Having recently thinned my wallet to the tune of close to $10k NZ on new kit, Sony all the way, I thought I would attempt to understand if I got value in line with forked out money. In particular I wanted to ascertain if in fact my infatuation with 4k was worth the pain.

The new kit consisted of a A7RII camera, a 70 200 G lens, and an A6000 camera (I know; not 4k). Just for fun I included an old Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS in the mix.

I also have a new AX100 camcorder which was not (yet) included.

The comparison consisted of shooting a scene which included sailboats large and small bobbing up and down on moorings, waves racing towards the beach, and scrub-type vegetation on the surrounding hills, mid afternoon on a very windy day in full summer sunlight (not a cloud in the sky). I set up the tripod, a steady solid Sachtler FSB-6, in a spot somewhat sheltered from the wind. I set the A7RII in 4k then HD both Full Frame and s35 with both lenses, and the A6000 in APS-C mode HD (obviously) with both lenses.

Bottom line: when the clips were viewed on my DELL U2410 monitor there appeared to be no significant difference (excluding wind shimmer that happens when using the E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS with the telescoping part extended). I didn't pixel peep.

My first reaction was 'what am I doing wrong here' and I shall certainly repeat these comparisons, but...

I know that's not the full story and there is clearly more to it than simply video image quality but what I found remarkable was that HD held up so well. I also acknowledge that when viewing these clips with my nose one meter away from a huge 4k TV I might come to a different conclusion.

If I knew this when I purchased the A7RII would I have parted with my hard earned?

Yes, but not for the 4k, which is not so much to downplay 4k but the real take home for me is how good HD now is compared to HD of just the other day.

Has anyone else conducted a similar comparison, and if so I would certainly be interested in your results and comments.

Cheers...

Hi John,

If I understand you correctly, you have bought a 4k camera, filmed 4k and HD footage of the same scenes. You have then viewed the footage on a 24" HD monitor and concluded that there is no great difference in the footage shot at 4K and HD.

Due to the pixel density of 4k footage, you are really not going to see much difference on a 4k 24" monitor, and an HD monitor of any sort is not going to be capable of showing full res 4K images. If you compare the two on a 60" 4k tv, you will certainly see the difference.

I'm not sure what you were expecting to see with 4k as there is currently no general delivery medium for sharing 4k with clients. I have two 4k cameras and the advantage for me in filming in 4k is that I can crop the frame quite drasically, still maintaining an HD res picture. That means that I can crop a close up from a wide image or carry out a pan across a shot in post production from a fixed view. So for me, the flexibility of 4k is at the editing stage whilst maintaining the HD quality that my clients want on the delivered product.

Roger

Many thanks, Roger, for your input. Yes, you understand me correctly however I would emphasize the point that HD has come a long way certainly as produced by the Sony cams I have recently purchased. Seems to me the introduction of the Bionz X processor made a huge improvement in the overall quality of HD even as 4k hit the street.

I do understand the advantage in post you describe and other shooters have also reported this.

I was mightily impressed with the 4k delivered by the AX100 even if a tad sharp for my taste, generally. I did read here and there folks saying 4k rendered off as HD is better quality than HD. But as you say to really see a difference I need to be viewing my footage on a very large 4k TV, that I do understand.

What I was expecting to see with the A7RII when shooting 4k is in fact what I am seeing and that is very nice sharp footage. What I was not expecting to see is equally pleasing footage when shooting HD with the A7RII (and the A6000 for that matter).

So my observation is that HD in this day and age is not too shabby when compared to the latest and greatest 4k acknowledging the points regarding viewing environment and post manipulation needs. Of course one should add the notion of future proofing that shooting 4k provides.

I am not unhappy with my recent kit acquisitions.

Now I need more lenses.

Oh dear...here we go again!

Hi John,

HD has certainly seen some improvement. However if you're doing a comparison, a 24" HD screen is hardly the best way to show off 4K. It's like comparing different HD videos on a 10" tablet. I've done quite a bit of work with 4K and whist I strongly believe HD from a 4K camera is much better than HD from an HD camera (with some exceptions), its not in the same league as watching 4K on a large 4K TV. The extra detail becomes quite apparent.

In regards to HD quality, I think developments have more been in the DSLR range, which to be honest many at the time of early DSLR videos said were of a resolution closer to 720p in quality despite being full HD. My old Canon 60D footage is technically HD, but viewing the footage now and comparing it to the GH4 HD, the 60D resolution is much less detailed.

HD camcorders produced at the same time were better though suffered from smaller sensors. I think the C100 was the first to show off quality HD in a larger sensor, which if I understand correctly produces its image by downscaling from 4K internally.

In terms of comparisons, I've done one where I compared HD from the GH4, 4K from the GH4 and HD down-converted from the 4K video. The 4K video looked much more detailed, like looking through a window really. HD video in both cases I could see little difference. Both were sharp, but the loss of resolution was quite apparent compared to the 4K.

I can certainly see the difference on my Panasonics between FHD and 4K BUT on my 23" monitor there HAS to be some detail in the shot to use as a comparison ...using blue skies and stunning scenery will never show any difference as there is no fine detail. Try filming the neigbour's fluffy cat ! Anything with a lot of detail will show up the difference ....macro closeups will also show the difference. Typical YT videos will often use zoo trips to show off 4K!

Of course you can take your two comparison clips on the time line and zoom around 4X on each image .. the 4K should keep the same resolution as the original HD and the HD should have deteriorated quite significantly!!

I've tried the whole zoom in 4x on 4K images, but they never look right, always looks like very low quality HD.

Paul

OK, here's my most recent comparison results. I set up the tripod in the shade and out of the wind at the edge of a small bay, Waikawa Bay to be precise. Sailboats near and far (tons of detail there especially in the rigging) small waves, bush in the background where my EX1 I would show lots of noise, a very warm day about 28 C with a thin high overcast enough to pleasantly subdue the contrast, clear atmosphere and plenty of colour, the sun 160 degrees to my right and high in the sky..

Distance to the nearest sailboat 90 meters and to the bush and a couple of houses across the bay about 900 meters. Tons of detail, light and movement out there. The steady wind of about 6 to 8 knots out on the bay moved the sailboats on their moorings and created small rapidly moving waves,

I imagine you get the picture. Hugely more congenial than shooting my neighbors mangy scruffy ill-tempered cat.

Just for the hell of it I dug out my old NEX 5n, dusted off the cobwebs set to defaults, attached the sharpest glass I have - a Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS lens - and fired away. There it was; good old boring soft lifeless pre-Bionz X HD.

I included the AX100 this time. The 4k mode is (only just) visibly better, sharper, than the HD mode with this cam when viewed on my 24" HD monitor.

The HD recorded in the A7RII was right up there with the 4k recorded with the same setup. If I pixel peep, yes, the 4k is sharper.

Again, my conclusion can be taken two ways (ignoring the frequently mentioned advantage 4k delivers in post). One might choose the half-full scenario - is 4k not that much better than HD. Or one might choose the half-empty scenario - is HD now (almost) as good as 4k. Or might it be the other way around!

Whatever, for me the very good news is that HD produced by these 4k capable cams is high quality, the best I have ever viewed. I won't think twice about shooting in HD especially where I have difficulty with the dimming of the EVF - as happens when shooting in 4k - therefore postponing the purchase of a field monitor.

And furthermore a 4k 65" TV is not in my foreseeable future :-)

4K UHD on my PXW-X70 looks exactly the same as the SD DVCAM mode image on my 3.5" on camera LCD.......I can only conclude that........nevermind. :-)

John, repeat your testing by throwing a lot of gain and noise at the image, as see if you see more of a difference, especially when downrezzing 4K to FHD. :)

Paul

John your conclusions, as well constructed as they are, become spoiled simply as you're reviewing footage on a 24" HD monitor. Compare on a 4k monitor, then we're talking.

John, you're getting a race car chassis, a high horsepower engine, and then putting skinny little tires on it... the rubber isn't getting it to the road....

4K TV's are NOT that expensive, in fact they are rapidly becoming a valid option for replacing a comparable HDTV. LOTS of them on the walls at the local "superstores", and at prices that would have been attractive just a couple years ago for a decent HD model.

An HD "monitor" or TV will typically display a very "nice" image, but to appreciate 4K, either in video or stills, you have to put it on a 4K monitor.

Even my cheap-o Seiki 39" looks stunning, and is by far the most productive "desktop" I've ever used, and I've run multi-monitor rigs for years... a 4xFHD single display is very very useful if you get a large enough screen!.

Otherwise, 4K on an HD screen is like looking through dirty windows. When you see the "looking out the window" image quality the first time, you'll understand.

No doubt that you can get some very nice HD from recent cameras, my RX10 (mark I) produces a lovely picture and equally lovely video, probably "close enough" to 4K in the video department to satisfy many people, but there is still something more to a true 4K image on a 4K display.... The first time I looked at stills in the Sony 4K output mode on a 4K screen, it was like getting my eyes fixed to see "right"!!

I might add that I still see a lot of very "fuzzy" HD on broadcast, so it's likely all a bit relative...?

Many thanks guys, your comments are most helpful. Dave, your comment about using the Seiki 39" is very interesting. That's about as big as I can go and even that it is pushing it a bit. My viewing and editing environment consists of a 9.4 meter yacht and a 9 meter motorhome, wonderful lifestyle but no huge lounge for a huge TV not to mention I haven't watched TV since I discovered the Internet long ago even before the introduction of Netscape. And it goes without saying I'm not about to swap my lifestyle for a huge lounge in which I might have a huge TV; no way José!.

So my workstations are also my entertainment stations so to speak and with half decent connections to the Internet the world, as I choose it, is at my fingertips.

Now, back to how might I best fit 4k into my life. Based on your comments I need a larger better monitor, 4k at that.

I note a merchant in a not to distant town is offering a Samsung 28" UHD High Glossy Monitor and a AOC U2868PQU ultra high definition monitor (same size and that's about as big as I can go). So will I get the wow factor when viewing 4k on these 28" 4k monitors, do you think? Of course I shall try before I buy however any thoughts on that most appreciated.

I like having the bigger monitor, keep in mind that these big panels are very slim front to back, and newer monitor/TVs have narrow bezels than older ones, so you can have as much as a couple inches smaller overall dimensions compared to a model just a couple years old. Check specs online, you might be surprised.

I think you'd you'd see the "wow" factor on a 28" if you're sitting close to it. I just picked up a laptop with a "QHD" (not quite 4K, but close) screen, and even though it's only 13.3", I see it as being sharper than a 1080 screen that I'm used to. It's subtle, but it's there.

Thanks Dave, I did my homework and the monitor I might get is the Dell P2715Q. From the comments online this seems to be about it cost/performance wise right now. No doubt the price will come down probably right after I pull the trigger but hey, it's only money. I take your point that more screen real estate is good and it might as well be 4k.

I did more testing and yes, the 4k footage is sharper but only just..

Cheers...

To me 4K isn't about sharpness; its about extra detail. Its the same as if you compare an 8mb photo to a 2mb one on your phone. True all that extra detail on screen can create the appearance of sharper image, but if I showed a deliberately soft 4K image and a sharpened HD image, which image would look sharper to the eye. If your monitor can't display 4K, then you are not seeing the extra detail at all. Its 4K downsized to HD; the downsizing may cause some extra sharpening of the image, but the resolution just isn't there to see the difference.

Thanks for commenting Steve. One of the more amusing comments I have read on the internet, not referring to 4k by the way, is 'it's not sharper it just looks like it is'.

Are you saying that when my 4k monitor arrives, early next week hopefully, and I view 4k footage on it I will actually see things that are invisible when I view the same scene, same lighting, same camera/lens, shot in HD and viewed on my 24 inch HD monitor? The comparison must be 4k viewed on a 4k native resolution monitor vs HD viewed on an HD native resolution monitor.

I am somewhat familiar with resolution charts where unresolved lines are just blurry. I understood the more lines resolved the sharper it is.

Whatever, as well as more screen real estate I shall settle for better 'quality' and if you want to pin me down on that word; good luck. I shall simply refer you to Robert Pirsig's book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' wherein he concludes, more or less, that quality is not definable however I believe I shall know it when I see it.

Cheers...

The reason you bought a 4K camera isn't necessarily for now. Its because, if you're going to buy a camear now, you want a camera that will meet standards in 2-5 years, when 4K IS the standard.

Thanks Robert, and your comment reminds me that in my over-ripe old age I don't even buy green bananas anymore. Yes, an old over-done joke but you get my point.

Actually, since the advent of digital imaging, photo and video, the advancement in the technology couple with the reduction in price has resulted in my replacement of camera bodies certainly more frequently than 5 years and almost annually. I simply have not purchased a camera body on the basis of what it will do in the future, and certainly did not do so with my latest purchases. And I'm not even a working professional!

I'm not sure I entirely agree that 4k will be the standard in 2 to 5 years. With the way global economies look and the technology forecasts as they are countries such as New Zealand where I live are most unlikely to enable 4k to the point of being the new 'Standard' for broadcast for sure and not even for Internet publishing in the foreseeable future.

Whatever, that's another huge discussion altogether.

My key point is that I purchase kit for the here and now mainly because today's state-of-the-art gear is obsolete the day after tomorrow. And having said that I do agree that shooting 4k today makes more sense than shooting HD. After all I do have 2x4k capable cameras and a 4k monitor on the way.

My family and friends, not into digital imagery other than cell phone snaps, think I'm crazy.

I have a 40" 4k monitor and a 23" 1920x1200 and the difference side by side is quite noticeable to me. 4k on a HD monitor looks like a jagged mess with all the aliasing that's created when watching 4k video on a low rez monitor and 1080p looks really soft by comparison because 4k just has so much more detail. As others have mentioned the difference is significant, an ~8mp image vs a ~2mp image.

When I tested 4k/1080p on the A7rII I decided unless I need 60p, everything I shoot will be in 4k - even if the delivery is HD because down sampled looks better.

I have some landscape test shots that I loop when people come over and everyone has been really impressed, in some cases people are surprised when they see movement because they thought it was just a really nice photo. Pretty cool, even for the non-gearheads like my wife.

Thanks for your comments Chris, I too am now a believer I can say with unbridled enthusiasm.

My new Dell P2715Q arrived a couple of days ago (I don't have the real estate for a monster such as your 40"). I can report, as many folks here already know, 4k video on this beast looks just gorgeous - really knocked my socks off. But here's the kicker: so does HD. And as for photographs, especially recent shots from the A7RII: totally sumptuous.

(My old Dell 24" monitor is history, waiting until I find someone to whom I can off-load it.)

Yes, 4k video looks better quality than HD most often, granted, but not by that much I have to say. And yes, I shall shoot 4k almost exclusively hence forth.

So in summary two happy bottom line surprises; the first just how good 4k looks on this new 4k monitor, and secondly just how good HD, shot with the A7RII, looks on it too.

Cheers.

Faces are what really sets apart hd and uhd on a uhd monitor
I'm hitting the road when I get to be old and gray as well (only 67 today) in an antique 27" Dodge travco and the seiki 39 in my stick home will have to be downsized to fit in the mh unfortunately. I Should find a boat as well to live on in the summer along the coast. May be shoot some yacht racing (is there money in that?)

As mentioned here already ... I can only see an advantage of 4K at this current stage for post production / editing flexibility purposes. That's it. Otherwise I would rather spend my money on a solid, high end 1080p camera.

But if you can buy a camera with 4K AND good HD 1080p for a little more, and get much more in many respects, why wouldn't you?

Now John has got a 4K display, he sees what is there, as many of us have. Yes, flexibility in post is ONE benefit, and yes, delivering 4K may be a bit problematic for at least a little while, but as many have discovered, down rezzing 4K source material yields as good or in many cases better HD results...

I do think that HD is going to be around as the de facto delivery format for a while, but 4K is coming fast... The TV's are on the walls at every big box store, and not much more than an HD set... would you rather be creating content for those, or the ones that will likely be a small percentage of what is being sold in a year or two?

I do agree with Dave - why wouldn't you? Having said that there is one watch out I must emphasize at the risk of being boring however it is a 'when you wouldn't' shoot 4k. Both 4k cams I have, the Sony A7RII and the AX100 suffer from a less than stellar EVF (I don't use the LCD) when shooting 4k. Shooting HD no problem but shooting 4k the EVF dims and I not infrequently have a serious problem. In very bright sunlight it is a guess and by god exercise. Today I was following a slow swimming Sting Ray along the edge of the marina and with the intense sunlight it was well nigh impossible to see the fish in the water using the EVF. Fortunately most of the footage was of remarkably good quality, the Sting Ray lovely and clear in 4k even if the EVF view was almost useless. Switch to HD and the view in the EVF is as good as it gets; excellent.

If I was shooting mission critical footage and I really needed a clear normal view in the EVF as offered in the HD mode then I would shoot in HD, not 4k. I do find the A7RII HD footage excellent, not so much the HD out of the AX100.

I'm not the only one to experience this serious limitation. A search on the Internet revealed others experiencing this problem and in one instance, there may well be more, the shooter returned the camera to the supplier due to this issue.

I don't believe this is an eyesight problem but rather the issue arises when shooting in very bright outdoor light. Because of the quality of the 4k footage I, like many others, work around this with the A7RII by framing, focusing and setting other parameters while in photography mode then at the last minute switching to movie mode and keeping the fingers crossed. A serious limitation for sure.

Sony have done well with both the AX100 and the A7RII but I trust they are aware that when the competition solves this problem, if before they do, then they will loose customers, no doubt about that.

Other than that it's 4k all the way.

would you rather be creating content for those, or the ones that will likely be a small percentage of what is being sold in a year or two?

I"d create content for both but I would not let the tv resolution dictate in what format I would be shooting in unless I want it or the clients asks for it. As John said, HD can look good on a 4K tv too. Much depends who you are shooting for, I actually would prefer to shoot a wedding in HD if the result would be viewed on a very big 4K screen, no bride wants to see every pimple on her face, why do you think the softer 5d's are still so popular for weddingvideography? Because they smooth out imperfections and make the bride look even more glamorous. As long as the contrast and colors are there only a very small percentage is going to request a 4K master even if they have a 4k tv. If I would be shooting for myself and if I want the best IQ then 4K is an obvious choice but there can be other reasons why I wouldn't do that, one of them being a limitation of my camera's not being able to shoot in 50p at 4K. It can also depend on which camera you use, my sony cx730 is a wonderful little camera yet side by side with my jvc ls300 the difference in HD between both camera's is quite obvious, the ls300 produces some very good and detailled HD with excellent detail from edge to edge, the cx730 however is softer and the detail is not uniform across the screen. I"d have no issue showcasing my ls300 footage on a 4K screen but would have some doubt with my cx730. There certainly is good and not so good hd these days, something that John is seeing with his A7RII.

Thanks for your comments Chris, I too am now a believer I can say with unbridled enthusiasm.

My new Dell P2715Q arrived a couple of days ago (I don't have the real estate for a monster such as your 40"). I can report, as many folks here already know, 4k video on this beast looks just gorgeous - really knocked my socks off. But here's the kicker: so does HD. And as for photographs, especially recent shots from the A7RII: totally sumptuous.

(My old Dell 24" monitor is history, waiting until I find someone to whom I can off-load it.)

Yes, 4k video looks better quality than HD most often, granted, but not by that much I have to say. And yes, I shall shoot 4k almost exclusively hence forth.

So in summary two happy bottom line surprises; the first just how good 4k looks on this new 4k monitor, and secondly just how good HD, shot with the A7RII, looks on it too.

Cheers.

At 100% HD a small window on my panel, anything more and you start to see pixels. I now check my projects on a 42" TV.

HD is pretty good with the A7rII, but IMO unless you want more than 30fps, 4k chopped down looks even better. I do like the versatility though, its nice to have options.

The EVF dimming in 4k is definitely annoying and something Sony needs to address. Its sunny pretty much everyday where I live, so I use a Z-finder on the LCD.

It will be interesting to see if the new EVF with the mega refresh rate in the a6300 has the same issue. I have one on order, so as soon as it ships I'll be able to do side-by-sides.

As to the usefulness of 4k, I have a bunch of beauty shots of landscapes, cityscapes, sports, food, jewelry and so on that I show off to potential clients on my 4k monitor, most are impressed by the footage. Honestly, it looks like the goofy demo loops you see in Costco or Best Buy, but its effective. That alone has made moving to 4k worthwhile for me. I still shoot a lot of HD with the A7s and downscaled 4k looks much better. Of course we have framing/stabilizing options with the extra pixels too, I find that valuable as a one-man-band.

I shoot ~30,000 stills a year too, not having to lug two camera systems for video and stills is a godsend for me. I love the A7rII despite its shortcomings.

The EVF dimming in 4k is definitely annoying and something Sony needs to address.

Might be because 4K recording introduces more heat and that by dimming the evf they try to prevent overheating?

That's why I was thinking too, heat management is something they're still getting a handle on with the small cameras. They solved the recording overheat issue with the A7rII, I'm holding out a slight hope they get the EVF sorted before the A7r3.

We'll see if they've made progress with the a6300.

Chris, I note you use a Z-finder on the A7RII. May I ask what model number to go with please? I may go that route too.

Forget all about the camera stuff. A BIG +1 on Pirsig's book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.' Little did it have to do with either but being a rider / one time racer I bought the book thinking it might help me understand motorcycles says he grinning :))

Classic and romantic that book has stayed with me since the early '70s. Broadened my vision improved my understanding and changed my outlook on life and is still an influence on how I accept the march of time.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

P.S.
Agree with the other comments, yes you do need a much bigger screen to get any real benefit from 4K.

A BIG +1 on Pirsig's book

A very long time ago I visited Queenstown on business. After my meeting and on my way back to the hotel I popped into a bookstore, as usual, and yet again browsed. I picked up 'Zen' to take a look. An extraordinarily beautiful hippy-looking young woman appeared out of nowhere and spoke over my shoulder encouraging me to buy that book, and then she was gone. Her smile I shall never forget.

Of course I took her advice, and like you, and many others at the time, I set off in a new direction some now call Postmodernism.

And yes, my new monitor is giving me a high quality 4k experience.

Thanks for commenting, nice to touch base with a fellow traveler.

May be shoot some yacht racing (is there money in that?)

Not in this neck of the woods, there isn't, at least not that I know of, but then I'm not looking for work. My sense is that when racing yachties have spare cash it's a new high-tec sail or suchlike.

no bride wants to see every pimple on her face, why do you think the softer 5d's are still so popular for weddingvideography? Because they smooth out imperfections and make the bride look even more glamorous.

5d's are popular because A) Canon produces the best colours naturally out of the camera, B) the fullframe look produces excellent depth of field even with wide angle lenses C) its been riding the wave of the 5D Mark ii, though lost a lot of ground since. Whilst some cite the softer image, the fact is in video it is easier to soften an image in post than it is to sharpen. You can't restore detail that isn't there, but I have various presets for softening faces and giving the glamour look. I've worked with quite a bit of 5D Mark iii footage and whilst close ups are fine, wide shots with a lot of detail are considerably less spectacular.

Fact remains that it's only us videographers who find "4k" important, most of the clients don't care or are not aware and the brides just want to look good on tv, I"m sure they will be equally pleased with soft 5d footage compared to footage from a 4k camera when it's displayed on a 4K tv as long as it's well shot and edited. They even might find 5d footage more pleasing to look at.

The last wedding I did with my ls300 has been deliverd to the client today, the groom was particulary interested in the iso file because he wanted to be able to make extra dvd's if necessary, I told him the hd mp4 files on the usb stick where of a better quality and he said, yes, but all our family members have a dvdplayer and that's easier... I bet some of them even have a 4k tv connected to that.

Ignoring that 3 of my clients last year requested 4K files and I have 2 more so far this year that I booked as I offered 4K, I accept much of what you say Noa. However it is quite irrelevant. Couples equally don't care about full frame, colour grading and plenty of other technical stuff that we Videographers care about. You choose the camera, the resolution, the equipment and software to achieve the look you're after then sell it to couples as your style.

Do I need 4K to do my style, no not really, but I do offer stills which couples can and have asked for after the Wedding and this service becomes more valuable with 4K video than HD. Ultimately I love working with 4K as some love working with fullframe or Canon colours or Sony colours etc, and loving what I do makes me good at what I do. Couples will benefit from that if not from 4K.

Besides video quality is not entirely unimportant or we'd all be shooting on 15 year old SD cameras. Would Ray Roman have achieved the same success shooting on my first HD handycam from 6 years back, with lousy image quality from a tiny sensor, whose image fell apart with any colour grade? Why aren't you filming now on just the Sony cx730 you already own, would have saved you a lot of money on that JVC - did image quality play a part in your decision?

Why aren't you filming now on just the Sony cx730 you already own, would have saved you a lot of money on that JVC - did image quality play a part in your decision?

I could perfectly have shot last wedding with my two cx730 and they still would have been happy with the result. The jvc I got just to please myself because I like the image it produces, it's not to please my client, that I can do with any of my camera's. I am also not concerned about money I can save because everything I make on weddings is for my hobby, shooting weddings :) I don't need it for anything else as I have a second income that pays all the bills.

It's like I said, only we as videographers get all excited when it comes to the technical stuff, just like I got excited about my jvc. Only when it comes to resolution I still believe it's one of the last things on a clients mind and I"m not talking about 15 year old camera's but about what is available new today. The reason why you sell 4k weddings is because you make your client believe it is better and they think they are getting better value for their money, they think that because that is what all ads are telling them that 4K is 4 times more detailed and eventhough that's technically correct, when you view good hd side by side to 4k on a 4K tv then 4K is more detailed but it's not perceived as 4 times more detailed, it just sounds better when you want to sell anything.

If you then are softening the faces to give a glamour look then you also might question why you'd shoot 4K in the first place if you take away the resolution to make a bride look better, in know you will say that in that case you at least have a choice but that was my point to start with, there can be something like too much resolution in some cases and that's why shooting good HD is not necessarily a bad thing if you for instance want to save on cardspace, shoot at 50p for slowmotion or like with the jvc want to be able to digitally zoom with primes and no client will ever notice.

Noa, I never disagree with the idea that only Videographers care about the technical side. If I advertise 4K it is only in addition to saying I shoot in HD, which is a common question asked of me by couples even amusingly when they want only DVD.

As for softening features, I target any blur only on skin tones, leaving the detail of the eyes, hair, jewellery, dress if in shot at maximum resolution. I've done the same to HD capture in some cases when the lighting has perhaps over emphasized a pimple more than would be appreciated. My online content is now in 4K, which I find can help with compression artefacts in some shots, as I predominantly use Youtube and 4K videos deliver better HD.

Really as this thread was started to demonstrate, HD from a 4K camera can be superior to HD from an HD only camera. Compare HD from my GH3 to HD from my GH4 and there is better quality. Your JVC also benefits from this. So 4K whether shooting it or not has done much for the video industry. How you wish to implement it is down to you. Given how little 4K content is out there in the public domain, the fact that 5 of my clients have asked for 4K files is surprising and came much sooner than I expected.

Of course, this can only increase. Sky TV is now marketing a box to allow viewing of 4K channels when they make an appearance. The first 4K bluray player should be with us by the end of the year with compatible Blurays to make use of it. I don't think 4K will ever replace HD, but it will sit proudly beside it. How long before the questions asked of me include the 'do you shoot in 4K', even though they want a bluray or DVD.:)

Of course the better question is, are we seeing 4K at its best. How long did it take to get HD that looked like HD. My old Canon 60d camera was marketed as HD, but try comparing the footage to the GH4 HD. Perhaps it'll take a 6K video camera to deliver true 4K.

Really as this thread was started to demonstrate, HD from a 4K camera can be superior to HD from an HD only camera

Actually, no, while your statement is undoubtedly true it might also be misleading. Just to clarify - 'the real take home for me is how good HD now is compared to HD of just the other day'. If I gave the impression that my experimentation supported the notion that 4k cameras produced better HD than HD only cameras then my apologies. It may well be that there are HD only cameras out there today that produce HD every bit as good or even better than that produced by the A7RII. I don't have a state-of-the-art full frame HD only camera more or less equivalent to the A7RII to conduct such a comparison.

Having just gone through the "tuning" process for the Seiki 42", all I can say is that 4K can look really great, or not so much... same as HD... Took time to fine tune the 39"er too... but the price is right!

There are small sensor cams producing "4K" that is not really any better than the HD my RX10 (mark1) can produce (I still say that Sony COULD have made the first RX10 shoot 4K, but hey, there's the MkII...).

SO, there's a lot in the "mix"... camera, lighting, post processing, compression method, and of course display (which is where this started...). I've seen SD that looks very sharp, I've seen a fair amount of HD that looked so soft or artifacted that it was hard to look at. I still am impressed by 4K that looks like you're looking out a window, and disappointed when I see 4K that looks barely better than HD...

As much as I'd like to have a "Handycam" (something like the CX/PJ7xx series) that can do nice 4K, the first ones out didn't even come close to the 1" sensor AX100 and RX10M2, the samples from the just announced ones look a bit more promising... technology marches forward (most of the time anyway).

Soon there will be debates abut 8K, though I don't see any "consumer" gear really on the radar. You never know, it seems like the uptake on 4K has been a lot quicker than for "HD", and I certainly find many benefits in a larger 4K "monitor" as well as better capture in the AX100 and RX10/RX100 4K capable models...

ANY time I can get a better image to work with in terms of color fidelity, detail, light sensitivity, and overall "look", it's a good thing....

Fact remains that it's only us videographers who find "4k" important, most of the clients don't care or are not aware and the brides just want to look good on tv, I"m sure they will be equally pleased with soft 5d footage compared to footage from a 4k camera when it's displayed on a 4K tv as long as it's well shot and edited. They even might find 5d footage more pleasing to look at.

The last wedding I did with my ls300 has been deliverd to the client today, the groom was particulary interested in the iso file because he wanted to be able to make extra dvd's if necessary, I told him the hd mp4 files on the usb stick where of a better quality and he said, yes, but all our family members have a dvdplayer and that's easier... I bet some of them even have a 4k tv connected to that.

Bingo.

I had a groom last year specifically request that I don't show any close ups of his face as he doesn't like the detail.

And imagine how my dvd's will look on that hugh 4K tv...

So what 4k monitors are people using ?

I just got the Sony A7s ii and it is my 1st 4k camera. Currently editing with a 24" monitor and using a 32" HDTV for previewing.

I want to replace the HDTV with a 4k monitor. Was thinking of the Asus Pro art 32" because of the color accuracy and factory calibration or something larger to appreciate the 4k resolution.

For "lo budget", but workable, I've had decent results with Seiki brand TV's run via HDMI or DPMI, the now discontinued 39" model, worked, with a few quirks that took a bit to iron out, and now have the 42UMS model, which once firmware upgraded works fairly well (again, have to turn off "TV" features like motion compensation and sharpening!!). Avoid their "42UM" model though, it's unusable as a monitor due to incurable lag issues....

One of these days I may find an actual monitor that doesn't cost a ridiculous amount, but 'til then, these work nicely, and are large enough you can really see the differences in "good" and "bad" 4K....

Does it make more sense to get a 4k monitor for editing previews and 4k internet content viewing ? I was thinking 32" or 40"

I was going to get a 4k TV it would be large and that takes a more thinking on location, setup, etc..

I've got a couple Laptops with near 4K (3200x1800) or 4K screens, and while the resolution and sharpness is there, it's a "tiny" bit hard to see detail on the smaller screens. You can still have the "through a window" pop, but having a large screen is better for really being able to see what 4K can look like, IMO.

I had to rearrange my desk from my old 2x24" 1080 monitors to go to a 39, really wasn't that bad, and I got the equivalent of FOUR 1080 screens in the "deal"... the 42 is much lighter, and still fits nicely on my desk, minimal rearrangement needed. The productivity boost of having such a large desktop is another "bonus".

32" is the largest computer monitor I can find. Dell has a 40", but it is intended for multi display. So maybe I will go with one of the 32" factory calibrated monitors. My living room HDTV is due for upgrading, but that will be a different decision.

Not 4K but I have just replaced my 2 x 24" Dells with an ASUS PB328Q 2560x1440 and I am very pleased with it. Much less clutter on the desk and enough room for all my editing windows. They have a 4K version that is calibrated too the PA328Q and a newer PA329Q which I will look at to replace my VT2300 as my preview monitor later in the year.

Ron Evans

I just ordered a new 4k capable graphics card.

Speaking with my vendor, seems like my option for 4k monitors has 3 tiers: standard use 4k, factory color calibrated 4k, pro studio use 4k. In the factory calibrated tier, Asus, LG, Dell, HP, NEC, have their offerings.

I will probably go with the 32" 4k from Asus or LG, using it as my preview/video viewing monitor. I will keep my 24" as my standard computer application monitor.

I picked up a Spyder 5 to calibrate my Seiki - stock the setting looked good but cool, the recommended settings warmed it up nicely, My old ColorMunki was iffy on Win10, it wored OK on one machine, and not the next one.... so I had to update my calibration device! Seems like that happens every couple years anyway!