[normhead]

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.

It happens, my ZS100 is the same.... why carry something big and heavy when something smaller will do. I did use the 4k video a few times, and it was awesome, but I still don't shoot much video.

[biz-engineer]

It happens, my ZS100 is the same.... why carry something big and heavy when something smaller will do. I did use the 4k video a few times, and it was awesome, but I still don't shoot much video.

Since video doesn't print on paper, and is displayed on monitors (4K max so far), or projector (fake 4K most of the time), for me it makes no sense at all to buy and use a large sensor camera to record 4K video.

In addition, motion picture needs much less sharpness/resolution that a still image, simply due to limitations of human vision, which is what allowed early television to broadcast video with fairly small bandwidth (I have a book about analog television electronic engineering). Marketing push hard to sell 4K video on FF mirrorless cameras, but no one every questioned if it's necessary, people just buy because now still cameras "must have 4K video" even if the vast majority of photographers never use it.

[surfar]

Since video doesn't print on paper,

It does from a screen grab,8mp so won't print that BIG.Although A4 is fine.

---------- Post added 01-18-21 at 12:01 PM ----------

"must have 4K video"

Yes, I agree...old technology, these days decent up to the minute cameras have 8K!

[PiDicus Rex]

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.

Yes, it's definitely being in the USA - a PC like that here in Oz would be AU$3k (about US $1800), and you don't want to know how expensive the Mac is, but it'd start with four zero's in the number..

Ditto the internet speeds - our "National Broadband Network" has been capped at 100mBit per connection, though it may finally be shifting to join the 21st century.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 04:53 PM ----------

What's untold is that the larger the sensor , the slower the readout.

That needs a minor correction - the more MegaPixels the sensor, the slower the read out - it's not a function of the physical size, as a Full Frame sensor with 12Mp will read out faster then an APSc with 14Mp.

'Most' FF and MF sensor have more pixels, though there are a few that have lower numbers to get larger pixels, for superior low light performance - Se the Canon camera used for AppleTV's "The Earth At Night" doco series.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 05:01 PM ----------

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...

Nope, not even close.


AJA, Arri, Red, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Panavision, Phantom, Blackmagic Design - All make "Super35" sized sensor cameras, which are effectively the same size area as APSc, and which match the size of the 35mm negative running vertically through the gate on a Film Camera.

Only BMD and Panasonic make M3/4.

This is also one of the reasons it irks when the Stills-Only mob tell us Video and Cinema Shooters we shouldn't be allowed to have video features on our Pentax cameras. They're effectively saying "Your art is less important then mine".

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 05:05 PM ----------

- (I have a book about analog television electronic engineering) -

<giggles,...> I have Qualifications, both in the engineering and repairs for analog equipment,.... and they're practically worthless now in the digital solid state era.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 05:09 PM ----------

Marketing push hard to sell 4K video on FF mirrorless cameras, but no one every questioned if it's necessary, people just buy because now still cameras "must have 4K video" even if the vast majority of photographers never use it.

That's backwards - these days you can't sell a camera for Stills if it doesn't have 4K video.

And that's not about whether you can broadcast it or even see the difference, it's that the Buyers know if it doesn't have 4K, then it's likely to be old technology, and likely to be lower quality then their phones.

In 2012, the same was true for HD.

[biz-engineer]

It does from a screen grab,8mp so won't print that BIG.Although A4 is fine.

At 25 frames per second, you need a very very long roll of paper then

[johnmflores]

I shoot 4k video to pull 8 megapickle stills for publication


RoadRUNNER 2019-02 Montana Shamrock spread by John Flores, on Flickr



In the Tire Tracks of a Pioneer by John Flores, on Flickr


Riding the 2019 Honda Gold Wing with Anna by John Flores, on Flickr

It's kind of like shooting JPG - you have to get as much as possible right in the shot because there's less latitude for post. But it has simplified my workflow significantly. And one of the things that led me away from Pentax was their lack of decent 4k video. The images above were taken with Lumix cameras.

And I stream 4k YouTube to my television.

[biz-engineer]

I shoot 4k video to pull 8 megapickle stills for publication

Good for magazine works. For magazine works (A4, Letter), there is no need for full frame, not even apsc, micro43 is already good enough. I made a side by side comparison of photos taken with my Huawei Pro phone (supposed to have amazing photo capability according to the advertisements), they look good up to B5 size, A4 already look soft and at A3 they look crap, there's just no comparison with the quality out of my Pentaxes. The problem come when you want to print the same image on a poster for real life size viewing, then the big sensor cameras truly shine.

---------- Post added 19-01-21 at 08:54 ----------

AJA, Arri, Red, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Panavision, Phantom, Blackmagic Design - All make "Super35" sized sensor cameras, which are effectively the same size area as APSc, and which match the size of the 35mm negative running vertically through the gate on a Film Camera.

That proves the point. The standard for professional video recording for movies and TV broadcasting use devices with sensors smaller than 24x36 full frame! Then we have DPReview telling us that we need to buy a full frame camera for its video capabilities. It's crazy.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-19-2021 at 12:57 AM.

[Qwntm]

The Apple M1 chips are value for money,u$d 699!

$700 for just the chip is not value for money... just sayin...

---------- Post added 01-20-21 at 02:48 PM ----------

Yes, it's definitely being in the USA - a PC like that here in Oz would be AU$3k (about US $1800), and you don't want to know how expensive the Mac is, but it'd start with four zero's in the number..

Ditto the internet speeds - our "National Broadband Network" has been capped at 100mBit per connection, though it may finally be shifting to join the 21st century.

---------- Post added 01-20-21 at 02:55 PM ----------

[/COLOR]I would also add, that getting 4K (easily) and 42 or 60mp still shots from a FF sensor is a hybrid shooters dream.

My recently acquired A7R3 (for $1995USD) is sharper at 300% then my Fuji XT3 is at 100%. The A7R4 is 100% with a 24x30 inch print. Most people don't need that, I understand. But I sell my prints and have been limited to 12x18's as my biggest size because I just wasn't happy with anything bigger unless I was shooting my 4x5 film camera. The right tool for the right job(s). And I would never buy a full frame for just video work. But as the reason for my video work is capturing stills, hybrid is where it's at for me.

[PiDicus Rex]

I shoot 4k video to pull 8 megapickle stills for publication

Nice shots! - Are you pulling from h.264, ProRes or Raws?

---------- Post added 25-01-21 at 07:47 PM ----------

That proves the point. The standard for professional video recording for movies and TV broadcasting use devices with sensors smaller than 24x36 full frame! Then we have DPReview telling us that we need to buy a full frame camera for its video capabilities. It's crazy.

he he he,.. using my point about the sensors being larger then M4/3, to 'prove' we don't need FF sensor,.... You've not heard of the Canon, Sony, Red, and Arri "Full Frame" cameras then, being used for top end Cinema production??

I'm full of lulz, as I just grabbed a Sony NEX-VG900E full frame camcorder to put my collection of K/KM/KA and P67 lenses in front of.

---------- Post added 25-01-21 at 07:50 PM ----------

$700 for just the chip is not value for money... just sayin...

Nice of you to say so,... of course, the M1 Mac Mini is US$699 for the WHOLE computer.

It should be a fine unit for Photoshoppers, and does run several 4K streams rather well, but when it comes to applications needing multi-threaded performance, it's about 1/3 of the speed of chips that cost that alone.

[johnmflores]

Nice shots! - Are you pulling from h.264, ProRes or Raws?[

Thanks. They're pulled from H.264 video.

[surfar]

Nice of you to say so,... of course, the M1 Mac Mini is US$699 for the WHOLE computer.

It should be a fine unit for Photoshoppers, and does run several 4K streams rather well, but when it comes to applications needing multi-threaded performance, it's about 1/3 of the speed of chips that cost that alone.

Ive been using mine for a month,for a basic low cost Puta.quite amazing.Probably not for your video editing purposes.

It will be interesting to see what Apple follows up with?

[clackers]

Yeah, here's what's probably the most important photography channel in the world (nearly one and half million subscribers) talking about the failure of 4k as a platform for them ...

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[PiDicus Rex]

Yeah, here's what's probably the most important photography channel in the world (nearly one and half million subscribers) talking about the failure of 4k as a platform for them ...

https://youtu.be/GdZRDu4-nFg

most, Important,..... sure, and Phillip Bloom has the most UK subs for Photography,... Oh, wait, that's "Weekly Imogen",....

Anybody who sends 4K to youtube and expects people to be able to see the difference, is an idiot.

4K is ESSENTIAL for Cinema Production, it's Useful for TV,... but the hard truth that Youtube doesn't want you to know, is that most peoples connections are only fast enough to show 720p, and only when they hold the 'phone landscape.

[clackers]

most, Important,..... sure, and Phillip Bloom has the most UK subs for Photography,... Oh, wait, that's "Weekly Imogen",....

Anybody who sends 4K to youtube and expects people to be able to see the difference, is an idiot.

4K is ESSENTIAL for Cinema Production, it's Useful for TV,... but the hard truth that Youtube doesn't want you to know, is that most peoples connections are only fast enough to show 720p, and only when they hold the 'phone landscape.

Someone should bookmark these words, PDR, or make a sticky out of them or whatever.

There are ordinary but vocal occasional photographers, who are even worse and less frequent videographers, who are obsessed by this issue.

Pros and genuine prosumer videographers are entitled. As I understand it, Netflix will not buy or commission something that's not 4k, even if few customers can receive the product in 4k.

[Rondec]

Someone should bookmark these words, PDR, or make a sticky out of them or whatever.

There are ordinary but vocal occasional photographers, who are even worse and less frequent videographers, who are obsessed by this issue.

Pros and genuine prosumer videographers are entitled. As I understand it, Netflix will not buy or commission something that's not 4k, even if few customers can receive the product in 4k.

Isn't a lot of it about future proofing your product? Netflix plans to be around ten years from now and certainly by then internet speeds should be faster and the expectation will probably be something higher than 4K.

I have always said that what makes something watchable and re-watchable is not this aspect of things, but rather the coherence of the story, editing, cinematography, sound design and a lot of those sorts of things. Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" trilogy looked really nice, but it was awful and not worth viewing the first time, much less re-viewing it.