Add a Comment

Comment by Chad Ream on April 28, 2012 at 6:01am

@Rich:  If your referring to HD being affordable, yes I agree that it is, but it has taken over 10 years for prices to become what they are.  It took many years for the delivery format of the final product to be determined,(Blu Ray), there are still networks not broadcasting in HD.  My opinion is that the consumer market place will not adapt quickly to the new "final product" produced with the 4K workflow.

There is one unique advantage of the new 4K cameras and their workflow and that is they are inadvertently redefining professional grade equipment. This a good thing for job creators.

OT: These new cameras create bigger images, in turn bigger files, it will be interesting to see what file compression technology develops. 

Comment by Rich Mbariket on April 23, 2012 at 3:59pm

@Chad: Remember when photography moved from film to digital? They said consumers wouldn't embrace it. We know how that story ended. When the business went from standard resolution cameras (anyone remember DVX100?) to HD cameras, I remember people saying HD wouldn't work. Now if you're not shooting HD, you're considered out of touch. Change is constant. Consumers want change. Manufacturers recognize this and are making higher than HD resolution cameras and guess what will follow... higher than HD resolution monitors and TV sets. Once upon a time, YouTube didn't support HD, let's also keep that in mind. The point I'm trying to make is that consumers will embrace it as long as its affordable (which it is). 

Comment by Chad Ream on April 23, 2012 at 3:42pm

2K, 2.5K, 4K... welcome to the resolution war.  The means we can now officially say that HD is the "norm" and 4K is the future with a big BUT.  It's application will be in professional, big budget production.  The final product will still be down res to HD and the consumer market will not embrace this change nor will they appreciate it. (IMO)

Comment by Sean Oliver on April 23, 2012 at 3:01pm

I think these will be super awesome for kids, not to say the technology is for children, but the simple set-up will really help new people get into film. And the price is pretty awesome when you consider that it will only get cheaper after launch. This really could be a ridiculously affordable camera after a few years. Cool stuff.

Comment by Jason W.Ellis on April 22, 2012 at 10:34pm

Well actually , Youtube now has a setting so you can see RAW footage uploaded without their compression in its original state you filmed it in. But you still need a 4K monitor to view and they cost around $20,000 for the new 20 inch Panasonic that is coming out.

Comment by AfterTheBeast on April 22, 2012 at 10:20pm

And unfortunately as soon as 4K is the big thing 6K will come around...  : )

Comment by AfterTheBeast on April 22, 2012 at 10:19pm

The other problem with looking at "Raw" footage on Youtube is even if you have a 4K screen, Youtube still has it's own encoder to compress the footage when you upload it.  And frankly it's not great.

Comment by Jason W.Ellis on April 21, 2012 at 4:09pm

Everything can look good on the web now. Even 360p footage with color grading can look great. The point of getting a 4K camera is because that is where the future is heading. Soon the web will be running on 4k, movie theatres, tv's, etc. Blu rays will become absolete and the new 4k format will take hold. The advantage of shooting in 4K now is that you future proof your work, and you can crop like crazy from your footage and it will still look good wether its on your computer screen or a theatre screen. There are just more options when you shoot in RAW and a higher resolution format. Like I said before, this camera is the first of many and if its specs hold up, then 5 grand is a bargain for footage that can look this good.

Comment by Rich Mbariket on April 21, 2012 at 3:53pm

Good point Jason. 1080p monitor. :) So essentially you're saying there's no point getting a higher than HD resolution camera for web content? 

Comment by Jason W.Ellis on April 21, 2012 at 3:43pm

Rich, were you watching the footage on a 4k monitor or 1080 monitor? I only ask this because you cant really judge the quality of a 4k camera on a regular HD monitor. I would bet a lot of money that this camera will shoot better footage than your iphone. The iphone is remarkable for what it is , but it isnt a 4K camera. Plus shooting at 4K gives you a lot of options in post that you will not get with a regular HD camera. As for this Black Magic camera shooting in 2.5K, did you know that 1920 x 1080 is almost 2K? 2K Refers to approximately 2,000 pixels of horizontal resolution in a video frame. Used to rate digital cinema formats, the 2K refers to horizontal resolution in contrast to standard digital TV resolutions, which are stated in vertical lines. Therefore, a 1080p TV set with 1,920 horizontal pixels is close to the 2K resolutions of digital cinema (1,828, 1,998, 2,048 horizontal pixels). So this being said, Im not too excited by a camera that shoots 2.5K over a camera that can shoot 4K. Especially since 2.5K is just slightly better than most HD cameras out there that cost alot less than 3 grand.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page