right there is the issue.  Go get 6k RAW footage and then make your case.  People reframe 4K to 2K all the time and not loss in quality.  Yes you have rules to go follow but you would rather try and be right and hypocritical then wrong. 

You're totally right, that is the issue.  No-one can understand my argument without understanding mathematical equivalency.  Or, you know, logic    

[Mako Sports]

I'll take as highest resolution I can afford. Idc. If this came in e mount and not ef, I would consider purchasing this as I would be able to shoot all my standard fps stuff in 6k.

[Skip77]

41 minutes ago, kye said:

You're totally right, that is the issue.  No-one can understand my argument without understanding mathematical equivalency.  Or, you know, logic    

No your test wasn't right.  You show two video clips and say one was cropped in.  Redo the test the right way and maybe you have point.  Math is also not on your side.  Use RAW footage and see what happens.  The footage you used is not very detailed and very little areas are in focus. That was not a real world test and the footage looked the same.