With the GH4 and Blackmagic 4K (with updated FPN fix) becoming more popular, how long before the current DSLR's lose traction as the go to cams).

Looking at those crisp 4K images they create, the 1080p footage with start to look dated.

PS - I still proudly use my 5D Mark II, 7D, and T2i

1080p camera's won't be obsolete for several years to come, only if you have clients that demand 4K then you have no other choice but otherwise the latest 1080p camera's such as the sony rx10, a7s or rx1000III just to name a few already deliver high detailed 1080p images that will look just fine when upscaled in a 4k tv.

When I deliver a wedding to a client on dvd, then listen to them saying how sharp and clear it looks on their HD tv, I have no concerns that a 1080 hd delivery is going to look anything other than great for a long time to come.

Filming in 4k though is anther matter entirely.

Roger

Really, it will be whether people bother with 4K TVs. We won't know for a few years, most likely. I'll be holding out to replace my cameras until then. Maybe another group of 4K cameras will have come out.

Sony also advertises about the great upscaling quality when you buy a 4K tv so I expect that good 1080p will look great on a 4K tv as well.

Our 1080p DSLR won't become obsolete until the day we try to sell it.

I never sold a tv, they get used untill they don't work anymore and then they become trash.

As long as the Internet remains a popular place to post and view media on small handheld devices?

Youtube was one of the first to supply 4k playback but it will take many years before laptops or tablets have 4k displays and I even doubt what the advantage is for having such a high resolution on such tiny screens, also 4k playback doesn't play well on youtube, it stutters all the way, even on a fast internet connection here. Good detailed 1080p (like 4k downrezzed to 1080p) does look very sharp on a small 1080p screen and provides plenty resolution. I also don't see many tv stations streaming 4k content, even HD content is still a paying option for many channels and they probably will do the same for 4K. As long as you have to pay extra to have a higher resolution only the tech nerds (like us videographers) will invest in it. The mainstream client though couldn't care less, they don't have a clue what 4K stands for as it all looks fine to them on their 10 inch tablet. My wife is so happy with her pocket camcorder that does 8mbs 720p video, look how sharp that is, she always tells me and I usually don't react to that :)

My guess will be never. I still think 4k is a fad. We shall see.

Yeah who knows. I saw at Wal Marts Black Friday ad, that you can get a 65" HD TV for $650. That's pretty crazy. With those kinds of affordable prices on big screen TVs, I don't forsee 4K beginning to become "mainstream" for at least 24 -36 months from now.

From the American side, as noted, I just had my first bride ever ask me for 5 Blu Ray DVDs. lol

HD delivery is just now seeming to gain traction in my area.

With the advent of online stuff like Vimeo, I think HD delivery will be "the standard" for a few more years.

@ Noa -
I already have a near 4K 11.6" laptop... and there are multiple cell phones and tablets with "4k"... or at least higher than "HD" resolutions.

Initially the reaction is it doesn't really matter on such small screens, but that is EXACTLY where finer/crisper text and graphic displays make the screens "pop", and lower resolutions start to look "fuzzy".

Moving images probably in some ways don't suffer as much from "low" resolutions as still images, so in that sense, HD for TV's still has a lot of life left in it. BUT, when the consumer comes to EXPECT higher resolutions from their cell phones and tablets and eventually laptops (for those that haven't abandoned the computer for a tablet) and desktop monitors... well, it will catch on quickly.

Editing stills on a 4K monitor, editing 4K video, you start to expect a crisper image, and an HD screen starts to feel a little "soft", very quickly. Not unusable by any means, or even anything one could consider "bad", but noticeable nonetheless.

How long after 1080 was introduced did 480 televisions basically disappear? A long time.

While those 4K televisions look great, there are still many issues that need to be addressed before 1080 DSLRs become obsolete including cost of the cameras, cost of upgraded editing systems, and cost of televisions.

The biggest factor in producing quality video that people want to watch is, and always will be, the person doing the work -- not the camera or the television/monitor.

[Just thought of something related as I was about to hit submit: Remember when 1080 was first talked about as a broadcast standard and actors worried about the higher resolution showing imperfections so much more clearer? What are they thinking about 4K?! Of course, I doubt most of really notice anyway.]

It will be great having the flexibility of filming and editing in 4k with all the cropping possibilities that offers. However we are talking about producers and clients having totally different requirements. Jo public may well like the kudos of the latest 4k phone, tablet or other gadget, but when I deliver a video on dvd to a client, they run it on their HD tv and say 'Wow, that's really clear and sharp', I realise that they don't have a clue about SD, HD or 4k and just don't understand what it's about. I can't see that changing for a long time.

Roger

With the GH4 and Blackmagic 4K (with updated FPN fix) becoming more popular, how long before the current DSLR's lose traction as the go to cams).

Looking at those crisp 4K images they create, the 1080p footage with start to look dated.

PS - I still proudly use my 5D Mark II, 7D, and T2i

Upgrade to the 5D3 and you'll be alright.

The rate at which new technology gets adapted will accelerate...IF people adopt it at all. Here, I'm not entirely sure about 4K TVs, after all, they've already given up on 3D.

That is different than camera manufacturers, though. So far, we're pretty much at *Generation 1 of the technology. If it keeps developing AND there is some demand, the demand will accelerate and we'll get some better options to pick from.

That will still take years, though. I own 3 DSLRs and am not worried about it now. As a feature, it doesn't strike me as a big enough deal to make me replace my cameras. By the time I'd be ready to replace these camera bodies, though, it will be time to seriously look at 4K (2-5 years is my guess), just as much as low light performance, and auto-focus.

However, that doesn't mean that, as I look at the possibility of a GoPro for a QuadCopter, that I'm not seriously looking at the 4K option. If I'm already buying a new camera, why not pay the extra $100-$200 for the feature that appears to be useful?

I'm not entirely sure about 4K TVs, after all, they've already given up on 3D.

3d was a speciality kind of thing, only a few camera's came out with that option, 4k otoh will become standard sooner as you might expect as every new camera, even smartphones, will be shooting 4K so the customer will have a reason to buy a 4K tv. It's the small devices such as tablets and smartphones that determine what the client will be buying for their next christmas present and it gives the manufacturers a reason to push that new technology, especially since you don't need to buy special glasses to see the effect. I've been to a few media stores the past months and each one had a few 4K tv's on display with 4K content, only their prizes need to get down more before they really catch on. 4k is a bigger goldmine for the manufacturers that 3D every will be.
You will know when it's time to upgrade when you have to deliver a film shot on a canon t2i to a client that has a hugh 4K tv, it will be the same feeling I had when I was delivering a wedding shot with my sony vx2100 when a client was viewing it on one of the first big HD lcd screens :)

Comparing 4K to 3D is comparing apples to turnips... and a 4K set can include "turnips" too, if one really desires it!

3D gives many (myself and several family members included) headaches. 4K or other "high resolutions) have actually decreased my eyestrain.

FWIW, 4K actually sort of looks more like 3D to me, due to the sharpness/pop. Without any headaches.


The actual cost for 4K panels is comparable to HD panels, or will be shortly, IOW the manufacturing costs aren't the reason the prices are currently so high - Seiki produces 4K TV's at very affordable price points, yes, not fancy, probably not "the best", but 4K nonetheless... The 39" ones on my desktop for editing video and photos were around $300 used, cheap enough that I'll pick 'em up when they come up and replace a couple aging HD sets...

The big mfr's no doubt want to try to milk the investment in HD sets as long as they can, and of course clear out "old" stock. That's business...


From a content producer standpoint, if your image capture device CAN shoot 4K, why not? Bottom line is you can get sharper images to work with, crop, and otherwise use to your advantage... and you can always "soften" them as needed!

4K is RAPIDLY hitting the consumer lines where "new, improved" is the buzzword for phones, tablets, and "consumer" (OK, maybe only the high end of the consumer lines) cameras. This year it's a few high end offerings... next year... let's just say the (rather crisp and readable) writing is on the wall. Again, as long as 1080 offerings sell, mfr's will wisely try to milk their investments, but some mfr's are already diving headfirst into 4K... Panasonic with a couple sub $1K cameras (the compact one looks QUITE nice!) already is bringing the pricing down to "consumer" levels.

Dave, The comparison for 4K to 3D was only for the TVs, and maybe "Smart" TVs is a better fit. Its not that no one buys them, its that the benefit isn't big enough for everyone to buy one while their current TV still works.

For instance, upgrading from an old TV to a modern era HDTV meant you got 3 benefits: HD, HDMI, and a bigger, thinner TV. Even then, it took *years* to be a real change over to mostly HDTV.

So, my doubts are really about people making an effort to buy the TVs. Perhaps as their cheap HDTVs from Walmart start crapping out on them and the 4K TVs are most of what is in the store, sure. Until then, I'm not worried.

When the time comes to replace my current camera bodies, of course I assume I'll be getting 4K, but that will be a few years. Hopefully someone will have a body with that awesome Sony low lighting and in-camera 4K by then.

As a 3d fanatic and producer, I completely agree that 3d was a very different situation, where manufacturers tried to turn a quick profit at the expense of the public.

SD to HD was a big step forward as it was an obvious visual improvement, but I am not convinced of the same with HD to 4K. With a typical UK 42" domestic tv, the difference between HD & 4k will will not be obvious at normal viewing distances. When the tv is a 60" viewed from fairly close then a difference will be seen and more so with even bigger screens, but I can't really see that being relevant in the typical UK home in the near future.

There is also the fact that populations are getting older, and older eyesight is frequently weaker than with younger people, so increased detail will be largely pointless to those people. What I do think is that manufacturers once more see a golden cash cow that just needs clever marketing to sell it to the public by convincing them that they need it. In reality, manufacturers will simply stop producing HD products so we will have no choice in the matter. Once that market is saturated, the public will be told that 8k or 16 k is the new must have, totally ignoring the fact that we may be moving outside the limits of human vision.

Roger

IMO, DSLR video is already obsolete, since i began using BMPCC's, and reusing much the same kit i decked the DSLR's out with.

What is interesting is the extreme shallow DOF and totally flat look is no longer in vogue nearly as much as 2-5 years ago, and even less so than during the 35mm/HDV cam days of yore. It would appear based on client expectations and impressions they, once again, favor oversaturated color and deep depth of field, as when HD first came about.

I started with Letus/FD primes/XH-A1/DN-60 for 8 bit HDV to CF cards with HUGE tricky all-manual rigs with all controls pretty much integrated in the cam (audio, monitoring, etc maybe an external field monitor) to DSLR's with endless add-ons for audio, better monitoring, etc etc, to now a MUCH more refined, compact rig with the BMPCCs, usually handheld on a glidecam.

If there is a Black Friday sale that knocks 4K TV's out at less than 200 quid then maybe people will move over to it, but even though 3D and 4K are totally different technologies, most people I talk to about getting a 4K TV set site the failure of 3D as a reason to sit this particular upgrade out. And if you want to avoid a funny stare, don't dare mention BluRay!

When I went to the NAB show in 2005 I can remember asking a Taxi driver how many HD channels he had access to, and he said he was on a pretty poor cable subscriber, so he only had about 8 or 9! At that point, in the UK, I don't think anyone had any. What was it? 2010 before most of us started to get it, and then only on Freesat; Freeview I believe had to wait longer.

How long to 4K? Netflix I hear you say? Well my BT broadband won't cope with it, I know that. It just about copes with HD.

Another aside. I edit lecture footage, they usually come with a slide pack that was used in the Power Point presentation. Those images (often Jpegs or TIff) are nearly always in 4:3. Now Power Point CAN do 16:9 so why hasn't it been adopted? I think it's just people taking time to adjust, much longer than you would think.

Remember, not everyone are geeks like us.

i havent had anyone ask about 4k for anything other than if ive seen it (of course), if ive shot it (yes, but only on a GH4 i borrowed, and a RED at trade shows to play with footage), if i perceive a difference (which i do), but mostly ive been asked if i feel its worth it. I do not.

Mostly my issue is with standard TV/cable/netflix and macroblocking/artifacts; the tech is there, the broadband support to show it properly is NOT. i still prefer analog; digital has too many odds and ends, bits where it compresses or goes for the lowest common denominator and thusly increases greatly the chance of worst possible image/playback.

also, the damn lag with digital TV's; i still rock a 32" 1080i 4:3 Panasonic HDTV (heavy picture tube type with a big ole' electron gun) because i can change channels fast, SD doesn't look like someone smeared vaseline all over the screen, stretched or compressed or letterboxed/postage stamped everything, the contrast is amazing, and the picture always looks very crisp without looking like plastic or WAY oversharpened.

Another aside. I edit lecture footage, they usually come with a slide pack that was used in the Power Point presentation. Those images (often Jpegs or TIff) are nearly always in 4:3. Now Power Point CAN do 16:9 so why hasn't it been adopted? I think it's just people taking time to adjust, much longer than you would think.

Because the vast majority of projector systems out there are still 4:3. Why would you go 16:9 only for the video, when the actual physical presentation you are doing is going to be to a projector outputting a 4:3 image?

Is that really true thses days?

Is that really true these days?

What projector do you typically see when working with talks that use PowerPoints?

Because the vast majority of projector systems out there are still 4:3. Why would you go 16:9 only for the video, when the actual physical presentation you are doing is going to be to a projector outputting a 4:3 image?

unless you're specifically talking about office projectors, this is wildly inaccurate.

out of the 2,579 projectors that exist on projectorcentral.com, 1,112 are 4:3, the remaining 1,428 are 16:9/10
and i'd bet if there were a manufacture date search ability, that would favor 16:9 even more for 2013-now. Granted it doesn't figure in actual sales, but also factoring in that 4:3 computer monitors account for less than 10% of today's users (check the steam hardware surve, or google 'browser display statistics' for another) "office" type projectors are switching to 16:9 simply because it would be silly to not match the vast average screen aspect ratio of the laptops that will be plugging into them.

all that said.... im still rocking a 720p projector and still love watching films on it.

Regarding the changeover to 4K TVs, I think the determining factor of whether it gets a lukewarm reception or rapid acceptance comes down to marketing. Specs alone won't be enough of a reason for it to catch on quickly.

A poor marketing campaign can stifle sales or even kill a product that is technically better than other options. Does anybody really need 4K? Not really, but a good marketing campaign will convince the masses that they just have to get one.

I'd think they'd do well to demonstrate a regular HD image and one that is up-scaled to 4K, like my DVD player does now with SD to HD up-scaling. Sony seems to be the leader in pushing 4K, but if they can't find a way to get people excited about 4K, they can drop prices and still end up with ho-hum sales results.

Mark

Today I saw in an advertisement from a big electronics store called "media markt" there where 2 tv's where displayed, one was a 50 inch HD tv for 485 dollar and a 49 inch 4K LG tv (LG 49UB820V) for 680 dollar.

That's excl Belgian taxes to give a better reference if you want to compare, that's very cheap, in the ad it said: "don't miss out on any detail anymore, 4 times more sharper". At this price 4K tv's will be sold much sooner as you might think.