4k vs HD

John McCully · February 14th, 2016, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Young

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.

John McCully · February 14th, 2016, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Dempsey

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.

Steve Burkett · February 15th, 2016, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

Noa Put · February 15th, 2016, 08:41 AM

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.

Steve Burkett · February 15th, 2016, 09:22 AM

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?

Noa Put · February 15th, 2016, 11:32 AM

Quote:

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.

Steve Burkett · February 15th, 2016, 12:12 PM

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.

John McCully · February 15th, 2016, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

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.

Dave Blackhurst · February 15th, 2016, 02:44 PM

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....

James Manford · February 15th, 2016, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

Noa Put · February 15th, 2016, 04:41 PM

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

Ron Chau · April 30th, 2016, 11:16 PM

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.

Dave Blackhurst · May 1st, 2016, 03:23 PM

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....

Ron Chau · May 1st, 2016, 05:39 PM

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..

Dave Blackhurst · May 1st, 2016, 11:10 PM

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".

February 15th, 2016, 08:41 AM	#34
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,509	Re: 4k vs HD 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.

February 15th, 2016, 09:22 AM	#35
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: 4k vs HD 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?

February 15th, 2016, 12:12 PM	#37
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: 4k vs HD 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.

February 15th, 2016, 02:44 PM	#39
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: 4k vs HD 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....

February 15th, 2016, 04:41 PM	#41
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,509	Re: 4k vs HD And imagine how my dvd's will look on that hugh 4K tv...

April 30th, 2016, 11:16 PM	#42
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Re: 4k vs HD 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. __________________ https://www.ronchauphoto.com/

May 1st, 2016, 03:23 PM	#43
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: 4k vs HD 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....

May 1st, 2016, 05:39 PM	#44
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Re: 4k vs HD 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.. __________________ https://www.ronchauphoto.com/

May 1st, 2016, 11:10 PM	#45
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: 4k vs HD 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".