Canon 90D...

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
KrampusClaus Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: The lack of 4k

do not forget that w/ h.265, then the bit stream can be equal or less than 1080p, and many of us can view h.265.

the real issue is using h.265 for all of our video viewing including 'tv', it is the best solution but is costly at this stage, many ppl do not yet have FHD, and some think 4khd not needed, of course maybe they are partially blind too.

422 or 444 4kHD is glorious and if you can you should have that as your main viewing device.

just saw a $249 40" 4khd tv on sale (had usb, but do not know if h.265-but likely), only the size is pertinent, the prices are already not too bad, but of course you can spend $15,000 too.


and it is NOT by a long way class leading !! Shame Canon Shame !!

(sad when 1080p is maybe only 720p quality !!)

plantdoc wrote:

I will admit 4k and hdr can be impressive on a large screen if you have all the playback pieces together. However, I see plenty of tourists, parents, etc and if they are shooting video it's almost always on their phone. I suspect most of the videos are viewed on the phone or maybe a tablet where even low res looks quite good. Not knocking 4k, but I think few people are shooting 4k, editing the clips into movies, and then sharing them in a form that doesn't involve some form of compressed streaming. And, how do you share 4k movies that doesn't involve compressed streaming and appropriate ISP bandwidth and apps and a screen large enough to really see a significant difference? I can create full HD movies, burn to Bluray disks, and distribute to folks who finally have dumped their DVD players for a Bluray player. So far, to my knowledge this isn't possible with 4k. Maybe someday.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow