Thoughts on 4K

[Dan Robinson]

I had a small budget for some equipment maintenance/upgrades at the end of the year, and one of the items on my list of potentials was a 4K video camera. I decided against it. I thought I'd share my reasons.

I have experience with an industry video resolution upgrade - I bought my first HD video camera in 2005. Back then, the transition from standard definition to high definition was a very different animal than what we are seeing today with 4K.

What it boils down to is that back in the mid 2000s, there was a healthy demand for HD content (both stock footage and ENG) before consumer and low-end prosumer HD video cameras (below $1,000) were widely available. There was a good chance an early adopter that hustled to collect some footage for archiving could do well. Now, with 4K, the inverse is true: 4K cameras are already affordable (well under $1,000) and many are in regular use. All this is happening, yet there is not a real demand for 4K footage, nor will there be anytime soon. The ability to even watch full 4K content is still in its infancy, let alone the infrastructure to transmit it.

The second major factor today that did not exist back in 2005 is how video content is consumed. The phone and tablet revolution, in conjunction with online content delivery, has stripped away a big chunk of the importance of TV. Back in 2005, TV was the only game in town to deliver content. Today, many people watch Netflix on their tablets instead of on their TVs. And viewing of videos on mobile devices is here to stay.

Third, I've learned through years of selling stock footage that it's the subject that sells first, the resolution is an afterthought (as long as it was shot on a half-decent camera to begin with, in focus, good audio, etc). That is even more important today with the glut of cell phone videos. I have sold 640x480 standard def shots at full HD broadcast rates because of what was captured on that video. Back in 2005-2009, I paid for my new HD camera and then some with stock sales. I'm convinced that I can't expect the same to occur with 4K.

To be sure, 4K *is* coming, no one can deny that. But I don't see it looming like HD was in 2005. The urgency to upgrade, at least in my opinion, just isn't there now. Someday, I'm sure anyone still doing ENG and stock will need to upgrade to stay relevant, but that day is a LONG way off - not even on the horizon IMO. By the time we see an industry-wide shift to 4K, there will be such a glut of content that it will nullify any benefit of an early adoption camera-wise right now.

That's just my take, your mileage may vary.

 

[Adam R Davis]

In a sense, 4k is "here". It's a great resolution for cinema screens, which are much much larger than anyone's home screen. Many movies are shot in 4k now. That said, many theaters including the multiplex here where I live, have 2k screens. Those are pretty much identical to HD. I have yet to hear someone bemoan the low resolution of the movies being shown there. I think 4k for home viewing is going to come down to marketing hype more than actual utility.
A friend of mine has offered me a Blackmagic 4k Production Camera with full rig for a very reasonable price. I'm considering it seriously more for the global shutter CMOS (no more banded lightning shots) and raw capabilities than for 4k.
Frankly, I'd watch chaser video on VHS if it's compelling enough.

 

[nmoore125]

I had a small budget for some equipment maintenance/upgrades at the end of the year, and one of the items on my list of potentials was a 4K video camera. I decided against it. I thought I'd share my reasons.

I have experience with an industry video resolution upgrade - I bought my first HD video camera in 2005. Back then, the transition from standard definition to high definition was a very different animal than what we are seeing today with 4K.

What it boils down to is that back in the mid 2000s, there was a healthy demand for HD content (both stock footage and ENG) before consumer and low-end prosumer HD video cameras (below $1,000) were widely available. There was a good chance an early adopter that hustled to collect some footage for archiving could do well. Now, with 4K, the inverse is true: 4K cameras are already affordable (well under $1,000) and many are in regular use. All this is happening, yet there is not a real demand for 4K footage, nor will there be anytime soon. The ability to even watch full 4K content is still in its infancy, let alone the infrastructure to transmit it.

The second major factor today that did not exist back in 2005 is how video content is consumed. The phone and tablet revolution, in conjunction with online content delivery, has stripped away a big chunk of the importance of TV. Back in 2005, TV was the only game in town to deliver content. Today, many people watch Netflix on their tablets instead of on their TVs. And viewing of videos on mobile devices is here to stay.

Third, I've learned through years of selling stock footage that it's the subject that sells first, the resolution is an afterthought (as long as it was shot on a half-decent camera to begin with, in focus, good audio, etc). That is even more important today with the glut of cell phone videos. I have sold 640x480 standard def shots at full HD broadcast rates because of what was captured on that video. Back in 2005-2009, I paid for my new HD camera and then some with stock sales. I'm convinced that I can't expect the same to occur with 4K.

To be sure, 4K *is* coming, no one can deny that. But I don't see it looming like HD was in 2005. The urgency to upgrade, at least in my opinion, just isn't there now. Someday, I'm sure anyone still doing ENG and stock will need to upgrade to stay relevant, but that day is a LONG way off - not even on the horizon IMO. By the time we see an industry-wide shift to 4K, there will be such a glut of content that it will nullify any benefit of an early adoption camera-wise right now.

That's just my take, your mileage may vary.

I sit here with a Panasonic HC970 in my Amazon cart as I read this. Ready to hit the purchase button. I need a backup camcorder for the Panny hc770 I use. The 4ks have come down so much in price that I figured instead of getting another 770 Ill spend the extra 200 and bump up to the 4k. I have had my doubts over the entire process. I 100% agree with everything you said. Would the news actually turn away your 4k footage for size or they just dont have the capabilities? They certainly are not asking for it.

I think once 5g starts taking off you will then see 4k start to really take off..

Now back to mulling if I hit the buy button or not. :/

 

[Ethan Schisler]

I purchased the Panasonic VX870 last year and then recently upgraded my computer to a 4K solution. I think the combination of both of those is pretty stunning. The camera works great, its a small handheld thing, but the video and audio quality are great. I shoot photos and video though just for myself and don't really sell much. So I can certainly see the viewpoint of someone who mainly sells video, as not being a very cost-effective video solution. I would say though, if you have the money to spend, its definitely worth the dime to upgrade from HD to 4K, the quality difference is amazing.

 

[Taylor Wright]

I've wanted to buy a 4K video camera for this spring since June, but recently started having second thoughts. You have to pay more to view and edit the video than you do for a camera record it. At least $800 for the camera and around $2000 for a computer that can store, view and edit the video. Additionally, if you want to view it on something other than your computer screen, you have to buy a 4K TV. So you're looking at around $4k for a decent 4K setup. I ultimately decided I'm better off with an HD camera that I can edit on my laptop on the road. Even if you have the money you're better off waiting a year or two for the technology to "mature" and decrease in price as 4K video increases in demand.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

I pretty much agree that, unless you have a lot of money or a significant need for 4K, it's probably best to hold off.

What might be an alternative for people who don't want to buy a 4K full-sized video camera would be a 4K GoPro or equivalent. They're running at $400-500 now and even less for used or refurbished. Give it a few years and prices will continue to come down. Not to mention you also have to factor memory cards and realize that you'll need more and/or larger sized memory cards to store your footage. Then external hard drives, etc.

I'm personally holding off, given that the demand isn't significant yet and I don't even have a TV or other equipment to play back the footage at full resolution. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to shoot 4K, but it's not something that's a huge desire or need at this point. The full HD 1920x1080 looks pretty darn good to me on my video cameras, at least once I purchased the proper editing software to handle AVCHD files. Coming from someone who was using cheap, outdated software, I must say that having the right editing tools is huge.

My approach is to cover multiple angles with HD video cameras, as you can easily get three (or more) HD video cameras for essentially less than the price of one 4K camcorder. Now if I can just get more consistent with running all my cameras at once while chasing...

 

[Michael Gavan]

I see people consuming and enjoying storm chasing footage in 3 ways. Timelapse. Streaming. And 'Highlights' or the 'Moneyshots' Maybe there are others I'm not thinking of, Certainly the TV show or documentary format too but likely that's not in scope here. I think when it comes to taking footage you absolutely have to consider how you or your audience plans to enjoy it and how you can make it the most enjoyable.

Timelapse photography and 4k GoPro footage, even when your source is 15fps or less it is just fine! If you are taking still images for the purpose of speeding them up then great. A 10mp digital camera is already at 4k resolution, and that's basically any DSLR for the last 6 years or more. So, effectively almost everyone of us already owns the capability of making amazing 4k videos, or maybe you already have GB's of footage just waiting to be re-mastered for 4k.

Streaming. This stuff is really all about the experience, especially live. I'd rather see a 240p or 480p video that is smooth and doesn't cut out on me than get amazing resolution. Even streaming storms in HD is very very hard to do. So that one is out for 4k for a good long time.

Then there's the money shots. Really Dan's OP on this fits right here and I don't think it needs re-hashing. I would love to shoot 4k for those best moments, but even today getting an HD video perfectly in focus with buttery smooth grain-free, blur free quality is a considerable challenge. I've watched at least one HD video or two from lots and lots of chasers and the struggle is the same with just a few exceptions---and they were doing this specifically for TV or internet shows. Studio quality HD videos aren't even close to normal, and we are talking 4k already. The added cost of 4k and the obvious reduced returns from shooting handheld video under a dark sky from a moving car or on a tripod in 40+ mph inflow or wet RFD---I see a lot of potential for these videos to be no more satisfactory than a typical HD video. Might want to get a bigger tripod too. Make absolutely sure the low light and image stabilization are going to be up to snuff on the camera. And get ready for 11 night long post processing extravaganzas with your favorite video editor.

In the meantime, we absolutely should be playing with 4k timelapse footage because why not? good way to learn just how your existing computer equipment and software is going to handle it, what your investment costs will be and whether the consumed version of your video is going to truly be 4 times better...before you go get that 4k video camera. I'm planning to make that happen this year, Just my opinion.

One last thought on 4k, err on the side of wide angle with it. You may have noticed that a tornado, power lines, buildings, etc rarely look razor sharp zoomed way in from over a mile away. You are shooting through the very thickest part of the atmosphere on a hazy, wet, dusty afternoon. You aren't always going to get more detail. But you can now definitely afford way more context!

 

[Jeff Duda]

Is there really any revolutionary or fundamentally new technology associated with 4K graphics, or is it just a simple improvement in the basic technology used to create HD? 4K is only a 4x improvement over HD, and full HD was a more than 4x improvement over SD. Kinda seems like a case of diminishing returns if you ask me. Besides, within 10 years we will probably see 16K technology or better. Unless it's really important to you to always have the latest and greatest in technology and you have the money to spend on it, I say wait until 4K stuff becomes more cheaper and more common, or just skip it and wait for the next upgrade that is certainly only a few years away.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I do like the Blackmagic camera for its global shutter. Once someone comes out with a sub-$4,000 global shutter 4K camcorder (like in the prosumer camcorder form factor with zoom lens), I'll think seriously about upgrading. I'd like a 4K cam that could replace my current HD camera, something I could use for everything (run and gun, static shots, etc).

The thing about 8K and up is that to properly view something that large, you need a TV that is literally the size of an entire wall. There are prototypes of these now (costing more than $100,000), but it's anybody's guess as to whether the average person is going to want to reconfigure their home to fit one of them there, even if they end up being affordable one day.

Virtual reality seems like a more promising field for 8k and up resolution. All you need for that is a set of goggles. Again, whether or not people will want to sit on the couch wearing those remains to be seen.

 

[kevin-palmer]

I don't currently shoot much video but I do a lot of time lapse. I'm looking forward to reprocessing some clips into 4K. But I'm still waiting for 4K monitors to come down in price a little. A decent one is still over $500. It seems silly that a lot of smartphones now are advertising 4K video capture when the majority of people don't even have the capability to watch it at full resolution.

 

[Bill Hark]

Thank you Dan and others for this informative discussion on 4K. I have been considering upgrading at least one of my video cameras to 4K this year but have discovered my laptop is not quite good enough to play 4K. I have a Sony laptop (Windows 7) that was top of the line in 2010 that I bought used in 2011. I'd have to upgrade my whole workflow not counting something to watch it on at home. I don't think my wife would be happy about a TV upgrade!

One possible way to upgrade and future proof video would be to shoot in 4K, then convert to HD for usage and editing now while retaining the original 4K files for a later time. I am currently looking a inexpensive video converters that will convert 4K to HD video files. There are several on the market. When I started shooting HD in 2008, one of the video cameras could automatically downconvert to SD. It wasn't until 2011 that I had the capability to edit and watch HD video on my computers.

 

[Mark Ellinwood]

The only major advantage I see to shooting 4k vs. 1080p is for pulling stills off of the video, which I do on occasion. Other than that, the added expenses to store, process, and view 4k video does not make getting 4k video worth it to me.

 

[James Wilson]

I have the Sony FDR-AX100/B 4K Video Camera with 3.5-Inch LCD in my cart on Amazon ... may pull the trigger soon and see what all the 4k fuss is about.

 

[Michael Snyder]

I just got the Go Pro 4 and so Im still in the beginning stages of 4K use, but Im hoping for being able to pull the still images off of the video, as said above.
Another GREAT feature of the Go Pro 4 is the Night Time Lapse feature. Frankly its amazing and Im very excited to see what kind of night time lapse shots I can get with this camera while chasing. Just shooting the SeaTac Air traffic pattern and the clouds in Seattle, it produces great videos so far. Highly recommended...

 

[ngjere]

I had a "debrief" meeting with one of my engineers who was just in Hollywood for meetings about upcoming industry plans and trends. The general consensus is that 4K is being resisted by everyone in the business due to the expense of production costs, necessary storage requirements, processing power and bandwidth needed.

Predictions are that 4K will have the same fate as 3D. This is a good example of a product making it to market without input from all the "stakeholders" that will be needed for success. Broadcasters want nothing to do with it because they would be required to basically wholesale their entire transmission and compression systems and purchase new equipment in order to accommodate it. Some broadcasters are just now reaching the break even from the HD transition of years ago. There's absolutely no business reason to get into 4K. The only ones that will make money are the consumer electronics companies who (Surprise!) are pushing 4K in any way they can.

It'll look great on-line and in your living room though!