Do the 1080p/i resolution camcorders real HD camcorders in 2014? (discuss)

[Stears555]

8K Ultra HD compact camera and HEVC encoder developed by NHK in 2013.

Here start the category of high tech by 2014 standards

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/358137-8K-Ultra-HD-compact-camera-and-H-265-encoder...by-NHK-DigInfo

[DB83]

Well I promised to leave this topic but for the rubbish written by the OP I would.

I do not live in a third world country (well it is not just yet) but I CAN still receive SD broadcasts. In fact HD carries a price premium.

[Stears555]

Well I promised to leave this topic but for the rubbish written by the OP I would.

I do not live in a third world country (well it is not just yet) but I CAN still receive SD broadcasts. In fact HD carries a price premium.

It did not change the fact that 4K camcorders will be consumer category in THIS YEAR, and only 8K will remain as "High-tech" category.

[DB83]

Get this in to your thick, biasedm head.

It is NOT fact.

It is simply your own, and very biased, opinion of what will happen.

If you can not accept this (look up the word 'fact' first) then no one can help you.

[usually_quiet]

SD has already became obsolete, and disappeared from the consumer markets of the first world. SD TV systems exist only in the third world countries.

4K camcorders became consumer category in this year.

Only 8K camcorders will be high-tech by 2014.

The OP is trolling some more, so I'll come back too and give DB83 some help.

There is still a place for SDTV in HDTV systems. It is a long way from being obsolete in the USA. Out of the 27 DTV channels I receive over the air, 9 are 1080i or 720p, and the other 18 are broadcast in 480i. A fair number of the cable channels I receive don't have an HD version available.

Channels offering classic TV shows produced before the digital era and old movies tend to broadcast in SD. Little of this material has been remastered to an HD version, and some may never be, so 480i is appropriate for it.

[Edit] People in the USA are still in the process of replacing their analog CRT TVs and digital converter boxes with 1080p or 720p TVs, and their DVD players with Blu-Ray players. At least several more years will pass before consumers here begin to think of 4K video as a normal resolution, and will be willing to discard a perfectly good 1080p or 720p TV to watch it. At present, there is very little to watch.

[plnelson]

i would, if i understood the question.

I think he's asking if 1080p is obsolete b/c of 4K.

Answer: no.

Lots of current HD content doesn't even take advantage of 1920x1080 resolution. That is to say, it's not even using the full resolution capability of existing HD. You even see this on professional broadcasts - "sharp" edges blur over multiple physical pixels, bits of chromatic aberration are visible. so are compression artifacts, etc.

True 1920x1080 resolution shot with excellent optics and with minimal compression and bandwidth limitations is a thing to behold. But most people have never seen it. So my point is we're not even using the full capabilities HD in most cases. But you often have to look closely to notice this.

The big problem with 4K is that for a human being to see the difference between UHD and HD they must have a perfect playback system with no compression or other bandwidth losses, displayed on a UHD screen, and shot on equipment with good enough optics to render to that level of detail. PLUS they have to be seated really close: Sony says if you have a 7 foot screen you have to be 5 feet from it to tell the difference.

So I don't think the average person is going to see any advantage to 4K. And if the average person doesn't see any advantage to it then no market will develop for TV's, players, or other equipment to render it on, not to mention broadcast standards or Netflix/Amazon distribution channels, and clients won't be asking for it. The story would be different if humans had the visual acuity of hawks.

[Cornucopia]

IIRC, First rasters had ~50-75 line resolution (using mechanical scanning disc). Raised to ~200-250 when they started using electronic scanning. To them, at the time, it was HD in comparison. Then, because they decided to interlace, they were able to get more lines (~400-500). (This actually worked out causally in the reverse order, but works for this argument).

The thing is, that was all HYPE while the scientists were testing in the lab. Once it became commercialized, everybody who used it & watched it realized that what they were seeing was not truly HD. And since it was the "standard" at the time, it has become known as Standard Definition, or "SD".

And always will be. Especially once its resolution got locked into digital stone.

Scientists since the 40's-50's have known that SD wasn't going to remain good enough and have been continually trying to improve the wheel. Witness PAL1 and then PAL2/SECAM.

Once the technology became available in the 70s, real HD started becoming a possibility. Yes, the numbers have adjusted since then, but really only by a few scores or hundreds of lines. The idea of HD being ~800-1200 lines has been pretty consistent ever since they were ready to commercialize HD. Again, once it became a digital format (or range of formats) it became fixed in stone (by necessity).

But that does NOT negate SD, nor does it mean that HD is to become deprecated down the road either. There is, and will be for a very long time to come, a reason to continue using SD: backward-compatibility (particularly analog) & economics (it's cheaper, dammit!). And there is a whole lot of SD material to view - from kinescopes of 50's material to straight-to-video TV shows and news clips to SD-mastered DVDs and home/prosumer/corporate video into the 90s-2000s. And stuff is still being created even now.

(digital) HD has an even better expected lifespan: All the films from the beginning of film history until now, with only a few hundred exceptions, has been shot at the equivalent of 1080p/2k resolution. Once those have gotten remastered to BD (or simiilar CE product) using that resolution, that is pretty much the BEST that those films will be able to be seen. Up-rezzing (whether SD->HD or HD->UHD, etc) does NOT generate that missing original detail, all it does is synthesize a (hopefully reasonable) guesstimate of that detail. And to any person who is familiar with the difference, it is quite striking (original HD vs. uprezzed SD, etc).

And what the OP seems to keep forgetting is that, for most general consumer purposes, HD will be "good enough" for a very long time to come. It won't be usurped by UHD for standard PC monitor, living room, or mobile purposes. Simply because it will never be as economical and there is NO visible difference AT NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES. HD has been officially & technically called "HD" and will remain so, whether one wants to believe it or not.

No, higher resolution material is becoming available (officially as "4K" for cinema, or "UHD" for TV), but it will have different uses:
1. Large room installations
2. Outdoor digital signage
3. Up-close mastering/producing (Film/TV/Game)
4. VR support (also fairly upclose)
5. Replacing some projector+screen installations
6. Scientific/Military/Corporate uses

As most of these are not "mass consumer" driven, there will be a premium surcharge to use UHD. Plus, not counting those few hundred 60/65/70mm & IMAX features & recent 4k captures, it will be a while before there are any reasonable quantities of native 4k/UHD material to make those devices worthwhile. BTW, 4k "consumer camcorders" that you refer to are not actually capable (optically or compression-wise) to put out a true and cleanly detailed 4k signal. It's just marketing hype. Just like the still camera megapixel war has been shown to be. All elements in the chain (optics not the least of them) need to be up to scratch in order to maintain true 4k/UHD quality, and that is CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE with mass consumer equipment. (Pro equipment is a different story)

What I find interesting about the development is that it will push the envelope/boundary of the capabilities of the whole creation & distribution infrastructure into bigger & better things - including more native capability to accommodate stereo3D (maybe even multiview), and HFR.

The only downside I see is the economic stratification of media: Big Bosses/Corporate/Political/Military/Rich Folk get UHD, most middle-class folk get HD, and poor folk are stuck with SD (or crappy quality HD). I've seen this already starting to come true.

Scott

[2Bdecided]

BTW, 4k "consumer camcorders" that you refer to are not actually capable (optically or compression-wise) to put out a true and cleanly detailed 4k signal. It's just marketing hype. Just like the still camera megapixel war has been shown to be. All elements in the chain (optics not the least of them) need to be up to scratch in order to maintain true 4k/UHD quality, and that is CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE with mass consumer equipment. (Pro equipment is a different story)

To be fair, no visual format hits its potential until it's downconverted from the next format. You can't do proper aperture correction at native resolution. SD pictures sourced from HD are the best SD there's ever been. HD sourced from 4k will be likewise. I agree that the optical and sensor challenges for good (never mind pixel-sharp) 4k are huge.

I have read (don't know if it's true) that the first consumer 4k camcorder only shoots at 30fps progressive. That's a huge restriction, and an obvious step backwards from 1080p60. Higher resolution formats ideally need higher frame rates than we have now (to maintain the higher resolution when something moves or the camera pans!), not lower ones. 4kp50/4kp60 is the minimum for video production (films are different - 24fps isn't trying to look like reality); there are already plans to double those frame rates to 100 and 120fps, and tests showing the benefit of quadrupling them (240fps!). That gives you a real "looking through a window" effect, allowing your eye to cleanly track any moving object - just like real life.

Cheers,
David.

[enim]

Just covering some technical aspect, Full HD 1080p or lower can be transmitted and broadcasted successfully at bandwidth of 500Mbps, while for 4K bandwidth requirement long-jumps to 3 Gbps. And, bottom line is just having a 4K UHD TV is just not enough.

Dream on for True 4K UHD till 2020 or more in Advance Continent of North America.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreaming of an elephant even if could not feed a cat.

[Cornucopia]

@2bdecided, yeah I agree with you. Could have also mentioned the oversampling/downconvert bit (have in the past), but the post was long enough already.

@enim, where are you getting those figures? I assume you are referring to uncompressed (which is never commercially broadcasted), but even then your numbers don't add up right. 4K/uhd vid should be exacty 4x the hd size and/or bitrate. Btw, when you use 1080p in a very technical setting it is incomplete wthout the framerate.

Scott

[glenpinn]

SD has already became obsolete, and disappeared from the consumer markets of the first world. SD TV systems exist only in the third world countries.

4K camcorders became consumer category in this year.

Only 8K camcorders will be high-tech by 2014.

LOL, SD cameras may be obsolete, but there are still many people hiring and buying dvd movies, people will continue to use their dvd players, and while this is still happening, there are still people who still want their HD videos converted to dvd format, so it is not dead, dvd still lives on, and so will 720p and 1080p HD video formats for a long time to come.

also, just because 4k cams are available, does not mean they will become the norm, actually far from it truth be known.

as for 8k, are you implying by what you said that even 4k is no longer high tech in 2014 ?

Dream on for True 4K UHD till 2020 or more in Advance Continent of North America.]

exactly, all this crap about 4k becoming mainstream consumer class this year is just that, they may be making a few 4k consumer grade cams already, but who the hell is going to buy them, and as for 8k, its a load of croc for consumer markets.

[glenpinn]

i would, if i understood the question.

I think he's asking if 1080p is obsolete b/c of 4K.

Answer: no.

Lots of current HD content doesn't even take advantage of 1920x1080 resolution. That is to say, it's not even using the full resolution capability of existing HD. You even see this on professional broadcasts - "sharp" edges blur over multiple physical pixels, bits of chromatic aberration are visible. so are compression artifacts, etc.

True 1920x1080 resolution shot with excellent optics and with minimal compression and bandwidth limitations is a thing to behold. But most people have never seen it. So my point is we're not even using the full capabilities HD in most cases. But you often have to look closely to notice this.

The big problem with 4K is that for a human being to see the difference between UHD and HD they must have a perfect playback system with no compression or other bandwidth losses, displayed on a UHD screen, and shot on equipment with good enough optics to render to that level of detail. PLUS they have to be seated really close: Sony says if you have a 7 foot screen you have to be 5 feet from it to tell the difference.

So I don't think the average person is going to see any advantage to 4K. And if the average person doesn't see any advantage to it then no market will develop for TV's, players, or other equipment to render it on, not to mention broadcast standards or Netflix/Amazon distribution channels, and clients won't be asking for it. The story would be different if humans had the visual acuity of hawks.

great post, by far the best post i have read in this thread, or in any other thread related to 4k video/tv, and i have been saying the very same thing for a long time.

all this 4k stuff for consumer use is bulldust, and i know there is no clients of mine who will ever want their weddings shot in 4k, and there are many reasons for this, many are obvious to most people, and as for 4k tv broadcast, well it will just be a total waste of time.

where i live, we are still getting tv content that was shot i HD format, yet broadcast that content so badly that all we see is mass pixelation all over our screen to the point where you just cant watch it.

we are being ripped off by tv networks, and in many cases i can play my old vhs family videos, now transferred to dvd, and get a better picture.

also, i am a videographer, and i shoot my weddings in 1080/50p avchd (mts) at 28Mbps, or i sometimes use my ninja2 recording unit connected to my camera via hdmi, and record from the sensor in 1080/25p ProRes format @ 200Mbps, and i have never been asked to output any wedding to bluray disc, all my videos are put onto a 500gb usb3 powered portable hdd so clients can plug it into their HD tv and watch it via the built in media player (they get the original video from the camera, the edited video in its original 1080/50p m2ts format, and a copy of the edited 1080/50p video in 720/50p mp4 format for full playback support.

sometimes they may ask for a copy converted to dvd for a few rellies who still use their old dvd players, and i can output my 1080/50p videos to 720x576 Mpeg2 format (dvd) at 6 to 8Mbps and have it turn out very nicely, even when played on a HD tv.

there is no way i will be shooting 4k video on a professional level when i see no valid reason to need to do it, so i see no real valid reason for consumers to buy 4k cams just because they may already be out there.

[2Bdecided]

i know there is no clients of mine who will ever want their weddings shot in 4k

Really? Heck, if I was getting married in a couple of years time, and I could find someone to do it at less than a silly cost, I'd go for the 4k version.

If there was a decent <£1000 4kp50 camcorder, I'd be seriously tempted.

Even if you only output in HD today, the flexibility of 4k (allowing visually lossless re-framing and cropping for HD, allowing the capturing of great quality stills, etc), and the future proofing for something that you will want to watch in 20 years, make it an obvious choice for filming, long before it's the default choice for viewing.

Cheers,
David.

[glenpinn]

Really? Heck, if I was getting married in a couple of years time, and I could find someone to do it at less than a silly cost, I'd go for the 4k version.

If there was a decent <£1000 4kp50 camcorder, I'd be seriously tempted.

Even if you only output in HD today, the flexibility of 4k (allowing visually lossless re-framing and cropping for HD, allowing the capturing of great quality stills, etc), and the future proofing for something that you will want to watch in 20 years, make it an obvious choice for filming, long before it's the default choice for viewing.

i understand where you are coming from, and what you are saying, and i know i did say i will not be shooting in 4k mode on a professional level, i meant to say not in the foreseeable future, given i recently started shooting/recording some videos in 1080/25p 220Mbps ProRes HQ 422 format onto a 1tb laptop hdd using a ninja2 recording device attached to my camera via hdmi, which is edited and output to 1080/25p m2ts or mp4 @ around 25Mbps, and another output to 720/25p mp4 @ 15Mbps for full playback support, and the video is absolutely beautiful to watch on a full HD tv compared to video shot in avchd @ 24Mbps.

the downside to the ProRes that i shoot using my ninja2 recording device on my camera is that it only shoots 1080/25p and not 1080/50p which is what i shoot my avchd video at, and i am waiting it out to see if someone will be making a traditional style video camera that shoots natively in ProRes or Raw CinemaDNG but in 50p mode, as i dont like 25p that much because i shoot video using my own custom made hand held rigs and monopod, and i also need a camera with good AF and Image stabilization systems on the camera body, or if i buy a Cinema style camera, i need to use lenses that have these features built into them.

i figure that while 4k is not going to be a consumer class format for some time, and while many of my clients still own and will continue to buy full HD tv's, and while i can upgrade cheaply to a decent HD camera that shoots beautiful quality, high bitrate video formats that can then be re-converted to fully supported playable formats at decent bitrates, then i will stick with shooting 1080p video for a couple more years, and see what the future holds.