Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-21-2020, 12:05 PM   #31
Custom User Title
Loyal Site Supporter
FozzFoster's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,621
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Is it possible to surpass diminishing returns?
Hypothetically, no... I guess.
But you need to consider the media of which your imagery will regularly get consumed.
Taking ultra high res photos does not improve image quality compared to a regular res photo when only viewed on small scale media, say a smartphone screen. So a diminishing return can be quickly realized and providing more and more res would be useless.
However, are you saying print media could be of any size so hypothetically there would never be a diminishing return (wall of a room! side of a building! seen from space!)?

11-22-2020, 04:20 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,372
You Tube content doesn't need 4K video. If you are talking about vlogs or clips of people doing stupid stuff, the production values are typically poor enough that having 4K is wasted on it. Beyond which, as others have said, many of us just have really poor download speeds available on our internet connection. I have a download speed of 3.14 Mbps. You can imagine how much I want video that is going to take minutes to download and be watchable.

I do think for movies with good production values (good story, sound, lighting, cinematography and editing -- most of what we don't get these days from Hollywood) and watched on a high quality screen, 4K is very nice, but it certainly isn't what makes a movie rewatchable.
11-22-2020, 05:45 AM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You Tube content doesn't need 4K video. If you are talking about vlogs or clips of people doing stupid stuff, the production values are typically poor enough that having 4K is wasted on it. Beyond which, as others have said, many of us just have really poor download speeds available on our internet connection. I have a download speed of 3.14 Mbps. You can imagine how much I want video that is going to take minutes to download and be watchable.

I do think for movies with good production values (good story, sound, lighting, cinematography and editing -- most of what we don't get these days from Hollywood) and watched on a high quality screen, 4K is very nice, but it certainly isn't what makes a movie rewatchable.
As was mentioned earlier (I think), Tony Northrup finally concluded that 4K wasn't worth it for his YouTube content - even with what I would consider to be his usually quite decent production standards. According to his stats, the majority of people watch his videos on their phones... and even those that don't are quite happy with HD, while his 4K filming resulted in significant overheads for processing and backups. The returns simply weren't worth it...
11-22-2020, 11:57 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,228
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
As was mentioned earlier (I think), Tony Northrup finally concluded that 4K wasn't worth it for his YouTube content - even with what I would consider to be his usually quite decent production standards.
Most of Tony Northrup's videos are of his talking head. A lot [most?] of Youtube videos that I watch are talking head videos. There is no particular reason to inspect the pores in their skin, in fact I'd rather not and I'm sometimes listening while not even watching the screen or I'm browsing the comments. It is different if the video is actually about photographic picture quality, such as the Nigel Danson landscape channel.


Last edited by Lord Lucan; 11-22-2020 at 12:02 PM.
11-22-2020, 01:02 PM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
Most of Tony Northrup's videos are of his talking head. A lot [most?] of Youtube videos that I watch are talking head videos. There is no particular reason to inspect the pores in their skin, in fact I'd rather not and I'm sometimes listening while not even watching the screen or I'm browsing the comments. It is different if the video is actually about photographic picture quality, such as the Nigel Danson landscape channel.
No argument from me. I've watched a few Nigel Danson videos, and they look great at 4K on my 15.6" 4K laptop (actually, the 1080p versions look great too, though 4K has the edge for photo detail). I'm sure they'd look even more impressive on a larger monitor (I can see the difference even on my QHD 24" Benro display). 4K is undoubtedly better - if you have material that warrants it, the device on which to enjoy it, and the cost-effective, reliable network bandwidth to serve it up. For most content and devices, even 720p can be adequate, and 1080p is ample...

It's rather like resolution with stills photography, isn't it? The output from a 100MP medium format camera really can't be beaten if you're printing at large dimensions and viewing at closer distances. Most folks, though, view photos on their PC, tablet or phone, or they print at sizes - and view at distances - where 24MP is ample, and a humble 10MP image is quite serviceable...

Last edited by BigMackCam; 11-22-2020 at 01:28 PM.
01-11-2021, 12:18 PM - 2 Likes   #36
Pentaxian
PiDicus Rex's Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,311
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
So I asked the question 1080P or 4K for Youtube? and no one so far has said that they want or watch 4k videos on Youtube. One guy said he wished he could watch them in 1080p...

Just when Pentax goes 4 k too. LOL

I'm going to use the KP for video at 1080p and 24fps and see how that goes.
Most people don't have the bandwidth to get 4K, or are watching on phones and 720p is more resolution then their eyes can handle on pixels of that small a dot pitch.

The BIGGEST advantage to 4K and above is in the production chain, where 4K ends up being used to send out better quality HD, when compared to filming and editing in HD

For someone like me, who is supplying footage in to other peoples productions, 4K is essential for everything except local news, who want 1080i as the highest level they will accept. Features, Shorts, Doco, Music Video, all want 4K minimum, Sports want higher frame rates.


---------- Post added 12-01-21 at 06:25 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Rolling shutter is because of how CMOS sensors get their readout. Takes a lot of money to overcome, and global shutters tend to suffer from worse noise and poorer dynamic range, anyway, so I don't want one, thank you!

Sony video's notorious for rolling shutter, even now, and Pentax of course use Sony sensors, and will most likely do so in the new K-3 III:

Sony a6500 Leaves Most a6300 Issues Such As Rolling Shutter Unresolved – DigitalRev
Funny thing there is Clackers, handheld Pentax is useable, Sony's isn't - The Pentax and Nikon cameras that use Sony sensors, all have less rolling shutter skew then the Sony cameras do!

And, yes, Global Shutter is more expensive to make, because in needs more memory on the Sensor itself. Noise, is more a function of the colour science being applied - I get pretty Noise Free images out of my Cion when I shoot with enough light, good exposure, and the right Linear to 'choice of favorite gamma curve' Colourspace Transform as my first step in Resolves colour tab.


Another thing about HD vs 4K,.... The camera resolution is not as important as the colour bit depth and colour accuracy, especially when moving to Colour Grading.

My K-01 is 8bit. My Cion's footage recorded on Shogun is 10bit, and the difference in things like Banding in lighting gradients is massive.
The Cion's internal recording is 12-bit, as is it's Raw output, and that leaves most other cameras for dead, because of the extra precision and data available in Post.

A lot of us Cinematographers will repeat the phrase "I don't need more pixels, I want BETTER pixels."
Proof of that, is the continued use of the sub-4K Arri Alexa for Cinema production, while Red, BMD, Canon and Kinefinity push 6K through to 12K resolution.
The push-back is simple - "Red's win Stat sheets, Arri's win Oscars".
(Look up how many 'Best Film' and 'Best Cinematography' wins the Alexa has, compared to Every other digital camera)

Last edited by PiDicus Rex; 01-11-2021 at 12:44 PM.
01-11-2021, 03:20 PM   #37
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 2,159
I got a new OLED tv and I look at Youtube in 4k, mainly the one who make travel video, and the difference is absolutly visible vs 1080.
01-14-2021, 06:35 AM   #38
Pentaxian
PiDicus Rex's Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,311
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
I got a new OLED tv and I look at Youtube in 4k, mainly the one who make travel video, and the difference is absolutly visible vs 1080.
What sort of internet connection? I'd have serious doubts of anyone on any mobile connection being able to get the 4K feed - the vast majority of Youtube's connections are 720p60 maximum.

01-14-2021, 06:53 AM   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,239
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
I got a new OLED tv and I look at Youtube in 4k, mainly the one who make travel video, and the difference is absolutly visible vs 1080.
From what distance?
01-14-2021, 11:31 AM   #40
Pentaxian
Qwntm's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 766
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
I got a new OLED tv and I look at Youtube in 4k, mainly the one who make travel video, and the difference is absolutly visible vs 1080.

I have a 28" 4K monitor and the difference is pretty obvious as well. You can really see the detail in Thomas Heaton or Ben Horne's sample photos during the videos. My internet used to kinda puke the 4K stuff onto the screen, but I replaced my router and now I can stream 4k all the time no issues.


The 4K workflow is no issue for me either, I buy a big off the shelf gaming PC every few years that just rips through anything. They're usually about $1K USD, while the same spec'd Mac would be around $5k. That's value for money. (And I've used Mac's and they are just as big a PIA as PC's but in a different way, pick your poison, for me I'll pay less for the same hassles.)


I just have a standard cable internet connection and I'm in a backwater of NE Oregon (population 2000 in the town I'm in) so I'm either lucky, or it's a benefit of livin' in the USA.

---------- Post added 01-14-21 at 12:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
Most of Tony Northrup's videos are of his talking head. A lot [most?] of Youtube videos that I watch are talking head videos. There is no particular reason to inspect the pores in their skin, in fact I'd rather not and I'm sometimes listening while not even watching the screen or I'm browsing the comments. It is different if the video is actually about photographic picture quality, such as the Nigel Danson landscape channel.
I've REALLY tried to minimize the talking heads stuff on my channel.


I enjoy the travel/photo channels as well.


But I do have to say it's kinda like what my 95 year old dad said after reading a bunch of fantasy novels: "they're always going on journeys, doing stuff, and coming back, it's gets boring." Providing content that's not a photographer with a backpack walking into the frame, complaining about the light or being overly optimistic about the light, taking a photo, and then walking out of the frame, is hard.


Having written that, I realize that my videos need to much more about the photos, because that's really the whole reason to make the videos in the first place. Well first trip is first week of March so we'll see what happens...
01-14-2021, 12:07 PM - 1 Like   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,457
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
No argument from me. I've watched a few Nigel Danson videos, and they look great at 4K on my 15.6" 4K laptop (actually, the 1080p versions look great too, though 4K has the edge for photo detail). I'm sure they'd look even more impressive on a larger monitor (I can see the difference even on my QHD 24" Benro display). 4K is undoubtedly better - if you have material that warrants it, the device on which to enjoy it, and the cost-effective, reliable network bandwidth to serve it up. For most content and devices, even 720p can be adequate, and 1080p is ample...It's rather like resolution with stills photography, isn't it? The output from a 100MP medium format camera really can't be beaten if you're printing at large dimensions and viewing at closer distances. Most folks, though, view photos on their PC, tablet or phone, or they print at sizes - and view at distances - where 24MP is ample, and a humble 10MP image is quite serviceable...
What's untold is that the larger the sensor , the slower the readout. So, what is better?

4K video recorded from a quick to read micro 4/3 sensor of a camera that costs less than $1000?
or 4K video recording from a slow to read full frame sensor by skipping ever other line to cover the full area of the sensor, of a camera that cost $5000?

The big difference of using a camera with a large sensor and lots of mega pixels for stills photography, is that you are not constrained by the readout time (except if lots of FPS are need autofocus and for shooting sports). Whereas with video, you have a readout speed vs sensor area tradeoff: you can use a larger sensor but then you have to slow down the number of video frames per second, or skip lines to use the full sensor area without crop, or crop video in the middle of the frame, or use a smaller sensor with faster frame rate without line skip and without crop. Slow motion video recording is just impossible with a medium format sensor, difficult to do with a full frame sensor and easy to do with a smartphone sensor.

Knowing this, if I wanted to record high quality 4K video, I'd never buy a full frame for it, I'd get a Panasonic micro4/3 just for video, the 4K quality would be great , with moderate money spent.
01-14-2021, 12:22 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,043
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
What's untold is that the larger the sensor , the slower the readout. So, what is better?

4K video recorded from a quick to read micro 4/3 sensor of a camera that costs less than $1000?
or 4K video recording from a slow to read full frame sensor by skipping ever other line to cover the full area of the sensor, of a camera that cost $5000?

The big difference of using a camera with a large sensor and lots of mega pixels for stills photography, is that you are not constrained by the readout time (except if lots of FPS are need autofocus and for shooting sports). Whereas with video, you have a readout speed vs sensor area tradeoff: you can use a larger sensor but then you have to slow down the number of video frames per second, or skip lines to use the full sensor area without crop, or crop video in the middle of the frame, or use a smaller sensor with faster frame rate without line skip and without crop. Slow motion video recording is just impossible with a medium format sensor, difficult to do with a full frame sensor and easy to do with a smartphone sensor.

Knowing this, if I wanted to record high quality 4K video, I'd never buy a full frame for it, I'd get a Panasonic micro4/3 just for video, the 4K quality would be great , with moderate money spent.
Absolutely. Micro 4/3 seems to be (or have been) the sweet spot for many amateur and even quite serious amateur video applications. I'm sure what you describe above are major factors in that choice...
01-14-2021, 12:26 PM - 1 Like   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,457
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Absolutely. Micro 4/3 seems to be (or have been) the sweet spot for many amateur and even quite serious amateur video applications. I'm sure what you describe above are major factors in that choice...
The funny thing is when DPReview recorded many of their review video about 4K video full frame mirrorless cameras ,they used a Panasonic GH5 to record the video reviews...
01-15-2021, 11:22 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,608
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
The 4K workflow is no issue for me either, I buy a big off the shelf gaming PC every few years that just rips through anything. They're usually about $1K USD, while the same spec'd Mac would be around $5k. That's value for money. (And I've used Mac's and they are just as big a PIA as PC's but in a different way, pick your poison, for me I'll pay less for the same hassles.)
The Apple M1 chips are value for money,u$d 699!
01-15-2021, 01:39 PM   #45
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,445
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
if I wanted to record high quality 4K video, I'd never buy a full frame for it, I'd get a Panasonic micro4/3 just for video, the 4K quality would be great , with moderate money spent.
Yep...that's exactly what I did. Picked up a used G4 for around $360 strictly for video. Or so I thought. It's so darned small and capable that I'm now using it as my "everywhere" camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, cameras, channel, colour, connection, frame, hdslr, head, internet, light, mac, noise, pc, pentax, pixels, print, read, reason, screen, sensor, sensors, shutter, sony, stuff, usa, video, videos, youtube
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weekly Challenge #478- Cares Not A Jot Kerrowdown Weekly Photo Challenges 20 12-04-2019 01:02 AM
Travel If there were no pastor, if the sheep were left without shepherds.. zztopd Post Your Photos! 6 07-26-2018 03:21 PM
Youtube: 4k 360 support RonHendriks1966 General Photography 2 12-01-2016 04:44 PM
You guys should take your photos somewhere else, no.. really !!! normhead General Photography 52 02-23-2015 06:02 PM
Black Magic releasing 4K camera for $4k and Pocket RAW video camera for $1k ploetzlich Photographic Industry and Professionals 9 08-07-2013 04:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top