Compulsory viewing for EOSHD readers!

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

Superb debate on the future of camera tech and the cinematic image (from newsshooter.com):

 

 

 

[sunyata]

thanks for posting this, it's what i've been feeling/saying here since my first post. with digital pro-sumer cameras, i believe we need more usable dynamic range, not resolution. personally, 2k at 24p seems to work fine for me: if it isn't broke, why fix it? i think LDR 4k is really a ploy to sell more tv's.

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

i think LDR 4k is really a ploy to sell more tv's.

 

Yup yup. Look at who's making 4K cameras - Panasonic, Sony and Samsung.

 

Do Canon and Nikon make TV's? Nope.

 

My main hope is that Blackmagic continue to develop the Pocket series (EVF, larger sensor, etc).

[Quirky]

Yup yup. Look at who's making 4K cameras - Panasonic, Sony and Samsung.

 

Do Canon and Nikon make TV's? Nope.

 

Do AJA, Blackmagic and Kinefinity make TV's? Nope.

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

Do AJA, Blackmagic and Kinefinity make TV's? Nope.

 

It's a fair point. But the fact that cine-camera companies are making 4K cameras is what the video above is about. 

 

Assuming that here on EOSHD we're focusing on low budget, what matters is priorities - I'd take a 10-bit, 13 stop 2K image over a 4K camera with less 'meat' to its image.

 

It's a complicated issue, and probably not very useful to get too polarised about it. But the fact is the big consumer companies that are offering 4K video are the TV giants. It can't be ignored. Particularly when Panny, Sony and Samsung have decided to implement 4K at consumer level before offering up a perfect HD camera.

[Jacek]

Yup yup. Look at who's making 4K cameras - Panasonic, Sony and Samsung.

 

Do Canon and Nikon make TV's? Nope.

 

Huh? :blink:

Can you explain your Canon/Nikon theory?

 

Hint: Canon is making 4k DSLRs (1DC, C500). Canon/Nikon do not invest in consumer level cameras video features almost at all (even 2k) - they make still cameras.

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

Huh? :blink:

Can you explain your Canon/Nikon theory?

 

Hint: Canon is making 4k DSLRs (1DC, C500). Canon/Nikon do not invest in consumer level cameras video features almost at all (even 2k) - they make still cameras.

See post above.

 

I wasn't defending/praising Canon and Nikon. I was pointing out that there is a connection between supposedly "good" consumer video camera manufacturers (Sony, Panny, Samsung) and the 4K drive. 

[sunyata]

it's not necessarily required that a camera manufacturer makes tv's in order for them to see a profit in selling 4k cameras. if there is a demand, then they will jump on board.. but the initial push i still believe was to provide a low cost incentive to refresh the product cycle. 

[Inazuma]

They said it all. It's not about whether 4k is too detailed or cameras have too little DR. It's about lighting. 25 years ago they had to have tons of equipment to shoot a scene at night. Now cameras are powerful enough to shoot with minimal other stuff.

 

You have to remember that these guys are professionals. Their frame of reference is different. They were using high end cameras anyway, not soft Canon/Nikon/Sony DSLR video. 4K is another step up from those high end cameras. It's detail that they see as unnecessary. 

 

Also I think it really depends on what you're shooting. I think 4k consumer cameras give us the flexibility. If you're shooting 50 year old actresses then yeah sure, by all means use a diffusion filter. If you're shooting landscapes, you might prefer to have a tack sharp image. 

 

And besides the Sony a7s and Canon RAW, the hybrid cameras with the most dynamic range for video are the Panasonics (GX7 and above). And they just happen to also be the ones that resolve most detail. I also find the image pops more because of this detail.

[sunyata]

They said it all. It's not about whether 4k is too detailed or cameras have too little DR. It's about lighting. 25 years ago they had to have tons of equipment to shoot a scene at night. Now cameras are powerful enough to shoot with minimal other stuff.

 

You have to remember that these guys are professionals. Their frame of reference is different. They were using high end cameras anyway, not soft Canon/Nikon/Sony DSLR video. 4K is another step up from those high end cameras. It's detail that they see as unnecessary. 

 

Also I think it really depends on what you're shooting. I think 4k consumer cameras give us the flexibility. If you're shooting 50 year old actresses then yeah sure, by all means use a diffusion filter. If you're shooting landscapes, you might prefer to have a tack sharp image. 

 

And besides the Sony a7s and Canon RAW, the hybrid cameras with the most dynamic range for video are the Panasonics (GX7 and above). And they just happen to also be the ones that resolve most detail. I also find the image pops more because of this detail.

 

Yes, lighting is the key, but how can you accurately represent that lighting w/o wide dynamic range?

[Jacek]

See post above.

 

I wasn't defending/praising Canon and Nikon. I was pointing out that there is a connection between supposedly "good" consumer video camera manufacturers (Sony, Panny, Samsung) and the 4K drive. 

 

But they are talking about delivery format. To get  2k image they say, they are using often higher resolution cameras (and for 4k delivery they say you will need 6k camera).

 

About consumer cameras:

- Sony does not have actually 4k camera. A7S is 2k (you need other expensive professional gear to get 4k) and the image quality is superb - huge improvement.

- Panasonic/Samsung are promoting their 4k TVs, but actualy their 4k cameras is very good direction to get much better 2k output.

[Jacek]

The video is more about delivery format. And it's about professional cameras.

The guys say that:

- to get proper 4k you will need 6k camera

- to get proper 2k they often use more than 2k camera.

They are using right now true 2k (or more than 2k) professional cameras with perfect image quality: professional codec or RAW, no banding, moire, blockiness, digital noise and sharpening etc..

 

So they can produce stunning 2k image right now and the only thing they would like is more DR and more color depth. I agree with them - 2k output is sufficient (for me). But we are talking about professional quality true 2k.

 

Consumer cameras is different story - until now they were not even true 2k and suffered from much bigger problems than DR and color depth. We had to deal with softness, banding, moire, rolling shutter, digital noise, low bitrate, false colors and different other artifacts. If you just add 10bit and 15 stop DR to this crap it would be just a little better crap. 4k recording format is one of the solutions for many consumer camera artifacts - not only resolution.

 

Panasonic and Sony are making huge improvements in consumer level cameras from the other side. Full pixels readout, better codec (higher bit-rate) etc.:

Sony A7S: great resolution -could say true 2k (it is not 4k camera [without other gear]), great DR, codec, low-light, picture profiles like SLOG...

Panasonic: 4k cameras with high bit-rate, great DR and full pixel readout - it is huge step up for 2k delivery format - 4k downscaling means true 2k resolution, less banding, blocking, digital niose...

 

For 2k delivery format Panasonic Sony and Samsung made HUGE leap forward in consumer (budget) level cameras, while Canon and Nikon did nothing.

 

PS.: You want just 10bit and 13 stop DR 2k? Just get BMPCC, it has all of that and more (RAW).

But if you want other improvements, here comes Panasonic/Sony/Samsung with true 2k delivery resolution, no moire, less digital noise, more professional settings etc..

[sunyata]

actually, the bmpcc is not the solution to low cost HDR 2k, the sensor has flaws, such as pretty severe moire.

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

The video is more about delivery format. And it's about professional cameras.

The guys say that:

- to get proper 4k you will need 6k camera

- to get proper 2k they often use more than 2k camera.

They are using right now true 2k (or more than 2k) professional cameras with perfect image quality: professional codec or RAW, no banding, moire, blockiness, digital noise and sharpening etc..

 

So they can produce stunning 2k image right now and the only thing they would like is more DR and more color depth. I agree with them - 2k output is sufficient (for me). But we are talking about professional quality true 2k.

 

Consumer cameras is different story - until now they were not even true 2k and suffered from much bigger problems than DR and color depth. We had to deal with softness, banding, moire, rolling shutter, digital noise, low bitrate, false colors and different other artifacts. If you just add 10bit and 15 stop DR to this crap it would be just a little better crap. 4k recording format is one of the solutions for many consumer camera artifacts - not only resolution.

 

Panasonic and Sony are making huge improvements in consumer level cameras from the other side. Full pixels readout, better codec (higher bit-rate) etc.:

Sony A7S: great resolution -could say true 2k (it is not 4k camera [without other gear]), great DR, codec, low-light, picture profiles like SLOG...

Panasonic: 4k cameras with high bit-rate, great DR and full pixel readout - it is huge step up for 2k delivery format - 4k downscaling means true 2k resolution, less banding, blocking, digital niose...

 

For 2k delivery format Panasonic Sony and Samsung made HUGE leap forward in consumer (budget) level cameras, while Canon and Nikon did nothing.

 

PS.: You want just 10bit and 13 stop DR 2k? Just get BMPCC, it has all of that and more (RAW).

But if you want other improvements, here comes Panasonic/Sony/Samsung with true 2k delivery resolution, no moire, less digital noise, more professional settings etc..

 

Can we let this go? What you're saying is all common knowledge.

 

You are basically reinforcing my point, which is 'get 2K right before jumping to 4K'. Yes the GH4's 4K gives great 2K, but why not just give us great 2K straight out the camera? Why not put all that bitrate into colour and DR? Consumers don't need 4K!

OK the A7S does some of that, but the codec is horribly thin - S-LOG on the A7S is as daft as Cinestyle.

 

And I have a BMPCC. That's part of the reason I'm saying what I am. Why don't the big manufacturers focus on image quality like that? Because it doesn't fit with their overall marketing strategy.

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

actually, the bmpcc is not the solution to low cost HDR 2k, the sensor has flaws, such as pretty severe moire. the Alexa has wide dynamic range encoded into a usable format and also sacrifices 4k resolution for film-like dynamic range and gamma/color. in my experience, it's useful, in particular with glamour shots, that there is less resolution and more dynamic range. 

 

BMPCC moire is indeed a pain, but for myself I love the colour space and dynamic range enough to live with it until SOMEONE comes out with a decent HD camera in the same price bracket.

[Quirky]

It's a complicated issue, and probably not very useful to get too polarised about it. But the fact is the big consumer companies that are offering 4K video are the TV giants. It can't be ignored. Particularly when Panny, Sony and Samsung have decided to implement 4K at consumer level before offering up a perfect HD camera.

 

I'm not saying the three fellows are wrong, quite the contrary, but I don't think that 4K is just a ploy to sell TV's, either. 

I'm not about to get polarised about the 4K issue. In fact I'm trying to do the opposite, and steer away from the (inevitable) polarised debate. 

 

I just thought that bringing in Canikon as an argument to support the ploy to sell more 4K TV's theory was a bit pointless, because Canikon are not relevant in the mainstream/prosumer (limited budget) video market in the first place. They are making dSLR's. But as pointed out above, several other pro-oriented companies, even Canon with their cine line, are offering 4K/UHD, too, regardless of their involvement in the TV business.

 

I believe the industry is moving towards 4K, eventually, whether we really need it or not. It's not just about selling more TV's, it's about selling all sorts of new stuff. It's normal product differentiation to boost sales in general, and to keep the momentum going. Like so often in the business of selling stuff, product differentiation often comes down to new buzzwords. 4K is the hot new buzzword.

 

A part of the process may be just natural progress, too, and that's why some of the smaller, non-mainstream higher end manufacturers are jumping onboard. Even though their core business is not depending on the sales of big TV's or even smartphones. 

 

For the time being I'm quite content with high-quality 1080p, too, but I am also somewhat 4K-curious. One possible benefit of 4K is the option for better quality 1080p/2K, be it just a happy accident or a deliberate result.

But I believe I will jump into UHD/4K, eventually. Thanks to all the current hype, it may be our only option, sooner or later.

[Jacek]

this is a 2k Alexa image... smooths out wrinkles and softens make-up while retaining tons of light detail, and sensor noise is large like fast film grain, also no artifacts/banding. i would prefer that the pro-sumer camera manufacturers would try to get a higher quality 2k image instead of a low quality 4k image. 

 

But as I said, they do. Sony released A7s 2k camera. GH4 has 200Mbit 2k (but apparently lower quality downscaled 4k produces better 2k image from the same camera). Both with great DR, true 2k resolution and less other artifacts...

Bmpcc is an example that focusing on DR and color is not the best way. Consumer cameras have to first overcome bigger problems - Panasonic/Sony/Samsung are making great progress.

 

It is huge imrovement over previous cameras, but don't expect Alexa quality (wait some more time - they are budget cameras).

[Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1]

For the time being I'm quite content with high-quality 1080p, too, but I am also somewhat 4K-curious. One possible benefit of 4K is the option for better quality 1080p, be it just a happy accident or a deliberate result.

But I believe I will jump into UHD/4K, eventually. Thanks to all the current hype, it may be our only option, sooner or later.

 

Well this is the crux of it for me (I didn't intend to get so focused on the TV thing). 4K offers a good 2K image, but as I've said above, why not give us a good 2K image out of the camera? Put all that bit rate into colour and DR, etc, etc.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Criticizing 4K because 4K bayer is not true 4K is ridiculous. This talk is as if there's something special about that 4K magic number and everything below it is not good and not "true" (yet he goes on on how high resolution is not important),

2.1K is better than 1080p, 2.5K is a bit better, 2.8K is a bit better, 3K is a bit better, 3.4k is a bit better, 4K is a bit better. So a non-true poor 4K camera (as they call it) will still resolve way higher than the best 1080p cameras. 

My take on resolution:

Higher resolution is better. Period. Resolution is one of the many aspects of image quality, and having the highest resolution possible will result in higher image quality. I would take ALL the resolution I can get. If I was able to shoot at 36 megapixels video I will, because starting with the highest resolution simply means more options, you can then take these 36 megapixel files and crush it to SD for all I know, your choice. With a high resolution camera if you want a soft low-resolution image, you can get it. Want a high detailed image, you can get it. Having a low resolution image is not better in anyway. The only scenario I can think of where a low resolution camera is better is if you have no time for post production at all and need to deliver a soft image straight off the card for some reason.

There are many other aspects to image quality of course, like dynamic range, like noise performance at high ISOs, like colour information, I would also take as much as I can get from all of these. A theoretically perfect image would have the highest resolution possible, highest dynamic range, colour information, cleanest noise performance, lowest image artefacts possible (aliasing/moire/rollingshutter)

We also have to accept that people have different needs on how important each of these qualities take priority. When I am shooting a wide-detailed shot, I take out the GH4, when I shoot everything else (faces, or in low-light, or in high contrast), I take out the D5300 or Canons they are way inferior to the GH4 in resolution but superior in colour, in noise performance and dynamic range... I would love my camera to be superior at all these aspects and that's where we should be pushing the companies not just at one quality...  

[Jacek]

Can we let this go? What you're saying is all common knowledge.

 

You are basically reinforcing my point, which is 'get 2K right before jumping to 4K'. Yes the GH4's 4K gives great 2K, but why not just give us great 2K straight out the camera? Why not put all that bitrate into colour and DR? Consumers don't need 4K!

OK the A7S does some of that, but the codec is horribly thin - S-LOG on the A7S is as daft as Cinestyle.

 

And I have a BMPCC. That's part of the reason I'm saying what I am. Why don't the big manufacturers focus on image quality like that? Because it doesn't fit with their overall marketing strategy.

 

I see your point - they could do better if there were no 4k on the horizont.

 

But there is hope :). There is one company which turned into the right direction.... OLYMPUS !.. Seriously!

Their Open Platform Community is very promising. Now there is no political obstracles to develop perfect software for their sensors: RAW video support, all kind of video profiles, HDR tricks ...

Open Software = no restrictions. The only limitation will be the electronics.

 

Hope the project will succeed.

 

http://opc.olympus-imaging.com/en/index.html