HD Vs 4K

[zehavi]

Is 4K movie looks much better than HD on 4K TV?
I an very happy with the quality of HD, and I wonder if it's worthwhile to move toward 4K with all it entails (like buying a new 4K camcorder etc.).
Any response will be appreciate.
Thank you

[Ken Berry]

Hi Zehavi. I have edited your post to show you are asking about 4K video, which is the English way of saying it.

Hopefully someone with a 4K TV will reply. I only have a 28" 4K monitor, but I can certainly see an improvement in quality when I play 4K video on it, compared with HD 1920 x 1080. That is understanding given the significant increase in the number of pixels on the screen from 4K -- 4 times as many as in HD video.

That is not to say that HD is bad on a 4K screen. It is still good, but you can certainly notice the difference with 4K.

[pepegota]

We have moved from VCD to DVD, Blu-Ray and now 4K video. This happens over time. Prices come down. Equipment becomes more affordable and change occurs. The future is 4K but, not immediately today. Technology envolves and someday we will be talking about 8K and so it goes. I have spent a good deal of money with the changing technology. When prices become more reasonable, I will upgrade to the new technology. There is much to replace from computers, video players, cameras, etc.-a tidy sum to say the least. I just bought an i7 8700 computer to keep up with it. Now, i9's are entering the market. If I gave a neighbor a 4K disc odds are he would not know what to do with it. The folks I deal with are not even completely on Blu-Ray , let alone 4K. However, time marchs on and things will slowly change. For us, who indulge in these activities, we lead the way.

[tletter]

I wonder if it's worthwhile to move toward 4K with all it entails (like buying a new 4K camcorder etc.)

In part it depends on what is the target audience, and the expected lifespan of your videos. For example, if you're making your videos for your own consumption and you state that you're "very happy with the quality of HD" then it probably doesn't make sense to buy a new 4K camcorder until your current one needs to be replaced. WRT the expected lifespan of your videos, if your videos record once in a lifetime events and will be viewed for many years then recording in 4K makes eminent sense to future-proof them by recording in 4K.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[asik1]

The content is more important than the technology, and sound is more important than the video.
You can shoot "King Lear" in 8K but if the sound is distorted than you better screen it on a 16" B/W 405 system.

As a hobbyist one should go with what practical and not to keep up with the Joneses.

[weaver]

The video industry will not move very fast into 4k videos. They are just happy that probably the last internal studio is upgraded into HD and half of their archive is already converted into HD version. ( many TV stations and film industry has an over 50 years history and archives). Just think about how many hours of important materials are still on film and SD videos of different formats. It costs a huge amount of money to change everything to HD, and now to 4 k. I think most of them will stop for a while on HD, as the business case does not exist. The 4k will stay for a while for video games, and probably some premier movies.
The new production will be in 4 k, as probably our next videocamera will support also the 4k recording. It will be a question what to do with such origins.

[tletter]

... sound is more important than the video.

Then the moon landing and takeoff videos are poor because of the sound or lack there of?

It seems self-evident that one should record videos at the highest quality reasonably possible. 4K recording is not cutting edge and can be done on many smartphones and inexpensive cameras. However, if you wish to continue to record using a 16" B/W 405 system then go for it.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[weaver]

The video industry will not move very fast into 4k videos. They are just happy that probably the last internal studio is upgraded into HD and half of their archive is already converted into HD version. ( many TV stations and film industry has an over 50 years history and archives). Just think about how many hours of important materials are still on film and SD videos of different formats. It costs a huge amount of money to change everything to HD, and now to 4 k. I think most of them will stop for a while on HD, as the business case does not exist. The 4k will stay for a while for video games, and probably some premier movies.
The new production will be in 4 k, as probably our next videocamera will support also the 4k recording. It will be a question what to do with such origins.

[Davidk]

4K is all about context; specifically, how a viewer will see it: on a home TV, or a large wallscreen (as in the sort that takes the whole wall in a home movie theatre). In terms of making movies, who of your target audience has a 4K screen? If they don't, why would you invest the time effort and money in that technology at the moment?

To show movie images on a large screen you clearly need more pixels, or the image will - expanded to the size of the screen - look as 'washed out' as VHS does on a recent TV screen. Years ago, DVD reigned supreme, but the demand for HD was driven by sports fans - they wanted to see the details of their favourite sports team in the game, and that demand led to flat screens (can you imagine a CRT display with a size that's common now?) and steadily bigger display sizes. Beyond a certain point however, large screens come in multiples of smaller ones with knife edges, mounted in a group, and the display controller has to be able to split the image over the whole screen group. These days, HD is common and reasonably cheap, but DVD still has a dominating market presence and isn't going away yet.

The large screens, or screen groups, that you see for home theatres in the local electronics appliance store will be showing a demo in 4k just to highlight what 4k does. Which isn't insignificant. But ask the salesman whether any 4K movies are available and you will likely get an embarassed shrug (as I did, when I asked that question). Getting any 4k movies (eg, on BR disk from the store) in that format - even tho the equipment to capture and render it has been available for several years - isn't likely anytime soon. The imagery of HD on most common HD TV screens and in home theatres is more then good enough for most people. Thus the demand for higher resolution gear - and hence it's price - isn't here yet. But (historically) it will be. When is the question. Crystal balls, anyone?

[weaver]

There is a tendency that physical data carriers, like CDs, DVDs, BRs will probably completelly dissapear from the market, because of their limited flexibily and expensive hardware requirements on the production site. This development splits the consumer market. There are people who like if their favorite song, video etc is on some kind of data carrier and the collection is on the bookshelf, while the younger generation prefers to download everything from the WEBstore. The difference or gap between these groups is growing.
For the people who just download something the new formats are usually not a problem, the modern hardware at home plays everything. The main challenge in this group is the system of archiving (if there is a need) of the materials. While a CD,DVD,BR covers on the bookshelf gives immediatelly an initial information about the content, the same material saved in HDD etc. is usually just a short textline in some of the folders. Surely many of us has already also a big collection of different videos from the cameras, and knows how difficult is to find a special scene recorded many years ago on a vacation etc. On the other side, how often happened that we purchased something in the big music/video shop just because we saw the cover on the shelf. Such ocassional purchases from the download business are almost excluded.
The new formats (4&8kj from the industry side will come very slow, (if at all) in the classic forms of physical data carriers (BR etc), so in the shops we will hardly see shelfs with actual content.
On the other side the network access will be a challenge. If the people start massiv downloads of the new 4 & 8k materials the recent distribution networks will collaps very soon and their upgrade is extremely costly and for many reasons, their financing is often a big question. Who and why to pay for the extra capacity? Today many network operators starting to offer 1Gbps download speed at home, but in many rural areas a 30-50 Mbps speed is a challenge. With such access there is almost no chance to download a 4k (8k) video, ie those possible customers are disqualified.
These are really the big questions of the future.

[Scubbie]

As it is possible to see from the many comments above, there are many reasons for choosing whether or not to switch to 4K content.

Some additional considerations are perhaps more related to your own abilities and finances.

Currently, some of the best consumer camcorders have features such as built-in stabilisation, 50x Zoom, great focus, portability & slow-mo. To get a camera with similar specifications that can handle 4K you will need to spend a considerable amount of money. Some of the 4K cameras I have seen don't have one or more of the features I've listed.

Of course, it does depend very much on what your materials is off, how you are recording it and who your target audience is.

I have recorded and produced some 4K content, but I mostly opt for 1080 50p as my options are quite limited on the 4K side at this time. If I were to go full on 4K then I'd be looking at 4K HDR 50p or 60p.

If you are interested in gradually upgrading to 4K, you may consider the fact that even if you produce the final video in 1080, then the images are often clearer. You also have a little more ability to zoom in to a piece you captured using the editing software and still retain some quality.

There are some really important considerations when it comes to 4K over 1080 content too. The technical challenges are considerably more important that they were previously.

The reason why so many TV stations have been slow to upgrade from SD to HD is that the sets have needed to be redesigned. This has been needed because HD shows up more wrinkles, tacky scenery & poor make-up. Where previously someone could get away with some things not being quite right, HD or 1080 does tend to show up a lot more.

Now take this to 4K. The improvements required are considerably more. Any sets have to look fantastic, any people must be groomed well, along with any clothing they will be wearing.

Whilst you can get away with being a little out of focus with SD, HD or 1080 content makes this much harder. With 4K it in even more important to get it right.

For most of us, such additional work may be beyond the normal experience and budget range.

I am not suggesting that you don't do the switch from HD to 4K. I have hopefully pointed out that there are many more considerations which you may wish to take into account first as it isn't just a simple case of buying a new camera.

[zehavi]

Thank you very much for all your useful responses.
It was really a good brainstorming.
I personally came to the conclusion that it's too early for me to enter the 4K world...

[sameerverma]

Even though 4k has arrived do you still think one can stream 4k or watch HD movie content on TV and PC? Cost of such devices is quite high. From personal experience, watching 4k and 1080p on mobile are moreover same. I think we need more time for 4k to settle down.

[Davidk]

At the end of the display, what you see is - at most - what the display is capable of. The hardware is not magic - it cannot double it's performance limit just because the file coming in is like that. An HD display will show a 4k clip or stream, but the resolution is going to be HD, whatever the display will do, not the 4k resolution you might expect. If you stood an HD display alongside a 4K display and played the same 4K clip on both at the same time, the resolution differences would be glaringly obvious.

[sameerverma]

At the end of the display, what you see is - at most - what the display is capable of. The hardware is not magic - it cannot double it's performance limit just because the file coming in is like that. An HD display will show a 4k clip or stream, but the resolution is going to be HD, whatever the display will do, not the 4k resolution you might expect. If you stood an HD display alongside a 4K display and played the same 4K clip on both at the same time, the resolution differences would be glaringly obvious.

What if we play 4k and HD video on the same HD screen. I guess 4k videos can't play on HD screens.