1080 > 4k

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

So 4/6k for cropping and 1080 if presenting as shot. Makes sense !

For me it is and all 6k capture these days being on the wagon re. slow mo. At least anything beyond 80% anyway.

4k for anything up to or around 10 mins for clients ie, wedding ‘films’, but longer stuff such as full ceremonies and speeches of 20-60 mins, always 1080 delivery from me.

[Emanuel]

@SRV1981 Only a couple of hours earlier posted on YT, I thought you had spread it over here...

[Ninpo33]

On 8/26/2024 at 8:43 PM, zlfan said:

did you use magic lantern raw or just 5d2's stock codec? canon dslrs' internal codec is nothing unless using ml raw. 

your example here is not a good one. see how c300 og c100 mk 2 comparing to fs7. not much by my eyes. 

Magic Lantern was not a viable option at the time and there's no way I would use a hacked camera on a professional shoot. Canon C300 was $8,000 2012 on release and I needed two cameras. People forget how expensive these tools were  back then and how little options we had. Even the two 5dmk2 bodies I used were $5k back then which is like $7k in today's terms. 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Magic Lantern was not a viable option at the time and there's no way I would use a hacked camera on a professional shoot. Canon C300 was $8,000 2012 on release and I needed two cameras.

And today you can get a C300mk1 ready to go for just US$600, it's crazy how super affordable great cameras are today. (if you don't mind ignoring the lack of 4K) 

[Benjamin Hilton]

I love 4k as a viewing format, but overall it's not that much better than good 1080p. And I do agree, for the way most people view movies, they wouldn't see a difference. If you have the option though, it is a good sweet spot IMO for delivery, especially for future proofing. Just starting out though, it's not something I would spend money on over good 1080P. 

 

I do think that 6k is probably the most practical medium for shooting in these days. I really have no desire to ever go above that unless it's a specific product I'm selling, like 8k TV wallpaper or something

[Ninpo33]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I love 4k as a viewing format, but overall it's not that much better than good 1080p. And I do agree, for the way most people view movies, they wouldn't see a difference. If you have the option though, it is a good sweet spot IMO for delivery, especially for future proofing. Just starting out though, it's not something I would spend money on over good 1080P. 

 

I do think that 6k is probably the most practical medium for shooting in these days. I really have no desire to ever go above that unless it's a specific product I'm selling, like 8k TV wallpaper or something

Maybe for YouTube and general stuff web stuff but if you are delivering in any professional capacity it’s going to be 4K DCI or 4K Scope. Netflix and streaming won’t take 1080 for anything so it’s not even a conversation it’s just the standard now. 

[Benjamin Hilton]

Yeah in a way. Netflix has that standard, but outside of that I have yet to see people really care. Don't get me wrong, I prefer 4k all around, all my deliveries are in 4k for our clients. But that being said, I don't think I would have a single person I work with even notice if I delivered in 1080p. The same way none of our clients would notice if I didn't do that extra hour of fine tuning on the color grade an so forth. At the end of the day I guess I do it for myself not for them.

11 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Maybe for YouTube and general stuff web stuff but if you are delivering in any professional capacity it’s going to be 4K DCI or 4K Scope. Netflix and streaming won’t take 1080 for anything so it’s not even a conversation it’s just the standard now. 

 

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

The same way none of our clients would notice if I didn't do that extra hour of fine tuning on the color grade an so forth. At the end of the day I guess I do it for myself not for them.

Sounds like someone else I know… The latter sentence especially…

[zerocool22]

I never crop in, 4K and 6K is totally overkill for anything that I do. 

[MrSMW]

9 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I never crop in, 4K and 6K is totally overkill for anything that I do. 

Each to their own, but I find it a seriously useful tool, especially with 6k as it extends the focal length of my lenses by up to around 2x.

This allows me to use shorter and lighter lenses which are also cheaper to buy in the first place such as a pair of Lumix 20-60mm’s which I can easily get over 100mm of reach with in post.

Arguably, you can crop any footage, but 6k has an advantage over 4k as 8k does over 6k, but sweet spots and all that…

Same approach for me with stills these days as in using a higher megapixel camera as it allows me to use less hardware which means a lighter load and more flexibility from less kit, albeit at the expense of some storage, but that in itself is much cheaper than extra bodies and lenses etc.

[Ilkka Nissila]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Same approach for me with stills these days as in using a higher megapixel camera as it allows me to use less hardware which means a lighter load and more flexibility from less kit, albeit at the expense of some storage, but that in itself is much cheaper than extra bodies and lenses etc.

Is it? I calculated how much it would cost to store three copies (on RAIDed NAS units) of Prores 422 HQ 4K at 25 fps shot per 20 min of footage per day, for a year and with 16 TB drives I ended up with a cost of 2250€ per year just for the hard drives, not considering the cost of the NAS units themselves. That's just twenty minutes of footage on a single camera per day, on working days of the year. If I used 8K HQ N-RAW at 60 fps, that same 20 min per day would cost 20k€ / year in HD storage. OK now let's shoot 2 hours per day with two cameras, again at 8K HQ N-RAW, that's 12 times 20k€ / year, or 240k€ / year. I don't know how much you spend on lenses and cameras but for sure the storage cost is not a trivial factor when shooting a lot with the higher-quality formats.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

I don't know how much you spend on lenses and cameras but for sure the storage cost is not a trivial factor when shooting a lot with the higher-quality formats

I did say stills and for me, with my workload, it equates to approximately 1 extra 5TB HD plus upgraded my on-line storage from 20GB to unlimited.

Total cost, just under +€400 per annum.

Having on my person, 2 bodies instead of juggling 3, plus 3 lens options rather than 4 is a massive bonus re. logistics and creativity.

It’s a win for me.

But YMMV and if you are shooting and storing 20 mins of raw footage per day when previously it might have been log, yep, I can see that your storage costs will be considerable!

[Benjamin Hilton]

4 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Is it? I calculated how much it would cost to store three copies (on RAIDed NAS units) of Prores 422 HQ 4K at 25 fps shot per 20 min of footage per day, for a year and with 16 TB drives I ended up with a cost of 2250€ per year just for the hard drives, not considering the cost of the NAS units themselves. That's just twenty minutes of footage on a single camera per day, on working days of the year. If I used 8K HQ N-RAW at 60 fps, that same 20 min per day would cost 20k€ / year in HD storage. OK now let's shoot 2 hours per day with two cameras, again at 8K HQ N-RAW, that's 12 times 20k€ / year, or 240k€ / year. I don't know how much you spend on lenses and cameras but for sure the storage cost is not a trivial factor when shooting a lot with the higher-quality formats.

I would love to see a show of hands of anyone that is doing actual client work outside of feature films at prores 422 HQ 4K on a regular basis...as fun as that sounds, practicality always calls the shots. Also, the return on investment is very very low for shooting raw or prores on most cameras. You can get 95% of the same flexibility shooting a good compressed codec with 75% less headache, it's one of the best trades you can make IMO. 

[FHDcrew]

On 8/28/2024 at 5:55 AM, IronFilm said:

And today you can get a C300mk1 ready to go for just US$600, it's crazy how super affordable great cameras are today. (if you don't mind ignoring the lack of 4K) 

And it has SDI out 😉

[newfoundmass]

Delivering in 4K isn't very important to me but there's no real reason not to shoot in 4K even if you are delivering in 1080p.

That's not to say that you can't get great results with a good 1080p image (the og Pocket gave me my favorite image out of every camera I've ever owned) and can even deliver in 4K with most people not even noticing (i know people who do it with their C100s), but there really isn't an argument for 1080p actually being better than 4K. People that say that are just being contrarians.

 

 

[John Matthews]

Listening to the story and watching the video on a 4.5k screen, I found I was taken out of the story at 288x144 pixels. Any less, I thinking something is wrong with my monitor, my connection, or compression. Interesting.