Will 4K cameras be practical for weddings?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Bob Drummond

This 4K things seems like marketing hype at its worst. I can't usually tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p rip of a blu-ray on my decent 55" LCD. And I actually care about image quality.

Have you actually seen a 4K film on a 4K tv ad compared that to a 1080p one? If not then you can't call it a hype.

About cinema being projected at 2K, like Dave said they are usually shot at 4 or 5K so that also should translate to a very detailled 2K image, those who shoot cinema (and I don't mean us wedding guy's :) use equipment, lenses and software many of us can only dream of. The last blu-ray film I saw of a movie had an incredible amount of detail in it viewed from a regular 1080p screen, something I have not been able to reproduce with my own 1080p camera's, not even close but it shows that the resolution you start shooting with and ofcourse hard- and software used do matter to what the final output looks like, even if it is "only" 2K.

Even 4K downsized to 720p on vimeo looks sharper then something from the same camera (like a gh3/4) that can only shoot 1080p so for those who want a better 1080p then 4K does have the advantage.

[Dave Blackhurst]

All one needs to do is look at some of the samples on the endless AX100 thread <wink>. It's not "hype", it's like looking through a window instead of looking at video.

I saw distinct advantages to shooting one camera and pan/crop, looking forward to shooting that way with less gear to wrangle. YMMV.

The price will come down, there will be more choices of capture devices, I suspect 60p will relatively quickly become standard rather than 30p, hard drives will get bigger/faster, memory prices will drop yet again... and so on.

I agree that 4K is something that will be adopted more quickly, 3D had/has too many technical issues, but the industry needs a direction in which to "improve"... Not sure about the adoption curve, I walked the aisles at the local Costco just days ago, and there was exactly ONE 4K TV... very expensive one at that! We still don't have a "4K delivery format", so THAT might be a problem <wink>.

About sharpness and detail... obviously there are ways to make even a DVD look very very sharp and crisp (yeah, like for the BR promos!), so it's distinctly POSSIBLE to improve what the viewer sees. I'm sure the better the equipment, the capture resolution, and the post processing, the better the end result that can be achieved...

That said, often when "film look" is being discussed, it seems to me that film grain, and a "soft" or "dreamy" look tends to come up... so looping back to the "looking through a window" vibe... that may or may not be the desired "look"?

I suppose it all depends on what you are trying to achieve, and which tools you decide to use, but again, the question was "practical", not "desirable", not "technically superior", not even "a necessity"... PRACTICAL. Not everyone will answer "yes", but dismissing it entirely is shortsighted.

We all use lots of different tools, a 4K "hammer" may be a handy addition to the toolkit, for some people at that junction looking to update equipment. I picked up an AX100 at a good price, and sold off a couple of cameras to offset the cost (AKA, broke even, maybe even made a little). I like the 4K hammer, with a few reservations... and those can be worked around, IMO. A very "practical" addition in my book. YMMV.

And yes, a long delayed computer upgrade added additional "costs", but I've gotten more done on the new system, so it's paying for itself too. And it's 99% quiet to boot, which makes life more pleasant! Sometimes there are unexpected benefits!

[Chris Harding]

If you are dealing with brides and grooms who are non technical then I seem to wonder if we do, in fact go above and beyond.

I was playing a demo DVD on the groom's 50" plasma TV which cost him close to $8K (that will give you an idea how long ago that was) I was still shooting in SD 4:3 in those days and my little Panasonic AVC20's , fixed 46mm diameter zoom lens and tiny 1/6" CCD sensors. We put a beach wedding demo up on this (then) enormous screen and the groom said "Wow, it's so clear!" and that was 720x576 4:3 on an old camera too!! Fair enough it was a great day and the light was just right too and I admit it looked good but apart from good focus I doubt whether he was looking at anything past "sharpness" and once satisfied he was happy ... Then again he might have been expecting it to look like his parent's old VHS wedding??

Going back to 4K ... What would be the issue on previewing 4K footage on an i7 computer ...My 1080 previews in Sony Vegas pretty much OK on the i7 but would 4K require a faster machine?? Also has anyone any idea if rendering from 4K would be a lot longer than 1080?? Only asking as for a wedding business upgrades are often a lot more than just getting new cameras ...you end up having to buy a new computer, bigger drives so the costs do affect the business and have to be viable!

Chris

[Dave Blackhurst]

Hi Chris -

I'm still working on the "workflow", and I retired the I7 920 system right before the AX100 landed, in favor of an i7 4770K on a board with integrated 4K capability. Not super impressed with the "integrated" graphics, but seem to be adequate for previewing and editing thus far. Primary motivation was to be able to display 4K on a cheap-o Seiki 39"
"monitor" (re-purposed TV!). There are quirks, and I'm not 100% convinced that this TV can be entirely color balanced, but it looks pretty good. I suspect a clean "Winders" install on the old 920 and a better, more current graphics card might have been a viable option, but I wanted raw processing horsepower, "current" features like USB 3, and overclocking headroom. Goal was to have a system that will be good for a few years doing all the things I need to do, including editing...

Offhand, I'd say the "jump" is smaller than from SD to HDV, but I'm still "tuning" this new computer to figure out which bits most affect the performance! This was a "cheap" build, but I still am happy with the overall results. I'm going to try doubling the RAM from 16 to 32... and considering an SSD for the "working files" for editing - I suspect my older 7200RPM HDDs are showing their age... Hoping that the integrated graphics will do, really don't want to add a dedicated card with a noisy fan, I've got a nearly silent build at the moment, and I don't miss the noise one bit!



Ultimately, we probably obsess on image quality far beyond even the pickiest client - for them the order of things is probably more along the lines of:

#1 CONTENT
#2 "healthy" white balance
#3 good brightness/contrast
#4 proper focus
#5 good framing
#6 stable, non-wobbly camera work

Frame rates, resolution, gain, ISO's, shutter speeds, apertures... what camera is used, what grip gear is used, etc... probably completely inconsequential to the end customer, even though they play into the above.

We see it as creators/artists, they see it as viewers/consumers, and probably don't care as long as it "looks good", and "moves" them!

[Noa Put]

I think proper focus comes first and then content, there is nothing so distracting as a shot that is out of focus, 4k is even less forgiving then HD and a out of focus shot will stick out like a sore thumb on that 4K tv. Full frame and 4K, now that will be a challenge for anyone shooting with fast primes, glad I do shoot m4/3 camera's so I at least have a dof that is a bit more manageable.

[Chris Harding]

Good content would be useless if it was all fuzzy so you are right Noa.

I think with brides who maybe don't understand a shallow DOF it is a fine line between "that's cool" and "why is that face fuzzy" .. I'm shooting mostly with my Sigma 18-35 F1.8 at receptions so I try to stay as wide as I can so at least my DOF covers something like a table couple in a shot and keeps just the background out of focus.

The EA-50 is pretty darn good with Colour balance is most lighting and the last thing you want is the bridesmaid's delicate pink dresses coming out as orange in the footage.

Of course framing and no wobbles is what keeps us out of the "Uncle Joe" category!

That's a good list Dave! and sometimes we just have no option but to shoot in really low light! At F1.8 I can now work without lighting (hated by guests!) in most situations which is better.

Chris

[Clive McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Going back to 4K ... What would be the issue on previewing 4K footage on an i7 computer ...My 1080 previews in Sony Vegas pretty much OK on the i7 but would 4K require a faster machine?? Also has anyone any idea if rendering from 4K would be a lot longer than 1080?? Only asking as for a wedding business upgrades are often a lot more than just getting new cameras ...you end up having to buy a new computer, bigger drives so the costs do affect the business and have to be viable!

Chris

Its not as simple as a single 4k track. Most of us use multiple tracks - thats when computers struggle. When I enable multiamera editing - my i7 PC with 16GB ram, can only just play everything smoothly at 'Preview - Auto' on Vegas.

And thats with my PC setup that it looks like its from the turn of the millenium. All the visual frills have been taken off to conserve ram.

It does look horrible as an interface.

I downloaded a 4K clip from Philip Bloom a month ago - tried to play it and got a blue screen of death.

I'm far from convinced that 4K is workable for the vast majority of us. Not without expense way beyond the cost of a GH4.

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

With regard to cropping do bear in mind that wide angle lenses tend to be less than flattering to the human face whereas long lenses often make the face more appealing. This is a far bigger concern in stills portraiture for the obvious reason that a portrait is going to get stared at whereas a video is more transient. Most working photographers who specialise in human subjects are very much aware of this.

The human eye sees roughly the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor. Thats what we perceive as normal. If you start going down to 35mm 24mm etc you may get strong characterful images but they are far less likely to be pretty. Once you go to 85mm and beyond the enhancement afforded by "crushing" the perspective starts to kick in making for an altogether more flattering shot. Thats why many photographers like to use the long end of a 70-200mm for the bridal portraiture if space allows.

This has implications if you heavily crop a wide angle shot or clip. So the advantage of being able to crop a 4k clip may not always be as great as it first appears.

Pete

Pete, keep in mind it is the subject-to-lens distance which has the biggest effect on perspective - not the focal length. If you shoot with a 24mm lens and crop it to achieve the same image framing as an 85mm lens shot from the same distance away, the perspective will be exactly the same (though DOF will be different). A wider lens does not inherently make people look worse - what makes unflattering photos is the decreased subject-to-lens distance which many people will employ in order to compose a portrait with such a lens.

Of course, beyond a certain point wide-angle lenses do have a tendency to distort faces due to lens distortion, but this effect is not at all related to perspective and will distort faces no matter how near or far they are.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I think proper focus comes first and then content, there is nothing so distracting as a shot that is out of focus, 4k is even less forgiving then HD and a out of focus shot will stick out like a sore thumb on that 4K tv. Full frame and 4K, now that will be a challenge for anyone shooting with fast primes, glad I do shoot m4/3 camera's so I at least have a dof that is a bit more manageable.

Well... if you completely mangle any of 2-6, content might become useless, thus why we stress about everything that helps us "nail" those elements! We've all seen clips with "Smurfette", fuzzy 20/200 focus, chopped "tops", blown highlights or mushy mud, and seasickness inducing wobblies... yet some of it manages to STILL "go viral" or end up on broadcast news (won't go into the weird white balance that seems to be a characteristic of financial TV here, one gal is pink, the guy is green, they all look rather sickly...)

So far I'm not finding focus to be an issue with 4K on the Sony 1" sensor - but I'm sure there will be moments... might not be as easy with a FF!


@Clive -

FWIW, I've never had really high resolution playback with Vegas and multicam... I think I refuse to spend up on a video card...?! BUT, I can get a USEABLE resolution, and 4K seems to be in the same league thus far. I am hoping for better, and will continue to experiment with "lo budget" options.

The video played direct out of the HDMI to the cheap-o 4K TV "monitor" looks quite nice, so it's "possible", even if that nut ain't cracked quite yet! Frankly, that was why I wanted to get the AX100 - better to get the learning curve out of the way! The nuances of 4K workflow still lay ahead, but I'll jump off those bridges as I come to them! HDV wasn't a picnic "back in the day"...

Just putting together a "4K capable" computer system has been an adventure, taking far more time to iron out all the kinks, or at least figure out workarounds, than other builds I've done! But it also was done as cheap as possible, and the results have been very satisfying, I now have the equivalent of 5 1920x1080 monitors/desktops, a quiet system, and it's fast, if a little clunky/quirky at times (including a couple reproducible software related BSOD's).

[Bob Drummond]

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

Most Hollywood masters do indeed exists as a 2K master, but many were shot at 4K or even 5K in the first place. Now, if they could shoot everything at 2K in order to end up with a 2K master don't you think they would save themselves all the hassle and expense of 4K/5K in the first place?

I think more Hollywood productions use the 2K Arri Alexa than a 4K+ camera.

We need to stop thinking in terms of shooting only what we deliver, or only delivering what we shoot.

I agree. As I said, I understand there are benefits for shooting at a higher resolution than you deliver. I shoot at 1080p but deliver most projects at 720p. That being said, I would never dream of abandoning a multi-camera shoot in favor of one 4K camera and then jump cutting all over one larger frame.

In some countries 4K will take off pretty quickly and while we only seem to get requests for DVD, in other countries Blu-ray has taken off much more and those people can't understand why anyone would want the inferior DVD.

There are countries where the majority of clients want a Blu-ray over a DVD? If I'm doing a wedding, I automatically give the couple a Blu-ray and a DVD (unless they tell me they don't want a Blu-ray). But I've never had anyone go out of their way to request a Blu-ray.

How long have HD TVs been out? Try buying a standard def TV today. 4K is coming faster than HD did. How long before you can no longer buy an HD TV?

This is what I don't get. Who cares if all you can buy are TV's with a 4K sticker? There will still be countless high-end feature "films" and television programs that do not exist in 4K, many of which probably never will. If they originally looked good in the cinema, they will still look great on the television in your home, no matter how big it is or what maximum resolution it supports.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

So far I'm not finding focus to be an issue with 4K on the Sony 1" sensor - but I'm sure there will be moments... might not be as easy with a FF!

The problem will become apparant once you start shooting with fast primes on a 4K dslr, I see enough wedding videos in plain HD that have foucssing issues, imagine how these little mistakes will look like in their full glory :)

[Peter Riding]

keep in mind it is the subject-to-lens distance which has the biggest effect on perspective

Both sides in this old chestnut claim to have science on their side :- )

Pete

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Bob Drummond

I think more Hollywood productions use the 2K Arri Alexa than a 4K+ camera.

It's certainly true that more of the top ten hollywood films are using Alexa instead of the likes of RED, but you'd be amazed just how many other things are shot on RED @ 4K only to be transmitted in HD on TV.

If price were no barrier I'd quite happily shoot 4K for all my corporate stuff and have more options in post, especially the interviews and pieces directly to camera.

[Bob Drummond]

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

It's certainly true that more of the top ten hollywood films are using Alexa instead of the likes of RED, but you'd be amazed just how many other things are shot on RED @ 4K only to be transmitted in HD on TV.

I know the most recent series of Red Dwarf shot on RED, but I assumed that was an anomaly. If you haven't seen the making-of feature on the DVD yet, I highly recommend it. The super high-end workflow was one (of many) problems to plague that production.

My thought is that if 2K is good enough for Avengers 2 and Game of Thrones in 2014, I don't know if 4K will ever make sense for wedding videographers.

If price were no barrier I'd quite happily shoot 4K for all my corporate stuff and have more options in post, especially the interviews and pieces directly to camera.

That sounds like an interesting fantasy, but it seems like the reality would quickly become a nightmare. Think of the storage space and computing power and time that would be needed to handle just one interview? All for what? being able to extract a close up and a wide shot from one camera setup? I'd take two or three C100s over an unwieldy 4K workflow.

[Noa Put]

I don't know if 4K will ever make sense for wedding videographers.

One purpose I think 4K would be very beneficial for is for people who shoot solo like me, during a ceremony I currently use up to 3 camera's that shoot 1080p 50p, that would be 2 unmanned and one I operate. With 4K I could replace my 2 unmanned camera's with one by having the altar and lectern in one frame where I could either show both in post, crop to only the alter or only the lectern, that's 3 different frames without having to move or operate the camera leaving me more time to operate my own camera. Even when they do the vows my unmanned camera's are often wrong framed just because I don't have the time to set them right, this often means I"m in the frame as well while I shoot the vows up close, with 4K that problem would not exists as I could re-frame in post to cut me out of the picture, that's a big benefit.

I know the dof would be exactly the same on all 3 shots where if you would shoot from the same position and zoom in on altar or lectern your dof changes but if I would be pressed for time I would not mind using 4K to give me the impression of a 4 camera shoot while I'm only using 2 camera's.

That's all theory for me know because I don't own a 4k camera yet but it should be perfectly possible to achieve.