EM-5K2, better video than 4k can provide.

Kangaroo Court said:

Advent1sam said:

Vesku said:

Why do you need more than 2 Mpixel photos if you cannot say a difference without watching very close?

Click to expand...

You don't, for a 66inch 4k tv an 8mp image will look better than a 4mp upsampled image at 2feet say or a 2mp image at 4 feet, or something like that. Now, we don't really need lots of res for screen or projection but for print, print eats dpi/ppi for breakfast and high-res images, well do the maths but a3/a2 images for print are hungry for your pixels, you should know this!

Click to expand...

Lets dispel any absolute claims here. The first filter through which an experience happens is vision, each person's vision isn't necessarily the same. The term "spacial resolution" comes to mind here, it's really about at what point the pixels disappear and are no longer individually discernable. When that happens, it is technically, visually, no different than 4k or 8k or 50k. This will happen even with a 480p screen if you sit across a large room from it, the difference is that 480p screen will lose a ton of spacial resolution being so small from that distance.

So in essence, more pixels simply allows us to do either of two things: Increase the size of the screen without pushing the "event horizon" farther back, or, pulls the event horizon closer on the same size screen. So yes, there is a point (that which I refer to as the event horizon) which your eyes cannot resolve individual pixels anymore, at which point increasing the resolution (but not the size) will make no visual difference.

So the question is, for each individual person/display combo, where is the event horizon? If you are already beyond it on a 1080 screen, higher rez won't matter unless it also comes with a larger screen size which, from the same distance, will increase spacial resolution to the eye. For me, using my TV as a monitor, I sit pretty close usually. From 2-3' I could easily see pixilation on my 1080p screen. I cannot easily on 4k, even with a much larger display.

On some very thin lines I can see a slight jaggy when im about 2' away, so im right around the sweet spot of my viewing with this size (4k@49"). So the real point is, if you already can't see pixels on your lowly 1080p screen, going 4k won't make a difference unless you also plan to increase the screen size. Thing is with computer screens, people usually tend to sit pretty close to where 4k will improve the experience, and it's nice to be able to buy bigger without it just adding bigger jaggies.

Then there is more than just resolution to improve. For example the screen I bought is an IPS LED with 4:4:4 10bit color, and I have been going back through all my old photos and am just amazed at the quality. Color, sharpness, it's a huge difference. Video is also a huge improvement if it's 4k. Even if the EM5II did manage to match a 4k file on a 1080p screen, it will still get leveled when viewing on a 4k screen, and prices are dropping fast.

Click to expand...

Vesku said:

After all the new E-M5 mk2 is something like 720P camera with a very good stabilization.

Click to expand...

Kangaroo Court said:

Advent1sam said:

Kangaroo Court said:

4:4:4 10bit in 4k.

Click to expand...

Which tv are we talking about, LG?

Click to expand...

Yes, LG 49" IPS 4k 3D smart TV.

Click to expand...

Advent1sam said:

Vesku said:

Advent1sam said:

Vesku said:

If the newest Olympus would take 4 Mpixel photos with a very good stabilization would it be better than 20Mpixel cameras? It is about the same resolution difference than Oly video vs 4k.

Why so many here talks about almost meaningless resolution differences of photos and lenses but not caring about video sharpness and motion resolution? Why a photo must be just 1 Mpixel when it starts to move?

Click to expand...

Vesku, unless you have 70inch tv and sit within 2 meters or so of it, its pretty much impossible with the human eye to discern any difference between a hd and 4k tv screen, in fact the current crop of 4k tv with their limited frame rates and cheap manufacture may in fact look worse! People's focus is very much on skin, gradation and other factors and not necessarily sharpness! You need to be careful you dont become fixated with one particular aspect, 4k is probably/possibly the future for tv's but in the main we will be viewing upscaled content, either upscaled in real-time by the tv/devices or previous content, a-b'ing 4k vs 1080 is just an anorak hobbie of mine and yours and doesnt mean a lot to 99% of the population who will notice that your content is very static, ie primarily tripod based for current 4k cams, or more enjoyable when its fluid and stable at the same time, pans around people and faces in rela-time is actually pretty hard or impossible with a lot of 4k cams.

Click to expand...

Why do you need more than 2 Mpixel photos if you cannot say a difference without watching very close?

Click to expand...

You don't, for a 66inch 4k tv an 8mp image will look better than a 4mp upsampled image at 2feet say or a 2mp image at 4 feet, or something like that. Now, we don't really need lots of res for screen or projection but for print, print eats dpi/ppi for breakfast and high-res images, well do the maths but a3/a2 images for print are hungry for your pixels, you should know this!

Click to expand...

Advent1sam said:

Vesku said:

If the newest Olympus would take 4 Mpixel photos with a very good stabilization would it be better than 20Mpixel cameras? It is about the same resolution difference than Oly video vs 4k.

Why so many here talks about almost meaningless resolution differences of photos and lenses but not caring about video sharpness and motion resolution? Why a photo must be just 1 Mpixel when it starts to move?

Click to expand...

Vesku, unless you have 70inch tv and sit within 2 meters or so of it, its pretty much impossible with the human eye to discern any difference between a hd and 4k tv screen, in fact the current crop of 4k tv with their limited frame rates and cheap manufacture may in fact look worse! People's focus is very much on skin, gradation and other factors and not necessarily sharpness! You need to be careful you dont become fixated with one particular aspect, 4k is probably/possibly the future for tv's but in the main we will be viewing upscaled content, either upscaled in real-time by the tv/devices or previous content, a-b'ing 4k vs 1080 is just an anorak hobbie of mine and yours and doesnt mean a lot to 99% of the population who will notice that your content is very static, ie primarily tripod based for current 4k cams, or more enjoyable when its fluid and stable at the same time, pans around people and faces in rela-time is actually pretty hard or impossible with a lot of 4k cams.

Click to expand...

RickPick said:

RickPick said:

RickPick said:

Downscaling can be as simple as putting your 4K footage into a 1080p timeline in the editor or running it through a video converter. It isn't necessary to grade first, in fact 4K 4:2:0 downscales to 1080 10-bit 4:4:4 because of all the extra data in the 4K file. (Check out EOSHD for confirmation.) This makes the 1080 footage that much more gradable.

Click to expand...

Its still takes more work and takes longer to process which was my point. It also takes more computing power. Im not saying that the 4k isn't better because it is, just that many people dont want to deal with the extra hassle of the larger files, converting them for their editor etc. I know many convert the gh4 to prores before editing it which makes it into a massive file which is handled by the pc easier.

what i am saying is that for the average joe or part time short film maker that the em5 mark 2 is tempting. No need for a shoulder rig or steadicam unless you need a certain "look", and you can forgo a folow focus and such as well. Focusing by hand is no problem with the stabilization system. Just being able to cary the camera a lens and an extra battery is pretty darn tempting. Not to mention liberating if you are used to bulky stabilization gear, for evemts and festivals the em5 mark 2 looks like it would be easier and more fun to use. Thst is all.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, an all in one solution is ideal and I would certainly consider the EM5II if the video quality proves to be good enough. I use GH2, GH3 and GX7 - two on tripods and one on a monopod as a roving camera. I find the monopod + OIS, with the monopod shortened to be a long "handle", provides quite effective stabilisation if I need to do moving shots. The only other supporting video equipment I use sometimes is a manual slider.

I'm quite happy with these low-tech solutions but I can certainly see that in-camera stabilisation that is really effective for video is something many people would go for. I think the fact that the Oly does not deliver 4K, when every other company (that is serious about video) is doing it, is just a reflection of the far more stringent requirements of the format.

Click to expand...

Vesku said:

Advent1sam said:

Vesku said:

Advent1sam said:

Vesku said:

If the newest Olympus would take 4 Mpixel photos with a very good stabilization would it be better than 20Mpixel cameras? It is about the same resolution difference than Oly video vs 4k.

Why so many here talks about almost meaningless resolution differences of photos and lenses but not caring about video sharpness and motion resolution? Why a photo must be just 1 Mpixel when it starts to move?

Click to expand...

Vesku, unless you have 70inch tv and sit within 2 meters or so of it, its pretty much impossible with the human eye to discern any difference between a hd and 4k tv screen, in fact the current crop of 4k tv with their limited frame rates and cheap manufacture may in fact look worse! People's focus is very much on skin, gradation and other factors and not necessarily sharpness! You need to be careful you dont become fixated with one particular aspect, 4k is probably/possibly the future for tv's but in the main we will be viewing upscaled content, either upscaled in real-time by the tv/devices or previous content, a-b'ing 4k vs 1080 is just an anorak hobbie of mine and yours and doesnt mean a lot to 99% of the population who will notice that your content is very static, ie primarily tripod based for current 4k cams, or more enjoyable when its fluid and stable at the same time, pans around people and faces in rela-time is actually pretty hard or impossible with a lot of 4k cams.

Click to expand...

Why do you need more than 2 Mpixel photos if you cannot say a difference without watching very close?

Click to expand...

You don't, for a 66inch 4k tv an 8mp image will look better than a 4mp upsampled image at 2feet say or a 2mp image at 4 feet, or something like that. Now, we don't really need lots of res for screen or projection but for print, print eats dpi/ppi for breakfast and high-res images, well do the maths but a3/a2 images for print are hungry for your pixels, you should know this!

Click to expand...

It is nice to zoom in high res photos in monitor and see details in background or in interesting subjects.

Now with 4k video I can do the same and watch videos in new ways. I can zoom and move freely in playing video realtime and study details just like in TV series or crime movies. If I see a nice moment I can capture it and make high res photo i.e. for printing. I can in real time zoom to one player in the field and enjoy slow motion. I can be like a real time director and decide what to look after recording a video.

Click to expand...

RickPick said:

dulynoted said:

RickPick said:

Downscaling can be as simple as putting your 4K footage into a 1080p timeline in the editor or running it through a video converter. It isn't necessary to grade first, in fact 4K 4:2:0 downscales to 1080 10-bit 4:4:4 because of all the extra data in the 4K file. (Check out EOSHD for confirmation.) This makes the 1080 footage that much more gradable.

Click to expand...

Its still takes more work and takes longer to process which was my point. It also takes more computing power. Im not saying that the 4k isn't better because it is, just that many people dont want to deal with the extra hassle of the larger files, converting them for their editor etc. I know many convert the gh4 to prores before editing it which makes it into a massive file which is handled by the pc easier.

what i am saying is that for the average joe or part time short film maker that the em5 mark 2 is tempting. No need for a shoulder rig or steadicam unless you need a certain "look", and you can forgo a folow focus and such as well. Focusing by hand is no problem with the stabilization system. Just being able to cary the camera a lens and an extra battery is pretty darn tempting. Not to mention liberating if you are used to bulky stabilization gear, for evemts and festivals the em5 mark 2 looks like it would be easier and more fun to use. Thst is all.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, an all in one solution is ideal and I would certainly consider the EM5II if the video quality proves to be good enough. I use GH2, GH3 and GX7 - two on tripods and one on a monopod as a roving camera. I find the monopod + OIS, with the monopod shortened to be a long "handle", provides quite effective stabilisation if I need to do moving shots. The only other supporting video equipment I use sometimes is a manual slider.

I'm quite happy with these low-tech solutions but I can certainly see that in-camera stabilisation that is really effective for video is something many people would go for. I think the fact that the Oly does not deliver 4K, when every other company (that is serious about video) is doing it, is just a reflection of the far more stringent requirements of the format.

Click to expand...

dulynoted said:

RickPick said:

dulynoted said:

RickPick said:

Downscaling can be as simple as putting your 4K footage into a 1080p timeline in the editor or running it through a video converter. It isn't necessary to grade first, in fact 4K 4:2:0 downscales to 1080 10-bit 4:4:4 because of all the extra data in the 4K file. (Check out EOSHD for confirmation.) This makes the 1080 footage that much more gradable.

Click to expand...

Its still takes more work and takes longer to process which was my point. It also takes more computing power. Im not saying that the 4k isn't better because it is, just that many people dont want to deal with the extra hassle of the larger files, converting them for their editor etc. I know many convert the gh4 to prores before editing it which makes it into a massive file which is handled by the pc easier.

what i am saying is that for the average joe or part time short film maker that the em5 mark 2 is tempting. No need for a shoulder rig or steadicam unless you need a certain "look", and you can forgo a folow focus and such as well. Focusing by hand is no problem with the stabilization system. Just being able to cary the camera a lens and an extra battery is pretty darn tempting. Not to mention liberating if you are used to bulky stabilization gear, for evemts and festivals the em5 mark 2 looks like it would be easier and more fun to use. Thst is all.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, an all in one solution is ideal and I would certainly consider the EM5II if the video quality proves to be good enough. I use GH2, GH3 and GX7 - two on tripods and one on a monopod as a roving camera. I find the monopod + OIS, with the monopod shortened to be a long "handle", provides quite effective stabilisation if I need to do moving shots. The only other supporting video equipment I use sometimes is a manual slider.

I'm quite happy with these low-tech solutions but I can certainly see that in-camera stabilisation that is really effective for video is something many people would go for. I think the fact that the Oly does not deliver 4K, when every other company (that is serious about video) is doing it, is just a reflection of the far more stringent requirements of the format.

Click to expand...

I have a g6 and gx7. I got the g6 for video originally. I havent done very much though as I didnt want to invest in and carry heavy stabilizer gear. I have a self made fig rig that works well sometimes. I know many film makers that consider the g6 a better video camera than the gh3. If the em5 mark 2 can match or exceed the video quality of the g6 or gx7 then that is enough for me. Watching john brawleys videos convinced me that this camera will outperform me until Olympus releases an em1 mark 2 with even better video quality. Im getting the 3 voigtlander lenses (the new 10.5 the 25 and the 42.5) and the em5 mark 2 this year. I should be a fairly happy camper..

Click to expand...

pdelux said:

dulynoted said:

RickPick said:

dulynoted said:

RickPick said:

Downscaling can be as simple as putting your 4K footage into a 1080p timeline in the editor or running it through a video converter. It isn't necessary to grade first, in fact 4K 4:2:0 downscales to 1080 10-bit 4:4:4 because of all the extra data in the 4K file. (Check out EOSHD for confirmation.) This makes the 1080 footage that much more gradable.

Click to expand...

Its still takes more work and takes longer to process which was my point. It also takes more computing power. Im not saying that the 4k isn't better because it is, just that many people dont want to deal with the extra hassle of the larger files, converting them for their editor etc. I know many convert the gh4 to prores before editing it which makes it into a massive file which is handled by the pc easier.

what i am saying is that for the average joe or part time short film maker that the em5 mark 2 is tempting. No need for a shoulder rig or steadicam unless you need a certain "look", and you can forgo a folow focus and such as well. Focusing by hand is no problem with the stabilization system. Just being able to cary the camera a lens and an extra battery is pretty darn tempting. Not to mention liberating if you are used to bulky stabilization gear, for evemts and festivals the em5 mark 2 looks like it would be easier and more fun to use. Thst is all.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, an all in one solution is ideal and I would certainly consider the EM5II if the video quality proves to be good enough. I use GH2, GH3 and GX7 - two on tripods and one on a monopod as a roving camera. I find the monopod + OIS, with the monopod shortened to be a long "handle", provides quite effective stabilisation if I need to do moving shots. The only other supporting video equipment I use sometimes is a manual slider.

I'm quite happy with these low-tech solutions but I can certainly see that in-camera stabilisation that is really effective for video is something many people would go for. I think the fact that the Oly does not deliver 4K, when every other company (that is serious about video) is doing it, is just a reflection of the far more stringent requirements of the format.

Click to expand...

I have a g6 and gx7. I got the g6 for video originally. I havent done very much though as I didnt want to invest in and carry heavy stabilizer gear. I have a self made fig rig that works well sometimes. I know many film makers that consider the g6 a better video camera than the gh3. If the em5 mark 2 can match or exceed the video quality of the g6 or gx7 then that is enough for me. Watching john brawleys videos convinced me that this camera will outperform me until Olympus releases an em1 mark 2 with even better video quality. Im getting the 3 voigtlander lenses (the new 10.5 the 25 and the 42.5) and the em5 mark 2 this year. I should be a fairly happy camper..

Click to expand...

I would skip toel Voigt 25 and get teh 17.5 instead, thats just my personal opion. The 25 is fairly soft wide open, if you dont mind using it from F2.0 onwards, but in that case you could get the Panalieca or Oly 2.5 for much less.

Click to expand...