4K?

Started Dec 24, 2018 | Discussions
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 44,208
4K?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

A year out of date but interesting just the same.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
Graham Meale
Graham Meale Senior Member • Posts: 2,818
Re: 4K?
1

Thank you. I couldn't be bothered watching it all, but I guess the gist of what he's saying is that our eyes aren't good enough to benefit from 4K, yes?

Whether people agree with that would probably depend on their age. I'm getting on a bit, but I can still easily see the benefit of HD (ie 1080p or 1080i) over SD. But that's about the limitation of my eyes in a normal viewing situation. I'm sure I could see the advantage of 4K if I went up to the screen and examined it closely, but why?

A year or two ago I had some temporary vision problems, during which period I was unable to distinguish between HD and SD. Fortunately my eye health has recovered, but I must accept that at my age, before long there will be a permanent deterioration, and everything I watch might as well be SD.

My camera has 4K video but I've never used it. From what I've read, it creates various problems (rolling shutter, excess cropping, etc), and frankly I'm blown away with videos shot in HD. I'll let others obsess over something that I (and, I suspect, some of them) can't see.

-- hide signature --
 Graham Meale's gear list:Graham Meale's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +7 more
dwalby Veteran Member • Posts: 5,895
Re: 4K?
9

Graham Meale wrote:

Thank you. I couldn't be bothered watching it all, but I guess the gist of what he's saying is that our eyes aren't good enough to benefit from 4K, yes?

Oh, come on, you know you need 8k for video recording your 8 year old grandkids soccer games, anything else is just rubbish.

Mackiesback
Mackiesback Senior Member • Posts: 7,229
Re: 4K?
4

Graham Meale wrote:

Thank you. I couldn't be bothered watching it all, but I guess the gist of what he's saying is that our eyes aren't good enough to benefit from 4K, yes?

Whether people agree with that would probably depend on their age. I'm getting on a bit, but I can still easily see the benefit of HD (ie 1080p or 1080i) over SD. But that's about the limitation of my eyes in a normal viewing situation. I'm sure I could see the advantage of 4K if I went up to the screen and examined it closely, but why?

A year or two ago I had some temporary vision problems, during which period I was unable to distinguish between HD and SD. Fortunately my eye health has recovered, but I must accept that at my age, before long there will be a permanent deterioration, and everything I watch might as well be SD.

My camera has 4K video but I've never used it. From what I've read, it creates various problems (rolling shutter, excess cropping, etc), and frankly I'm blown away with videos shot in HD. I'll let others obsess over something that I (and, I suspect, some of them) can't see.

I am not sure if I am seeing all of 4K, but I can tell the difference between 1080 and 4K. Unfortunately here in the states, you go to the TV store and they have these beautiful nature videos to demonstrate their new 4K TVs, then you bring one home and your cable company doesn’t broadcast anything in 4K. Almost all the TVs you can buy are 4K now, and almost all the programming is not.

Maybe I should get a camera with 4K video and create my own programming.

 Mackiesback's gear list:Mackiesback's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D100 Nikon Df Nikon D50 Nikon Z6 +18 more
Papa48 Senior Member • Posts: 1,530
Re: 4K?
1

The 4K difference definitely shows on my iMac Retina screen. But the real beauty for me is shooting 4K sequences and pulling individual frames for display or printing. It has stepped up my still work of human activities considerably. The problem is that I just about destroyed a Panasonic ZS100 in a few months, using it for hours most every day. The zoom made grinding sounds, then got totally stuck. The lens elements sucked in a lot of dust, and the sensor got a fair amount as well. If I go 4K again, it’s going to have to be a weather-sealed camera. It will cost much more.

Radek Matyas
Radek Matyas Regular Member • Posts: 294
Re: 4K?

Senior citizens with cataracts ought not to be the yardstick used to assess whether differences between 1080p and 4k are appreciable.

The video is complete and utter garbage, pandering to lowest common denominators short on sense and science.

Stemu Contributing Member • Posts: 541
Re: 4K?
1

The reason why we see big difference between 1080p and 4k today is that 1080p video quality in consumer cameras suck bad time. And most of the streaming video suck too due to low bit rate like in youtube. Perfect optimal 1080p quality is actually very good and would be quite sufficient for most of us.

 Stemu's gear list:Stemu's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 III Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 +4 more
Stemu Contributing Member • Posts: 541
Re: 4K?
1

There is also big difference between  consumer cameras how well they record 4k. See example below how much sharper Sony 6500 is than Canon M50.

 Stemu's gear list:Stemu's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 III Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 +4 more
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 11,208
Re: 4K?

Stemu wrote:

There is also big difference between consumer cameras how well they record 4k. See example below how much sharper Sony 6500 is than Canon M50.

I have commented many times that often people mistake quantity for quality.

$k is a quantity, it does not tell you how good the image quality will be.

If otherwise your two samples (as you point out) would look exactly the same but obviously they don't.

BTW, the same was for the 10MP versus 14MP or whatever debates.

One peculiar point.

On HD my 40 HD panel and my 42" 4K look pretty similar (they are in different rooms so not a scientific test...)

Viewing SD programmes,  the HD panel is MUCH better than the 4k.

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 22,460
Re: 4K?
2

Mackiesback wrote:

I am not sure if I am seeing all of 4K, but I can tell the difference between 1080 and 4K. Unfortunately here in the states, you go to the TV store and they have these beautiful nature videos to demonstrate their new 4K TVs, then you bring one home and your cable company doesn’t broadcast anything in 4K. Almost all the TVs you can buy are 4K now, and almost all the programming is not.

Maybe I should get a camera with 4K video and create my own programming.

Being able to see your images with less downsampling is enough reason to use 4k, IMO, even if that means only putting JPEGs on an SD card to view; a better digital picture frame.

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 22,460
Re: 4K?
3

Radek Matyas wrote:

Senior citizens with cataracts ought not to be the yardstick used to assess whether differences between 1080p and 4k are appreciable.

The video is complete and utter garbage, pandering to lowest common denominators short on sense and science.

I didn't watch the video, but that's how most of these "4K is hype" ones are.

The difference between 2K and 4K is huge, and 8K will be appreciable, still.

This is not just about eye optics; it is also about brain spatial information processing. Moderately blurred aliasing is still aliasing.

Most critics of higher resolution of monitors (and sensors, as well) know or notice nothing about sampling and resampling artifacts, and their idea of the point of no return for resolution is where they fail to see a greater number of very acute thingies on the screen, which occurs at a resolution far below that at which "thingies" are rendered with realistic edges with their real world shapes all in the correct weighted locations, moving without stuttering edges in video.

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 22,460
Re: 4K?

Stemu wrote:

The reason why we see big difference between 1080p and 4k today is that 1080p video quality in consumer cameras suck bad time. And most of the streaming video suck too due to low bit rate like in youtube. Perfect optimal 1080p quality is actually very good and would be quite sufficient for most of us.

That's circumstantially and statistically true, but many of us have seen low-compression 2K, and it doesn't compare to the best 4k for video, and for displaying still images, the visible difference in REAL (not fake, aliased) detail is huge. I can see clear differences in a 4k image and a 2k version of it on my 39" 4k monitor from 18 feet away, and my vision is nothing like it used to be. The less pixels on screen to show the higher MPs from your camera, the more aliasing you get, and the more that any visible acuity seen is actually artifact.

tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 44,208
Re: 4K?

Radek Matyas wrote:

Senior citizens with cataracts ought not to be the yardstick used to assess whether differences between 1080p and 4k are appreciable.

True. I had cataracts but after cataract surgery my vision is as good or better than it was when I was a teenager so yes I can see the difference between 4K and HD.

The video is complete and utter garbage, pandering to lowest common denominators short on sense and science.

Actually the science is dead on (what did he say that was wrong?) but you are right it was aimed at the masses. I personally am satisfied with standard HD because the content of the programming is far far more important that the video image quality which on a TV less than 70" is hard to see unless you get very close. There is no programming in 4K. I also have no interest in 4K screen grabs.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 22,460
Re: 4K?

FrancoD wrote:

Stemu wrote:

There is also big difference between consumer cameras how well they record 4k. See example below how much sharper Sony 6500 is than Canon M50.

I have commented many times that often people mistake quantity for quality.

$k is a quantity, it does not tell you how good the image quality will be.

If otherwise your two samples (as you point out) would look exactly the same but obviously they don't.

BTW, the same was for the 10MP versus 14MP or whatever debates.

One peculiar point.

On HD my 40 HD panel and my 42" 4K look pretty similar (they are in different rooms so not a scientific test...)

Viewing SD programmes, the HD panel is MUCH better than the 4k.

If the monitor is set to 4K while viewing SD programming, the framerate may be resampled to 30fps, the current limit of many monitors (and graphics cards and HDMI cables, too, IIRC) at 4K.

tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 44,208
Re: 4K?
2

There’s no doubt that a 4k still or paused image is significantly better than 1080p but in a video where the image is constantly changing the difference is less obvious. One of the arguments the video made was the lack of true 4K commercial video available. If you are taking your own 4K video with a high quality camera or viewing camera stills then 4K is certainly better. Probably the only reason I am interested in a 4K TV is for viewing stills from my camera.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
Corkcampbell
Corkcampbell Forum Pro • Posts: 18,895
I live in "the states" [sic] and I don't know anyone who has gone, or...

I live in "the states" [sic] and I don't know anyone who has gone, or would go, to a store such as Best Buy without knowing which and what level channels they get. Usually the employees will be informed about it as well, and, of course, the websites of the providers. I use big computer monitors instead of a TV, but I looked into getting a large TV a couple of years ago; it took about five minutes to learn if anything was broadcast in 4K, and also how the nearby mountains would affect local channel reception in the case of power and/or cable/internet reception loss.

When I was looking for a new apartment two years ago, all of the property management offices also had this information, as they were asked all of the time.

-- hide signature --

"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber ("Animal House")

 Corkcampbell's gear list:Corkcampbell's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III Leica C-Lux +8 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,013
Re: 4K?
1

tbcass wrote:

Radek Matyas wrote:

The video is complete and utter garbage, pandering to lowest common denominators short on sense and science.

Actually the science is dead on (what did he say that was wrong?)

Actually, he said so many things that were wrong, I lost count.  It's probably high single-digits.

The biggest issue was the assumptions:  Watching video, and sitting 10 feet from the screen.  I'm looking at stills and I'm 2 feet from the screen.

4k even makes a substantial and obviously visible difference on my 15" laptop.  I clearly see when Lightroom renders to 4k from the roughly-HD previews.  They sharpen up very obviously.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
Corkcampbell
Corkcampbell Forum Pro • Posts: 18,895
People with cataracts nowadays? I don't know any.

People with cataracts nowadays? I don't know of any as for most people (if not all in some areas) can get them removed for almost free. This is due to a number of reasons and it is a little different in each situation due to age, insurance, state health provisions and insurance company governance, etc. I had to "co-pay" about $450 three years ago to have mine done; when I get them done a second time, which most people have to do at some point, the situation has changed to where I will pay two deductibles - $20 and $50. And, there are so many clinics nearby that share my health plan, that I can walk to one in 15 minutes.

When I wrote "most people" above, I didn't mean everyone. There are some who opt out of some health coverages...I don't understand why these people, who think they are young, "healthy" and don't need it, would do so to save a little money, very little money. When they do suddenly need coverage, there is usually a penalty period before things can be fixed. I had to pay a penalty of $5 a month for 23 months because I lived overseas and chose not to take the  drug coverage of Medicare since it wasn't covered outside the US. Luckily for me, the two prescriptions I take I just go to Walmart and forget making a claim, as they are about (together) about $4 a month.

Also, some states don't offer don't offer an environment friendly to affordable coverages, such as making the insurance environment so unfriendly that some companies just stay away.  This is going away for the regular medical coverage situation, but eyes and teeth are still considered elective corrections, unless surgery is involved.

Most of the info above is due to my experiences and research about three years ago when I returned to the USA from overseas. I was concerned about this, knowing that the US doesn't have comprehensive universal medical care like some nations.  But, local governments (and the nearby library in my case) have regular seminars and classes on what is available, recent changes, new opportunities, etc. Most of these seminars are offered in November and December and most people can only make changes annually with the new year coming.

-- hide signature --

"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber ("Animal House")

 Corkcampbell's gear list:Corkcampbell's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III Leica C-Lux +8 more
Papa48 Senior Member • Posts: 1,530
Re: 4K?

tbcass wrote:

There’s no doubt that a 4k still or paused image is significantly better than 1080p but in a video where the image is constantly changing the difference is less obvious. One of the arguments the video made was the lack of true 4K commercial video available. If you are taking your own 4K video with a high quality camera or viewing camera stills then 4K is certainly better. Probably the only reason I am interested in a 4K TV is for viewing stills from my camera.

Right on. I found out how good 4K framegrabs could be by accident, when playing around with the 4K sequence feature during a passing parade with my ZS100. Selected frames of our passing senator on foot got more hits in my posted galleries than anything else I shot this year. Vacation shots of our daughter and granddaughter playing at the beach and in the water captured great moments I simply would’ve missed, shooting in stills modes. That 25 or 30 frames per second catches subtleties I would surely miss seeing while shooting.   I’m hooked.

tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 44,208
Re: 4K?
1

But your examples have nothing to do with the science which was correct. The things he said that were wrong is when applied to people asside from the masses such as you who view things far more critically than most people. His mistake was not taking critical viewers into account or viewing high res stills where  close up viewing is common. His point was not that 4k isn’t better but for the way most people use their TVs 4K won’t be an advantage. It’s the same as the arguments about the necessity for high resolution sensors where most people don’t need more than 8mp.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads