[clackers]

The hilarious thing about all this is that I bet that 99% of people watch YouTube videos on their handheld devices.
1080p and 24fps is what I use if I want to make family videos.

Yep.

If videography's actually about being seen, not many people have the 25MBps download speeds that Netflix recommend for 4k, or even the 15 that Amazon ask. That's with no other devices in the house competing.

Even that twit Tony Northrup has admitted this year analysing his YouTube logs that moving to 4k production process for his channel has been an unjustifiable failure. Of course, in the past he was pontificating to us that it was *essential*. But so do all these gear-centric 'reviewers' (read, struggling to monetize what they do in the week, they attempt to become defacto advertisers for camera companies):

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---

Last edited by clackers; 11-18-2020 at 05:43 PM.

[automorphism]

4k on YouTube may be useless for most people. But 4k camera output is really useful for two reasons: 4k downscaled to 1080p is often much nicer than taking 1080p out of camera, and it allows for some cropping.

[ramseybuckeye]

Yep.

Even that twit Tony Northrup has admitted this year analysing his YouTube logs that moving to 4k production process for his channel has been an unjustifiable failure. Of course, in the past he was pontificating to us that it was *essential*. But so do all these gear-centric 'reviewers' (read, defacto advertisers for camera companies):
]

Sometime one word associates with something in my mind, this seems fitting

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[clackers]

4k on YouTube may be useless for most people. But 4k camera output is really useful for two reasons: 4k downscaled to 1080p is often much nicer than taking 1080p out of camera, and it allows for some cropping.

Cropping can go some way to compensating for what was poor composition in the first place. And I think the theoretical downsampling advantages can end up being undetectable, automorphism.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[automorphism]

Cropping can go some way to compensating for what was poor composition in the first place. And I think the theoretical downsampling advantages can end up being undetectable, automorphism.

Can you REALLY SEE the DIFFERENCE 1080 VS 4K? - YouTube

Definitely not true for some cameras! For example, the D500, which I own, the downsized 4K footage is noticeably sharper that the corresponding 1080p (even if you correct for field of view because there is a 4k crop). With a "good" video camera, I agree with you. I am sure if you did the test on the GH5 or whatever camera this YouTube person is using, I totally agree. But with some models, the 1080p is actually a lot worse than the downsized 4k. There are a few other models with this issue but I cannot remember which one it is.

[BigMackCam]

Definitely not true for some cameras! For example, the D500, which I own, the downsized 4K footage is noticeably sharper that the corresponding 1080p (even if you correct for field of view because there is a 4k crop). With a "good" video camera, I agree with you. I am sure if you did the test on the GH5 or whatever camera this YouTube person is using, I totally agree. But with some models, the 1080p is actually a lot worse than the downsized 4k. There are a few other models with this issue but I cannot remember which one it is.

Producing 1080p video from 4K footage because the manufacturer screwed up the 1080p implementation... something seems very wrong with this (moving) picture

[automorphism]

Producing 1080p video from 4K footage because the manufacturer screwed up the 1080p implementation... something seems very wrong with this (moving) picture

Hahaha...anyway, if anyone actually wants to see this in action, you can go here:

Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review: Digital Photography Review

It is this Olympus which also has a problem. You can download the stills for 1080p and 4k and resize the 4k to 1080p. Then do the same for the GH5. You'll see that the GH5 4k downsampled to 1080p is almost the same as the 4k, maybe a bit sharper. Probably couldn't tell that much in a video. But if you do the same for the Olympus, there is a fairly massive difference between the two.

[DWS1]

Depends on the point of view. From the content producers it's a pain in the rear end because of the resources required to capture, edit, and upload. From the viewers end, I think most prefer 4K, especially if they are viewing on a large screen 4K TV. including 4K downsized to 1080 which appears to me to be much higher quality than natively shot 1080.

[stevebrot]

Cropping can go some way to compensating for what was poor composition in the first place. And I think the theoretical downsampling advantages can end up being undetectable, automorphism.

Can you REALLY SEE the DIFFERENCE 1080 VS 4K? - YouTube

Ya think? Factor in that very few watch YouTube content for its artistic and technical excellence and that pretty much sums it up. That does not mean there is no place for 4K, just not for casual Internet streaming of fan content, DIY, product reviews, music, political rants, Internet preachers, and people tripping over sleeping crocodiles.


Steve

[clackers]

Depends on the point of view. From the content producers it's a pain in the rear end because of the resources required to capture, edit, and upload. From the viewers end, I think most prefer 4K, especially if they are viewing on a large screen 4K TV. including 4K downsized to 1080 which appears to me to be much higher quality than natively shot 1080.

But the viewers don't get to see it in 4k, DWS. Broadcast TV and DVDs are both 1080. Streaming channels test the connection and degrade the video to suit the bandwidth appropriately. Ed in his OP talked of one viewer who can't even get 1080!

Have a look at the link below for comparison - do you reckon it's 'much higher quality' or is it practically undetectable?

I'm getting it at my workplace at 480, by the way! If I manually choose 4k, it buffers every 3 seconds.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Qwntm]

But the viewers don't get to see it in 4k, DWS. Broadcast TV and DVDs are both 1080. Streaming channels test the connection and degrade the video to suit the bandwidth appropriately. Ed in his OP talked of one viewer who can't even get 1080!

Have a look at the link below for comparison - do you reckon it's 'much higher quality' or is it practically undetectable?

I'm getting it at my workplace at 480, by the way! If I manually choose 4k, it buffers every 3 seconds.

Can you REALLY SEE the DIFFERENCE 1080 VS 4K? - YouTube

I've had 28 comments so far and not one person has said hey, I watch in 4K and enjoy it. Most say 1080p is fine and a few have said they can't get 1080 or they watch on their phone and it makes no difference.

It's only 28 replies, but it's a 100% no to 4k so far. And 100% is 100%.

[BigMackCam]

But the viewers don't get to see it in 4k, DWS. Broadcast TV and DVDs are both 1080. Streaming channels test the connection and degrade the video to suit the bandwidth appropriately. Ed in his OP talked of one viewer who can't even get 1080!

Here in the UK, most of our free-to-air digital terrestrial TV channels aren't even full HD yet A few are, but most HD content is provided by streaming services. 4K content is scarce... aside from YouTube, I know BBC iPlayer offers occasional dramas, documentaries and sports coverage in 4K, but these are very much exceptions. I think Sky has a 4K service too, but I don't subscribe to it. A lot of folks here don't even have fast enough internet connections to support shared family use and 4K streaming at the same time, and even if they do, I'd question whether their wifi speeds in every room would support that. My own connection is up to 36Mbps, but there are a couple of spots in my home where I struggle to get more than 10 - 15 Mbps consistently, especially where the 5GHz signal is unreliably weak and I need to use 2.4GHz.

[ZombieArmy]

Cropping can go some way to compensating for what was poor composition in the first place.

Or just save time to not have to recompose a shot for mere zoom in angles.

[othar]

Cropping can go some way to compensating for what was poor composition in the first place.

Doesn't have to be bad composition, you can simulate a camera zoom or movement that way too, without danger of introducing camera shake into the shot.

[Qwntm]

imo, like the MP wars, the video resolution wars have a quickly approached diminishing return.

Is it possible to surpass diminishing returns? i.e. provide a capability that's actually, in practicality, useless?