In 3-4 years time we will have 8K going main stream.

I'll make the jump from HD to 8K ... going to give 4K a miss.

In 3-4 years time we will have 8K going main stream.

I'll make the jump from HD to 8K ... going to give 4K a miss.

I think it will be a lot longer than 3-4 years. People are still getting used to HD after a decade and most TV broadcast material comes in at way below HD quality. Not only have broadcasters got to decide if they are going to embrace 4K, they are unlikely to invest the millions required into that, then rip it all out to up grade to 8k shortly after. Streaming won't be an option, in the UK at least, as even full HD streaming is not yet available in much of the UK.

On the other hand, there are plenty of advantages to be had from filming in 4K as has been discussed in other threads. I have no plans to deliver in 4k anytime soon, but already have 2x 4k cameras and am enjoying some of the advantages.

Roger

I think 4K video will become the standard for what people watch on their phones and tablets.

I think it will be a lot longer than 3-4 years. People are still getting used to HD after a decade and most TV broadcast material comes in at way below HD quality. Not only have broadcasters got to decide if they are going to embrace 4K, they are unlikely to invest the millions required into that, then rip it all out to up grade to 8k shortly after. Streaming won't be an option, in the UK at least, as even full HD streaming is not yet available in much of the UK.

On the other hand, there are plenty of advantages to be had from filming in 4K as has been discussed in other threads. I have no plans to deliver in 4k anytime soon, but already have 2x 4k cameras and am enjoying some of the advantages.

Roger

Sorry what I meant was, i'll make the jump to 8K camcorders. You can definitely be sure camcorders with 8K recording abilities shall be introduced within the next 2 years.

I would even wait longer then that, I expect something even greater then 8K to come if you wait long enough. :)

I did not wait to jump on the 4K bandwagon and have been using it to my advantage the entire season, the cropping ability has become a feature I don't want to miss anymore. When 8k would become the standard in camera's I"m sure we still will be delivering in HD and 4k and using 8k to crop and reframe.

Hi Noa

......and sadly we will STILL get brides that will want DVD's for the grandparents!! It will be even more complex than ever but hopefully you and I might be retired in our rocking chairs on the front porch when 8K delivery becomes the norm and 4K is the "old low resolution format"

Most of the content we get on free broadcast TV is still SD!!! To get Full HD in Perth you have to not only have Pay TV but have to pay extra to get the HD channels!! We are still a long way from 4K!!

Most of the content we get on free broadcast TV is still SD!!! To get Full HD in Perth you have to not only have Pay TV but have to pay extra to get the HD channels!!That's a bummer Chris!

I don't know about Belgium but here, as you say, most broadcast TV is still SD, although we have a dozen or so free HD channels on the terrestrial system we use, there may be a few more on the free satellite system. The disappointing thing is we watch a lot of SDTV because often there's nothing we want to watch on the HD channels!

Dave

Broadcast always sits far behind current technology; it doesn't seem that long ago that we still had analogue. Netflix offers a 4K option but many of the UKs Broadband struggles with HD. Looking ahead I can see people viewing even more content via tablets, phones and computers, with TV's becoming more like a large screen computer - in fact some are already in that direction. I'm sure 4K will play a part in that future; 8K, well unless TV's become 120", it's not an investment for the home. Cinema maybe, though they're almost as bad as broadcast in lagging behind.

I'd certainly welcome a day when SD and HD becomes HD and 4K, but I feel I shall be burning a fair few DVD's before then.

Cinema maybe, though they're almost as bad as broadcast in lagging behind. .

Although this may be true for theaters across the board, I would say IMAX has become fairly popular, at least where I am we have three theaters in my area that have either IMAX or an equivalent that is significantly larger/higher quality than typical screens. That being said, I understand shooting 4k, 6k or 8k, but delivering anything but HD, I believe is a ways off. Definitely a niche market. At a bridal show yesterday I kept hinting to brides that we offer Blu Rays and they didn't care. Almost all the brides said they wanted DVDs, and they didn't care about Blu Rays. Only one groom even understood the difference.

That being said, it was a smaller show, but for now, I'll just keep chugging along trying to sell the idea of HD delivery to my clients.

4K isn't as new as it seems, companies have been winding up for it. Our arthouse movie theatres here, The Esquire and Mariemont Theatre, as well as the mainstream Kenwood Theatre here in Cincinnati have all gone to 4K probably two years ago, it's been long enough I can't remember how long ago they did.

This discussion is interesting because it's like the SD to HD discussion years ago, quaint to look back on, will be humorous to read comments in retrospect in a few years.

Although this may be true for theaters across the board, I would say IMAX has become fairly popular, at least where I am we have three theaters in my area that have either IMAX or an equivalent that is significantly larger/higher quality than typical screens.

IMAX is slowly spreading across the UK; I have one nearby, just the one. Other Cinemas have 4K screens but very limited in what they offer on it. Due to the restrictions on times and facilities, most movies I've seen this year have been on HD screens and frankly I've found the image quality disappointing. Remaining movies this year I plan to see either in IMAX or 4K screens as it feels a waste of money otherwise.

At a bridal show yesterday I kept hinting to brides that we offer Blu Rays and they didn't care. Almost all the brides said they wanted DVDs, and they didn't care about Blu Rays. Only one groom even understood the difference.

That being said, it was a smaller show, but for now, I'll just keep chugging along trying to sell the idea of HD delivery to my clients.

I think you have to sell it to the Bride not as a Bluray or even HD vs SD, but as difference in quality, both resolution and colour. One of the things I plan to do over the winter months is prepare a new sample DVD that also explains this difference between formats - how the image is altered to fit a DVD. Many are confused and think DVD's are HD. There's a lot of ignorance and its often hard for us as Professionals to see it. I think if Brides were educated to realise the benefits that HD can bring with resolution and colour, you might get a better response. Not saying you'd have the bluray requests flooding in; however at a show I did this year, I did show SD samples and 4K samples on my 4K screen and that did have an impact.

Obviously when selling 4K I focus on the wide shots in the Ceremony; seeing more of peoples faces and their reactions. The detail of the dress and outfits worn by guests, whilst explaining how software allows me to target faces and soften them for the screen whilst preserving the important details in jewellery. So I try to approach it from their perspective rather than mine.

I did show SD samples and 4K samples on my 4K screen and that did have an impact.

This seems like an excellent idea to push for HD/4k over SD. They don't really understand unless they see the difference in person. I don't push the whole HD thing as much at shows because I'm more interested in them actually deciding on me over others in my area, and sell them on HD at a later date, but either way, physically showing them the difference is a good idea. I had just been trying to explain it instead of show them. Thanks!

Had another wedding show yesterday, very busy and lots of brides. I broached the subject of 4k to quite a few couples and only one guy all day was aware of what it was and I was amazed that so many had never even heard of it. I explained the big improvement in picture quality and that was followed up by a comment from him about how good the quality was of the video we were running and was it 4k? I said it was just a DVD and he asked if it was a 4k DVD!!!

I think we have a long way to go before people understand it, although as Steve says, showing them the difference may be of benefit. The only thing that bothers me about that is that they may then expect their wedding video to look equally as sharp, without understanding how much new equipment they will need to invest in to view it that way.

I did speak to the only other video company there that surprisingly had only upgraded their cameras to HD this year. They were highly impressed with the fact that we have a pair of 4k cameras, whereas the potential clients were basically disinterested because of the lack of understanding. In future I will only mention it if asked although I will include it in the promotion for the benefit ofthose who understand it.

Roger

A Wedding Video company that's only upgraded to HD; wow and even last year I was telling clients that no Professional Videographer would be working with SD only cameras when they broach me on HD. Even for SD delivery, HD cameras deliver better results, just as 4K delivers better HD. To put it into perspective, I filmed a Wedding last year late September, where I spoke to the Photographer about my camera and thought to impress him by saying it did 4K, only to learn the last company he worked with had 3 GH4's and were offering 4K packages. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised really.

I don't expect clients to be impressed with 4K until they have 4K TV's and even then HD will suffice them. If I sell it to them at all, it is for the HQ video grabs and improved picture quality. Just say to them that 4K gives them a considerably better picture and thats all they need to hear. Of course it helps to show off some 4K, which I did at this show. You can't expect people to imagine a better picture from 4K, they have to see it.

A Wedding Video company that's only upgraded to HD; wow and even last year I was telling clients that no Professional Videographer would be working with SD only cameras when they broach me on HD.

I ran into a guy this year who said he was shooting 480p because he knew they were only going to order DVDs. I couldn't believe he wouldn't shoot in HD (considering his camera was clearly capable. I believe it was a Panasonic AG-AC90) Maybe he was trying to conserve media? I am not sure. I can't imagine shooting and editing SD footage ever again. My phone (Samsung Galaxy S5) does 4k video! (Not good 4k but still). Kind of threw me off when I talked to him about it.

I wouldn't use resolution as a salespitch, wedding clients don't care, it's actually the least important part of a weddingfilm to them.

I think quality of video does matter in that they want it to look good. I agree, mention resolution and you've lost their interest. Say something like 4K gives you better picture quality and it carries some weight. You have to speak their language and not that of a Videographer.

Just look at the best known weddingvideographers in the industry who charge 8K+, the ones I have seen don't mention anything about gear or resolution, they focus on story and emotion and if you are being honest, that is all that matters and any "full hd" camera today is sufficient to help visualize that. I recently saw a full film from Rob Adams where at one point there was an establishing shot of a house, the rooftiles which where small had dancing lines all over it caused by moire because he uses canon 5dII's yet his average prices are around 8K. His clients would not pay him more if he would advertise he delivered in 4K, its the way he manages to capture a lot of raw emotion from different often creative angles, it's how he stages some parts of the day to help him build a story and it's the way he puts it together in the edit. To enhance the feeling it is like film he uses full frame camera's, uses a cinema aspect ratio, a slider or glidecam shot here and there and that together with good audio is all you need to convince your clients. Not with telling them that you shoot 4K so their video looks even sharper, that is just what gets us videographers exited. :)

Spot on Noa - i agree wholehartedly

Noa, you're responding as if I were to disagree with you. All those excellent Videographers charging more, would they earn less if they used GH4's and 4K instead of 5ds and HD, I doubt it. Yet I've secured 2 bookings this year by quoting 4K, admittedly this was down to the opinions from the Groom, but still, it worked for me. We all have to play our cards, and not all have the same cards. I play mine, others play theirs.

However, just to confirm, 4K plays no part in my advertisement apart from this one show where I had 4K videos and TV to demonstrate and even then the conversation was 90% on content. Give me some credit.

What we have here is a discussion on 4K, but don't assume this discussion sugests my entire marketing strategy. It's a small part and a very small part indeed. If I use 4K to advertise, it's mentioned only in regards to HQ frame grabs and superior picture quality. One line in a 45 minute discussion. Some clients are more interested and in such cases, I go into more detail.

Frankly I don't care what some video guy who charges 8K+ does; their clients are not my clients and whilst I applaud their business for its high fees, we live in different parts of the world and have different goals and type of clients.

I'm well aware that resolution plays little part in clients needs, but giving them reasons to not settle for a DVD and go for an HD delivery is for me part of doing my job. After all I want them to have the best possible copy of their video. Should they then settle for DVD, it will at least be an informed choice to the best of my ability to explain it.

I didn't say you disagree with me, I"m only not convinced wedding clients find resolution or sharper more detailed images important enough to base their decision on that to hire a videographer. The most expensive videographers are the best example that clients are willing to pay a lot more for only "HD".

It is mainly us videographers that find 4K important, like myself, I find 4K very important for my workflow for it's crop ability.

Ah but then what is now "only HD" once sat at a point where 4k currently sits. These discussions have been had before when debating the value of HD over SD. Are the clients of these high priced Wedding Videographers getting DVDs or some HD delivery. 5d mark iiis, which although somewhat diminished in recent years, were not so long ago considered the benchmark for great Wedding Videography. Even I looked forward to the day to own such a camera, struggling with my 60d. No doubt such Videographers carry a full range of Canons best lenses, so whilst image quality plays no part in their pitch, it sure plays a part in their videos that future clients see. Plus HD is a gimmick word no different to 4k.

Remember also we are not privy to their chats with clients, only their website. Mine makes no mention of 4k, but as a passing point in meetings, it can come up. Perhaps they're the same and in chats, the fact they use professional cameras and lenses and film in HD does get a mention.

Really, I agree story and content is important to clients, resolution and picture quality more important to us. I enjoy working with 4k and I'll do my bit to persuade clients to choose HD over SD, but its no selling point.

I have always maintained that content is king and is what sells the video together with style. But I do think that their is a danger as a videographer with getting too excited about the leaps in technology when we can clearly see a difference.

I think we all agree that shooting on 4k gives us the ability to crop the picture in various ways to give us much more flexibility and that dropping it down to HD still gives an overall improvement in picture quality. It also allows to screen grab to a very useable level. I don't though neccesarily agree that HD to 4k will be as big an improvement as SD to HD, simply because the higher the resolution, the less the difference is noticeable to the man in the street until you start comparing picture quality on much bigger screens. Sure, if you view HD on an 80" screen from 6ft away it will look nowhere near as sharp as viewing on the same screen in 4k because of the relative pixel size. Doing the same on a 40" screen will not be anywhere near as obvious to most viewers and certainly not as obvious as the difference between SD and HD on the same screen. Going up further to 8k will be totally irrelevant in the domestic viewing market in my opinion.

Manufacturers will force the hand of the public because they will simply stop producing HD tvs to sell their 4k tvs whether the public want it or not, it will cease to be an option. The same poor quality transmissions though will still be put out for the vast majority of broadcast TV for years to come, so the benefits that we can see will just not be available to most people in a normal domestic viewing situation for a long time apart from the occasion premium broadcast or pay TV.

Roger

Sometimes I wonder if potential and current clients pay any attention at all. My delivery is DVD sets, 1080 video and highlight on USB, photos on USB and then their own LCD video album with the highlight video preloaded.... I just contacted a client to let him know all the media was ready to be delivered and he said "Just drop the USB into my mail box" ...he cannot even remember what he is getting and was shown only a month ago when he did a late booking.

Yes 4K is important to us and I love it! I even get excited about the quality and sharpness that our new Panasonic's give us now ..it almost looks like 4K ... When I have a fully laden timeline and Sony Vegas drops to half resolution on the preview monitor, I am disappointment as I love the full res sharpness.

Where is all this going??? Yes we are passionate about our quality but the client, on average, couldn't give a toss! You COULD probably get away shooting SD footage and dumping onto DVD's and they would be quite happy so sadly Noa is right !! However I do agree that you WILL get a groom or two that will appreciate quality and resolution and can actually tell the difference between HD and 4K and does own a 4K TV but sadly most will not ..they are building a house, having babies and doing things most young couples do so DVD's are simply good enough for them!

The problem is the vast majority of people are lazy with new technology. They prefer to stick with what they know. Back when I worked for the University, I recall the hassle trying to pursuade lecturers to give up on video cassette and use DVDs instead. The tantrums and arguments we had, then after a year or so, they loved the new format and were handing in videos to be copied to DVD.

Most coupes are the same, sticking by DVD as they're use to it. Some don't even realise the quality isn't HD. Roger says that HD to 4k isn't that big an upgrade, but perhaps we should look at it as SD to 4k as many haven't given HD any time of day. In fact some argue HD as a format never really worked as to the average viewer, the difference in quality wasnt significant to warrant any interest or upgrade.

Ultimately the future will decide on the demand for 4k. We can argue and speculate here to our hearts content, but none of us truely know what the state of play will be in say 5 years time. For me 4k is like fullframe, a look I enjoy working with but which the average client cares little about. Just as many care little whether I use sliders, jibs, gimbal or tripod to capture my shots, or if I use a fullframe, APS-C, 4/3s or 1" sensor. We all make choices in our gear that reflect our passion for video and ultimately it'll inform our style, which some clients may or may not take notice of.

I shall not be so daft as to make 4k a selling point of my service, but I won't totally ignore it either. If only to promote my Photo Album from video stills service as a paid extra. That said if I can educate some into the disadvantages of DVD, and increase interest for HD delivery, then I feel its only to their benefit. How many clients received their Wedding videos on video cassettes from say 2000-2004, perfectly happy then, but which now never get watched as they no longer have a video cassette player. I see it as part of our job as Professionals to monitor upcoming technology and anticipate new trends, regardless of whether clients currently demand it or not.

Ah Steve.. you hit the nail on the head ..yes, they are simply too lazy. I actively use UHD and HD and shoot everything in progressive. (I actually was still shooting 50i last year and that was because it gave me no hassles and brides no hassles, despite having a progressive TV!)

I figure I'm pretty much up to date I reckon .. I shoot on 4K cameras and, in fact, I lost one job in 2014 because the groom insisted on 4K cameras being used although the bride having no idea what he was talking about ..no, he had no idea how he would view his 4K footage and admitted he had never seen 4K footage ..he just wanted it!!

As long as we are ready to deliver 4K when it is asked for, we can be pretty comfortable knowing we are up to date!

I saw a bride just a few hours ago and she was so happy when I showed her the HD footage on USB and our LCD video book but seemed a little worried until I pulled out the DVD case with two disks inside ... that made her happy and she seemed quite relieved that she would get a DVD set for herself and the parents so yes I strongly agree that it's what they are used to! They can of course be educated but it will take time!!

Perhaps a few thoughts on "history" would be helpful...

When "HD" came out, there were mediocre 720 "HD" screens at lower consumer-y prices, and the higher priced full HD 1080 screens - when half the "HD" sets look barely better than the "SD" ones, "HD" didn't show as well.

4K is ONE resolution, no halfway compromised "sorta 4K"... aside from a few "sorta high resolution" computer screens I've run into on smaller laptops. IOW, you buy a 4k TV, even a cheap one, it's 4K, and should look pretty good with 4K content. 4K screens are about 20-30% of the displayed products in all the local "big box" retailers... the market penetration is already surprisingly high.


When HD hit the market, there were TWO competing playback systems - Blu-Ray and the now defunct HD-DVD, meaning if you wanted to play back a "HD" disc, you had to decide between two differing formats, one of which was likely to become a dinosaur, and SO... you bought a DVD... it was familiar, and it did the job - by the time Blu-Ray came out on top, the initial "thrill" and "buzz" was LONG GONE... only now is BR becoming "expected"... and people are probably still watching SD DVD's on their 1080 screens... I know I'm not the only one who has observed that despite having "HD cable", the family many times is watching the "SD" feeds... either because that's where the content is, or it looks "good 'nuf"... I recall watching a movie and thinking it looked a bit fuzzy, only to discover somehow we'd started the "SD" version... yup, it wasn't THAT bad...

If, as it appears there is a SINGLE "UHDBR" format (ugh, that's an ugly moniker, someone in marketing needs to come up with something more "catchy"!) that is solidly backwards compatible, comparably priced to DVD players (meaning under $100 from the get go, not start high and slowly lower the MSRP over months or years), and new movie releases are available early on, along with affordable burners and media, then 4k/UHD could catch on very quickly. The burner certainly is at a nice price point, I remember waiting FOREVER to buy a BR burner, as they were expensive for a LONG time!


The ONE hitch I see is that on the "capture" side of the game, there are "4K" devices with tiny sensors that are frankly pretty crap, so there's some 4K that barely looks "HD", let alone 4K. I think we've had sufficient "sampling" here to show that small sensor 4K is "OK", but when put side by side with a larger sensor camera that has that "looking through a window" vibe, the difference is noticeable. Probably for the average consumer that buys a new phone with a 4K camera, the expectations aren't as high, so maybe this won't be a big deal? And of course they may well play it back on a HDTV anyway...


Historically speaking, 4K is not HD... mistakes of the past not repeated could make for a much more aggressive adoption than we saw with HD.

I had a laptop that had an HD-DVD drive. I never bought any disks as even then I had a feeling it wasn't going to be the winner in the HD war. I think next year when 4k bluray players and disks make an appearance in shops, 4K will start to become known to the mass market. It'll be interesting to see where things stand a year from now.

I wonder if there will be any conflicts between native 4K (4096x2160) and UHD (3840x2160) ?? The first issue straight away id the different aspect ratios.

My cams shoot UHD so the aspect is still 16:9 so there is no problem but will/are consumer TV's 4K or UHD ???

That's almost the same issue as we had between HDV and HD with files that were 1440x1080 and 1920x1080!!

The last thing we need in a new format is having to ask the question do you want UHD 4K or full 4K ???

I wouldn't worry as UHD is more the 16:9 version with 25p or 30p depending on region, whilst true 4K is wider, more cinematic and is confined to 24p. Thus the former is more for TV, the latter more for movies, but TV's although advertise as 4K are actually UHD or at least mine is.

The difference is not as great as 1440 by 1080 which is the 4:3 version of HD. Oddly I can get a 4:3 ratio on my GH4 by selecting the 4K photo option, but the average punter won't really care. Whether UHD or 4K, it'll still be seen and described as 4K by most. Especially as most resolution formats are defined by vertical rather than horizontal resolution.

I wonder if there will be any conflicts between native 4K (4096x2160) and UHD (3840x2160) ?? The first issue straight away id the different aspect ratios.

Besides the different AR? No.

My cams shoot UHD so the aspect is still 16:9 so there is no problem but will/are consumer TV's 4K or UHD ???

Yes, there are exceptions, but they are very few.

That's almost the same issue as we had between HDV and HD with files that were 1440x1080 and 1920x1080!!

Not at all the same issue. HDV was 1440x1080 put with pixels having a different non-square shape. This helped preserve bandwidth in the 25Mbps MPEG-2 8ibt 4:2:0 encoder (which is about half as efficient as MPEG-4 / H.264). It was still 1920x1080 when you brought it into your NLE, provided it picked the correct pixel AR.


The last thing we need in a new format is having to ask the question do you want UHD 4K or full 4K ???

You won't have to ask that question. No one will ask for DCI 4K because it will be letterboxed on their display. No one is asking for Cinemascope from 1080 generated material are they? Or DCI 2K?

whilst true 4K is wider, more cinematic and is confined to 24p.

I wouldn't call it "more cinematic". DCI 4K is the resolution container that movies delivered digital through a DCP use, regardless of their aspect ratio. It has nothing to do with being "cinematic"...that's more in line with lighting, art direction, and the work of your colorist.

The difference is not as great as 1440 by 1080 which is the 4:3 version of HD. Oddly I can get a 4:3 ratio on my GH4 by selecting the 4K photo option, but the average punter won't really care.

They would care if you gave them a 4:3 video to play on their 16:9 LCD TV because it won't take up their whole screen and be pillarboxed on the sides. What the 4:3 mode on the GH4 is for is shooting with PL anamorphic lenses, which will give you 2.40:1 aspect ratio when you correct for the AR.

Whether UHD or 4K, it'll still be seen and described as 4K by most. Especially as most resolution formats are defined by vertical rather than horizontal resolution.

Exactly.

Thanks Gary

What Steve is actually describing I think is unique to our Panasonic cameras and is a 4K Photo Mode where you can shoot UHD video and then select any frame from the video and the camera will produce a very nice 8mp still directly from the footage and write it to the SD card. Because users might want their captured photos in a traditional aspect ratio the Panny 4K Photo mode allows you to select the aspect ratio that you want to film in. (All that blurb comes from Panasonic not me!!) I haven't used it as yet

What Steve is actually describing I think is unique to our Panasonic cameras and is a 4K Photo Mode where you can shoot UHD video and then select any frame from the video

Yes, there is also an Anamorphic mode that is basically the same thing, but with a different frame rate option (Photo mode is 29.97P last I checked unless the latest firmware lets you change this).

First 8K TV screen to be put on sale by Sharp in October - First 8K TV screen to be put on sale by Sharp in October - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34267265)

First 8K TV screen to be put on sale by Sharp in October - First 8K TV screen to be put on sale by Sharp in October - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34267265)
"However, the 85in (2.16m) device's 16m yen ($133,000; £86,000) price is likely to limit sales." Bit of an understatement there!