Going 4K for the serious amateur

[newpball]

Which of you have made the plunge into the 4K world already?

The offers are stacking up and it looks like it is time to make the change.

What cameras you find most compelling?

The Panasonic Lumix GH4, Sony AX100, Sony A7s, Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K, others?

Opinions?

[racer-x]

I would think a guy like you at the forefront of technology would already have made the switch and would give your opinions / conclusions? Me, I'll wait a bit longer when the prices fall to my liking.

It's all an upgrade scam anyway...........

[MindController]

4K is so early 2015. I'm already using Ultra HD plus. Which is 16K resolution.

[SameSelf]

I prefer my Sony Xperia Z1. It shoots 4K much to the chagrin of many an elitist

[newpball]

I prefer my Sony Xperia Z1. It shoots 4K much to the chagrin of many an elitist

Can you post some footage, indoor, daylight and at night so we can see what it produces?

By the way I checked the specs, are you sure it does 4K video?

[Cornucopia]

No, it is only 1080 or < for video, though it is purportedly up to ~20Mpixel for stills (YMMV based on optics). Unless SameSelf is doing timelapse compilations, just more smoke & mirrors.

Scott

[rnb5500]

Actually 4k can be ported from the Z3 to the Z1 supposedly and for what its worth.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/crossdevice-dev/sony-themes-apps/lollipop-ported-4k-ti...video-t3084488

[Cornucopia]

A non-sanctioned mod that sometimes works, sometimes not, that give 4k @ up-to-30p (meaning it does VFR and only when at best can do 30p, but usually is less).

Yeah, that's really something to cheer about (not often). Those other cams make sense ("for the serious amateur"), but this, nope.

@newpball, for all your 4k shilling, do you even have a 4k cam and/or monitor?

Scott

[newpball]

@newpball, for all your 4k shilling, do you even have a 4k cam and/or monitor?

Not sure why you think creating a topic about 4K is shilling.
Actually up to now I have found 4K not practical.

But I am considering adding 4K, hence the topic.

Try to get some opinions about the various options. And I am sure some members will be interested as well.

I currently have one QHD and some side monitors, all Dell.

[gll99]

I know you're mainly talking cameras but for me all the pieces fit together or it's not worth upgrading.

I'm concerned that existing 4K televisions and other viewing devices will only play at 1080p using the new 4K BD players with advanced hdcp 2.2 and hdmi 2.0 and above connectors when they come out. The actual connection may remain backward compatible but whose to say that (due to the ridiculous copy fear by the movie industry) we'll get full resolution from the newer multi-layer discs when the player senses an old hdcp connection.

8K and possibly 16K is feasible now or very close but once again we are spoon fed by an industry that will milk the 4K to death before rolling out the next best thing and much the same content over and over again.

[Cornucopia]

Full UHD from UHD BD disc, etc. to 4kTV will only occur with complete hdcp2.2 all the way from source to sink. Any compromise at all and it is either downscaled to HD or not transmitted at all. This includes the complications of audio receivers.

8k and above is not as "just around the corner" as some would like you to believe - there are some real, serious bandwidth limitations in storage and transmission of such content that need to be overcome or accommodated before this can be a viable option. And that is counting HEVC efficiencies in the mix.

Scott

[newpball]

8k and above is not as "just around the corner" as some would like you to believe-there are some real, serious bandwidth limitations in storage and transmission of such content that need to be overcome or accommodated before this can be a viable option. And that is counting HEVC efficiencies in the mix.

Only when engineers insist on using those ancient optical rotating discs.

[Cornucopia]

You don't know your math very well, or you are not thinking it through:

Take the case of the LOWEST form of presentable 8k video (=7680x4320 10bit 4:2:0 @ 24Fps), which you already have derided as not being high quality enough color nor high enough framerate, is ~12Gbps uncompressed and ~400Mbps compressed (using "efficient" HEVC rates anticipated to be half the equivalent rate for AVCs equivalent quality). This will be able to be transmitted through a DP1.2 or greater or an HDMI 2.0 or greater pipe. Using 60p would be too much data for either format. Using 12+ bits, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 and/or HDR extensions would be too much for HDMI 2.0 and would nearly max out DP1.2+. Obviously, using multiple combinations (including Stereo3D or non-anamorphic 21:9) would be too much also.
But that is just the final link.

As you noted, 400Mbps is too high for "UHD BD v2" optical disc for sure. But as an output from some camera, it's also too high for realtime writing to most current USB flash drives, most current SDcards & MM cards, most Compact Flash cards, etc. In fact it is only able to be captured by CFast, SxS or other similar expensive solid-state media. How much do those cost? ~$350 for a 128GB card. and how much time does one card hold? 40 minutes' worth at that bitrate. Not going to be a lot of demand for such expensive storage. Even SSDs are still ~$150 for the same insufficient 128GB size, and then you'd have to deal with the larger form factor & adapters...
None of these things bode well for the needed strong consumer uptake.

Then there's streaming. Even assuming you allow a 4x hit in quality on top of the strong existing compression, you still are needing 100Mbps CONSISTENT downlink streaming. Per User. So currently ONLY select areas of Kansas City, MO and Austin, TX (the test areas for Google Fiber) have the capacity for this in the whole US capable of supporting consumer use. And even if you could get the speed, or could WAIT for just the download to SATA3 drives for later playback, you would only get ~11 movies per 4TB drive.

The only way of improving this scenario is with medium/longer term continued substantial changes to storage technology and the complete overhauling of the internet infrastructure, and/or substantial increases in compression efficiency (which goes against the entropy curve).
OR
making do with very highly compressed (read much more artifact-laden) footage.
It goes without saying that existing broadcast channels are severely insufficient.

So, again I say, with a much more thorough and calculated estimate than you are bandying around: we are not even close to ready for an honest rollout of this kind of "8k+" offering. 10-15 years from now, possibly. 5, no, you are just deluding yourself/selves.
Greater than 4k will remain for some time the exclusive domain of $$$ professionals (and only for production or intermediate use).

Scott

[2Bdecided]

Take the case of the LOWEST form of presentable 8k video (=7680x4320 10bit 4:2:0 @ 24Fps), which you already have derided as not being high quality enough color nor high enough framerate, is ~12Gbps uncompressed and ~400Mbps compressed

I think you're way off there. 4kp24 will hit what were until recently considered "HD" bitrates soon enough, i.e. sub-10Mbps. Your estimate for compressed 8k is therefore 10x too large. Plus by the time 8k is widely available we'll be on the next generation of video encoding (at least), halving the bitrate yet again.


4k is of zero interest to me until I can do at least 50fps. I'd like to see much higher framerates, but expect to wait a long time for that. It's easy enough to broadcast up to 300fps (it makes surprisingly little difference to compressed bitrate) but horribly increases the datarate for capture, in-studio processing, encoding, decoding, and HDMI.

Cheers,
David.

[pepegot1]

Blu-Ray has not taken off and DVD is still most popular. When all the components are in place, ten it's time to change. That means TV's, cameras, software, discs, etc. Now, it is for the avantgarde only.

[Cornucopia]

Take the case of the LOWEST form of presentable 8k video (=7680x4320 10bit 4:2:0 @ 24Fps), which you already have derided as not being high quality enough color nor high enough framerate, is ~12Gbps uncompressed and ~400Mbps compressed

I think you're way off there. 4kp24 will hit what were until recently considered "HD" bitrates soon enough, i.e. sub-10Mbps. Your estimate for compressed 8k is therefore 10x too large. Plus by the time 8k is widely available we'll be on the next generation of video encoding (at least), halving the bitrate yet again.


4k is of zero interest to me until I can do at least 50fps. I'd like to see much higher framerates, but expect to wait a long time for that. It's easy enough to broadcast up to 300fps (it makes surprisingly little difference to compressed bitrate) but horribly increases the datarate for capture, in-studio processing, encoding, decoding, and HDMI.

Cheers,
David.

And I think your "sub-10Mbps" is not only way too optimistic, but already assuming a fundamentally lower level of quality than I was referring to. Just like with HD where quality BDs encode at ~30-40Mbps, HD broadcast channels encode at ~1/2 of that, and streaming encodes at ~1/6 of that. Unless you seriously have no problem with the resultant artifacting, which DOES exist at lower levels, but then the whole newpball premise of "high quality" is thrown out with the bitrate. A bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Scott

[2Bdecided]

The average broadcast HD bitrate today is less than 6Mbps.

Netflix is reportedly streaming 4k at 15.6Mbps today.

Even if you want to be as over-generous as BluRay, and even if you take your 40Mbps figure as an average, and even if you think you can shoot pixel-sharp 8k, and even if you stick with current generation encoding (i.e. HEVC), you get 320Mbps for 8k. But none of those things will be true, and 8k will be delivered at reasonable bitrates, just as 4k will be.

Cheers,
David.

[Cornucopia]

Not anytime soon. There is little consumer incentive (consumers are waking up to the fallacy of the pure resolution numbers proliferation), and there is NO current compelling content.
And have you seen those over-compressed HD offerings?! What would be the whole point of further burdening pipelines for little additional visual return (at standard screen sizes and distances)?
And if you think BD rates are "generous", you need to think about maybe getting your eyes checked.

Scott

[newpball]

Not sure how all the above is relevant.

If someone decides not to capture 4k only because not everything is currently in place downstream he will have to facepalm himself 10 years from now.

Son: "Hey dad, 18 years ago back in 2015 when I had my first toddler walk why did you record in 1080 and not 4k? Was it too expensive?"
Dad: "No son, money was not the issue, I worried about internet throughput back in 2015"
Son: "Okay......... "

[smrpix]

Son: "Hey dad, 18 years ago back in 2015 when I had my first toddler walk why did you record in 1080 and not 4k? Was it too expensive?"
Dad: "No son, money was not the issue, I worried about internet throughput back in 2015"
Son: "Okay......... "

With heartwarming dialogue like that, you should be in southern California earning a living.

[rnb5500]

A non-sanctioned mod that sometimes works, sometimes not, that give 4k @ up-to-30p (meaning it does VFR and only when at best can do 30p, but usually is less).

Yeah, that's really something to cheer about (not often). Those other cams make sense ("for the serious amateur"), but this, nope.

Scott

Sorry I was too subtle with my "for what its worth" I should have added a "/sarc" at the end. Personally I wouldn't shoot 1k with a Sony phone. I mean not even 0.5k.. stills.. in grayscale.. you get the idea. And I own one and love it, but still.


AFA this 8k discussion, I tend to take Scott's view about the technicals not being there and won't get there any time soon.

I think the ecosystem is unbalanced, panels have come too far too fast and everything else needs time to catch-up. Something to think about is that, as someone said, Blu-ray wasn't a killer on shipments. So most people's introduction into HD was satellite/cable TV and even today I would assume most HD content is consumed via highly compressed TV and streaming (youtube, Netflix).

In other words, people are seeing so much blocking they think they're watching the Lego movie. 4k much less 8k isn't going to improve this. Probably more a case of people seeing compressed streams or poor sources and thinking that throwing more res at it will help. I know I can't identify individual pixels on a 4k, from 1-2 feet away yes, but not from the couch.

[newpball]

New kid on the block and dirt cheap for a 4K, the Panasonic Lumix G7



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1148282-REG/panasonic_dmc_g7kk_lumix_dmc_g7_mirr...ess_micro.html

No good reviews out yet!

[newpball]

And of course the Sony FDR-AX100

[_Al_]

Not sure how all the above is relevant.

If someone decides not to capture 4k only because not everything is currently in place downstream he will have to facepalm himself 10 years from now.

Son: "Hey dad, 18 years ago back in 2015 when I had my first toddler walk why did you record in 1080 and not 4k? Was it too expensive?"
Dad: "No son, money was not the issue, I worried about internet throughput back in 2015"
Son: "Okay......... "

99.999 % of population would never say that, not even remotely, if video is shot in proper manner or edited, where only disorderly handling , zooming, panning etc., could make it less watchable, irritable because you'd feel that you could "get" more emotions out of it if video was just more watchable ... Example, Mentioning to your your father why he did not record with proper DV avi camcorder but VHSC instead? Never happening.

not talking about movies and "pro" delivery, just home video ...

[Cornucopia]

Yeah, that "Son" is being quite disrespectful and unappreciative of his "Dad". Where's the "Cool video, thanks!" or even the normal "why did I have to look like such a dork back then?"
And I can speak from experience, when you've got a toddler or 2 (or more), if you have any money leftover at all after paying for kid stuff, you're happy with whatever you can get a hold of: 8mm film, VHS, SD digital, HD...whatever you can afford (which isn't much at that stage of your life). Expense is never far from a deciding factor.

That stuff I said above was relevant to those in the thread that attempted to glorify and presume easy ubiquity for their idea of the next big thing, contrary to common sense & scientific understandings about the overall workings of media & culture, and in detriment/insult to anything less/earlier (sound familiar?)

Scott

[newpball]

LOL.

Show any average teenager some 60's NTSC B&W video and for sure you will get an epic "WTF" moment from them!

Much to some peoples chagrin,
the times,
they are changin'!

[Cornucopia]

You must be hanging around too many lame, ahistorical teens. Ones I know actually think/thought it was cool to shoot in Black & White (though most of the time, the only way they can do that is with a Desaturate filter on their cams).

Times have always been a-changin', some for the better, some for the worse (usually both). The wise man discerns between the 2.

...but that 4k Sony cam does look compelling (not in the budget for this year, though.

Scott

[gll99]

You could look at the whole gamut when it comes to 4k (streaming, personal storage, recording, etc.. ) but for me I'm only looking at commercial content and how it connects to the end product ie... the new (still future) protected high density BD discs and how they will handshake with the 4k tv (old and new models - (hdcp 2.0-2.1, hdmi 1.4 and below vs hdcp 2.2 - hdmi 2.0)). Early HD adopters who bought televisions that only had analog component or possibly dvi connectors were on the leading edge if they bought early like 5 or more years before a major change but what if the changes were just months away. The stores will have big sales on old stock and there is a large segment of the population who won't even care (or know) because they will be happy with the fact their tv can "upscale/stretch" their 720x480 DVD, 1080i cable content or 1080p BD to 4K. "Look at the great deal I got on a 4K TV now we can watch 4K isn't it much better than our old tv?" I wouldn't buy a $500 1080i and below cable box if I knew my provider was going to start sending a 1080p or 4K signal within a year.

We are not talking years but months so why would anyone who is aware buy while there is uncertainty. Who knows if the new hdcp will be so restrictive that even a camera or any device that isn't fully hdcp 2.2 compliant or have the latest hdmi connector will be significantly downgraded or even play. Do you really trust the industry to leave a gaping hole in their prized protection? Some televisions are already claiming to be hdcp 2.2 compliant but surely they don't have the hdmi 2.0 connector yet so they may be technically truthful but something isn't 100% right. It's like the Toshiba TV I bought years ago that had what looked like a 480p component 3 rca connector (Colorstream) that wasn't quite what the sales guy said in this model. It looked like a duck and quacked like a duck but it still would only accept 480i from my different brands of DVD players.

I won't buy anything 4K until I know how all the pieces fit together so anything which purports to be 4K capable/ready/compatible will in fact be 100% compliant and play at 4K. I can wait a year or so if need be.

[Cornucopia]

The 2 sticking points to compliance seem to be HDCP2.2 and rec2020. All of this year's 4k/UHD models that I have researched do have hdmi 2.0 ports (in at least one, but rarely all, of their multiple hdmi in ports). Next year's models should all have hdcp2.2 (in at least one port), and even if the display isn't close to rec2020 compliance capability (though most of the nanocrystal types should be), there would probably be down-gamut-conversion firmware built into the new UHDBD players (they would have anticipated this). And because of hdmi 2.0 it should still support receiving rec2020 signals.
Pretty confident that most implementations of hdcp2.2 would enforce downrezzing to HD for non-fully-compliant channels. But this would likely be automatic, and fairly unnoticeable to those not paying close attention. Very much like current players that do not allow 24/96 or higher audio out of analog or non-secure (e.g. spdif) digital ports, and will auto-downsample.

Scott

<edit>IIWY, I'd also opt to require inclusion of on-board HEVC decoding for the TV as well as that expected for the UHDBD player.

[2Bdecided]

And if you think BD rates are "generous", you need to think about maybe getting your eyes checked.

No, you need a reality check. When watching a well mastered BluRay "Damn, these coding artefacts are really killing this movie" said no one, ever.

You know the history, don't you? BluRay was originally designed for MPEG-2. That's why the max bitrate is so high. HD-DVD showed the bitrate the industry thought H.264 needed. But then in a quirk early in that format war, we got H.264 on BluRay too. i.e. we got far higher quality than anyone in the industry originally intended to deliver to the home.

In context, BluRay is the most generous bitrate ever delivered to the consumer. 4k/UHD BluRay is reportedly slightly more generous (in context).

It's true that some broadcast HD channels are an abomination in terms of quality, but there are some good looking ones at low-ish bitrates - just not on systems where everything is transcoded and/or using out of date codecs. I've compared Doctor Who on BBC One HD England and BBC America and I laughed and laughed and laughed. Ironically they use similar bitrates, but one is substantially artefact-free, while the other, as you say, often looks like lego.

Anyway, we're talking about camcorders and real-time consumer hardware compression. That's a different ball game, and the starting point is Full HD H.264 at ~25Mbps which looks OK-ish but falls apart with re-compression. 4k needs ~50Mbps HEVC in this context, and 8k needs ~100Mbps using the next generation codec. Double all those rates for devices which pretend to be for pros. Real pros don't use anything like these levels of compression for capturing, but use much lower bitrates for broadcast. 'Twas ever thus. I don't know why you think it will change.

Cheers,
David.