4K video: What you need to know

Sure, that was the case when comparing 1080p and its predecessor. Nowadays no one except the big budget flicks are shooting film, so your options are either continue shooting in 2K or adopting 4K if you have the means (or 5K or 6K if you have access to that, though not the audience for this piece).

Unedited, unstabilized amateur video will still look better at 4K downsampled to 1080p vs straight up 1080p.

Nov 23, 2015permalink

Are you suggesting that pre-2000 movies were shot at less than HD, because that simply isn't the case.

I recently bought a Blu Ray of a movie from 1943 (restored and digitized at 4K) and there's clearly at least 1080's worth of detail there.

Nov 24, 2015permalink

KerryBE

Thank you for the great article to get me started understanding this topic.

Nov 23, 2015permalink

fuxicek

Great article, very informative, thank you. Now I know, why my computer crashed at least 20x when I tried to edit full HD video .. Because it´s cra:p .. And I have to stick with VGA videos, life is brutal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYmXfYrH6Sw

Nov 23, 2015permalink

alexshk

Well done, Panasonic. Well done.

Nov 23, 2015permalink

Zeisschen

Love the new white design, looks fresh!

Nov 21, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

One computer I had contained a 386SX processor that was billed as 'future proof'. It was in fact just a bodge before the Pentium came out very quickly to render it utterly and instantly obsolete. You have to laugh at all this marketing hype.
A good rule of thumb is if you see the word 'future proof' in any article beware, you are reading marketing puff.

Edit: Most marketing people have a tenuous enough grasp of reality in the modern world we live in let alone the future world.

Nov 21, 2015*permalink

Depends on what you plan to get out of future-proofing. If you buy a computer expecting to future-proof yourself at least for the next 6-12 months, then you're good. No one should go in with the expectation they'll never need to buy a new piece of technology ever again, especially at the rate technology is moving these days.

Nov 23, 2015permalink

cactustweeter

I have always liked DP Review dark background. It's so much easier on the eyes. So no I do not like the light background especially when reading at night in a darkroom. The light background seems to be harder on my eyes.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

Thanks for your feedback.

Nov 23, 2015permalink

steve ohlhaber

There should be some mention about the new color standards available in 4k. These 4k displays are not JUST about more pixels. Its a wider color pallet also. FINALLY we are getting a wider pallet, that is huge news, but absent from this article.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

zodiacfml

Sorry Panny, the feature is still in its infancy. This won't take off until h265 codec is supported by hardware in many affordable devices. The file sizes are very inconvenient and the Full HD at 60p isn't mainstream yet maybe due to the mentioned file sizes.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

RUcrAZ

Thank you for the "primer." The main thing I can see is that 4K (and its successors) will allow good quality "stills" out of 4K videos, thus doing away with still cameras - except for hard-core "artist-devotees" (like me?)
Your comment about "future-proofing your work" is well said, the problem is that, by the time the TV industry (consumer-grade) slowly switches to an even higher HD than the present one, the technology may be up to "16K" and we could have bought into an obsolete system.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Death89

Actually, I can't see people going away from stills cameras at all myself. Why make yourself trawl through video when you could have just taken the shot anyway? It makes sense for certain subjects but for the majority I can't see the point.

I have the feature on my 930 to pull out stills but have so seldom done so due to the faff and the fact I can just shoot a still for most stuff anyway. I can understand the future-proofing argument though as standard definition looks so old hat to me, but when HD came out I was adamant that my Tele and ps2 were fine!

Nov 21, 2015permalink

HB1969

With 4k, there's a blurring of the line between still and video photography. There's so many things you can do with 4k for stills other than just picking out that one perfect shot.
eg Astrophotography...I've seen people stacking 640x480 webcam images to get amazingly detailed stills of Jupiter. Imagine what they can do with stacking 4k footage.
As for future proofing. The march of progress is always forward. This is why I've recently purchased manual focus lenses from the 80's :P

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Death89

Amen to purchasing old lenses. Love the Pentax M lenses I've inherited lately... must get more...

Dec 2, 2015permalink

HB1969

cue spooky disembodied voice: "Join us... (on the Adapted lens forum)...be one of us" ;)

Dec 2, 2015permalink

Meklymor

4k, so people can watch on a 4" smart phone screen. gee, I am so excited.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

jaxson

Good grounding article.

Two comments:

1) to frame grab you'd want to film specifically with the intention of frame grabbing. This would mean a high shutter speed that would freeze your race car but which would potentially give very handicam looking video footage.

Normal motion blur would kill the frames usefulness.

2) screen sizes are staying the same, so whilst the different sizes example is technically correct, in practise they all have the same display size, and it's the pixel density that's changing.

ie take that SD image and stretch it up to fill the same area as the final 4K example. It'll look blocky and mushy, and that's exactly what you're seeing in real life. Eg comparing a 50" tv fed with an SD - 4k image.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Dale Baskin

Great point on #1. We thought about trying to fit that into the article, but it started to get a bit complex in what we wanted to be a more introductory piece. You're correct though - on the race car shot one would need to choose between good motion blur for video or nicely frozen individual frames (which would look stroboscopic in video).

I have no doubt that someone in an R&D lab is trying to figure out how to capture both versions simultaneously, and they probably will.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Raw Jaw

Solution coming soon.....Global Shutter.

Nov 23, 2015*permalink

It is certainly not by chance that comments directly in the article are not possible. Otherwise, lots reasons what else "you need to know" about 4K Video would quickly reveal that this whole article is more industry marketing talk than any seriously balanced content. Sorry Barney, it lacks several fundamentals that one should know about 4K.

Let's have a look at what the abbreviation "HD" stands for: High Definition. In the past 5 years or so, when 1080p became the de facto standard for video shooting, we have learned that for any content with movements, it is better to shoot at 50 or 60p ("HFR", or high frame rate), because at 24, 25 or 30p, movements will look either blurred, or flicker (if shot with short exposure times).

When viewing 4K content on 4K displays, from the short distances where you actually have an advantage from the higher pixel count, this blurring or flickering becomes even much more visible, and very annoying.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Therefore, in my humble opinion, 4K deserves the term "HD" only if it offers high resolution also in time, i.e., if it's shot in HFR.

To my knowledge, there are currently no - zero! - consumer photo cameras or camcorders that can record UHD or 4K with more than 30 fps. Not even expensive ones like the Sony A7rII. (If I overlooked one, please let me know by posting here!)

This so-called article aims only at selling the currently available stuff, that isn't really future proof.

Let's see "if history is any guide": in the middle of the 80s, Japanese companys showed the first HD TVs. They were still working analog, with 1250 lines of resolution - twice of what was usual back in those days on TV. It never took off internatioinally because it was just too expensive, and non-standard. From then on, it took looooooong, loooong time until the content producing industry could agree anything that could be called a standard.

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

From those days in the mid to late 90s, whenever I was on the NAB, "HD" had already been scaled down to 1080 lines. At least that was still a figure well above the 625 or 540 lines of resolution that standard TV had.

But when HD finally came to the consumer market, nearly all devices that the manufacturers called "HD" had only 720 lines. Only years later, devices with 1080 lines of resolution came to the market, then called "full HD".

And when "full HD" finally had become common, people suddenly realized that 24 or 25p isn't quite the holy grail of "high definition" for movies, when you think of what the term stands for - movements! -, so higher frame rates are needed.

The industry gladly accepted that "challenge" and introduced cameras and camcorders recording at 50/60p.

Now we have 4K where HFR is be even more important, but nobody seems to care. Did you all forget how important HFR is, if you want to shoot any sort of "action", i.e. video with movements?

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Sorry DPR, your "article", which doesn't even mention this, doesn't deserve its headline. Because the needed frame rates are certainly a fact that "you need to know".

Another fact that you should know is about 3D with 4K. Maybe 3D has gotten a bit out of focus lately, but I'm sure it will return one not too distant day. There are different ways / formats of 3D on 4K, but considering the aforesaid, the only acceptable format to present 4K in 3D would be at full resolution in HFR.

Unfortunately, today's 4K TVs don't even have an interface that offers the bandwidth needed for that. The HDMI 2.0 that is the standard now doesn't support it... Even DisplayPort 1.3 isn't good for it if you want 4K in 3D in HDR. The same goes for the suggested 100 fps for sports, even without 3D.

And do you know of any computer monitor with 4K resolution, capable to display 3D with at least 60fps (although only 100 would make it really future proof), in 3D and HDR?

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

Try telling a cinematographer that 50/60 is the future, they are firmly entrenched in 24fps but know how to shoot for it. Saving Private Ryan shot at 48 was universally panned but the director used a 1/100s shutter on many of the action sequences confusing things. HFR didn't get a far hearing. All sports broadcasts are 1080i50 in Aust. 720p50 is common elsewhere.

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

(unknown member)

Is this blurring the reason why shops are demoing in 'soap opera' mode discussed below. I must say I do find video technicalities very boring. My main worry is that still photography is going to become an expensive marginal hobby with this fudging of video and stills in one camera and we can see that with the cost of compacts ramping up. It is difficult to tell if this is the bigger sensors or the 4K add on now deemed essential. I am very much a 1080 luddite and I usually love new technology but 4K is just one big big yawn I am afraid. The reality though is probably 4K smartphones, possibly large sensor compacts enroaching ILC's. The Samsung bail out may not be the end but a start to a rationalisation in the camera business kicked off by a more profit savvy player in the market.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

MistyB

Really informative comments wus. As a non-professional (pro-sumer at best), my take away is to plan on buying (upgrading?) a digital camera dedicated to taking good stills, and a separate video camera dedicated to 4K. Both the prices and sizes are getting to the point where even a modest budget will somewhat insure a 'future-proof' experience for the majority of us.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

@mistyb
The problem is that in the future there may be as many cameras dedicated to stills as there are TV's dedicated to HD. Canon seem to be the only ones not embracing UHD but that may be more out of necessity than intention as they seem behind the curve in focusing and write speeds and just lagging in the technology race. 4K seems like it is going to be an expensive extra whether needed not. I get the impression you could fry an egg on some Sony sensors after an extended session of 1080 recording so I wonder what 4K does especially if they take over the market for sensors completely.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

@wus - Let me try to condense your posts down a little: our article must be industry marketing because it doesn't include an at-length discussion of your own opinions about frame rate?

There are plenty of people who don't prefer HFR, so I think we can be excused not wading-in on that debate in a primer.

I also think accusations of pushing a marketing agenda would have been stronger if we had included much about 3D, since I've always heard more interest in the subject from manufacturers of TVs than I have from end users.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Henrik Herranen

Hmmh, 4K article with text size fit for 480p... :-)

Anyhow, I read page 1; found some errors:
1) Blu-Ray, not Blue Ray.
2) The first two duck images images are not even remotely to scale. 480p is demonstrated by an image 90 pixels high, while the 720p image is 240 pixels high. 480/90 = 5.3, and 720/240 = 3. Stopped reading there.

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

Thanks for pointing both of those out.

When I was doing the math for the duck shots it made sense but I was wrong. It's fixed now, 480p --> 720p = x2 horizontal resolution, 4:3 --> 16:9.

Nov 23, 2015permalink

jaxson

That's what I was meaning though.

In reality we're talking about a fixed screen size, say 50"

Higher resolutions mean smaller pixels basically, IF the screen size stays the same.

Whilst I get the example of the various image sizes, it's more accurate to show the same sized, but with larger pixels for SD (Blurry/blocky) to smaller pixels for 4k (fine details, smooth curves).

Nov 25, 2015permalink

potterpals

I really like the white background. It's much easier to read but the font could be a little darker. I've never been a fan of the black background.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

The content is fine, but the presentation is awful. Text too large, way too much scrolling, and no pre-loading of images meant I gave up halfway through.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Paul JM

you cant be serious. One keyboard short cut to drop the size of the text and the problem is resolved. By all means criticise the content, but if you are too lazy to change the text size.....

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Right, because it's reasonable that the first thing you do when you visit a website is adjust the text size, right? It's perfectly reasonable to expect a website to conform to standard design patterns without needing to be tweaked page by page. The rest of dpreview (including this page) manages that, why shouldn't the feature pages?

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Mike Fried

Go download the Readability web plugin. It fixes website formatting problems like the one you describe and so much more.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

I could do.... or dpreview could just use the same font size as the rest of their site. This is not rocket science or an unusual request, I would just like the same standard text I see elsewhere. I don't really expect to have to use a plugin for this.
Oh, and that doesn't address the lazy load of pictures.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Paul JM

Jonathan, readers are looking for insightful comments about camera gear etc. Try to stick to that if you can, otherwise the site just drowns in kb's of complaint over nothing, that interests no one
Now. the content. There were some things that actually mattered. The initial claim that 4k contains twice as many pixels as HD (it has now been corrected to read 4 times).

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

As this is a new style of post (or at least I don't recall seeing something similar before) I suspect that dpreview staff are looking for general comments showing how it has been received. I don't generally post similar "complaints over nothing" (check my posting history - I'm not trolling), but since changing the format/ styling is relatively easy fix that will please not only me but other people too (see other comments below), it seems sensible for me to offer my feedback. You don't have to read it....

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Steve Balcombe

I'm with you Jonathan. And if we do use Ctrl-minus to reduce the size the column width reduces as well, so we don't really get what we need. This is not how responsive web design is supposed to work.

@Paul JM - we were specifically asked for comments on the design.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1435052975&rss

There's also other changes being proposed with 4K other than resolution. A far greater colour gamut with the proposed rec 2020 colour space -

currently rec 709 35% of the colours we can see
Cinema DCP 54%
rec 2020 76%

and HDR monitors. These combined with 4K will make a bigger difference for those not convinced. There's also 100fps primarily intended for sports.

More techy -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLBPUN_S-ms

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

steve ohlhaber

I am just as excited about the expanded pallet as the extra pixels.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

It's impressive it will exceed Cinema which is the gold standard.
More greens and cyan. The current rec 709 is a bit sad in comparison. I think Hdr Tv's will have legs and not just a technology looking for an application.
Monitors are already there for brightness, they need some more
bits to make better use of it.

Nov 22, 2015permalink

HB1969

I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I much prefer the white background to the black. It's much easier to read. Everyone else must have their screen brightness up to "radioactive" if it's hurting their eyes :D The text size on the new format could be a bit small but definitely bigger than the current size.
The content had a lot of beginner level information, which is fine since there's a diverse community on DPRev, however there are a few advanced techniques using 4k vid for stills photography that could have been explored.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Steve Balcombe

I am so fed up with following links and arriving at a web pages which are *HUGE* on my fairly modest 24" monitor. It look like it was designed for viewing from six feet away, and there is far too little in one screenful. It's happened a lot with 'updated' web sites in the last few months. No doubt it works fine on a tablet, and I do own one and use it often so it's not a 'them' and 'us' thing. And I know it can be much better - you don't have to look any further than Facebook for an example of a site which works on both - so it's just poor design.

Black background or white background, I'm not that bothered either way, but get rid of the Jack and Jill look!

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Mike Fried

Looks fine on my phone. Maybe the article wasn't tested on a web page.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Steve Balcombe

That was the point of my comment Mike. I've since seen it on my tablet and I'm sure it looks fine on a large phone too. But it's dreadful on my desktop monitor.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Big Mouth Media

We shoot in 4K 99% of the time on our GH4 as we do a lot of stage show archivals/sizzle reels and interviews, and it's great to be able to punch in, not to mention 4K downsized to 1080 looks just that bit better...

We transcode to ProRes LT files for editing then online with the originals....:)

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Yes proxies are the standard Hollywood and high end TV workflow. Any computer within reason can then edit 4K and especially complex H265. Something for consumers to now consider. In online/relink mode it doesn't matter if you can't play it, just render non realtime to your destination codec.
Resolve is another editing option and it's free. It's also fast at making proxies.

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

thomas2279f

A good article...

Nov 19, 2015permalink

FrankieFR

Theme : too much light (eye hurting), too large text and wide column on a big 28" screen (uncomfortable), okay on my 7" tablet with the "scroll down to hell" and "loading on demand".

Panasonic LX100 is one year old, guys... As Dale Baskin said NHK started 8K this year, RED has a 6K camera lineup. Content quite shallow by the actual wannabe-seller. Sponsored content so clearly obvious.

1./ About quadcore cpu and H265: a Q6600@2.4Ghz was unable to play UHD video, a new i7 6700K@4Ghz cpu load reaches 30~40%. Compressing a 3Go file (duration 4:16) requires well over an hour for quality result or be ready to archive 40Go per hour.

2./ Sharing a 3Go file is hard on bandwidth. Most mobile/tablet cpu just aren't fitted. I keep a UHD H265 version (smaller, future usage) and a FHD H264 for sharing and general usage.

3./ As Adrian Van saids : if you can do it go for 4k then scale down on computer. Better bitrate + lack of realtime enconding constraint = better quality (esp. night footage).

Nov 19, 2015permalink

The Squire

The article glosses over the specs needed for watching/editing 4K.

You need a new quad core, but a NEW dual core would probably still work, because the later Intel chips have more built-in native commands for video codecs.

Even H264 at 4k fails to play back (let alone edit) on my Ivybridge dual core - I would expect a different result on Haswell and Skylake chips. For editing though, new AND quadcore is the way to go...

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Tommot1965

do not like the white background.. its killing me eyes

Nov 19, 2015permalink

I prefer a black background, photos and vid pop more on black. Your eye is probably exposing for the white and dims the images down. Cinema and video are viewed in the dark and subdued lighting, their designed and graded that way.

How about black as defunct and an option `turn on the lights', even a dimmer. That's what we do with our streams since the print people wanted white. White reminds me of newspapers.

Nov 19, 2015*permalink

Simon Zeev

Black background is OK.
White background will be a pain for the eyes.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

fotodp

This looks and reads like sponsored content - which I realize it is. It would be useful to have an independent pros and cons article. The memory and hardware demands are obviously an issue which some will have to consider even if their camera has 4K.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

This article was written and edited 100% by DPReview editorial staff with zero editorial involvement from Panasonic.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Tommot1965

i thought the article was very good. I must admit it opened my eyes to what 4k is all about

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Cychen

I think it's an informative article regardless sponsored or not.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

The Squire

@Barney I wouldn't take OP's point as questioning DPR's ethics, more as feedback on the page template (as requested).

The layout is slick. Maybe too slick! The layout plus the Panny logo at the top makes it *look* like an advertorial.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Rob Neill

FAR prefer black on white. However, not so sure on the "advertising-style" layout. Regardless, with black text on white background, it's much better than the white on black...which hurts my brain!

Nov 19, 2015permalink

InTheMist

Mixed feelings about the 'light' interface. It is attractive, just - different.

I couldn't care less about 4k video, though.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

RadGuy

Thank you, DP Review. I appreciate the article and explainations!

Nov 19, 2015permalink

rgibbons

I like the black background better, it is easier on my eyes.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

halc

How about telling buyers that fact that MOST 1080p Full HD cameras can NOT actually resolve 1080 lines of resolution in actual video footage. esp. moving target and/or panning?

And that 99.999% of non-pro (sub $20k) 4K videocameras will not resolve ANYWHERE near 2160 lines in their files, regardless of lens, codec, settings, etc.

Yes, I'm all for REAL 4K video resolution, but it takes something along the lines of RED cameras (with a superb lens) to actually achive that.

All of this consumer/prosumer Canon, Sony, Panasonic etc cameras will not resolve anywhere near 2160 lines. Not even if you shoot 10bit 4:4:2 raw to an an external drive.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

I've often thought about using the old `line' standard to quantify pixel resolution. To make a vertical line wouldn't you need a black line next to it. 1920 pixels may only be capable of 1920/2 lines. I don't know if this is correct, just asking a question.

Nov 20, 2015*permalink

Mike Fried

My $300 OnePlus One cell phone shoots great 4K video until I run out of my 64GB of storage. No $20,000 camera required. Uploading my amateur footage to YouTube is not difficult. I'm still shooting stills with my EOS 50D, and not worrying about its lack of UHD video. We only have one 50+ inch device at home with 4K resolution, so the lack of 4K content now is likely an issue, and it's only super noticeable on large monitors when you get close. Big 4K TVs are amazing for showing 8+ MP still photographs.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

halc

@Mike Fried

Yes, it shoots video files that are claimed 4K, but it is nowhere near 4K in resolution.

If you actually read objective tests of resolving resolution, you understand this.

Dec 8, 2015permalink

jkokich

4K has nothing to do with the size of a picture, so why compare it to other standards by showing different sizes?

Nov 19, 2015permalink

It's to demonstrate the relative amount of detail you'd see. The images could've been resized to the same size, but then the 480p image would be a pile of mush (not too far from reality on today's TVs though...).

Nov 19, 2015permalink

jkokich

I think that would have been a more realistic comparison.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

ChicagoMike

Good article, and love the new format - easier to read and feels both "lighter" and contemporary.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

mxx

A question about white screen backgrounds: Doesn't it consume more power than a black background? Especially when screens keep on getting bigger?

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Even if it did, it's negligible.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

rgibbons

Richard, you mean that when my laptop and smart phone dims the screen to extend battery life, it is negligible, and I could just use the bright setting and not notice any difference in battery life?

Nov 19, 2015permalink

@rgibbons - no, the brightness setting usually changes the brightness of the back light (assuming LCD technology), which has a big impact on battery usage.

However, the back light is on regardless of whether the screen is showing black pixels or white ones, so there's no huge difference between black-on-white or white-on-black page design. (White on black may be more efficient on emitting OLED screens, though, since black pixels don't use power).

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Not much with the exception of Oled but multiply `not much' by millions and your burning more coal. Steam engines are still a huge part of the 21st century.

Nov 19, 2015*permalink

mxx, you have to account for the display technology. Black backgrounds can save power with OLED and (I think) old CRT technology, but no power is saved for displays that leave the backlight on all the time and create black by blocking the light, as LCD and LED-lit LCD do.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

Lassoni

Well done, very good cover of 4k

Nov 19, 2015permalink

xsamie

This articles comes about a year or two late, but it is welcomed. BTW dpreview needs to start uploading video reviews and @4K. Don't you think?

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Dragonrider

It is a nice informative Panasonic commercial. Useful and Panny is leading the way in 4k, but a little bold to say "We put it together" as if the DP Review staff did the production. In fairness, they do say "with the support of Panasonic", but it looks more like a full commercial than something DP Review got a little financial help with. I have a DMC-FZ300 and the 4k video is very good. The 4k photo mode is very useful as well and Lighroom now supports it very well (you can scroll through frames and save individual frames as JPEGs right in Lighroom so no need to try to figure out what you want to save using the camera display)

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

This was written, edited and designed 100% in house. None of the team that put it together had a single conversation or interaction with Panasonic.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

ChicagoMike

That approach shows. Most sponsored content is immediately identifiable as such (and thus immediately discounted). I found this to be a good, useful article.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

bmoag

If you are upset about 3d, 4k and 8k wait until VR gets rolling. VR could just be a niche product or a complete paradigm shift in content consumption. Those of us who came of age before computers and cell phones see the world and have different preconceptions than those who came after.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Rosember

The design looks like every second webpage is looking today: nice for large photos but less so for information. It may be just me but with a low density text like this there goes the impression of getting substantial info. I'd rather have denser info somewhere. To me, it looks and feels like a few nice photos with a lot of bla bla. I do not even start reading texts with a layout like this just because I do not expect anything but ads from it. Of course, this is my prejudice, I know. But at least it is a prejudice based on 45 years as a reader. Sorry to say so, but I think the text parts urgently need a redesign.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

justmeMN

I don't know how well it works, but 4K Photo sounds like an interesting concept.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

It works pretty well, especially the implementation on the most recent models. We wrote a short article about it when reviewing the G7.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Jay A

In my opinion, 4k is the new 3D. Something completely unnecessary, being pushed on the consumer in an effort to create a buying frenzy for a new, better, spiffier, whiter than white product that no one wants nor needs.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

HowaboutRAW

being able to crop a movie file is really helpful.

as for TV at display home, it will take years before cable systems catch up. so it will be useful for onsite playback of files, say a big download of a movie, but it has big limits.

still much more interesting than 3D.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

f0t0n00b

Agreed on both the 3D analogy and the crop/pan-zoom benefit of 4K. But the whole "shoot in 4K and downscale to 1080p for higher IQ" argument doesn't hold water for me. I tested this theory on a GoPro Hero 4 Black and a Panasonic FZ1000. The difference is marginal AT BEST. Sorry if I've posted this already, but this article (though almost 4 years old now) is still quite relevant:
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
Lots of useful/supporting outbound links (including an eye opening one by a Hollywood director) there as well. Lastly, as a video professional, photography hobbyist, and general technology/gadget whore, if 4K doesn't appeal to me (and it doesn't), I think that's a good indication of where it's headed.
Signed,
The Old Man in the Corner Spouting Nonsense

Nov 19, 2015*permalink

4K is not the new 3D.

3D is already failing and not heavily marketed by TV makers. But 4K is part of the normal progression of technology, that is why it's getting so easy to implement that you are seeing it on smartphones.

4K is something we legitimately need. For decades...we've been trapped in a low-resolution world. 120 dpi monitors and 1080 line (or less) TVs. All of that is inferior to what film was. With 4K video and HiDPI displays, we are finally getting back what we lost for many years, finally getting back to real film quality. It seems ludicrous to argue that we should refuse this return to traditional visual lquality.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

I hope 4K TV's can be scaled down if we are forced to have them, 4K makes real life look like a cartoon image from what I have seen. Possibly we are reaching a point where video becomes just too sharp and giving video photographic levels of sharpness takes it beyond what looks normal.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Albert Valentino

I agree. Yet, 8k now exists and will be pushed as the new standard in a few years. When will it end!!!

Nov 19, 2015permalink

That is ridiculous. 4K in and of itself has nothing to do with making your image look like a cartoon. It means you have left the TV's "soap opera" motion smoothing setting on. If you get the TV away from the "in-store demo mode" settings and set your TV properly, it can produce a film-like image.

4K is around 8-9 megapixels, depending on which 4K you're talking about. Are you saying that your digital camera makes images even more cartoony because it does more than 4K resolution? No, of course you would never say that. Because it is not the resolution that's making it look cartoony.

If 4K is so bad for image quality, you're free to go back to using a 2-megapixel camera or less, since 2 megapixels is about the current 1080p standard.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

@graybalanced
Then the shops are going to have to do a bit better if they want us to buy the stuff. So you are saying the 4K demonstration mode makes the picture rubbish. One has to wonder what other problem exists which makes them need to have this 'soap opera' mode when it is demonstrated.
Not really interested as my HD TV is just fine. I love high resolution with still images but for video 2 mp looks just fine for the moment even if it looks bad in this current numbers game. Just my choice is to keep my money in my pocket. Feel free to splash out all yours on all this stuff as you wish.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

You could walk into an Apple Store and look at a the 4K and 5K iMacs. Ask yourself if the photos on those screens look more like cartoons...or more like real photo prints.

Nov 20, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

It seems from comments above that the 'soap opera' mode is to avoid motion blurring. The plot thickens.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

The requirement for sharpness in videos is way less than stills. 4K in my experience is probably just too sharp for motion as the brain is probably struggling to process the information and many people are saying the eye cannot resolve it. With a still the eye can rescan the same image and the brain build up the resolution. For each video frame the brain has only a fleeting view and its capacity to handle large amounts of information in each frame is bound to be limited.
One trick I use to get people to do in the treasury dealing room was to get people to look at what where then cathode ray screens and click their teeth. The screens would all blank as the brain lost synch in reconstructing the scanning images and it was this work that made looking at these screens so tiring. LCD is much better but there is still a lot of work going on in your visual centres stitching all this together and probably a lot of detail is just thrown away and the cartoon effect is your internal sharpening.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

In the end we are all correct in different aspects. Both of these are true:

1. 4K is a legitimate improvement in motion image quality for those who are interested in ultimate image quality. (The film Baraka was scanned at 8K many years ago.)

2. Most people won't notice the difference and won't care.

The question for each of us as individuals is whether we are part of the "good enough" audience or the "striving for excellent" audience. Nothing wrong with being part of either, it's a personal choice. Some people care about cars, I can be happy with an ordinary car. I care a lot about image quality, other people can't tell the difference between a snapshot and an Ansel Adams.

Nov 21, 2015permalink

maljo@inreach.com

I see no 4K movies for sale at Amazon.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

I wonder how many Hollywood features are released in 4K?
There's very few released in Aust. The Red camera has been shooting 4K for 8 years now. Maybe 4K shows too many wrinkles and shows up cheaper set design.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

FuhTeng

I think 4K TVs are silly, but I dearly like the idea of 30 fps 8MP images! 4K computer monitors are okay. 4K phones are not.

I don't know what to think about the grey on white. I like the white on black myself.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Don Sata

All very good points but one: extracting stills from video, since video shutter speeds tend to be too slow to be useful for stills.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

bobbarber

Look at the bubble photograph above. It's taken in bright sunlight.

With a wide aperture under those lighting conditions, you could set shutter speed to 1/2000 or even 1/4000 of a second. It would make for crappy video, but you'd get tack-sharp stills out of it.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Rosember

So it is still either or, not both at the same time. :-(

Nov 19, 2015permalink

bobbarber

True, but it means that 4K is not a meaningless feature, does it not?

There's a lot of whining on this thread about pushing unnecessary features on the consumer, blah, blah, blah.

I still shoot ancient (2005!) DSLRs and "compact cameras" (enthusiast compacts were big back then). So it's safe to say I do not chase new features. I'm not impressed by the resolution of newer cameras (my cameras resolve enough for what I need), but this 4K stills-extraction thing is a legit feature as far as I'm concerned, and makes these cameras worth buying.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Rosember

Of course, 4K is a meaningful feature. Anybody with more than just a basic interest in video today should go 4K (some excellent reasons are given in the article itself). It is like discussing whether 36, 42 or 50 mpx are a meaningful feature for stills. Of course they are but not for everyone and not in all situations - same with 4K.

Nov 19, 2015*permalink

Treeshade

Extracting stills from video is a bonus features for 4K video shooters. 1/50s is a useful shutter speed for action that is not fast but unpredictable. Sometimes I could get some "surprise" action that my fellow photographer failed to catch (because I am always recording).

Nov 19, 2015permalink