Video question

I've seen all the discussions regarding 4K or not 4K. I have a slightly different question - bear with me on this.

With still photos, I have two purposes - memories or art. So, I take pictures to remember where I've been and what I've done. And I take pictures to print them out and display them. For the former, it doesn't really matter what quality the picture is (within reason), for the latter, it is very important.

Now, videos. I don't do them. But for those that do, why is 4K so important? Are you doing "art" - in which case, where do you showcase them? Are you doing "memories" - in which case, why is 4K so important? Or is there something I have missed here?

So, why do I ask? Because people to get very worked up about the M5 not having 4K (including the AmPhot review just now) and I really can't understand why.

Comments invited (of course) - but I would like a learned discourse, and not a flame war :-D

Alan

Great question ... and something I've also wondered about. Looking forward to reading the responses.

Alan Sh said:

I've seen all the discussions regarding 4K or not 4K. I have a slightly different question - bear with me on this.

With still photos, I have two purposes - memories or art. So, I take pictures to remember where I've been and what I've done. And I take pictures to print them out and display them. For the former, it doesn't really matter what quality the picture is (within reason), for the latter, it is very important.

Now, videos. I don't do them. But for those that do, why is 4K so important? Are you doing "art" - in which case, where do you showcase them? Are you doing "memories" - in which case, why is 4K so important? Or is there something I have missed here?

So, why do I ask? Because people to get very worked up about the M5 not having 4K (including the AmPhot review just now) and I really can't understand why.

Comments invited (of course) - but I would like a learned discourse, and not a flame war :-D

Alan

Click to expand...

Well you could ask the same about 24mp (and above) cameras.

What are you doing with 24mp that you couldn't do with 12mp 10 years ago?

And yet people with 24mp APS-C cameras snear at M43 with just 16mp.

But the same people will get all flustered and bothered when people compare the M43 4K video with the Canon HD, claiming it is not needed and no one 'needs' 4K.

Well do people 'need' 24mp?

Yes they claim because I have extra detail, and I can crop the image without sacrificing quality! Now make 24" prints whereas before I could only do 16" prints without the quality suffering.

Doh! That's exactly why it is better to 4K than HD. Why is it so hard to understand? It doesn't matter if it is still viewed on a HD TV today. You still have the 4K source. You can crop it or you can downscale it for amazing HD quality.
Now I can watch it on a 65" TV, whereas before I could only watch 50" without the quality suffering.

Any arguments for why bigger is better apply to both.

I don't think the "memories or art" has anything to do with it. Whether you are capturing memories or producing art there will always be valid reasons to capture either at the highest possible resolution. Or sometimes low res is good enough in either case. Its not an either or situation. You just need the choice so you can make it - rather than be forced into it.

Our children will watch our old home movies (they do so more than us) filmed in glorious VHS-C SD. Our grandchildren will at least in future be able to watch themselves in 4K (though they will have an 8K ...).

Time and technology moves on. Video has moved on to 4K. I really don't understand why anyone has a 'problem' with that. If video isn't a priority for some people I take no issue with that. So I scratch my head as to why those people turn into into a problem when faced with someone for whom video is a priority.

Of course this is really a non-argument of Canon's own making.

Do you think any Panasonic, Sony, and now Olympus or Fuji user even asks this question? Because they don't need to, that's why.

Lawrence.

Nice response.

However (which is maybe why I can't "get it"), I don't see mpixels as the be-all and end-all of photography. Sure, more is nice, but I have some very good pictures from my old 20D (8mp) which I consider "art". I tend to swap camera for features which make it easier for me to take better pictures rather than the size of the resultant image.

I realise that I am still talking about still pictures and not videos - is it the same for videos? or is there something else I need to be looking for?

Alan

I would have liked 4K for future proofing but my testing 4K on my editing machine shows me that I'd have to upgrade my computer in order to do it without headache. We're a couple of years away from 4K becoming the new norm. By then this camera will be outdated and it'll be time to upgrade again anyway. I'd think that unless you are a pro 4K isn't going to mean that much right now. I understand the value of downsampling 4K to 1080p and being able to crop 4K footage without much loss but besides those two use scenarios it isn't much of a benefit for casual shooters and in fact is a big pain if you don't have the editing rig for it.

Thanks - I agree - but I'm still trying to understand what people do with 4K now as there is such a vehement discussion around it. It cannot be just "this is the latest, therefore I have to have it" - the people who are for it are too sensible for that (based on their other posts). So, what is they do that needs 4K? That is what I am trying to understand.

Alan

Alan Sh said:

Thanks - I agree - but I'm still trying to understand what people do with 4K now as there is such a vehement discussion around it. It cannot be just "this is the latest, therefore I have to have it" - the people who are for it are too sensible for that (based on their other posts). So, what is they do that needs 4K? That is what I am trying to understand.

Alan

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any mystery about it. People are generally doing the same things they did in HD. Just in better quality.

i am not doing different things because I now have 4K. I still shoot the same subjects.

Its like I said about stills. I could take all my shots in 10mp*. And most of the time that might well be enough. But if I can take the same shot in 24mp, why wouldn't I? It certainly gives me that extra leeway should I need it.

* actually a large number of shots I take are 10mp jpeg. But they are 'product' shots that go straight to the web. 10mp is more than enough.

--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

cprevost said:

I would have liked 4K for future proofing but my testing 4K on my editing machine shows me that I'd have to upgrade my computer in order to do it without headache. We're a couple of years away from 4K becoming the new norm. By then this camera will be outdated and it'll be time to upgrade again anyway. I'd think that unless you are a pro 4K isn't going to mean that much right now. I understand the value of downsampling 4K to 1080p and being able to crop 4K footage without much loss but besides those two use scenarios it isn't much of a benefit for casual shooters and in fact is a big pain if you don't have the editing rig for it.

Click to expand...

i don't really see it as an issue. Either a decent new computer that is more than capable of editing 4K, or a nice big 4K TV will both cost less than an M5 or many an L class lens, or my Sony RX10 III. I have certainly spent more on photo equipment this year than the computer or monitor to support 4K.

Perhaps it isn't much of a benefit to 'casual users'. But casual users are not the purchasers of Canon 80D or M5 class cameras, or their competitors, and this forum is not really targeting casual users.

It's expensive. If you want to edit 4K you are going to need a newer i5 processor and 8 gigs of ram minimum. More likely an i7 and 16 gigs. You will also need a dedicated GPU. That gets pricey. I tried editing on my Macbook Pro and on a Surface Book. Both with i5 and 8 gigs of ram. Neither with a dedicated GPU. Editing was possible. Previews were jumpy and low quality and rendering took forever. Storage space is also going to be an issue.

I also struggle with the "why".

I am inclined to disagree with the "argument" posted earlier in this thread. The 4K capable TVs are only really now starting to become mainstream, but the media in 4K is somewhat illusive (at least in Australia anyway), so the vast majority of 4K TV owners (who are probably a vast minority of people with Full HD and above TVs, who are probably a vast minority of all TVs) would hardly watch anything in genuine 4K anyway ?

I bought a full 4K capable 60" TV a few months ago, and in the shop I struggled to tell the difference between the demo quality 1080P playing on some TVs and the demo quality 4K playing on others - both looked very good. I am yet to watch anything 4K at home because the only way I can is to download a demo 4K video from YouTube or similar.

So we have a situation where people are happy to watch mainstream media (like a new Star Wars movie on BluRay) at Full HD resolution on their 60", 65", 70" and larger TVs, but it appears to be unacceptable to have a camera that cannot produce 4K home movies - seriously

I think it is all BS and bragging rights.

And, for the record, I think that the same is true to some extent on stills cameras. I have currently two 30" x 20" canvas prints on my wall - one taken with an old Sony 5Mp compact of a sunset, and the other taken with an old Sony 7.2Mp superzoom of a leopard drinking at a watering hole. Both predate my first DSLR.

The screen saver on my 27" Dell Ultrasharp monitor is a photo of Moraine Lake in Canada taken with my first DSLR - a old 450D. IMHO (and I may be a little biased ), my Moraine Lake photo looks better than most of the travel media shots I see of the same scene, but it was taken with an unacceptably low resolution 12Mp camera - terrible !

I won't argue for a moment that the quality of these prints compares with what I can now get with my 20Mp 70D + L lens, or my 24Mp M3, but there is nothing wrong with them either, and I have had many compliments over the years on the photo because most "normal" people see a photo on the wall and notice the subject, composition, lighting etc, and really will only notice the sheer resolution/quality if it is noticeably poor.

Certainly in the compact camera world (pre-1" and bigger sensors) and cell phones, more MegaPixels is simply bragging rights, and in many cases simply resulted in a camera that produced hugely noisy photos in less than bright lighting.

I do agree that within reason more MP should equal better detail etc, as long as it is not at the expense of excessive noise, but I also think that the vast majority of private/home video shooters either don't currently have a device that plays 4K natively, or would struggle to pick the difference between good 1080P and 4K. It is like someone using a 24Mp camera or higher to take photos to post on social media.

And yes, I do understand that people are not only capturing images (still or video) for the present, and that those images may well be displayed on technology in 10, 20 years time that far exceeds anything we currently, so we should be trying to produce the "best" that we can in an attempt to future-proof it.

Anyway rant over

Here are two screen grabs. One is from a 70D with 18-135mm STM lens and the other is 4k downsampled to 1080p from a Panasonic ZS100. Which one do you think looks better?




#1




#2



Don't forget.... One of these was shot on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor that had an initial kit price of $1549. The other is from a 1" sensor compact camera that is smaller than an M2 with 22mm lens fitted and lists for $699.

The longer answer...

First, 4k isn't necessarily that difficult to deal with. I am using a 5 year old laptop with an I7 2670QM processor and 16GB of ram. It was high end when new, but now you can easily find them on eBay for $250.

Regarding memories vs. art... I often use those labels when determining which camera to use for still photos. Art photos could potentially be printed as large as 20X30 inches. Memory photos almost never get printed at 8X10 and are typically printed at 4X6 or 5X7 inches. My 5D II comes out for art and the ZS100 for memories. My M2 floats between the categories depending on the situation.

Video is very different and it isn't just a matter of 1080p vs. 4k. The common argument is that most people only have 1080p TVs so there is no need for 4k video cameras. Does a 12MP image from an iPhone look the same as a 12.7MP image from a 5D? Obviously not. Video is the same. The 1080p video from a consumer camera looks atrocious compared to studio quality 1080p. There is no way to get 1080p video from an M5 to get anywhere near the quality of video on a BluRay. Video shot in 4k on a consumer camera makes nice 1080p a lot easier. I am not shooting 4k to create some studio quality 4k production. I am shooting 4k because it is the simplest and cheapest way to get really nice 1080p.

Yes, I am mostly shooting videos to capture memories. The 1080p video from a current Canon camera looks like VHS compared to standard broadcast TV. On the same 50" 1080p TV, the 4k videos look much nicer and looks much more like good broadcast TV. Basically, one looks like crap and the other doesn't. Also, I can guarantee I will own a 4k TV at some point in the near future. Why would I still shoot 1080p video when it is so easy to shoot 4k now?

Andy01 said:

I bought a full 4K capable 60" TV a few months ago, and in the shop I struggled to tell the difference between the demo quality 1080P playing on some TVs and the demo quality 4K playing on others - both looked very good. I am yet to watch anything 4K at home because the only way I can is to download a demo 4K video from YouTube or similar.

Click to expand...

Firstly as nnowak points out, an M5/80D class camera isn't capable of producing "demo quality" 1080p. I have given up using my Canons for any video work, hopefully they will improve with the next gen models.

Secondly I think the current 4k situation is regional. In the UK we now have broadcast 4K from Sky with movies and live sport. Next years F1 will be totally 4k for example. Note this is actual 4K broadcasts, not internet steaming. http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/uhd

Then there is Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc who have 4K content. Watch the new Grand Tour in 4K

Even the so slow BBC is finally trialing 4K with Planet Earth II

The interesting thing is that broadcasters like Sky and BBC have been capturing recent programming in 4K even if they haven't had the means to broadcast it until now.

Financially there is no penalty now in capturing 4K - You just need to chose the right camera. The Panasonic G80 is a good example compared to the more expensive M5.

Obviously the second grab is far superior to the first. The question is - is the 4K vs 1080P the only reason it is better or are there other issues at play.

I wasn't for a moment saying that Canon video is good but I would be fairly confident in saying that if the Panasonic video above had been shot at 1080P instead of 4K, it probably wouldn't have looked terribly different to the image above.

I would doubt that the reason the 70D image above looks so poor is because it was 1080P, but rather a combination of other reasons inherent to the camera, it's settings or perhaps even Canon video to a degree. I have seen a number of videos shot at 1080P with a 70D that look quite spectacular, even when viewed on a 55" 4K TV - a mate has a 70D, and TV in question and is quite into video, and he has produced some great looking video (not in snow however, as it tends to be in short supply in Australia )

cprevost said:

It's expensive. If you want to edit 4K you are going to need a newer i5 processor and 8 gigs of ram minimum. More likely an i7 and 16 gigs. You will also need a dedicated GPU. That gets pricey. I tried editing on my Macbook Pro and on a Surface Book. Both with i5 and 8 gigs of ram. Neither with a dedicated GPU. Editing was possible. Previews were jumpy and low quality and rendering took forever. Storage space is also going to be an issue.

Click to expand...

But its all relative. Your XC10 is more expensive (in the UK) than something like a well-speced Dell XPS15 that can breeze through 4K. Why would you buy a camera capable of 4K, and then not buy a computer capable of editing it?

As for storage, well sorry but that is cheap as chips.

--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

nnowak said:

#1


#2

Click to expand...

The real answer:

The one with Better Light.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

Some are suggesting it was settings or lighting that make the 1080p shot look so poor. For comparison, here is a a photo from the the same race that was downsampled to 1080p from the full 20mp 70D image. Both the video and photos were shot using the exact same full manual settings.


1080p frame capture from 70D video


Donsampled 1080p from 70D 20MP photo

A high end video camera can produce a 1080p frame that should be indistinguishable from the downsampled photo. The video from the 70D isn't even close.

Here is the thing that everyone seems to keep missing with these video quality discussions... Just as with photos and various cameras, there is a vast range of quality levels for 1080p and there is a vast range of quality levels for 4k. The Canon cameras produce mediocre 1080p that looks nothing like high end 1080p. Mediocre 4k can be easily downsampled to produce something approaching high end 1080p.

If anyone wants to see a bunch of side by side screen captures shot at the same time, here is a thread I did a while back....

TLDR: The same reason we buy better quality cameras even when our phones are capable of decent quality images and videos.
--

I shoot for personal use only (family, travel etc..), and I have no plans to shoot pro or do any paid work or make 'art'.

When are captured memories most important to you? For me, they come to their own when I see them many years from when they happened. Sure, it's great to see images and vids from my trip just last month, but that trip I took 3 years ago that I barely remember? That's where the value really comes in for me.

That's why I want to capture my memories in the best quality I can currently get, in the most effortless and economical way possible. Maybe viewing in 4K is not that common yet, but 4K capture is. High quality 4K cameras can be had for $500. Why wouldn't I ask Canon for 4K?

Ever see some low res YouTube videos from 3 years ago? They didn't look that bad 3 years ago.

Plus all the technical reasons like e.g. high quality 4K down res'd to 1080p almost always gives better quality/detail to even good quality 1080p.

With that said, if Canon gave us high quality, good bitrate 1080p and maybe threw in 120fps/1080p on the M5, I doubt many would complain about the lack of 4K.