Is 4K really necessary?
The video technology world is moving swiftly, very swiftly in fact. Not that long ago we were stuck in an era of the dreaded standard definition (SD), but alas, along came amazing and wondrous high definition (HD). Back then HD was awesome. It was a massive improvement over SD, a format that now seems completely archaic. Back when camera makers and TV manufacturers were switching to HD, despite the noticeable improvements, HD still had its naysayers. Much the same today, we are switching from HD to UHD, or 4K (they are not the same thing by the way.) and there are naysayers. I am not one of them, lets face it 4K is friggin’ awesome, who doesn’t love staring at walls full of gigantic shiny new UHD TV’s. But are us video creators making the switch to 4K prematurely? I really don’t know, but here are a few compelling ideas that may be worth thinking over before you make that next gear purchase.
Gear
First, 4K gear, it is coming down in price you can pick up a Blackmagic 4K camera or Sony A7sII for under $2,000 that’s awesome, but lets be real. The gear doesn’t stop at the camera, you need memory cards that will hold all of the larger 4k files. You need computers that can handle editing them fast enough that you won’t want to do this:
Gear priced well is a good thing. Cameras are also coming out that can do more than 4k, Red is coming out with the 8k weapon. 8K!? are you insane? why do you need 8k!? you need it if you’re making films that will be destined for large format output. But Mike, if you shoot in 4K or 8K (AKA ludicrous mode) you have framing options in post and it makes editing more flexible. My answer, really? yes it does, but remember the panda.
Distribution
overall, there are not a whole lot of places that are out that offer 4k. Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and now Vimeo as well as a few others. That’s more than there was a little while ago, but its really not that much. The offerings those channels have is also limited, and eventually YouTube will be streaming 4K cat videos. Yippee* (*note sarcasm) The limited offerings of 4K content also isn’t a bad thing, but it may be a reason to wait to adopt it from an end user stand point. The fact that gear prices are coming down will only speed up the availability of content on those channels. So, end users, could probably stand to wait. Filmmakers adopting 4K quicker will help distribution and availability of content. Its a loss or a win depending on what side you look at it from.
End User
So, the previously mentioned distribution aside the end users don’t really need 4K yet. Lets break it down. A lot of video is created for business, corporate use, marketing etc, the major trend for people viewing that content is on mobile devices. Most mobile devices don’t display 4K, they also shouldn’t display 4K. That much resolution is wasted on mobile devices, unless you hold your phone up to your nose. A lot of marketing videos are created to be found online, either on a companies website or YouTube. A lot of people who are posting on these sites are over compressing the footage, making higher resolution pointless. If they can successfully make HD look like garbage with terrible compression they will undoubtedly do the same with UHD or higher. (in the interest of full disclosure, I have been guilty of terrible compression, hey it happens I get it.)
Wrap Up
I love UHD and 4K and 6K and 8K and 24K, oops sorry got a little carried away for a moment, but you get the idea. Its cool, and its getting adopted into the market alot faster than HD was back in the stone age. Should video creators and consumers adopt these greater resolutions? yes, because ultimately that is where the industry is going whether you like it or not and shiny new electronics are fun. If you are making independent films or producing for television, adopt UDH or greater resolution. If you haven’t done so already you are on track to be behind the curve. I understand that budget can play a factor but it wont be a major factor for long. If you create video for online use, and your client isnt planning on displaying it resolutions greater than HD, I would wait to adopt UHD or greater. I wouldn’t wait long however. It will soon be the normal resolution, and if you wait till the government gives out free UHD signal converters you’ve waited too long and it’s too late. In fact you will be behind the curve that is coming after UHD. If you shoot for online or small screen and have adopted 4K good for you, you have flexibility in editing, and are on the right side of the curve. UHD is a good thing now, and it will be a good thing later as it becomes the new normal.
So UHD, is it necessary? Yes! Is it worth it? Yes! Does it live up to the hype? I think so, but take a look at your local TV store and make up your own mind.
Have you made the switch the UHD, 4K, 24k!? Let me know in the comments below.
Great article. I think it’s important to experiment with new technology before the masses become familiar. 4k It definitely isn’t necessary for web based projects (and 8K is ludicrous). But, 4k will eventually explode in reach to masses and it could happen faster than we think. Better to be prepared, right?
Yes. We regularly shoot 4, 5 and 6K to future-proof valuable client content and provide framing options in post.
Decisions… What am I shooting? Subject matter and content are a primary consideration. Is the video destined for a blog and conveying information that will be outdated in 4 to 6 months? I choose HD for that. Will the video be included in an entertainment, theatrical release or television series with a life span over several years and potentially be used for re-runs? Definitely requires 4K. The production of an Historical documentary with a potential lifespan of 10 to 20 years (or longer if I can get residuals – grin) I’d try to rent & shoot in 8K. Every shoot is unique. The decision should be “return on investment” with the consideration of “will I be shooting something that may never be possible to access again? Including, “can I sell out takes to someone or potentially use the clip in somewhere else?” We all probably LOVE what we are doing… but the bottom line in every business is… The Bottom Line!
I agree with a lot of viewpoints here. Basically, 4k is available at a reasonable price, so why really the hell not?
Ultimately, I don’t see the benefits of limiting yourself to 1080 as a good move going foward. I almost feel like this even shouldn’t be a disscusion.
4k and UHD make a 1920 × 1080 down scale look better than just 1920 x 1080 in camera. Who exactly prefers mushy footage over more detail? It’s a no brainer.
Now, if you’re talking about 4k/6k then I think it’s more debatable. 4k/8k, not so much. Then again, is 8k really even that perceptible at the point? Maybe if you’re projecting on the side of a skyscraper.
It’s a personal decision. And only 2 reasons to go to 4K. You either need it, or you want it. And that’s reason enough. I’m hooked on 4K and love it even though I’m not delivering in 4K.
One can only speak for themselves. The OP said the Sony A7SII can be had for $2000. He’s sort of right as long as you add another $1000 to that.
That’s enough for me too. And thanks for the catch on the a7s ii price your correct that it comes in at $3,000.
I’m perfectly happy with my NX1. Doesn’t have nearly the reach in ISO as the Sony, but the AF, battery life and touch screen absolutely kill it.
I don’t understand why Sony insists on convoluting their menu systems. As a company they really struggle to understand good UX/UI and I think with the last 3 releases of the line they’ve made it harder than it needs to be. Sorry, a tangent rant.
With the NX1, you can actually get a full internal 4k (both cinematic and UHD) setup for $2,000 or less in some markets. It also has the best 6K APS-C backlit sensor in its class at 28.8 MP. The IQ is stunning. The price is right. 120 fps at 1080! 15 fps burst! Full sensor focus points!
To break into 4K with Canon and Nikon, you’re going to pay out of your rear and for less features. In my opinion, their high price tags don’t give you any discernable advatange. I would say full frame, but Sony has that covered.
My main point is that viable pro quality 4k is really affordable. So even if you’re shooting for YouTube, why not? You can always downgrade, but not the opposite.
While I agree, I also disagree! Technology moves on a so does our art of filmmaking and while there is still no real channels for broadcast for 4K it still has a place in the market and your working output. I have only just invested into a camera that has the capability to shoot 4K and that was not the main reason for buying it. However factoring this into the mix it will enable my acquisition shooting to move to the next level as well as looking at the productions to clients making the two camera shoot look more attractive and possible while still keeping the budget to a minimum. All this plus helping the post-production workflow and editing that little bit more fluid with the ability to crop into the image.
You explain the draw backs including machines, cards, storage, archiving etc.. and when looking at what is on the horizon with 8K for a freelancer – small production company, it must be terrifying…
All in all 4K, 6K, 8K, 24K yes it has a place but it is not essential. Save your money, hone your craft, hire when and if you need it…
Well said. All great points for 4K. The flexibility with it at this point is fantastic. And I’m sure that hd cameras were out and quickly adopted before broadcast hd was the norm. I think at this point everyone can find a use for 4K in their work, but not everyone needs it right away. I’m all for it though.
At what point does resolution become imperceptible to the naked eye? I know 4k is definitely noticeable from 1080.
Necessary? No. If you are delivering HD (or less) yes, it opens up a lot more options in post. Also 4K footage destined for HD can be repurposed at the full 4K when client calls for it – and they will eventually.
I have not see much of a hit editing 4k in an HD timeline and it makes my existing clients happy that their project is being shot in 4K even though it’s full potential is not yet being used for their project.
While I agree that holding a 4K smartphone at arms length is a waste of resolution and battery life. But, with the launch of mobile VR like Google Cardboard and GearVR, viewing a 1080p screen in a VR headset is a very pixelated image. If mobile VR continues to gain popularity (which I think it wiill), 4K mobile screens is a must. (and all the 360 degree footage people are shooting should be at least 4K)
don’t forget the next wave of VR videos and contents on mobile or other creative VR devices, which can definitely utilise 8K resolution for content creators.