The reasons I will avoid 4k

apefos

Some reasons that will make me avoid 4k:

4k is very processor intensive for timeline playback and most times needs to transcode to cineform codec for a sttuter free playback and transcoding takes time and disk space.

4k files are large and need lots of storage in sd cards and computer ssd/hdd.

It is difficult to do chroma key or multi layer in 4k because it needs a very powerfull computer and a dual 4k monitor setup.

With only one 4k monitor you can edit fullhd and see all the pixels and also the timeline in the same monitor.

1080p is more than enough to tell a story, tv broadcast and netflix are 1080p.

M43 and apsc cameras have great 1080p quality

There is no sensor crop in 1080p in cheap cameras, i do not like sensor crop

You can get 1080p 60p in cheap cameras, 4k 60p is expensive. For slow motion.

1080p files are small and can playback great and easy in timeline without transcoding or proxy

Using cineform codec you can work with multiple layers in timeline for complex compositions in 1080p in average computer.

Backup is less expensive with 1080p

File transfer, backup and upload is faster in 1080p

Noise reduction is faster, render is faster in 1080p

Average GPU works great with multiple 1080p layers

If you do a new video everyday or every week you need to work fast and every step is faster with 1080p files

When i see a movie, a series a soap opera, I perceived that 720p is pretty enough to my eyes in a 50 inch tv to get into the narrative story.

When the story is great and get your attention, resolution, compression artifacts, gradient banding, and noise are not disturbing, you just want too follow the story

When I see a narrative story I look to the talents face, and 1080p is pretty enough for this.

Great audio with perfect dialogs is much more important than image quality

You can get great 1080p image if you care about light composition objects clothes scenery.

4k is overkill for narrative, you just dont need it

Only few people will see your work in 4k online, between 5% and 15% of the audience.

4k is much more important for porn, not for narrative

4k can be the video ASMR and narrative is not ASMR

When you see a narrative video it is better to be a little bit distant from the screen to understand the story and 1080p is enough for average distance from the screen.

Narrative fiction use fast cuts and movements, there is no time to keep looking to each image

80% will see your work in smartphone, 10% in computer and 10% in tv set, and most tv sets and computers are not 4k.

If you work in low budget and in a "one people crew" 1080p will make things easy cheap and faster.

4k is not a standard, it is a plus, and a plus is optional and not necessary, the standard is 1080p.

Consider 4k for cuts only narrative without complex editing if you have beautiful actors/talents. Your rich sponsors will like it in big screens.

theusualeditor

After processing a few 4K Canon CLog (H.265) and Sony SLog3 (H.264) clips, I'll have to agree with you @apefos Absolute waste of time converting to ProRes/DNxHR, slowly working the rec709 luts and adjusting dynamic range, exporting to another 4K DNxHR, and finally converting to H.264 1080p for delivery.

apefos

Interesting article about: "4k or not 4k for filmmaking?"

https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/do-you-need-4k-an-independent-filmmakers-experience/

apefos

I am considering start working with proxy files, but...

It is impossible to do chroma key with proxy files because the different compression and resolution do not allow to adjust the key with precision

The color, shadow highlight corrections can be slightly different

The motion and picture in picture movements can be slightly different

Audio can work ok because the proxy files can have same audio properties

Proxy are small and storage is not a problem

So in some situati0ns proxy can work ok, but some situations intermediate codec can be better

Intermediate codecs can hurt quality a little bit

The great thing is to use the native files to preserve quality, save time, save storage, and simple workflow

cantsin

@apefos why don't you just use proxies in your NLE?

CFreak

@apefos I have edited many Multicam 4k 24p projects (h.264 100mbit original media) on a i7 3770k Ivy Bridge based HackIntosh, no overclock. Adding a RX580 8GB GPU helped over my old 1050 TI. But what helped the most was to make proxies in 720 h.264 and edit from those in Premiere Pro 2018. Then upon export premiere uses the original media to render. I usually had a 1080 24p project timeline and about half the projects had no reframing so I rendered a 4k version.

I definitely agree that shooting in 4k and down rezing to 1080 creates a better 1080 image, and the flexibility of the extra rez helps in many areas.

I hope you can find what suits your case (sounds like you have from your last post) and eventually can see what we are talking about. We are not all on the latest gear and newest computers either, but, I spent the time to master the options of what I do have, to make it work.

apefos

I found a solution that works. It is simple and obvious.

If you own an old quad core computer like sandy bridge or ivy bridge i5/i7 with ou without overclock, it will be better to avoid shooting 4k 30p. If you shoot 4k 24p the playback in timeline will work fine without stutter.

I did lots of cuts only / intercut with two different files and the playback worked fine with the native 4k 24p files. Less frames per second means less processor usage for decoding in playback.

Avoid using 150mbps or 200mbps in camera and use 100mbps, this also helps. Use H264 compression in camera and avoid H265. Use 8bit recording and avoid 10bit and LOG. Avoid 422 and use 420 color. Avoid apply LUT. Use real time effects and grading.

Set the program monitor window to 50% size and 1/2 (half) resolution.

Close all other softwares.

This way you do not need to transcode to cineform or to other intermediate codec and also do not need to use proxy files, you can use the native MP4 or MOV files for editing, and you will not need lots of expensive SSD storage.

Another tip is to set the GPU refresh rate to the same frame rate of your footage, if you are working with 30p set the GPU refresh rate to 30hz, if you are working with 24p set the GPU refresh rate to 24hz. In my tests this helps for a better cpu usage in playback and also avoid stutter (not only the stutter from different frame/refresh combination, but it helps to avoid the stutter from real drop frames)

If you work with FullHD 1080p you can shoot 30p no problem because the playback will be ok with native h264 files.

Considering i5-2500k overclocked to 4,4ghz with 17,6ghz total can edit native 4k 24p h264 100mbps files so the minimum system for 4k 30p will be: i5-9600kf intel processor with 6 core overclocked to 5ghz with a total 30ghz, 4x4gb ddr4-266=16gb ram, asus prime z390M plus motherboars. This upgrade is not so much expensive and can solve the 4k 30p editing. Two layers of 4k 24p or 30p need a GPU with 768 cuda cores and 2gb ram.

If you need to do chroma key with two layers or picture in picture or long wipe dissolve compositions you can keep working with 4k 24p and transcode to cineform 10bit and it will work fine in the old quad core computer using 50% size / half resolution preview.

markr041

@cantsin Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, because of a patent dispute, most of the "RAW" output is partially debayered in camera as I understand it - ProResRAW, BRAW, Z-RAW.

cantsin

@markr041

What about cameras that use all the pixels of the sensor - that oversample? Do they debayer from the full sensor (say 24 megapixels) and then downrez to 4K after debayering, in which case they are true 4K?

It totally depends on the camera and its internal signal processing. Rule of thumb is that you get the best results if you debayer and downscale in post, because desktop software (like Resolve) can use much more computing-intensive, higher-quality algorithms than in-camera chips. Therefore the trend towards RAW video cameras. But a camera that has high-quality codecs and internal processing does the job as well - only that you then end up in league of the Canon C300, Sony FX9 etc., way above consumer and prosumer video and mirrorless cameras.

According to Yedlin's test (linked further above), you even need medium format sensors to achieve true 4K...

RoadsidePicnic

Hey man, I get your points, theres lots of SD distributed content made in beta or dvcpro thats great. I remember a TV show where actors narrate short stories from local authors, thing is from 2003 have a horror tone, the visual is great even with crapy low DR, highlight clipping and blooming. I would say it even adds a lot to the character of the show. That put, their equipment was not subpar in the date and content is still enjoyable.

I have recorder with HVX200 lots of times and i prefered it to things line 5d mkii that was getting all the hot in the day, but thing is, that camera put 100mbps, the noise is very high, media cost kidneys, everything is damn expensive. You had to shoot what you want to deliver if you cant, you wont. Theres no room for adaptations. That was years ago.

On the other hand i aquired a LX100, a cheapo. Media is cheap. Storage is cheap. Bitrate is same. 4K downsampled have waay less noise. I can actually plan and choose if theres something to post. And I can do 4K on a Sandy bridge. And an i5 K is cheaper than a shitty new computer, put modern nvidia tha you will need anyway for post in 2K, youre set. Thats consumer level and its way cheaper than to work with an HXV200.

So if you have artistic considerations you do what you please, if you have hard budgetary restrictions you do what you can with what you have in hand, but those things are not universals.

The cost of 4K vs 2K is negligible, its consumer grade gear that adds tool capability. Theres no reason to buy gear in 1080p only as the total cost will be about the same. Paid work will afford you 4K anyway.

apefos

Maybe it would be possible to create a new religion... and God will be called Pixel... and everything less than 4k will be a SIN...

When you shoot without 4K

When you shoot in VHS

Be careful what you do

Its a SIN

I will sacrifice my life

I will beg for sponsors

I will build a powerful computer

Its a SIN

Pixel forgive me

I am on a low budget

Pixel is my God

I give you my blood

Its a SIN

markr041

@apefos You are now being even more silly, to cover up your ignorance and perhaps your blindness. We prefer a good movie in 4K to a good movie in VHS. Your question is stupid - there is no trade-off between all other movie goodness and resolution. Are there "good" movies available in VHS and not 1080?

What "projects" are you talking about using VHS? Certainly not ones anyone would pay for. As I predicted, you are satisfied with VHS, so you are either blind or have never seen a 4K video on any screen.

markr041

@cantsin What about cameras that use all the pixels of the sensor - that oversample? Do they debayer from the full sensor (say 24 megapixels) and then downrez to 4K after debayering, in which case they are true 4K?

apefos

If a 1080p camera can resolve 720p dont you think it is pretty good? 720p is everything you need to enjoy a movie in big screen. There are studies about film cinema proving that 35mm film projection in theaters could only resolve 800 lines at maximum when cinema was film.

I grew up as a child and as a teen with VHS and it did magic at that time. I own a VHS camcorder today and I will use it in my projects.

What do you prefer? A good movie in VHS or a bad movie in 4k?

cantsin

@apefos almost no consumer/prosumer camera that is advertised as shooting 1080p actually resolves 1080p. Debayering alone creates a 30% resolution loss (and there's more even resolution loss because of highly compressed codecs, denoising, the camera's image processing pipeline...), so you'll end up with 720p optical resolution if you're lucky.

Same is true for 4K. The real, optical resolution of prosumer/consumer cameras - but even cameras from the professional series of Canon, Sony, RED - in reality only is 3K or less. It's not even easy to find lenses that fully resolve 4K.

So, if you're buying a "4K" camera, you're really just buying a camera with "4 marketing K". But it will likely be able to record genuine 2K/1080p optical resolution, at least.

(More on this topic: http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/ )

markr041

@apefos If you cannot see the difference between downscaled from 4K 1080 and original 1080 even on small screens and 1080 screens then this discussion is not worth having - you are basically blind. Perhaps you should shoot in 720, save even more time and the difference is likely not discernible to you either. Perhaps VHS is all you need.

You obviously are illiterate in economics as well, and clearly not a "project manager" or independent videographer.

What are these "low-budget" productions that cannot afford storage and computing power? If there are enough of them, then investments in computing power and storage constitute a fixed cost that is amortized.

No one who makes any money from video would not invest in proper computing power - it enhances creativity across all productions and saves time in each, which is money. And the cost per production goes down the more productions there are, regardless if each individual production is "low-budget." Transcoding is faster (if it is even necessary) with a more powerful computer. But it is not as if you cannot carry out other tasks while waiting for the batch transcoding or even rendering. These time-consuming computer tasks are trivial costs of video production of any kind.

apefos

the problem here is that everyone thinks like technology-passionate videographers and not project managers. passionate videographers give their blood for a few more pixels while project managers distribute the money, time and effort among all items in the project and think of pixels in the same way they choose the fabric of a costume. In the cost-benefit relation, in the financial return, in the available budget, in the target audience and in many other variables that only administrators know about

DrDave

"The difference in image quality between shooting in 1080p and shooting in 4k for downscale to 1080p is small"
Actually, I see I big difference. Just my 2 cents. Plus the big difference in viewing on YT.

apefos

This is not rant, this is a reflection to find the best workflow and solutions for low budget productions.

Reframing, pan and zoom in post are for amateur people without skills to operate a camera in the moment of shooting, I do not need this.

The difference in image quality between shooting in 1080p and shooting in 4k for downscale to 1080p is small and do not justify the cost and effort in low budget productions.

The problem of 4k is not the camera. There are afordable 4k cameras with great quality. The problem is storage space in computer and editing workflow. It is impossible to edit 4k without transcoding to cineform codec, because h264 and h265 will sttuter, and this takes lots of time. Denoise, render, everything takes time. SSD storage for big cineform files is very expensive. Powerfull computer is very expensive.

The simple answer is: if you have money so ok, build a powerful computer with lots of ssd storage. If you do not have money keep working in 1080p or maybe do some small videos in 4k.

When I try to perceive the percentage of the audience who will see 4k this is an attempt to perceive if it would worth the effort to edit 4k. Because 80% will see in smartphone small screen 10% in computer and 10% in tv and not all computers and tvs are 4k... maybe only 5% or 10% will see your work in 4k online. So it would be much better invest the money in production instead of in a powerfull computer.

What I am learning from some time ago is: increase the quality of your work and try to find great sponsors. And yes, gear is not the expensive thing, expensive thing is talents/crew and clothes/scenery. Get sponsors or stop working.

markr041

@apefos Your questions miss the point.

This has been rehashed over and over on many forums: the fact is that for most cameras shooting in 4K and downrezzing in post to 1080 results in much better 1080 in terms of resolution and color than shooting in 1080. So, it is irrelevant how many TV's are 4K or monitors are 4K or subscriptions to Netflix are Premium. Better 1080 IQ from shooting in 4K, get it?

In addition, as has been said, shooting in 4K and delivering in 1080 gives you more creative flexibility, as you can pan and zoom and reframe in post with no loss of resolution in 1080. Better imagery in 1080 from shooting in 4K, get it?

And, on Youtube, uploaded 4K video looks better viewed in 1080 than uploaded 1080 video.

I hope you have enjoyed your rant, and learned something.

apefos

The questions are:

Netflix has 3 plans, basic, standard and premium, only premium allow 4k streaming. So what percentage of Netflix clients are using the Premium Plan which allows 4k streaming?

When will we see television broadcast in 4k?

What is the percentage of homes which have a 4k tv set or a 4k computer monitor to see youtube and vimeo in 4k?

How many 4k tv sets and 4k computer monitors are being sold each month?

What is the percentage of youtube and vimeo views in a video who are whatching the video in 4k?

markr041

@danilo1 Cheap, facile shot, and illogical. How exactly will reducing the quality of the visual output increase the quality of the story, directing, etc.? What does "focus more" even mean - more money for authors? The camera cost is a very trivial component of the overall budget of their productions. There is no trade-off between pixels and the rest of the production quality.

Film is a visual art. And, btw, the "focus" on pixels here is totally-off base - the Netflix visual requirements that are more important are dynamic range and number of bits - all of which much more directly affect visual quality. Most of their new productions are HDR. Netflix also has audio standards.

It is difficult to write down "standards" for writing and acting, but there are objective measures for resolution (pixels), dynamic range, color steps, frequency range, distortion. The fact that they are written down and enforced does not mean Netflix is "focusing" too much on technical standards.

danilo1

It would be good if Netflix doses focused more on the artistic and narrative quality of their productions and less on pixels.

hardimpact

its pixel density, not pixel quantity. (pixels per inch) Tv's can sometimes be less than half the quality of monitors.https://www.saji8k.com/displays/pixel-density/

endotoxic

4K is soooooo good for 1080! Delivery . You’ll not regret. Multicam Is the new easy mode for editing. You get so much from real good lenses, it’s really noticeable at 4K on the edges of the screen. Specially if your gonna crop for Multicam and punch in. You need god glass if not don’t use 4K don’t bother. You’ll see lots of imperfection you haven’t seen before. So...

But we’ll that’s my personal View

apefos

LOL

I will use 4K for cuts only / wipe /dissolve /simple grading editing.

And I will use FullHD for multilayer editing

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters