What is the point of 4k?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Calling any of us who think 4k resolution makes a big difference in image quality geeks calling ourselves cinematographers/dps and not real artists, is honestly offending.

Are you more of an artist or less of a "geek" because you like using softening filters? You'd be a moron if you think so. Liking softer images doesn't make you less of an artist either.

I like more resolution and clarity. A huge number of audience like more resolution and associate it with higher quality. Get over it.

See what you and your audience like in image softness or sharpness and shoot with that. Just don't pretend as if it's a superior form art to shoot soft/sharp, or that those who like high resolution don't have a clue on the other aspects like colour, cinematography, lighting, DR, it's absolutely irrelevant and honestly offensive.

(this is not pointed at any specific user it's a rant about a new tone of speech I find on forums whenever the 4K subject turns up)

[Vesku]

Has anyone tried if there any significant benefit of using 4k 10bit 4:2:2 with GH4 compared to internal recording? The sensor is not very good at 100% readout and if it is 2/3 of true resolution can we see the benefit of better color sampling?

[Danyyyel]

The point of 4K, well, we all know megapixels so it's easier to think of it as still frames. 1080p is 2 megapixels, 4K is 8 mps.

The jump from 1080p to 4K gives you the exact same advantage as jumping from a 2mp camera to an 8mp one.

It's four times the resolution. Four times the information in the picture. If photographers won't print 2mp stills as big as a 50" screen size then why should we accept it? I mean screens are now larger than most photographic prints and we should have high resolution to fill them.

If you ask me, the jump to 8 megapixels in the stills world was the point where I believe digital took over film, because until then film had significantly more resolution. So I think 4K is the point where digital video matches s35 film in terms of resolution, and thing lower is less than HQ film resolution.

1-4K gives you more detail therefore a much sharper image, and sharpness/detail is the most important factor giving the impression of high iage quality to consumers.

2-4K gives you the ability to view or "print" your images on larger screens/projections without looking soft or low quality.

3-4K gives you the ability to make significant framing/cropping adjustments if you're outputting to 1080p video.

4-4K gives you much more room in grading becauss of the higher information, the image keys much better, and you can make percise adjustments/tracks/greenscreen work better than 1080p.

5-4K is high resolution enough to pull still photographs from the video and print them quite large and more than adequate for most professional uses, so it merges professional videography with photography to a great extent.

6-4K in consumer cameras doesn't require the camera to downscale the sensor heavily by using line-skipping or pixel-binning which both reduce quality, so 4K gives us a full pixel-to-pixel read-out, no aliasing/moire and such.

Everything else being equal 4K is just much better than 1080p, no matter your output is 4k or 1080p or even SD. More resolution is better, if you can give me 20k I'd happily take it.

Just make sure you understand it when I say "all things being equal", because there are other factors that can make a 1080p image better than a 4K image on another camera. We're just discussing 4K vs 1080p when everything else is constant.

4K is better and is the future. The only reason you'd choose 1080p is that you can't handle the 4K files in editing, or that you want to deliver 1080p footage straight from the card with no time to downscale in post. Other than that 4K is better.

 

You cannot compare video to photo. Many people do that same error, yes they are images but how they are perceived (I don't find a proper word for that in my english) is very different. They are very different art form.

 

A photograph is eternity, a fraction of a second capture for eternity. It is like a painting, you can watch a photo at least for a minutes, your eyes wander through the scene, it is like a book it can convey many stories, have many actors etc. Like let say a scene at a market with a seller and woman discussing price. In a photo you could have those two into a heated discussing with lots of emotion, on one side or on her back the child of the buyer completely disinterested or bored about the discussion with a very candid face and a toy in her hand, some buy standers in the background amused by the scene with some interesting impression on there face, etc etc.. It could take you easily a minutes or more looking at this image if it is well done in terms of framing composition colour or black and white etc

 

In a video scene of the same scene you would never look at the same scene for more than 5/10 seconds. For it to be interesting you would need this scene as an establishing shot, the you would do closer shots to capture the different people to tell the same story. At no time would you do a shot more than 5/10 second if else it will start to be boring.

 

This is why the discussion about resolution in photo and video are two very different films. In a photo in a book or a bg gallery wall you can move toward the photo or put the paper closer and your eyes and mind can wander through it. You can watch a photo for minutes but can you tell me how many static video scene can you watch for more than 10/20 second. Video is about motion within the frame and outside of the frame (editing). As such your eyes(brain) cannot settle at any point for enough time to render the same resolution as in prints and this without facturing motion blur.

 

Another thing myth about using 4k images for photography. When I do a wedding, I am easily shoot about 2000 photos. The work of sorting out these photos and doing selection is easily between half a day and a days work. Why, again photo can be scrutinise much more, if it is out of focus, it is out of focus..... while if in a video scene of 5 sec 5/10 frames are out of focus in a moving scene it will still be good, because again your brain will just skip it as it is not permanent, the half a second it is on the scene it is already replaced less than a second after that by other images. Then lets say you have 4 hours of footage and you have to search for lets say 800 to 1500 good one as photos as good one before choosing those that will be processed. And those photos will generally be on the lower quality jpeg compression (If you are shooting raw it is some gigantic file size). The last thing would be shutter speed, most photos will have motion blur which will equate to blurry photos at 1/50 sec!!!!!!!!!!!! For sure in some occasion it can save some shot, but 90% of the time it would be just spray and pray photography, the worst form of what is an art form.

 

I have a D800 and I have shot with most Nikon cameras except the D3/D4 line and I pride myself of being able to capture that sense of eternity in a fraction of a second of what photography is about. On many website I see mostly videographers talking about using 4k for photo etc, and this tells me how much these two art form are very different and that they don't understand that the mindset is very different because video is about continuity.

[Axel]

Calling any of us who think 4k resolution makes a big difference in image quality geeks calling ourselves cinematographers/dps and not real artists, is honestly offending.

 

I find this touchiness to be disproportionate. Of the 2k defenders (among them more than just a few DoPs, but who needs so-called authorities to support his own point of view?) because they attack the 4k users in spite of their own statement that resolution is a quantitative parameter, correlated only to the size of the image, and that size is not that important. Lets me wonder sometimes if they actually envy those who already work with UHD. Like, caviar? - no thanks, my bread and butter taste much better! Hypocrites.

 

Of the 4k users because why should they feel offended by any remark implying that they just fall for every marketing lie of the industry and were no 'real' artists? We're all post-modern, we're all artists by nature, we can't help it. Possibly shows they need more pixels to compensate for less, what? Talent? 

[Danyyyel]

Another thing on a more geeky side, is that I would like the second poster in this thread to show me how a bayer (most dslr) sensor camera needs 18 megapixel to get 2k resolution. Please can you show us some example because it seems really far-fetched. I mean I have been doing photography since the 6 megapixel D70 and now a Nikon d800. So by your saying with my D800 I am shooting more like 2.6/3k resolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At 100% on a screen of a normal portrait shot with some room above the head and a up to the chest I can easily see every smallest vein in the eye and I mean with a 12 megapixel  D700/d300 (amid vertically). I can clearly see more detail on a face with my 24 megapixel D7100 and D800 than with my naked eyes at very very close distance. 

[Danyyyel]

Calling any of us who think 4k resolution makes a big difference in image quality geeks calling ourselves cinematographers/dps and not real artists, is honestly offending.

Are you more of an artist or less of a "geek" because you like using softening filters? You'd be a moron if you think so. Liking softer images doesn't make you less of an artist either.

I like more resolution and clarity. A huge number of audience like more resolution and associate it with higher quality. Get over it.

See what you and your audience like in image softness or sharpness and shoot with that. Just don't pretend as if it's a superior form art to shoot soft/sharp, or that those who like high resolution don't have a clue on the other aspects like colour, cinematography, lighting, DR, it's absolutely irrelevant and honestly offensive.

(this is not pointed at any specific user it's a rant about a new tone of speech I find on forums whenever the 4K subject turns up)

 

You can see in my second post that I discuss some things you said about photo/video in a more technical way. I am very technical about my photography in natural light and in fashion with flash, with lighting ratios etc. But I take the example above of these 3 cinematographer because they are the one who have experience at a level than none of us have here. How many of us have any film or even award winning film to your credit !!!!!!!!! I have no ego to say that I have any knowledge or I have reach a level that I know too much or I am going to lecture anyone here. For me I prefer to take the knowledge and learn from these guys who know 99.9% more than anyone on internet forums and have worked on millions dollar films. They know the rigours and stress and level of expertise needed on those big production.

 

Why did I put that video because the second poster ridiculed that report the OP shared, while those 3 cinematographer confirm what the report says. So who am I, or as it is a sharing site for the good of all, to balance the argument that this report is bad. So I think that anyone who just reeds that as how he said it as an authority (without any link to any other report dismissing the other first one) that it was bad. Where are his technical explanation with charts and studies about human visual acuity and some reference about his work and experience to back it up. I am not there to bash anyone but please if you are going to BS some report please give us some reference to back it up.

 

There was a Sony report about 4k when they launch and what it basically said it was that the gain was very low at normal viewing distance. I have watched 4k TV (with scrutiny) 2 days ago on a 65 and 85 inch tv curvy screen. With the usual contrasty super punchy mostly wildlife demo footage (paint drying shot), there was zero difference at normal viewing distance (and my normal viewing distance is closer than most as I like to watch films on my 50 inch plasma trying to simulate movie experience, until I get money to buy me a high quality projector with deep black and contrast ratio). Does anyone watch a 65 inch TV at less than 2 foot !!!!!!!!! Sure the vendor will bend and make you come and look at the image (like a photo) at less than a foot just to sell you the screen and images with higher contrast will give much more a sense of sharpness.

 

So this is why I wrote my first post Ebrahim, it was not meant particularly at you, it was meant at the second poster. Now if he has some counter arguments with links etc I am all ears. What those 3 DPs where saying is very important, it is not as if resolution is not important, but everything has a threshold and sometime when you go higher it is not only counter productive but start to become a liability. I shoot human being (as most filmakers will do) and too much resolution/detail is not your friend, most of the time I have to soften the skin. No one wants to see every pores of his skin and these DP confirm that.

 

If you don't believe me about softening skin, just do a search about The Hobbit desolation of Smaug and promist filters.  I am not saying that resolution or detail is not important but In between super sharp 4k image and barely 720p Canon Dslr mush there is a happy medium.

[Danyyyel]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/17/hfr-the-desolation-of-smaug/

 

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-3d-looks-1200941962/

 

Just some link about the use of Tiffen Pro-mist filters in desolation of Smaug. Peter Jackon has been one of the most vocal directors about 4k and red and he had to backtrack because of the critics on the hobbit hfr but also the harshness of the images (mainly the actors).

[Danyyyel]

Another thing I wanted to add, normally we are in a film-maker forum, with some already doing it or some aspiring ones. Most are also indie low budget one. What the example of Desolation of Smaug shows is how resolution detail can be at the detriment of your work Why !!!!!!!!!!!!! because it will make everything pop up like make-up and any short comings in your props and sets. One of the mains criticism of the Hobbit was that everything looked fake, you could see the make up, the prosthesis and set design was just fake.

 

How this will translate to your film? One of the reason the dslr and more so the full frame sensor gave was not just simply shallow depth of field but also as it was softer and shallower compared to normal cameras, thus hiding a lot the defects in the sets etc. The 4k will put the work of your make-up artist and set design to the test, much more than true 1080p (Alexa 2.7 K for example). Just some food for thoughts.

[andrgl]

Another thing on a more geeky side, is that I would like the second poster in this thread to show me how a bayer (most dslr) sensor camera needs 18 megapixel to get 2k resolution. Please can you show us some example because it seems really far-fetched. I mean I have been doing photography since the 6 megapixel D70 and now a Nikon d800. So by your saying with my D800 I am shooting more like 2.6/3k resolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At 100% on a screen of a normal portrait shot with some room above the head and a up to the chest I can easily see every smallest vein in the eye and I mean with a 12 megapixel  D700/d300 (amid vertically). I can clearly see more detail on a face with my 24 megapixel D7100 and D800 than with my naked eyes at very very close distance. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

[Danyyyel]

So I don't understand where it is written that it is only one third resolution.... Even if it is so in dominance, lets see about real life, do you know many people complaining about the Arri Alexa !!!!!! I always see the contrary, in fact it is one of the reason why after what 3 years this camera is still at the top of the game (All marvel film will use primarily the Alexa as from now). The reason the bayer pattern has work so well to become the de-facto sensor capture tech it is because while it has flaws on paper in real life it is much much better than you would think on paper. 

[Andrew Reid]

but the outstanding one is - does the resolution matter and can you see it?

 

Of course you see it. Would you buy a 2MP stills camera?

[Danyyyel]

I find this touchiness to be disproportionate. Of the 2k defenders (among them more than just a few DoPs, but who needs so-called authorities to support his own point of view?) because they attack the 4k users in spite of their own statement that resolution is a quantitative parameter, correlated only to the size of the image, and that size is not that important. Lets me wonder sometimes if they actually envy those who already work with UHD. Like, caviar? - no thanks, my bread and butter taste much better! Hypocrites.

 

Of the 4k users because why should they feel offended by any remark implying that they just fall for every marketing lie of the industry and were no 'real' artists? We're all post-modern, we're all artists by nature, we can't help it. Possibly shows they need more pixels to compensate for less, what? Talent? 

 

I don't feel any of those 8bit 4.2.0 camera coming out as caviar. The Arri alexa with it only 2.7 k is more caviar that most if not all those 4k camera. Arri showed that the intangible like coulour science, DR(when it was launched) was much more important. They even put live a promist filter in front of the sensor to get a little highlight blooming to cut the harsh clipping associated with digital sensors. These thing made much more to the image quality that an additional 2k like its main competitors in those last 3 years.

 

As for me as a professional photographer I have invested more than $ 20 000 in camera, lens, flashes and studio equipment the last 8 years. You can add another 3-4 000 in video equipment. My highest investment in one go was the D800 for $ 4000 (in my country) and $ 2500 (24-70 2.8). So I don't think I would feel jealous about most 4 k cameras people are shooting here that cost 1/4 to 1/2 what I paid for the D800.

 

The only reason I am writing all this are for the person that might thing that 2k as such (I am talking about true 2k and not Canon cameras lowly resolution one) is a very good resolution and not to be obsessed by resolution because it has its caveat as I listed above.

[fuzzynormal]

"What is the point of 4K"

 

Ignoring the difference between DR and IQ in various cameras, which isn't what the OP asked anyway:  More resolution gives you more flexibility with the image in post.

 

4K is suddenly affordable and pretty decent in low-light.  What's not to like about that reality?

[Axel]

 

"What is the point of 4K"

 

Ignoring the difference between DR and IQ in various cameras, which isn't what the OP asked anyway:  More resolution gives you more flexibility with the image in post.

 

 

Flexibility in post? 

Are you talking about reframing?

Like when the artist behind the camera had no clue what the motif was?

 

Ebrahim Sadaawi:

 

 

More resolution is better, if you can give me 20k I'd happily take it.

 

Take this prospect and a really wide lens, and we'll never need to move the camera again, it will all be clean and sharp Ken Burns  ;)

 

I hope you realize I'm joking. Nothing is to dislike about the reality of higher resolution. Particularly if it comes at an affordable price and with greater color depth. It's just that some get into rhapsodies about it, like people recommending a restaurant for the sizes of the meals. Just for balance, a little sarcasm seems to be in order, no offense intended.

[animan]

Im interested in real life experiences of reframing / zooming 4k for 1080 output.

 

In the little experience I had it didnt work well at all, it looked very obviously like a digital zoom due to the change in noise/grain size, even with just a 120% or so zoom.

 

(This was for a theatre performance at 1600ISO though, maybe at baseline ISOs it works ok? I dont have the GH4 anymore to test)

[hmcindie]

4k is cool. But I think there more important technologies to get first, like OLED. I would much rather watch OLED HD than regular LCD 4k or 8k. Especially with narrative films. 

 

That's why I always preferred 720p plasmas to the first 1080p LCD's.

[Vesku]

GH4 4:2:0 4k is very close to photo JPG and even RAW photo quality (3840pix center crop). Still RAW is far from perfect due to de-bayering.

 

http://***URL removed***/forums/post/54879969

[jax_rox]

They even put live a promist filter in front of the sensor to get a little highlight blooming to cut the harsh clipping associated with digital sensors.

Now, let's be clear. The Alexa does not have a 1/8 ProMist filter over its sensor. The Alexa does have an OLPF/IR filter (which supposedly cost(s) them $17,500 to manufacture), as do most cameras. The myth of the ProMist filter formed when no-one could figure out how Arri could get a much more natural, film-like image out of their camera versus say, RED. Of course no-one thought about the fact that Arri have been making cameras for 100 years, and brought out their first digital camera two years before RED which used the digital sensor from their film scanner.
The D20 and D21 have beautiful images, but they were impractical. Arri were/are more concerned with the image the camera puts out, rather than the resolution on paper.

Which is why it's become the de facto Hollywood standard.
Most films are still projected at 2k, so whilst 4k acquisition can be useful in some situations, at this point in time it is far from necessary.

Personally, I care more about the image from a camera than the on-paper specs. And I shoot ProRes on Alexa @ 2k more often than I shoot 6k on a RED Dragon. I like the image more.
 

Everything else being equal 4K is just much better than 1080p, no matter your output is 4k or 1080p or even SD. More resolution is better, if you can give me 20k I'd happily take it.

Just make sure you understand it when I say "all things being equal", because there are other factors that can make a 1080p image better than a 4K image on another camera. We're just discussing 4K vs 1080p when everything else is constant.

Yes. In an ideal world where all things could be equal, then extra resolution is not necessarily a bad thing (although as has already been discussed, 4k+ digital capture has led to new makeup techniques that are not as obvious, and has required better set construction etc. as you can see every little fine detail that you may not have seen even on film).
However, we don't live in an ideal world, and all things are not equal. Unless you're talking about the very specific example of the Alexa 65 vs Alexa Plus. But even then, all things are not equal because the lenses will be different.

It's important to look at the kind of work you expect to do or are doing, and then look at your budget and what you can afford, and then look at the images of the cameras you're looking at and decide on which one you like the best.

Most people (especially on these boards) don't yet need to shoot in 4k, it's just an extra bonus that the GH4, NX1 and others allow you to do.

Careful you don't get too bogged down in physical resolution because there are many more things that have greater effects on the actual image of a particular camera.

I recently shot a commercial that was to debut in cinema for a film festival before moving to television. It was all to be shoot at 100fps, so we hired a RED Dragon and did the shoot and went through the whole post process and mastered at 4k, assuming we would then downscale to 2k for exhibition if they were not screening in their 4k cinemas.
The cinema then told us that they would be exhibiting all their commercials in 1080 HD and to please provide a 1080 screening version for them..

Of course, the commercial looked better downscaled than others I've seen in other cinemas that have obviously been mastered in HD and then upscaled to 2k.
However, I thought it was funny that even times when you're sure you're going to need 4k for exhibition, it's not always the case!

[fuzzynormal]

Flexibility in post?

Color grading a down coverted 4k to 1080 clip.  As you say, that's nice, to have that little extra push and pull.  

 

And, yeah, reframing if required.   

 

--In case you need to salvage a visual "motif" on a misframed shot ...for those of us plebes that do lowly documentary and run n gun corporate stuff. 

 

Now supersize it and give me toy with my happy meal.

[zenpmd]

Of course you see it. Would you buy a 2MP stills camera?

 

I see no meaningful differences at normal sizes between a my sony 7s and d810 for Nikon. I see colour, dynamic range etc.