I was browsing some advertisement folders today and noticed there where more 4K tv's advertised then HD tv's, some larger media outlets only had 4K tv's on display. I also noticed prices have dropped to the level of what HD tv's used to cost a year ago. Also quite a lot of mediaplayers that playback 4K are available but those are still a bit on the expensive side.

I still have not received a request for 4K delivery but have started to exclude dvd's from my weddingpackage, they still can order them but it's a paid option, now it's only blu-ray and HD files on a usb stick. I am thinking of including 4K delivery (as a mp4 file) as a paid option, just to see if there is any interest.

It looks like 4K will be a household name much sooner then we expected.

Noa - I’m sure you’re correct. Just read an article yesterday where they wrote that in the stores the 4k 60-inch is the new HD 55-inch (or words to that effect).

Hi Noa

A long while back I did a survey on a forum frequented by brides and asked who knew (and could tell) the difference on TV between SD and HD pictures and most admitted that they couldn't tell the difference but their partners could and assured them that HD was, in fact, 4 times sharper. Since we are selling mainly to brides I wonder how much influence 4K will have to them unless you carefully explain what it is. Do they really care about resolution ? I think if we are pushing the 4K aspect it needs to be in terms that a bride, even if she doesn't quite understand it, still will look at your site and at least get the impression that 4K is much better than HD and she needs it for her wedding film!!

Based on the fact that although shops are stocking 4K TV's most people still have HD TV's, would your primary delivery still be HD ... I also have DVD's out my package now and a paid option but shouldn't we be following the lead of the market now and making our package delivery 4K to show that we are right up with the latest technology?

I have some of my clients every year now asking for 4K files; only a small proportion but I feel this will rise as 4K TV's become more common. Many people can't tell the difference between SD and HD, but thing is, can they tell the difference between SD and 4K. Will 4K ultimately be the upgrade from SD that for many, HD never was.

That said, my Parents have just got a new 4K TV, but what they're talking about is the HDR. Of course I had to tell them that content isn't actually available in HDR. However as the colour and contrast is so much better than their old TV, it's the 1 thing they talk about when praising the new tele. Not the 4K aspect.

This seems to follow in line with the results of feedback received when the BBC previewed some sample clips of 4K HDR content from their recent Planet Earth II series. Apparently comments from those watching were more in praise of the colour and look of the picture - in other-words the HDR and didn't really notice the 4K. Which makes sense. When you look at a picture, it is the colours and dynamic range that makes the image pleasing to us, not the resolution.

Still as the only way to get HDR is with a 4K picture, I can see both becoming popular, though more for the HDR than the 4K.

Never seen the effect of HDR on a 4K tv but would like to, is it just a image preset that runs on the tv which enhances the color or does it require special camera's that have this function?

I'm not yet fully versed in HDR. Something I will have to look into. It requires a compatible TV, but like 4K it has to also be a TV that recognises the way the HDR has been encoded. There's some new codec that I believe the GH5 will be using for it's Summer log profile update that is the new industry standard for HDR and which newer HDR TV's will support. Presumably this codec will have to be continued into the editing process for final encoding.

Although there are 4K Blurays, not all are HDR - in fact very few so I am led to understand. Often down to either filming or editing restrictions I imagine. Then again not all 4K Blurays are 4K, just up-scaled HD as editing was done in HD even where a higher resolution was used for filming. 4K gets so confusing, then again there are Blurays that are actually up-scaled SD rather than true HD content.

When someone like me, who works in video, gets confused with it all, its little wonder that the majority of buyers and our clients don't know what is and isn't HD, 4K or just up-scaled SD.

So really for HDR, I think it will be just like 4K in that you have to film, edit and then encode for HDR. Unlike 4K, and HD for that matter, it can't be said to be HDR unless it is. You can't upscale colour and dynamic range.

I plan to visit the BVE in London for end of February and hopefully it'll have some examples of HDR for me to check out and maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about to answer my questions.

Never seen the effect of HDR on a 4K tv but would like to, is it just a image preset that runs on the tv which enhances the color or does it require special camera's that have this function?

It will require the camera to be able to shoot in the wider gamut. The GH5 is forecast to get a version of HDR in the summer firmware release called Hybrid Log Gamma.

Never seen the effect of HDR on a 4K tv but would like to, is it just a image preset that runs on the tv which enhances the color or does it require special camera's that have this function?

HDR is: 1. wider dynamic range than REC709 - maybe 12 stops, 2. wider color gamut than REC709 (REC2020) and 3. 10bit (so more gradations of color) and maybe 4:2:2 rather than 4:2:0.

The new 4K HDR TV's are capable of playing such videos.

Now, the 4K videos you make are 8bit with the REC709 color gamut and are 6 stops of DR. So, not even close.

You can shoot HDR right now with the GH4 and the Atomos Inferno (which displays HDR video in HDR in the field!):

1. The Panasonic GH4 outputs 10bit 4:2:2 video.

2. Shooting in Vlog L gives you 10+ stops of dynamic range and an expanded color gamut, beyond REC709.

So record VLOGL on the Inferno 10bit, seeing the HDR view (expanded DR, expanded color gamut, 10bit) as you shoot.

Then in Resolve 12.5, you can produce an HDR video meeting the HDR specs above (there are variants of the above specs defining HDR; that set is one).

YouTube will play HDR videos in HDR if it detects you have an HDR viewer (TV), otherwise it shows the SDR version.

Now the GH5 will record 4K in 10bit using VLOG L right in the camera. So, it can produce HDR videos with a suitable editor like Resolve. It will also output via HDMI another HDR standard (Hybrid Log Gamma), which hopefully coming TV's will adopt.

Just for the challenge, I have shot HDR video using the above and uploaded to YouTube. And colleagues with new 4K HDR TV's report that they indeed see it in HDR, because YouTube shows an HDR logo when it meets the specs.

Try this test, use a camera that can shoot 4K and HD.

1. Shoot and edit 1920x1080 footage, then put it on youtube as an mp4.
2. Shoot and edit 4K footage, convert it to 1920x1080 as mp4, then put it on youtube to compare with #1.

I would think in theory that they would look identical, since they're both 1920x1080. I was wrong. The difference is quite significant.

Hi Warren

That's supposedly due to Chroma Sub Sampling ... If the 4K clip is 4:2:0 because you are resizing the video to a quarter of it's overall size it becomes a 4:2:2 video so it will look better as there is more colour information. This guy explains it better than me

Why Does 4K Look Better on 1080p Monitors - YouTube

It looks like 4K will be a household name much sooner then we expected.

I've been hearing people claim that 4K is "right around the corner" for about about 8 years now. If anything, it's taking its sweet old time to roll in.

Of course an HD clip shot in 4K is going to look better on YouTube than just a regular HD clip. It's not what file you ended up with, its what resolution you acquired it in. It's the same reason our homemade VHS videos sucked back in the day, but Hollywood movies on VHS looked much better. The better the resolution on the front end, the better it looks on the back end.

You can have all the format resolution you like, but it goes to waste if the optical clarity of your footage acquisition and editing isn't up to it.

So Hollywood films looked better on VHS than home video camera footage. Plus, they were shot on film, not tape.

Andrew

Then again when a bride looks at her wedding she is looking at content not the UHD resolution of the image so a poorly shot sequence with soft focus would still look awesome to her but terrible to us simply because the content is good. However sharp focus coupled with awesome 4K resolution AND the content she expects to see will be a killer!

There was some comment a while back about the clarity of 4K unwittingly enhancing every spot and blemish on the poor girl's face,, I have had some brides with severe acne problems that were even quite visible by the camera on a DVD copy ... in cases like that 4K might even be an unwise format unless one softened the image which defeats the purpose of shooting in UHD .... however most brides look pretty stunning after the MUA has done her job!!

Andrew has a good point about optical clarity especially if the post work involves lots of effect processing.

in cases like that 4K might even be an unwise format unless one softened the image which defeats the purpose of shooting in UHD ....

I shoot all my Weddings in 4K and have to say that no matter what my delivery, either DVD, HD or 4K in some cases, closeup shots of the Bride's face can use some softening. However I target this softening only to the face and this leaves all the other detail intact. Once you get onto wider shots, 4K won't show up facial blemishes.

Now not all my shots are closeups, and its when I shoot wide that 4K really comes into its own. When I show 4K footage on my 4K TV as a same day edit, the wide shots look stunning, giving detail to the faces of the Guest's reactions, that HD just doesn't pull off.

You can shoot HDR right now with the GH4 and the Atomos Inferno (which displays HDR video in HDR in the field!): So record VLOGL on the Inferno 10bit, seeing the HDR view (expanded DR, expanded color gamut, 10bit) as you shoot.

To clarify, you only need the Inferno if you have to expose by eye. If you want to shoot HDR without an Inferno, you simply have to expose via waveform and use the exposure guides for whichever flavor of log you shoot (Clog, Slog, Vlog). You can shoot HDR with the Ninja Blade/Star, the Pix, or the Odyssey just fine.

4K TVs really do have the 'Wow' factor even compared to HD. They can be viewed them from just a couple of feet away & it's like looking at a photo in a frame or through a window.

I've been hearing people claim that 4K is "right around the corner" for about about 8 years now. If anything, it's taking its sweet old time to roll in.

True, but then again wasn't HD TV first talked about in the late 80's; if so, I think 4K is developing a lot quicker in comparison.

I remember seeing a running demo of HDTV at World Expo 88 and thinking "it's just like film", it was so impressive compared to the standard definition TV we would all still live with domestically for the next 20 years.

Now you kids get off my lawn!

Andrew

Some of us have been shooting 4K and displaying on 4K monitors for a couple years <wink>. I'm not ready to go 8K yet....

The "jump" to 4K wasn't that expensive since I was doing other upgrades at the time. The productivity boost of a large 4K "desktop" on a TV was more than worth the cost.

I still have some "HD" (and of course am waiting for UHDBR or whatever for playback and burning discs), but wouldn't look back or buy any "new" HD gear....

The transition from SD 4:3 to SD 16:9 and onto HD took so long because so much needed to change.

Moving from analogue to digital acquisition was slow and a huge expense for everyone at the time, because the kit was very, very expensive.

Pixel aspect ratios were a horrible mess (weird stuff like DVCPRO HD for example) with anamorphic thrown in for good measure.

New tape formats came along thick and fast (I had a show that continued to film on Betacam SX even though fixing the dropouts on my Editbox were wasting the budget)

Non Linear editing was still very expensive.

CRT ruled the roost and TFT had a long way to go.

All of this change was happening at about the same time, and it dragged on forever (14:9 please die!)


Fast forward to now, the majority of professional video being shot is h264.
The majority of cameras (excluding phones) use SD cards and it's all 16:9/square pixel.

I'm not including high end 'Pro' formats and RAW etc etc as I have nothing to do with 'broadcast' anymore and that stuff accounts for a tiny amount of professional production. Let alone the dozens of hours of 'domestic' monetised video being uploaded to YouTube every minute.

Now that a 16:9 aspect with square pixels is the norm, moving from HD to UHD to 16k to whatever is really much simpler for everyone to understand and it's much cheaper to achieve. You just need h265/6/7...whatever, add in a faster computer (either in the camera, edit suite or TV) and a faster internet connection.