4K Discussion (forked from "If you were to start fresh" in Gen. Photo Talk)

[Skygod44]

It might be a language/translation thing. Sounds like he means it's not the end all be all of what makes a good photo or video. Or so I'd like to think that's what he meant.

But yeah I like my good image quality. At least videos. Using 1080p when 4K is easy to do is kind of, IMHO, silly. There's a pretty significant quality difference, especially when you're talking about upsampling vs native on a large OLED screen.

Quoting Ricky Gervais, I thought everyone and their Grandma would realise I was talking tongue-in-cheek.


Maybe if I quote Ross from "Friends"?

"Anyway......."

So I passed this chat on to my ol' school buddy who's been a top-level production editor for decades: he's done 3 Olympics, and has just now decided he's had enough of F1.

He reminded me of a chat we had years ago:
First, the nomenclature "4K" is a scam. The correct terminology is 2160p. But since FHD is 1080p, it doesn't take a genius to spot that 2160 is only two-times 1080...which didn't fit with the Ad men, so they called it 4K to infer 4X the resolution.
I't'ain't - 4K is only double the resolution of 1080p.
Next, and surprisingly, "4K televisions" are the bee's knees...but it's due the newer tech that a 4K system allows, not the doubling of resolution.
Plus, the ability to incorporate HDR into the software - which is why your/our 4K TVs look so amazing - which they do!
.

Finally, and this bit I'd forgotten, if you want the best produced footage, over-shoot.
By that, he means shoot at 4K and then down-sample to 1080p.
That won't work with your 1DXmk2, and I can't be bothered doing it with my Olympus cameras, because 1080p is so clean.
So..................
Let's leave it there, and let the actual professionals develop hardware and software we can all play with

Cheers all.
Happy New Year (almost).
And I'm going out to take photos.
Or video.
Or both.

 

[cdifoto]

Quoting Ricky Gervais, I thought everyone and their Grandma would realise I was talking tongue-in-cheek.


Maybe if I quote Ross from "Friends"?

"Anyway......."

So I passed this chat on to my ol' school buddy who's been a top-level production editor for decades: he's done 3 Olympics, and has just now decided he's had enough of F1.

He reminded me of a chat we had years ago:
First, the nomenclature "4K" is a scam. The correct terminology is 2160p. But since FHD is 1080p, it doesn't take a genius to spot that 2160 is only two-times 1080...which didn't fit with the Ad men, so they called it 4K to infer 4X the resolution.
I't'ain't - 4K is only double the resolution of 1080p.
Next, and surprisingly, "4K televisions" are the bee's knees...but it's due the newer tech that a 4K system allows, not the doubling of resolution.
Plus, the ability to incorporate HDR into the software - which is why your/our 4K TVs look so amazing - which they do!
.

Finally, and this bit I'd forgotten, if you want the best produced footage, over-shoot.
By that, he means shoot at 4K and then down-sample to 1080p.
That won't work with your 1DXmk2, and I can't be bothered doing it with my Olympus cameras, because 1080p is so clean.
So..................
Let's leave it there, and let the actual professionals develop hardware and software we can all play with

Cheers all.
Happy New Year (almost).
And I'm going out to take photos.
Or video.
Or both.

Yeah no. They call it 4K because K means a thousand and 4 thousand pixels across sounds much better than one thousand up and down.

It's not a scam though and it blows the doors off 1080p when you have the technology to view it.

Double the pixels is A LOT more detail.

You may not be able to see the difference, but that doesn't mean nobody can or that there is no difference.

If you have a 1080p TV, computer, etc you won't see any benefit to 4K. But if you have a 4K TV or monitor, 1080p will have to be upsampled or stretched whereas 4K will be pixel for pixel native.

 

[Skygod44]

Yeah no. They call it 4K because K means a thousand and 4 thousand pixels across sounds much better than one thousand up and down.

jeesh, I love these forums.

The chance to chat to folks around the world is so cool.


So, you're saying that the standard vertical pixel count suddenly became "wrong", and simultaneously 3840 pixels wide needed to be rounded up to 4000?

Sounds like marketing to me...
But before you parry back, bear in mind I'm only passing on what my ol' school buddy taught me.
I'm not an electrical engineer, or professional editor, nor do I have 30+ years experience at the top of the industry.
But he does.
So I just have to bow down to his expertise.

It's not a scam though and it blows the doors off 1080p when you have the technology to view it.

What I'll do now is just copy & paste some of his comments.
Make of it what you will

//Quote// Resolution is not well understood and the majority of the information on the internet is just plain wrong. //Unquote//

Double the pixels is A LOT more detail.
You may not be able to see the difference, but that doesn't mean nobody can or that there is no difference.

//Quote//The common held belief is that the larger the screen, the more resolution you need. However this is incorrect. The key factor is how close you are to the screen. Let me demonstrate:
Pick up a book. A good old fashioned book. The text looks like text to you, you don’t see it as a series of dots. The reason is that it’s very high resolution. Now take that book and place it the other side of a room to you. Can you still read the text? No you can’t because, despite the high resolution your eyes simply can’t perceive it at that distance.

If you have a 1080p TV, computer, etc you won't see any benefit to 4K. But if you have a 4K TV or monitor, 1080p will have to be upsampled or stretched whereas 4K will be pixel for pixel native.

//Quote//
So with that in mind are 4K TVs worth it? The answer depends on how close you sit to the screen. Naturally if you have a huge screen you sit further from it, so you can perceive less resolution. Ironically you need 4K a lot more on your phone screen than you do on a large TV. It’s literally backwards to what most people think.

So should you buy a 4K TV? Weirdly, despite what I’ve just said, the answer is yes! However it has nothing to do with resolution. 4K TVs have more modern electronics compared to the older HD ones. What a lot of people think is the difference between HD and 4K is actually the screen technology improving. You also get HDR with 4K which makes everything ‘pop’ a lot more too. I absolutely love our LG OLED 4K TV, but I’m under no illusion that it’s because of the increased resolution.

Another thing about resolution - 4K TVs are not four times the resolution than HD TVs, they’re twice the resolution. You essentially measure resolution in one direction and it’s generally accepted to be the vertical resolution. Otherwise you could measure vertically, horizontally, diagonally, and every which way you liked and conclude that 4K was 15 times more resolution than HD. The whole Four Times thing is just marketing bollocks.

Talking of marketing bollocks, ever wondered why it’s called 4K? It’s because the horizontal width is 3840 pixels wide, or rounded up 4000, hence 4k. Again it’s marketing nonsense. Those of us in the industry actually call it 2160p as that’s really what it is - 2160 vertical pixels. Another huge advantage of ‘4K’ is that the standard dispenses with a whole load of shitty legacy formats that should have died years ago, but sadly still dominate the old-school world of broadcast TV. Hooray for 4K! //Unquote//

I wonder if this is testing the limits of a post length?


Anyway, if you skipped some/all of it, the conclusions are that "4K TVs" are great.
Resolution is already way more than we can perceive.
The people who sell us "gear" just want us to keep buying it.

Cheers for now

I have to take my daughter for kanji lessons now - a complete nightmare! - so I'll catch you later.

 

[cdifoto]

jeesh, I love these forums.

The chance to chat to folks around the world is so cool.


So, you're saying that the standard vertical pixel count suddenly became "wrong", and simultaneously 3840 pixels wide needed to be rounded up to 4000?

Sounds like marketing to me...
But before you parry back, bear in mind I'm only passing on what my ol' school buddy taught me.
I'm not an electrical engineer, or professional editor, nor do I have 30+ years experience at the top of the industry.
But he does.
So I just have to bow down to his expertise.

What I'll do now is just copy & paste some of his comments.
Make of it what you will

//Quote// Resolution is not well understood and the majority of the information on the internet is just plain wrong. //Unquote//


//Quote//The common held belief is that the larger the screen, the more resolution you need. However this is incorrect. The key factor is how close you are to the screen. Let me demonstrate:
Pick up a book. A good old fashioned book. The text looks like text to you, you don’t see it as a series of dots. The reason is that it’s very high resolution. Now take that book and place it the other side of a room to you. Can you still read the text? No you can’t because, despite the high resolution your eyes simply can’t perceive it at that distance.

//Quote//
So with that in mind are 4K TVs worth it? The answer depends on how close you sit to the screen. Naturally if you have a huge screen you sit further from it, so you can perceive less resolution. Ironically you need 4K a lot more on your phone screen than you do on a large TV. It’s literally backwards to what most people think.

So should you buy a 4K TV? Weirdly, despite what I’ve just said, the answer is yes! However it has nothing to do with resolution. 4K TVs have more modern electronics compared to the older HD ones. What a lot of people think is the difference between HD and 4K is actually the screen technology improving. You also get HDR with 4K which makes everything ‘pop’ a lot more too. I absolutely love our LG OLED 4K TV, but I’m under no illusion that it’s because of the increased resolution.

Another thing about resolution - 4K TVs are not four times the resolution than HD TVs, they’re twice the resolution. You essentially measure resolution in one direction and it’s generally accepted to be the vertical resolution. Otherwise you could measure vertically, horizontally, diagonally, and every which way you liked and conclude that 4K was 15 times more resolution than HD. The whole Four Times thing is just marketing bollocks.

Talking of marketing bollocks, ever wondered why it’s called 4K? It’s because the horizontal width is 3840 pixels wide, or rounded up 4000, hence 4k. Again it’s marketing nonsense. Those of us in the industry actually call it 2160p as that’s really what it is - 2160 vertical pixels. Another huge advantage of ‘4K’ is that the standard dispenses with a whole load of shitty legacy formats that should have died years ago, but sadly still dominate the old-school world of broadcast TV. Hooray for 4K! //Unquote//

I wonder if this is testing the limits of a post length?


Anyway, if you skipped some/all of it, the conclusions are that "4K TVs" are great.
Resolution is already way more than we can perceive.
The people who sell us "gear" just want us to keep buying it.

Cheers for now

I have to take my daughter for kanji lessons now - a complete nightmare! - so I'll catch you later.

You're not saying anything I don't already know. You're just not appreciating the FACT that there is a difference.

You're stuck on the notion that it not mattering to you means it doesn't matter at all.

And you're ignoring the existence of huge 4k screens being in everyday homes.

Yes, stand far enough away from anything until you can barely see it and it'll look better than it does up close.

From the same viewing distance, 4k on a 65 inch AMOLED TV looks a lot better than 1080p. If you can't tell, get your vision checked.

 

[Skygod44]

You're not saying anything I don't already know. You're just not appreciating the FACT that there is a difference.

You're stuck on the notion that it not mattering to you means it doesn't matter at all.

And you're ignoring the existence of huge 4k screens being in everyday homes.

Yes, stand far enough away from anything until you can barely see it and it'll look better than it does up close.

From the same viewing distance, 4k on a 65 inch AMOLED TV looks a lot better than 1080p. If you can't tell, get your vision checked.

S'not me, man...
... I'm just quoting one of the top professionals in broadcasting in the UK.

 

[cdifoto]

S'not me, man...
... I'm just quoting one of the top professionals in broadcasting in the UK.

No one legitimate would ever say 4K is a pointless scam. They also wouldn't make ridiculous blanket statements like "just back up further."

 

[Skygod44]

No one legitimate would ever say 4K is a pointless scam. They also wouldn't make ridiculous blanket statements like "just back up further."

No worries

I've known Andy for 38 years, and have seen the TV commercials his company has made for folks such as Mercedes Benz, so I don't feel the need to doubt his credentials...
BUT
...it was Christmas Day, so there's the chance he was a bit drunk.
So please forgive his style.


Oh, but do re-read the bit about "4K TVs".
- We all think they're great!
- But it's not just the resolution.

Thanks for the interesting conversation, and I'll catch you in other photo threads, I hope.

 

[cdifoto]

No worries

I've known Andy for 38 years, and have seen the TV commercials his company has made for folks such as Mercedes Benz, so I don't feel the need to doubt his credentials...
BUT
...it was Christmas Day, so there's the chance he was a bit drunk.
So please forgive his style.


Oh, but do re-read the bit about "4K TVs".
- We all think they're great!
- But it's not just the resolution.

Thanks for the interesting conversation, and I'll catch you in other photo threads, I hope.

You're moving the goalposts because I never said anything about it being ONLY the resolution. But it is a very nice thing to not have to uprez to fill the screen.

I mean this whole thing started when you said 4K isn't worth doing. Even called it a scam.

 

[Anton Largiader]

I think he mostly objects to the name 4k. I for one never thought that was supposed to indicate four times what we had before. It's just a name. 1080P was never called 1K, was it? I'm not aware that anything requires the vertical or horizontal resolution to be used in the name at all.

That said, it's plausible IMO to consider four pixels where we had one before to be four times. Yeah there are problems with it, too, I don't think I'd represent it that way, but this is a 2D thing we're talking about and we're throwing all of these 1D names at it so of course there are going to be problems.

 

[cdifoto]

I think he mostly objects to the name 4k. I for one never thought that was supposed to indicate four times what we had before. It's just a name. 1080P was never called 1K, was it? I'm not aware that anything requires the vertical or horizontal resolution to be used in the name at all.

That said, it's plausible IMO to consider four pixels where we had one before to be four times. Yeah there are problems with it, too, I don't think I'd represent it that way, but this is a 2D thing we're talking about and we're throwing all of these 1D names at it so of course there are going to be problems.

He originally argued against me recording in 4K on my camera, saying I should use 1080p since it's good enough. Hence his if you need 4k it's because you're too close argument.

He's really against the entire thing for some reason.

 

[Skygod44]

Good morning all

I've just read the whole thread again, and I think there's been some incorrect focus on certain words, and a bokeh effect on others.

@cdifoto
Relax
This is just a forum on the internet.
Everyone has to write what they think, and hope others around the world can read every nuance how they themselves would.

Clearly, that's not so easy.

I do have 4K TVs in my home.
So if the whole thing is, shall I say "over-hyped", then I've bought into it too

@Anton Largiader
A lot of the verbiage of my posts had //Quote// & //Unquote// marks around it.
That's because on Christmas Day, I messaged my old school friend about "4K", because he's top in the field, and knows a thing or two.
( I'm not top in any field )
So if his words came across as blunt, it's probably because he'd had a few glasses of wine.

But if you re-read his thoughts / knowledge on the subject, you'll see that he also loves what we're now calling "4K"...

But, my initial post/comment which was something like, Could 4K be as much of a scam as high MP sensors? was missing an extra sentence, which was in my head, but not then typed out.
And it's this:
If we can't perceive images at such high resolution, changing the terminology itself was odd.
No?
I'm surely not the only one who noticed.
"High Definition" "Full HD"....
Why the sudden need to put a number in there?

"4"

Juggling numbers isn't a natural skill for the vast majority of people...
So....?


And that thought triggered my memories of a chat with Andy a few years ago, when I dipped my toes into videography.

When I'm in the right mood, I shoot 4K. But it's the extra processing time which is a pain.
I'm not an award winning film-maker.
I'm just putting together some memories for my kids, on video.
So I'm not going to chase this new image quality level, when my videos are mostly just us, all goofing around.

But for anyone else?
Go for it

Regards for now,
Simon

 

[cdifoto]

Good morning all

I've just read the whole thread again, and I think there's been some incorrect focus on certain words, and a bokeh effect on others.

@cdifoto
Relax
This is just a forum on the internet.
Everyone has to write what they think, and hope others around the world can read every nuance how they themselves would.

Clearly, that's not so easy.

I do have 4K TVs in my home.
So if the whole thing is, shall I say "over-hyped", then I've bought into it too

@Anton Largiader
A lot of the verbiage of my posts had //Quote// & //Unquote// marks around it.
That's because on Christmas Day, I messaged my old school friend about "4K", because he's top in the field, and knows a thing or two.
( I'm not top in any field )
So if his words came across as blunt, it's probably because he'd had a few glasses of wine.

But if you re-read his thoughts / knowledge on the subject, you'll see that he also loves what we're now calling "4K"...

But, my initial post/comment which was something like, Could 4K be as much of a scam as high MP sensors? was missing an extra sentence, which was in my head, but not then typed out.
And it's this:
If we can't perceive images at such high resolution, changing the terminology itself was odd.
No?
I'm surely not the only one who noticed.
"High Definition" "Full HD"....
Why the sudden need to put a number in there?

"4"

Juggling numbers isn't a natural skill for the vast majority of people...
So....?


And that thought triggered my memories of a chat with Andy a few years ago, when I dipped my toes into videography.

When I'm in the right mood, I shoot 4K. But it's the extra processing time which is a pain.
I'm not an award winning film-maker.
I'm just putting together some memories for my kids, on video.
So I'm not going to chase this new image quality level, when my videos are mostly just us, all goofing around.

But for anyone else?
Go for it

Regards for now,
Simon

4K is also called Ultra HD. It's literally just a marketing name and kind of irrelevant.

 

[SkedAddled]

Dude, it's literally something like 3850x1250 pixels, so it certainly qualifies as a "3k-plus"
standard of MOAR THAN 1020 pixels and UP TO (nearly)4000 pixels.

Please, rest on your beating of this dead horse.

Nearly 4000 pixels across, not as many top-to-bottom, but the pixels EXIST.
I've got UHD/HDR TVs and disc players to take advantage of this technology,
and it is certainly noticeable as an alternative to the former 1080p HD
format.

I buy 4K Blu-Ray when possible, and 4K streaming just looks better.
Stuff it in your socks and come back later.

 

[cdifoto]

Dude, it's literally something like 3850x1250 pixels, so it certainly qualifies as a "3k-plus"
standard of MOAR THAN 1020 pixels and UP TO (nearly)4000 pixels.

Please, rest on your beating of this dead horse.

Nearly 4000 pixels across, not as many top-to-bottom, but the pixels EXIST.
I've got UHD/HDR TVs and disc players to take advantage of this technology,
and it is certainly noticeable as an alternative to the former 1080p HD
format.

I buy 4K Blu-Ray when possible, and 4K streaming just looks better.
Stuff it in your socks and come back later.

Who me? I'm the one in FAVOR of 4k.

I was saying them choosing to switch the naming convention is irrelevant.

And it's 3840x2160.

 

[Mr Chodes]

You're not saying anything I don't already know. You're just not appreciating the FACT that there is a difference.

You're stuck on the notion that it not mattering to you means it doesn't matter at all.

And you're ignoring the existence of huge 4k screens being in everyday homes.

Yes, stand far enough away from anything until you can barely see it and it'll look better than it does up close.

From the same viewing distance, 4k on a 65 inch AMOLED TV looks a lot better than 1080p. If you can't tell, get your vision checked.

Yep.
Assuming your source is not bandwidth limited, 4K, of course, is no scam and the pixels matter.

55 inch is the smallest available OLED TV. 75 inch is likely now close to average size.

Assuming your eyes are OK, or your prescription specs are reasonably up to date, and are optimised for roughly your viewing distance, if you don't appreciate 4K, you probably need to look a little harder, realise your source is low bandwidth, or you are watching some crappy upscaled HD. Or stop trying to judge 4K on your 17inch laptop.

 

[cdifoto]

Yep.
Assuming your source is not bandwidth limited, 4K, of course, is no scam and the pixels matter.

55 inch is the smallest available OLED TV. 75 inch is likely now close to average size.

Assuming your eyes are OK, or your prescription specs are reasonably up to date, and are optimised for roughly your viewing distance, if you don't appreciate 4K, you probably need to look a little harder, realise your source is low bandwidth, or you are watching some crappy upscaled HD. Or stop trying to judge 4K on your 17inch laptop.

That's what I've been saying. No one with decent vision can look at 4K video and 1080p video on a decent sized 4K screen and tell me there's no difference.

 

[Well Bonded]

Assuming your eyes are OK, or your prescription specs are reasonably up to date, and are optimised for roughly your viewing distance, if you don't appreciate 4K, you probably need to look a little harder, realise your source is low bandwidth, or you are watching some crappy upscaled HD. Or stop trying to judge 4K on your 17inch laptop.

The problem is even with al of that high resolution more often than not the content isn't worth the time it takes to view it nor less the cost of the hardware.

 

[cdifoto]

The problem is even with al of that high resolution more often than not the content isn't worth the time it takes to view it nor less the cost of the hardware.

Yeah I mean being in 4K doesn't automatically make it a good show. Nor does being in 1080p make it a bad show.

But I'll definitely take my 4K TV content in 4K when I can get it and I'll make it in 4K when I can make it.

I'd run my dash cam in 4K if it was at 60FPS and not limited to 30 because the extra detail helps. But when it's a blur it doesn't matter. So I run it at QHD.

The cost of the hardware has plummeted to the point that it's negligible.