Thoughts on 4K

[James Hammett]

I bet 4K video downsampled to 1080 would still look a whole lot better than most prosumer 1080p video. Manufacturers can get away with lower quality optics and sensors with standard HD and aren't using the format to its full potential (particularly with camcorders...DSLRs seem to be better)

 

[Dan Robinson]

I wouldn't be surprised for online to be the primary 4K distribution method, if 4K ever does take off. I doubt we'll ever see it on traditional (over-the-air or cable) transmission. The internet is the future of everything. Case in point, Youtube ads have become my most reliable video-related income source, in most years it surpasses my traditional ENG and stock sales totals. So from that perspective, maybe 4K will be useful for self-published content with monetized online-only platforms like Youtube (which already supports 4K uploads and viewing).

All that being said, I'm still a long way from buying a 4K camera. As has already been mentioned, consumer adoption rates will dictate if there ever is a meaningful demand for 4K content - demand is what would drive the need for me to spend tons of money on a camera (so I could at least recoup the cost). From now until then, we'll probably see phones shooting 4K video to the point that there won't be much of a niche left for a chaser to have a bunch of archived 4K footage.

 

[Michael Snyder]

Something to remember here is that at the very core of storm chasing you have times (most) where there its fast paced action where you don't have time to set up for that wonderful shot of your dreams.
A lot of photographers will say that taking still images from video ruins the art of photography. That part of photography is setting up for that moment, and capturing that image on your own. But even if you agree with this, you cannot deny the benefits of being able to pluck 8MP images vs 2MP images from your video after recording in 4K.

So... when driving down the road if you have the chance to stick a 4K camcorder (which you can buy for under 1000$ now) its not a bad idea to be doing that. The still images you get from 4K video are much (4x) better than shooting with 1080p video. It will also produce better 1080p video.

On that note: Imagine the farmer on his front porch shooting the Pilger twins with a full frame DLSR that shoots 4K in the year 2020. You want to be right there with him??? Then this is the ticket!

4K monitors and TVs are already down quite a bit in price, and like always computers are much more capable of handling the task of storing and editing 4K video everyday.
I can understand the hesitation if you are strapped for cash, or if it was still 2014.
But its pretty obvious that 4K is here to stay.

And fear not , as always, next year 4K will be even cheaper!

But then again in a couple years people might be pushing 8K, but I think the point of diminishing returns wil probably be in play at that time.
Which always opens the door to new technology all together!

 

[ScottCurry]

I wouldn't be surprised for online to be the primary 4K distribution method, if 4K ever does take off. I doubt we'll ever see it on traditional (over-the-air or cable) transmission. The internet is the future of everything. Case in point, Youtube ads have become my most reliable video-related income source, in most years it surpasses my traditional ENG and stock sales totals. So from that perspective, maybe 4K will be useful for self-published content with monetized online-only platforms like Youtube (which already supports 4K uploads and viewing).

Dan makes a great point about YouTube. I have a crappy 720p side-by-side compressed 3D video on my channel (equivalent to 360p 2D). The video was shot with a $100 camcorder. It's pretty much the worst quality you can imagine. Despite the low quality, this video got almost the same amount of views as my top 2D videos shot in HD. People who want to watch 3D do it on YouTube. And with limited 3D content, even crappy videos that are not promoted in any way get views. The same is true of 4K video. People who want to watch 4K video go to YouTube. With monetization, you might actually make enough to pay for your camera just from people craving what limited 4K content is available.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I came across this Youtube clip showing 4k video shot with the Samsung Galaxy S7:

I realize a lot of those are well-lit scenes - but that is really superb quality. And it's a cell phone. To think that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are now carrying these with them everywhere they go - all over the world at that - is really jarring! At this point I'd almost rather buy a cell phone for 4k video than a traditional camcorder. What is the extra $2k-$3k for a prosumer camera going to get you, really? Extra memory and a zoom is about it.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Isn't sensor quality still a significant factor in the quality of output you get? Could that be the difference? Also, Galaxy S7s are $800-$900 brand new, so you're still paying a hefty price for one of those devices.

 

[James Wilson]

I came across this Youtube clip showing 4k video shot with the Samsung Galaxy S7:

I realize a lot of those are well-lit scenes - but that is really superb quality. And it's a cell phone. To think that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are now carrying these with them everywhere they go - all over the world at that - is really jarring! At this point I'd almost rather buy a cell phone for 4k video than a traditional camcorder. What is the extra $2k-$3k for a prosumer camera going to get you, really? Extra memory and a zoom is about it.

I posted about this on here before (see link) and basically got made fun of about suggestion the phone was good lol. But this is quite an upgrade over what we have been seeing from cell phones. I think random people just driving around and just happen to see a tornado have the ability now to get video as good as chasers with this phone.

I have a 128gb sd card in my S7 so I can handle the size of the 4k files.

http://stormtrack.org/community/threads/samsung-galaxy-s7-edge-shots-raw-files-and-4k-video.29002/

 

[James Wilson]

Isn't sensor quality still a significant factor in the quality of output you get? Could that be the difference? Also, Galaxy S7s are $800-$900 brand new, so you're still paying a hefty price for one of those devices.

You are paying a lot but it is also not JUST a video/photo taker ... it is everything a smart phone is too. It's also something almost everyone has on them all the time, very few people have Canon or Nikons on them all the time. The photo/video opps are always there.

If you buy a say D7100 like I have you get to take photos and video but also have to add lenses and that is all it does.

 

[Dan Robinson]

At this point, a slight edge in quality isn't going to get you any real return on the extra investment unless you're already a highly exceptional photographer. In which case you'd probably be looking at a Blackmagic or Red Dragon cinema camera to shoot 6k and up. There are just too many people in the mix now shooting and racking up 4k footage, many of which are giving it away for pennies on the dollar. The cell phone explosion has really decimated the stock/ENG market forever. Never before have there been such high-quality cameras in the hands of nearly everybody in the country. Even if you spend the 50 grand on a Red 8k rig, it's going to be useless in 5 years when millions of phones can do 8k and the new thing is 12k VR. Technology has outpaced the return on investment period for new pro/prosumer cameras.

As James said, with a phone you have a device that can shoot, edit and upload the video. Many can get the phones cheaper with cell provider plans/deals too.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Well, this thread is a moot point for me now. My primary HD video camera had multiple issues including a bad left mic, broken viewfinder and most recently broken battery clips (battery falls out at a slight provocation, causing a power loss that corrupts the video file.) This now makes it an unreliable camera for any serious use. Facing a likely $400-$500 or more repair bill, I decided it would be better to just bite the bullet and purchase a replacement. With 4k cams fairly ubiquitous and pricing comparable to HD models, I made the plunge. Had it not been for my old camera's issues, I'd not have upgraded so soon.

 

[Bill Hark]

Dan, thanks for the update. Please tell what camera you purchased and if you like it.

Bill Hark

 

[Dan Robinson]

Bill, I went with the JVC HM170. I took it out for the Union Pacific steam locomotive that came through this week. Here is that video:

I also was able to shoot some lightning with it during the storms we had on Wednesday. As expected, the rolling shutter is an issue, as with everything CMOS. My old CCD HD camera is still good for tripoded shots (any jarring will cause the battery to fall out), so I'll be sticking with it for lightning.

 

[Jay McCoy]

thought I would update this since its a new year and 4K camcorders have dropped so much in price. Not sure yet if I will actually shoot in 4k but need to upgrade my camera bad (super8) so am biting the bullet and going with the Sony CX-455. its pretty inexpensive and comes with quite a few features including shooting in dual mode so you can DL clips to your smartphone to post. not a bad buy for around $350. any thoughs?https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1211907-REG/sony_hdrcx455_b_hdr_cx455_full_hd_handycam.html

 

[Dan Robinson]

So far, all of the video I've seen from 4K cameras is exceptional in quality in at least moderately lit scenes. I haven't really seen a bad one among ones currently available, and that includes cell phones that can shoot 4K. The consumer/prosumer 4K models have a ways to go in low light performance, though - most are a few steps backwards from what I've been used to with HD cameras. It's a shame - the high water mark for camcorder low light performance is still the standard-def Sony VX2100. The Sony A7S is the lone exception. I think I'd buy an A7S if it came in a traditional camcorder form factor (zoom lens, autofocus, manual controls).

 

[Adam R Davis]

So far, all of the video I've seen from 4K cameras is exceptional in quality in at least moderately lit scenes. I haven't really seen a bad one among ones currently available, and that includes cell phones that can shoot 4K. The consumer/prosumer 4K models have a ways to go in low light performance, though - most are a few steps backwards from what I've been used to with HD cameras. It's a shame - the high water mark for camcorder low light performance is still the standard-def Sony VX2100. The Sony A7S is the lone exception. I think I'd buy an A7S if it came in a traditional camcorder form factor (zoom lens, autofocus, manual controls).

I've been using a Canon HF-G20 since it came out around 2012/2013. It's certainly not 4k, but it's one of the only camcorders I've seen that is a match to the VX2100/PD150/PD170 outside of the A7S. I've been using JVC HM170 4k cameras owned by my university for school projects, but their picture goes way downhill even in moderate light.
I actually still own a PD150, but I rarely use it anymore.