How many K do you need?

No sooner has 4K video become de rigueur for new camera models, and indeed smartphones, along comes 6K in cameras such as (e.g.) the Panasonic S1H and the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema device. Soon 4K devices will seem obsolescent. And 6K itself may be just a stepping stone to 8K. The problem is hardware capable of processing the huge files. My computer can't cope properly with 4K, even though two of my cameras can record in that format. I am sticking with 1080p for now until I have a need to replace the computer for reasons other than video processing; for the likes of YouTube it is more than ample video resolution. Where will it all end? Maybe with people having to shell out money to get computers with processors able to cope with the output of 6K, and ultimately 8K, imaging devices?

No sooner has 4K video become de rigueur for new camera models, and indeed smartphones, along comes 6K in cameras such as (e.g.) the Panasonic S1H and the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema device.

Soon 4K devices will seem obsolescent. And 6K itself may be just a stepping stone to 8K.

The problem is hardware capable of processing the huge files. My computer can't cope properly with 4K, even though two of my cameras can record in that format. I am sticking with 1080p for now until I have a need to replace the computer for reasons other than video processing; for the likes of YouTube it is more than ample video resolution.

Where will it all end? Maybe with people having to shell out money to get computers with processors able to cope with the output of 6K, and ultimately 8K, imaging devices?

I think that camera manufacturers are realising that offering more mp's is not necessary going to convince people that purchasing another camera for a few more mp's is going to be an incentive to do so. It now appears that the mp's race has been replaced by higher video K's. When will it end? Not anytime soon in my opinion.

I think that camera manufacturers are realising that offering more mp's is not necessary going to convince people that purchasing another camera for a few more mp's is going to be an incentive to do so.

It now appears that the mp's race has been replaced by higher video K's. When will it end? Not anytime soon in my opinion.

As a professional cameraman (although slowing down to retire) all of the stuff I do has been 1080 HD. 4k is too jerky when panning. It is ok for movies and the like with staged action.

As a professional cameraman (although slowing down to retire) all of the stuff I do has been 1080 HD. 4k is too jerky when panning. It is ok for movies and the like with staged action.

Just marketing. So far I have been using 720p, which my TV converts to 1080p. Take just holiday videos and suffices just fine for us. My old Ulead VideoStudio 11.5 only handles 720p and I've ceased spending more money on cameras and associated hardware and software. My last temptation was a Sony SAL1118 wide angle lens for my SLT-a58, which I've successfully talked myself out of (so far) ;-)

Just marketing. So far I have been using 720p, which my TV converts to 1080p. Take just holiday videos and suffices just fine for us. My old Ulead VideoStudio 11.5 only handles 720p and I've ceased spending more money on cameras and associated hardware and software. My last temptation was a Sony SAL1118 wide angle lens for my SLT-a58, which I've successfully talked myself out of (so far)

[quote] My computer can't cope properly with 4K, even though two of my cameras can record in that format. I am sticking with 1080p[/quote] You can shoot 4k at the same bitrate as 1080 and your computer will handle it just as well. 4k lets you output at 1080 and you can crop / zoom losslessly as a result. [quote]4k is too jerky when panning. It is ok for movies and the like with staged action.[/quote]It depends on the hardware and how quickly it reads the sensor, 4k takes longer and that's where you get a jerky or a jello effect. Playback of 4k on less than stellar equipment will be jerky on panned parts as the large picture is taking too long to refresh. Why shouldn't video shooters enjoy the same resolution as skills photographers? 1080p is only 2 megapixels and 4k a mere 8.5 megapixels.

Quote: My computer can't cope properly with 4K, even though two of my cameras can record in that format. I am sticking with 1080p

You can shoot 4k at the same bitrate as 1080 and your computer will handle it just as well. 4k lets you output at 1080 and you can crop / zoom losslessly as a result.


Quote:4k is too jerky when panning. It is ok for movies and the like with staged action.
It depends on the hardware and how quickly it reads the sensor, 4k takes longer and that's where you get a jerky or a jello effect. Playback of 4k on less than stellar equipment will be jerky on panned parts as the large picture is taking too long to refresh.


Why shouldn't video shooters enjoy the same resolution as skills photographers? 1080p is only 2 megapixels and 4k a mere 8.5 megapixels.

[quote]You can shoot 4k at the same bitrate as 1080 and your computer will handle it just as well. 4k lets you output at 1080 and you can crop / zoom losslessly as a result.[/quote] Interesting. On one of my cams, the bitrate is fixed at 100Mbps but on the other it can be reduced from 100 to 60Mbps which is still a lot higher than the 1080p..... 28Mbps. But I'll give it a go.:) All my videos end up on YouTube, where I assume they still reprocess them, and will be viewed on smartphones, tablets and small-screen laptops. One wonders whether 4K downsized to 1080p really provides any quality advantage.

Quote:You can shoot 4k at the same bitrate as 1080 and your computer will handle it just as well. 4k lets you output at 1080 and you can crop / zoom losslessly as a result.


Interesting. On one of my cams, the bitrate is fixed at 100Mbps but on the other it can be reduced from 100 to 60Mbps which is still a lot higher than the 1080p..... 28Mbps. But I'll give it a go.

All my videos end up on YouTube, where I assume they still reprocess them, and will be viewed on smartphones, tablets and small-screen laptops. One wonders whether 4K downsized to 1080p really provides any quality advantage.

4k recording downscaled to 1080p for small screen laptops and mobile phones gives better quality than 1080p recordings in certain situations and with [link=https://www.google.com/search?q=shoot+4k+to+downscale+pixel+binning&oq=shoot+4k+to+downscale+pixel+binning&aqs=chrome..69i57.7189j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]certain equipment[/link]. 70mm IMAX footage looks better on DVD than anything shot natively at 480p IMO. If there's a chance anyone will be viewing your videos in 10 years' time there's every reason to believe that their pocket projector, iPhone, smartwall or tablet will be capable of a 4k image so it's a shame to discount it based on the format's limited popularity today.

4k recording downscaled to 1080p for small screen laptops and mobile phones gives better quality than 1080p recordings in certain situations and with certain equipment.

70mm IMAX footage looks better on DVD than anything shot natively at 480p IMO.

If there's a chance anyone will be viewing your videos in 10 years' time there's every reason to believe that their pocket projector, iPhone, smartwall or tablet will be capable of a 4k image so it's a shame to discount it based on the format's limited popularity today.

More than half of lower priced laptops now being sold have a resolution higher than 1080. Times are changing. Mobile phones ready to take 25 MP images and probably 8k are likely to be on sale within 12 months. The problem is not so much the hardware as [i]being prepared[/i] to pay for it. When a child or grandchild can display images on higher resolution equipment than used by "golden oldies" the golden oldies tend to get perceived as "oldies" rather than golden oldies. The era of living in a "clocking ticking kitchen" has largely gone. Perhaps it is time to accept that 1080 displays for display of high resolution photos and video should already have gone the same way.

More than half of lower priced laptops now being sold have a resolution higher than 1080.
Times are changing.
Mobile phones ready to take 25 MP images and probably 8k are likely to be on sale within 12 months.

The problem is not so much the hardware as being prepared to pay for it.
When a child or grandchild can display images on higher resolution equipment than used by "golden oldies" the golden oldies tend to get perceived as "oldies" rather than golden oldies.

The era of living in a "clocking ticking kitchen" has largely gone.
Perhaps it is time to accept that 1080 displays for display of high resolution photos and video should already have gone the same way.

[quote]The era of living in a "clocking ticking kitchen" has largely gone. Perhaps it is time to accept that 1080 displays for display of high resolution photos and video should already have gone the same way[/quote]What??

Quote:The era of living in a "clocking ticking kitchen" has largely gone.
Perhaps it is time to accept that 1080 displays for display of high resolution photos and video should already have gone the same way
What??

Such is what 'progress' is - forever changing and always expensive as it unfolds. For 'old timers' who remember the old ways it may seem shocking to learn their investments become so quickly obsolete. But, for newbies who never experienced anything but the 'newest' nothing seems 'wrong' about it. It all depends on one's perspective, I think.:D For me, I am content with a point and shoot camera with a 1/2.3 sensor. So you know how far back my technology is. Would you be content with that? Then you can see the issue. It all depends on where you draw the line. Meaning it is all relative. Maybe we should simply feel lucky that we have so many choices and are not stuck with only one - such as only capable of shooting film. It is simply for each one of us to find what makes us happy and stick to that rather than chasing after the newest. Then we each can be happy and content with our individual lives and tastes.

Such is what 'progress' is - forever changing and always expensive as it unfolds. For 'old timers' who remember the old ways it may seem shocking to learn their investments become so quickly obsolete. But, for newbies who never experienced anything but the 'newest' nothing seems 'wrong' about it. It all depends on one's perspective, I think.

For me, I am content with a point and shoot camera with a 1/2.3 sensor. So you know how far back my technology is. Would you be content with that? Then you can see the issue. It all depends on where you draw the line. Meaning it is all relative.

Maybe we should simply feel lucky that we have so many choices and are not stuck with only one - such as only capable of shooting film. It is simply for each one of us to find what makes us happy and stick to that rather than chasing after the newest. Then we each can be happy and content with our individual lives and tastes.

[quote]Such is what 'progress' is - forever changing and always expensive as it unfolds. For 'old timers' who remember the old ways it may seem shocking to learn their investments become so quickly obsolete. But, for newbies who never experienced anything but the 'newest' nothing seems 'wrong' about it. It all depends on one's perspective, I think.:D For me, I am content with a point and shoot camera with a 1/2.3 sensor. So you know how far back my technology is. Would you be content with that? Then you can see the issue. It all depends on where you draw the line. Meaning it is all relative. Maybe we should simply feel lucky that we have so many choices and are not stuck with only one - such as only capable of shooting film. It is simply for each one of us to find what makes us happy and stick to that rather than chasing after the newest. Then we each can be happy and content with our individual lives and tastes.[/quote] In reading your comments, I feel that it may be all our senses which become more satisfied with a certain minimum, instead of the maximum we sought when younger. Lately I've realized that, in another hobby (stereo reproduction), the same thing seems to apply in my case. For a long time I resisted MP3 music, sticking with WAV (CD) format as my minimum. But I got converted when I found I could carry loads of music in my MP3 player that would have been impossible at the time with CDs. Now I'm finding that it's harder and harder to justify thousands of dollars on audio equipment upgrades when most of the time I can be happy with a desktop stereo system. I don't think it's just because my hearing of high frequencies is now limited to about 10kHz, as I enjoy hearing Stradivarius's violins just as much as I ever did. I used to be envious of my elder brother, who was always content with the least expensive equipment he could buy, when I wasn't. Maybe now I'm coming around to see his perspective? The bottom line is that it's nice to feel I don't have to take out a second mortgage to enjoy my two hobbies: photography and music listening. And so far, I get to keep both systems in each these hobbies ;-) Here are photos of where I started ($$$) and where I can be content now ($). [epzimg]319285_1566147350.jpg[/epzimg]

Quote:Such is what 'progress' is - forever changing and always expensive as it unfolds. For 'old timers' who remember the old ways it may seem shocking to learn their investments become so quickly obsolete. But, for newbies who never experienced anything but the 'newest' nothing seems 'wrong' about it. It all depends on one's perspective, I think.

For me, I am content with a point and shoot camera with a 1/2.3 sensor. So you know how far back my technology is. Would you be content with that? Then you can see the issue. It all depends on where you draw the line. Meaning it is all relative.

Maybe we should simply feel lucky that we have so many choices and are not stuck with only one - such as only capable of shooting film. It is simply for each one of us to find what makes us happy and stick to that rather than chasing after the newest. Then we each can be happy and content with our individual lives and tastes.


In reading your comments, I feel that it may be all our senses which become more satisfied with a certain minimum, instead of the maximum we sought when younger.
Lately I've realized that, in another hobby (stereo reproduction), the same thing seems to apply in my case. For a long time I resisted MP3 music, sticking with WAV (CD) format as my minimum. But I got converted when I found I could carry loads of music in my MP3 player that would have been impossible at the time with CDs.
Now I'm finding that it's harder and harder to justify thousands of dollars on audio equipment upgrades when most of the time I can be happy with a desktop stereo system. I don't think it's just because my hearing of high frequencies is now limited to about 10kHz, as I enjoy hearing Stradivarius's violins just as much as I ever did.
I used to be envious of my elder brother, who was always content with the least expensive equipment he could buy, when I wasn't. Maybe now I'm coming around to see his perspective?
The bottom line is that it's nice to feel I don't have to take out a second mortgage to enjoy my two hobbies: photography and music listening. And so far, I get to keep both systems in each these hobbies
Here are photos of where I started ($$$) and where I can be content now ($).

[link=https://youtu.be/FkYR4x7RhvY?t=92]This [/link]is why people are getting 6k to shoot video. One big thing for YouTube stars, Instagram Influencers and Vloggers (who reinvest earnings on DSLRs and Mirrorless ILC and good lenses to improve their videos) is they can stabilize shaky footage in post without worrying about the crop penalty plus they can crop for portrait devices while maintaining high resolutions as well as do a lossless zoom. Skip to 90 seconds in [link=https://youtu.be/FkYR4x7RhvY?t=92]1:30[/link] to see the part that is relevant to the OP's question.

This is why people are getting 6k to shoot video.

One big thing for YouTube stars, Instagram Influencers and Vloggers (who reinvest earnings on DSLRs and Mirrorless ILC and good lenses to improve their videos) is they can stabilize shaky footage in post without worrying about the crop penalty plus they can crop for portrait devices while maintaining high resolutions as well as do a lossless zoom.

Skip to 90 seconds in 1:30 to see the part that is relevant to the OP's question.

Interesting vid. For the enthusiast perhaps the most convincing use of 6K would be pulling 21Mp stills from video footage. The other stuff sounds a bit high-end for non-pro usage. The least convincing reason is future proofing. 8K has, I think, been around at least as long as 6K and surely the latter is just a stepping stone to 8K?

Interesting vid. For the enthusiast perhaps the most convincing use of 6K would be pulling 21Mp stills from video footage. The other stuff sounds a bit high-end for non-pro usage.

The least convincing reason is future proofing. 8K has, I think, been around at least as long as 6K and surely the latter is just a stepping stone to 8K?

Totally agree. There's an interesting informal and unofficial format battle going on that isn't even noticed by many taking part, I just posted about it: [link=https://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/portrait-versus-landscape-video-119788]Portrait Video versus Landscape Video[/link].

Totally agree.

There's an interesting informal and unofficial format battle going on that isn't even noticed by many taking part, I just posted about it: Portrait Video versus Landscape Video.