Should I let 4K be a deciding factor?

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

4k shouldn't be a deciding factor if you are shooting for broadcast.

I don't agree. In post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p).

-- peer

[Justin Molush]

Outside of the reframing discussion which has its own merit, the resolution, regardless of being downres'd to 1080p will be of higher quality in the end. While the 4k sharpness might not be as drastic an increase over a quality 1080p cam (you would be hard pressed to find different between an FS700 @ 4k and F3 @1080p in the end if delivering 1080p), it will be in general a better source size to work with in post and would allow more flexibility.

If you are shooting for more high end productions and are passing off your footage to your post vendors for compositing/FX, the 4K res (and raw, if you have an O7Q) will be appreciated by individuals involved on that end. For quite a few projects recently, what I wouldnt have given to shoot a bit wider, turned up the shutter speed, and had 4K to stabilize and then comp FX down into 1080p.

As of now, 4K for broadcast is the new 1080p for broadcast at least in the US. Wont happen anytime soon. Japan has committed itself to UHD broadcast in what appears to be a very short timeline (primarily because the size of the country lends itself to rapid deployment such as this). Depending on the rate of uptake, 4K might become more relevant more quickly than we all think. When that time comes and everyone of your clients come back and go 'Hey, remember that shot you had, can we do it in that new fancy 4K stuff they are using now' you wont have to explain thats not how it works, but rather, 'Where should I send it'.

[Chris Medico]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

I don't agree. In post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p).

-- peer

Here in the US you won't find braodcast clients calling for 4k. That will continue for the next several years. By the time 4k becomes a broadcast must have other cameras will be on the scene and better suited for broadcast 4k.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

Here in the US you won't find braodcast clients calling for 4k. That will continue for the next several years.

Evidently you did not read what I wrote -- here it is again: In post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p).

-- peer

[Chris Medico]

Certainly not arguing what is beneficial in post.

What you may not be aware of is in the USA in most cases you turn over your RAW footage to the client in the broadcast world. You capture in the format they dictate. That will not be 4k. Guaranteed. The turnarounds will not allow for reframing or recompressing. You shoot what they want and hand it off to their DIT on the spot.

If you are producing a program you can capture in 4k and deliver in 1080. People that own cameras and shoot for broadcast are generally not doing that part of the producing. None of my broadcast clients are interested in 4k. The biggest call is for 50mb XDCam.

So here in the US there is no call for freelance shooters to provide 4k to broadcast clients. They want 50mb XDCam in 1080.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

Certainly not arguing what is beneficial in post.

What I'm discussing is the issue at hand, i.e., "Should 4K be a deciding factor for buying a new Super 35 camera." To which you replied;

4k shouldn't be a deciding factor if you are shooting for broadcast.

Again, I don't agree with you, because in post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p). Hence, I believe 4K should be a deciding factor for buying a new Super 35 camera.

-- peer

[Matt Davis]

One big thing I've not seen writ large here is 10 bit.

4K & Quad HD is essentially a 4:2:2 10 bit medium. Not 8 bit. Not 8 bit padded out to 10 bit. And that's interesting because it sort of pokes the Canon 1D-C being, at heart, an 8 bit machine. I note that the 1D-C is the only DSLR passed for BBC 'full use', but I'm still very aware that 4K acquisition is 10 bit and a wider colour gamut than Rec709.

An FS700 to own, and the interface/recorder to rent when 4K and/or 12 bit raw is required, would seem a quick fix. F55 has that wonderful Global Shutter and therefore ideal in match-move greenscreen shots, F5 does feel intimidating after the lovely Labrador feel of the F3, but within half an hour you'll be fine (assuming you'll go for the non OLED v/f and a V-lock power solution).

1D-C - looks good, but that 8 bit thing puts a bit of a downer on it for me. I think I've already bought my last 8 bit camera.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Matt Davis

1D-C - looks good, but that 8 bit thing puts a bit of a downer on it for me.

I agree -- ever since the 1DC was announced I've had a love/hate feeling for it, and that solely for its 8-bit. But since I've now been on the fence for so long, I think I can stand waiting till next NAB and see if there might be a 10-bit version of it, or perhaps we'll again see some drastic price changes from RED ;^)

-- peer

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

People that own cameras and shoot for broadcast are generally not doing that part of the producing. None of my broadcast clients are interested in 4k. The biggest call is for 50mb XDCam.

So here in the US there is no call for freelance shooters to provide 4k to broadcast clients. They want 50mb XDCam in 1080.

Getting back to the main issue - what camera - then don't let's forget the F5 is a very good 1080, XDCAM422 50Mbs camera.

Quickly looking at (US) pricing on B&H, then a PMW500 body seems to be around $23,000, an F5 body around $16,500. Draw your own conclusions.

What we have here is a camera that should be highly acceptable to Chris's clients and their requests for XDCAM 50Mbs, but is also capable of being switched to 1080 XAVC if desired in the future and is capable of 4K RAW in the future with an add-on recorder.

It would be one thing if you had to pay a lot extra just to get a 4K capability you may never need - but that's not the case.

[Alister Chapman]

You might want to watch out for some very attractive F5 bundles coming from Sony. In Canada they are running a deal where you can get the F5 body, LCD viewfinder and Optitek EF mount for about $16K CDN.

Shooting in 4K results in HD with better contrast as the cameras Low Pass Filter is a 4K filter so it's not reducing contrast at HD in the same way as the low pass filter in an HD camera does. My footage from the F5 and FS700 when shot in 4K and down converted to HD looks so much nicer than anything I've shot in HD.

I have broadcast clients insisting on 4K already. The BBC Natural History Unit is using 4K for some productions as are Discovery and Nat Geo.

Don't forget "broadcasting" is now no longer just about traditional over the airwaves delivery. Almost everyone downloads video these days via the internet and streaming services such as Netflix, iPlayer etc will become more common and mainstream. HEVC will make it possible to stream a 4K production using similar bandwidth to a H264 HD production. 4K TV's are selling well and there is an appetite for 4K content.

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

4 K would be nice. I can sure see the benefits of reframing shots. But then again I would prefer to get it right when actually shooting the scene. Is 4k that much better?

The F5 looks like a great camera, but at this point it is out of my reach. If the package deal would also be available to european customers that would sure be nice, but I fear that the me buying the F5 would bring a lot of additional costs. I read a whitepaper by Sony today and my editing program, Premiere CS6, does not seem to be up to the task if I read correctly. Regarding 4K that is. I have just bought the latest high specified iMac available and CS6 last year. I would prefer to not start over again. And would prefer to stay away from monthly paying Adobe. I already spent lots of money on the software package.

I am left with 2 choices. The FS700 and C300PL, because I could also afford some nice glass without breaking the bank or risking my economy. Which to me is the most important thing.

Is the FS700 professional enough? Just using the AVCHD codec? I am trying for a cinematic look and I think today I found the term I am looking for. Shooting anamorphic seems to be the way to go to shoot wide and big images. Which I like. Never done it, but it sure looks great. I could afford the Letus Anamorphic adapter and a nice CP2 glass. But would I get myself into a world of trouble?

The C300 would be the safer choice as the NRK here are using it and has that broadcast codec. And it is a relatively small camera.

Thanks everyone for taking your time to contribute to this thread and giving me more and more insight. I appreciate it.

[Chris Medico]

For the price of a C300 you could buy the FS700 and an external recorder such as the Odyssey 7q and have high bit rate for your broadcast customers and 4k for the future. In my personal opinion the C300 is overpriced. Great camera for sure but not thousands better than a FS700.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Svein Rune Skilnand

The F5 looks like a great camera, but at this point it is out of my reach. .......... I fear that the me buying the F5 would bring a lot of additional costs. I read a whitepaper by Sony today and my editing program, Premiere CS6, does not seem to be up to the task if I read correctly. Regarding 4K that is.

Comparing the F5 to the C300, then as they stand, EITHER can be used with the XDCAM422 50Mbs codec out of the box. Which CS6 will have no problem with.

But ADDITIONALLY, the F5 is capable of XAVC (not sure if that is compatible with CS6) and 4K with the bolt on recorder. If you want to go the 4k route, it'll be extra money whatever you do. Both recorder and NLE.

The FS700 may be the cheapest initial option, and gives future options of 4K as the F5 - but out of the box only has AVC-HD as an in-built codec. Hence, the cost comparison in the here and now really needs to be an F5 body and v/f versus an FS700 with add-on recorder.

Think of the F5 first and foremost as a very good 1080 camera with XDCAM422 - but with 4K as a future option, likewise HD XAVC.

[Gabe Strong]

Originally Posted by Svein Rune Skilnand

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

4 K would be nice. I can sure see the benefits of reframing shots. But then again I would prefer to get it right when actually shooting the scene. Is 4k that much better?

The F5 looks like a great camera, but at this point it is out of my reach. If the package deal would also be available to european customers that would sure be nice, but I fear that the me buying the F5 would bring a lot of additional costs. I read a whitepaper by Sony today and my editing program, Premiere CS6, does not seem to be up to the task if I read correctly. Regarding 4K that is. I have just bought the latest high specified iMac available and CS6 last year. I would prefer to not start over again. And would prefer to stay away from monthly paying Adobe. I already spent lots of money on the software package.

I am left with 2 choices. The FS700 and C300PL, because I could also afford some nice glass without breaking the bank or risking my economy. Which to me is the most important thing.

Is the FS700 professional enough? Just using the AVCHD codec? I am trying for a cinematic look and I think today I found the term I am looking for. Shooting anamorphic seems to be the way to go to shoot wide and big images. Which I like. Never done it, but it sure looks great. I could afford the Letus Anamorphic adapter and a nice CP2 glass. But would I get myself into a world of trouble?

The C300 would be the safer choice as the NRK here are using it and has that broadcast codec. And it is a relatively small camera.

Thanks everyone for taking your time to contribute to this thread and giving me more and more insight. I appreciate it.

No idea about anamorphic. But I have some opinions about C300 vs. FS700. I've worked
as an AC on two large productions using a C300. I personally own a FS700.

C300 advantages
Better ergonomics
Better built in codec
Better 'branding'. What I mean is every 'big' production I have worked on has used a C300
either as an 'A' camera or a 'B' camera to an Epic. Producers will ask for it by name.

FS700 advantages
Cheaper!
More versatile. I know, this is vague but FS700 can do high frame rates, time lapse (with slow
shutter), more versatile with lenses (use Canon, Nikon, or Sony still lenses, old vintage still
lenses like cheap FD mount, use PL mount lenses, even get a 'full frame look' with a speed booster)
shoot 2k or 4k raw or 4k 10 or 12 bit 'popular codec' using either Sony recorder or Odyssey 7q,
auto focus on E mount lenses or A mount with adapter, tap on screen to focus with E mount
lenses, IS with E mount or Canon EF lenses, servo zooms available if wanted for R&G shooting,
and even shoot 8 megapixel stills. The C300 does a couple things very well. The FS700
does a lot of things fairly well.

I like the C300 image a lot. But the FS700 image is close. C300 has C Log, FS700 has
S Log2. When I worked with the C300, I never had a DP that did not 'build it up' which
kind of negated its ergonomic advantage over the FS700. If you do get the FS700, you
should shorten the loupe, which will help. For me, the extra cost of the C300 and the
lesser versatility made me buy FS700. I don't live in an area where the better 'name' of
the C300 would help me, and mostly work on 'one man production company' projects
where I do everything end to end and versatility is key. If I lived somewhere where I normally
was just a DP working for others, a C300 may help get jobs.

One more thing to consider. I like you am very much against 'paying rent' for edit software.
Consider that the FS700 will shoot 4k in 'popular codec' which should work with your existing
computer and software as the 'popular codec' is much more edit friendly than the long GOP
stuff. So you may need to upgrade to Adobe CC for XAVC but probably wouldn't have to for
4k 'popular codec'. Of course this isn't for sure until it is released but I think there is a good
chance that 4k 'popular codec' will work with your existing computer and NLE.

Just one persons rambling thoughts....

[Alister Chapman]

The Odyssey uses DPX for 2K raw and will use most likely ProRes for compressed 4K. The Sony R5 records Sony raw MXF's.

XAVC is already supported in Premiere CC, Edius, Vegas, Avid, Resolve, Assimilate, Quantel and Lightworks.