While this board is certainly littered with material from the Apple apologists, I can assure you that my opinion on this matter has nothing to do with Apple. I'm just offering a viewpoint from someone who is pretty tuned in to the film/broadcast industry. At this stage, 4K is a gimmick. That's not to say it'll remain that way (like 3D), but unless you're shooting a film and plan on doing extensive post work on the footage or plan on using a very large display to view everything, then the benefits over their 1080p competitors just aren't worth it yet. You can get a much better overall image in a comparably priced 1080 camera. Increased resolution doesn't automatically mean "better." And a I mentioned before, we're all digital now. 1080 footage won't become obsolete.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4k video
- Thread starter pandy43k
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While this board is certainly littered with material from the Apple apologists, I can assure you that my opinion on this matter has nothing to do with Apple. I'm just offering a viewpoint from someone who is pretty tuned in to the film/broadcast industry. At this stage, 4K is a gimmick. That's not to say it'll remain that way (like 3D), but unless you're shooting a film and plan on doing extensive post work on the footage or plan on using a very large display to view everything, then the benefits over their 1080p competitors just aren't worth it yet. You can get a much better overall image in a comparably priced 1080 camera. Increased resolution doesn't automatically mean "better." And a I mentioned before, we're all digital now. 1080 footage won't become obsolete.
Absolutely well put! 4K, even Samsung's early implementation in the Note 3, offers so much more detail than 1080p. It's a sin not to make use the capabilities of a much superior format now even if one "only" shoots home video. (Note: in my previous comments here, I explained the scenario when the Note 3 shouldn't be preferred: handheld shooting; the need for shooting for more than 5 minutes etc. Tripod shooting works just gorgeously with the Note 3.)
Too bad I seriously doubt Apple adds 4K video to the iPhone 6.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Swap out 4K references (such as in "4K is a gimmick") with 1080p and switch 1080p references to 720p and hop back to just before Apple endorsed 1080p and this is exactly the kind of message one would find in abundance here.
720p footage won't become obsolete either. Nor does SD footage. I have converted sub-SD VHS footage (what was that like 320 lines at best?) shot in the 80s and don't consider it obsolete. Whether any resolution will become obsolete is not the point. My point was that the crowd here usually goes with whatever Apple appears to be currently endorsing. One might as well post a question like which is better Windows or OS X. Do so here and one would conclude an overwhelming perception that OS X is far superior to Windows. That's the bias of asking any such questions like OP asked here.
I'm sure lots of people will share the opinion that 4K is a gimmick right now. But when Apple gets around to embracing it, where will all those people be then? I've already seen this movie before. The "720p is good enough" crowd here passionately argued how "1080p was a gimmick" to no end. Then, Apple embraced it and it was magically transformed from "gimmick" to "I'm already standing in line", "how did we ever get by without" and so on.
OP is talking home movies. I shoot lots of those too. I find the passage of time makes them worth more and more to me. You don't get to shoot them again in the future. 4K may be accessible to OP- at least he's thinking about it- which implies it might be reachable. If so, it's worth a consideration. The recording is the first link in the chain. Recording anything of value should be done at the highest possible quality that someone can afford. Even if OP doesn't have a 4K TV nor any other 4K usable hardware, if the recording is above what he can use now, he can always create a copy for his current platform (at 1080p or less). In time, when his equipment evolves, the master version could replace the down-converted version. This is exactly what I was doing in my own case for years (shooting at 1080p but then down-converting to the best that earlier AppleTVs could play).
Of course, asking this crowd is mostly going to get "1080p is good enough"-type answers… just like "720p was good enough" while Apple clung to that standard. But the time will come when Apple will endorse 4K… and few will dare call it a gimmick then.
Arguments like a good 1080p camera is going to capture a better video than a poor 4K camera are also very typically slung around here. Duh. But why does a 4K camcorder have to be poor? I suspect that if OP is going to cough up the money to embrace 4K now, he's not going to buy a poor 4K camcorder. And if all that could be bought was a poor one, then what's the point in thinking about it? The sub $2K camcorders I'm seeing are getting strong reviews. Yes, they'll drop in price quickly and in a few years 4K camcorders will be priced like 1080p camcorders now. But maybe OP wants to capture some precious memories NOW rather than waiting a few more years until the prices fall… or when Apple gets around to saying 4K is THE WAY.
Last edited:
I don't disagree that sentiment around here sways with Apple's position on things. I just wanted to point out that there are those of us who try to offer an objective opinion.
And I never said a 4K camera has to be poor. But if looking at this with budgetary constraints (which most do), you're probably going to find a 1080p camera that produces a better image than a comparably priced 4K option. There are image quality metrics that trump resolution. If the OP wants to capture precious memories now (rather than wait for more affordable 4K options) then there's no reason to ignore 1080. It's going to be around for a long time.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm not saying "ignore" nor am I saying anything about 1080p obsolescence (in fact, SD is still around, has been for a much longer time than 1080p or 720p, and will continue to be around for a long time. But that doesn't argue to shoot home movies in SD). I'm also not saying 4K is the ONLY way to go.
What I am saying is don't dismiss 4K because of the typically biased opinions here. OP is asking about 4K. I assume that means he knows what it will cost. If what he considers his budgetary constraints can fit 4K camcorder pricing, then he should consider it as hard as he considers 1080p.
In my case, I went 1080p long before it was popular here (because Apple hadn't gone there yet) and when it was priced not much different than 4K camcorders now. I recorded at a level beyond some of my hardware then down-converted to what my setup could play. When the rest of my hardware "caught up," I switched from down-converted versions to 1080p masters. I'm glad I had that option.
If OP goes with group opinions here, iPhones are the only phones, Macs are the only computers, iPads are the only tablets, OS X is the only OS, etc. I offer counterpoint because I think the OP is asking for objectivity… not whatever Apple thinks. Then again, he posted the question here so maybe he does want what Apple thinks. If so (OP), shoot all of your video on an iDevice- the highest quality 1080p available at any price.
What I am saying is don't dismiss 4K because of the typically biased opinions here. OP is asking about 4K. I assume that means he knows what it will cost. If what he considers his budgetary constraints can fit 4K camcorder pricing, then he should consider it as hard as he considers 1080p.
In my case, I went 1080p long before it was popular here (because Apple hadn't gone there yet) and when it was priced not much different than 4K camcorders now. I recorded at a level beyond some of my hardware then down-converted to what my setup could play. When the rest of my hardware "caught up," I switched from down-converted versions to 1080p masters. I'm glad I had that option.
If OP goes with group opinions here, iPhones are the only phones, Macs are the only computers, iPads are the only tablets, OS X is the only OS, etc. I offer counterpoint because I think the OP is asking for objectivity… not whatever Apple thinks. Then again, he posted the question here so maybe he does want what Apple thinks. If so (OP), shoot all of your video on an iDevice- the highest quality 1080p available at any price.
Last edited:
For me it was primarily 720p, not because Apple told me so. I think 720p is fine for me as the file sizes are smaller and does not greatly effect quality.
Just like for years, until fairly recently, camcorders still shot 1080i instead of 1080p video. Perhaps maybe one reason why?
I think at least one poster commented on the use a 4K phone camera and comparing it to the quality of a 1080 HD camcorder. Which seems a fair point. Now perhaps a 4K camcorder producing a better video then a 1080 HD camcorder.
I don't think 4K is mainstream enough to make it feasible. I'm sure there will be early adopters. But will be a lack of enough 4K content. 4K TV/Monitors are still cost prohibitive for average consumer. I talked to a person that said 1080 HD on a 4K TV is not the greatest yet.
Last edited:
I think you are massively over-generalizing the "bias group". I use apple products because I enjoy them, not because I am some kind of sheep tho will follow whatever apple dictates. Frankly I find it offensive that you would assume that. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
I work in the film industry around cameras shooting 8k on a daily basis. Would it be amazing for everyone go have access to these formats? Hell yes it would but that doesn't mean it's at all required.
You say to go for the best someone can afford. Unfortunately at the consumer level I disagree that the best is 4k. The only real affordable option is something like the note 3. Myself and others above have already pointed out that this doesn't offer the best quality, just the best resolution.
Suggesting to share a camera or get a (likely) second job in an electronics store just to afford a camera the OP doesn't need is frankly insulting if you ask me. These are home movies. What if, for example, he has a young child. You can't exactly tell the kid "hey, hold off on your first steps, I have to go get my camera back from bob"
At work we do suggest clients use the RED cameras and shoot in 8 or 4k but that is in the professional film level, it's completely different. From the consumer level, in this day and age, 1080p is amazing and a fraction of the cost of 4k.
This isn't me trying to say 4k isn't better. It is and I know it is, I can see the difference plain as day. However that is comparing a $30 000 RED camera to a $4000 or so 1080p camera. You won't get that kind of RED quality at a consumer price point yet. The OP said he wants to spend under $2000 and at that price the best option is 1080p which is why I say go with that.
If nothing else doing 1080p now, for less than a good 4k, gives you more wiggle room to afford a good 4k camera when the prices drop to consumer range.
And no, one last time, I'm not saying this because I own macs and an iPhone. I'm saying it because it's the honest truth. What apple likes has no weight at all on what's best for video. I could argue the new Mac Pro is actually apple pushing into 4k but that's a whole different post.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Wow!
You can get 4K camcorders for under $2K right now. That fits the upper price stated by the OP. They are not junk cameras either. Good reviews. Look them up.
Some are deciding what "affordable" means from their own point of view. OP has already stated that he's thinking about 4K. He likely knows what it costs. From his perspective, it's probably "affordable" for him. When I paid several thousand dollars for 1080p camcorders when they were first coming out, it was a stretch- especially when I could buy much cheaper 720p and much, much cheaper SD. But it was affordable to me (and I'm glad I spent the money rather than waiting until prices fell to a point where everyone would consider it "affordable"- I captured a lot of 1080p family memories that I'll never be able to re-shoot with more "affordable" versions of the same camera).
Earlier in my life, I had roommates and we went in together on some things. It made some things we couldn't "afford" as individuals "affordable" together. So that may very well be an option.
Earlier in my life, I worked for an electronics store. Employee discount was pretty good back then. Maybe it still is now. If so, that might be an option. It did work for me.
If, for example, there is a baby and that drives the OPs interest, waiting around for 4K to drop means missing capturing some of that baby's moments at 4K. Sure 1080p will be great too but 1080p is not 4K. By the time that baby is a teenager, we'll probably have 4K iWatches and everyone will remember 1080p like we remember SD (yes, it will still be around and might even still be the broadcast standard) but we all should recognize the world will move on (as it always does). Even the rumor mill has Apple about to roll out 4K monitors and whiffs of 4K cameras in iDevices. FCPX can already edit it. It's only a matter of time.
I don't see $2K as an unaffordable price point. Others may. The OP seems to see it as a possibility. Reading through this thread, it seems about 85% against 4K but all of that is driven by how each person judges "affordable" or "good enough" or by seeing this as some kind of attack on 1080p, 1080p obsolescence and so on. None of that applies to the OP. If the OP is more concerned with money or short-term ROI, 1080p is probably the way to go. If the OP is more concerned with the coming (next) standard and doesn't mind paying about $2K for what might be priced at about $500 in 2 or 3 years, OP might capture enough memories at 4K between now and then to make it worth it to him.
You can get 4K camcorders for under $2K right now. That fits the upper price stated by the OP. They are not junk cameras either. Good reviews. Look them up.
Some are deciding what "affordable" means from their own point of view. OP has already stated that he's thinking about 4K. He likely knows what it costs. From his perspective, it's probably "affordable" for him. When I paid several thousand dollars for 1080p camcorders when they were first coming out, it was a stretch- especially when I could buy much cheaper 720p and much, much cheaper SD. But it was affordable to me (and I'm glad I spent the money rather than waiting until prices fell to a point where everyone would consider it "affordable"- I captured a lot of 1080p family memories that I'll never be able to re-shoot with more "affordable" versions of the same camera).
Earlier in my life, I had roommates and we went in together on some things. It made some things we couldn't "afford" as individuals "affordable" together. So that may very well be an option.
Earlier in my life, I worked for an electronics store. Employee discount was pretty good back then. Maybe it still is now. If so, that might be an option. It did work for me.
If, for example, there is a baby and that drives the OPs interest, waiting around for 4K to drop means missing capturing some of that baby's moments at 4K. Sure 1080p will be great too but 1080p is not 4K. By the time that baby is a teenager, we'll probably have 4K iWatches and everyone will remember 1080p like we remember SD (yes, it will still be around and might even still be the broadcast standard) but we all should recognize the world will move on (as it always does). Even the rumor mill has Apple about to roll out 4K monitors and whiffs of 4K cameras in iDevices. FCPX can already edit it. It's only a matter of time.
I don't see $2K as an unaffordable price point. Others may. The OP seems to see it as a possibility. Reading through this thread, it seems about 85% against 4K but all of that is driven by how each person judges "affordable" or "good enough" or by seeing this as some kind of attack on 1080p, 1080p obsolescence and so on. None of that applies to the OP. If the OP is more concerned with money or short-term ROI, 1080p is probably the way to go. If the OP is more concerned with the coming (next) standard and doesn't mind paying about $2K for what might be priced at about $500 in 2 or 3 years, OP might capture enough memories at 4K between now and then to make it worth it to him.
Before I really dig into that all could I ask you post links to all these apparent 4k cameras that seem to exist for that price? I searched on B&H and the only one around $2000 is the to be released Sony one. Hard to say that reviews are good if it isn't out yet.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the cameras you're talking about. Since you claim so many exist I just want to see the reviews and price points for myself because I don't see them.
Aside from Sony's new one to get 4k in a dedicated camera seems to require a pro level camera that will cost around $4000 unless you go without a lens.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the cameras you're talking about. Since you claim so many exist I just want to see the reviews and price points for myself because I don't see them.
Aside from Sony's new one to get 4k in a dedicated camera seems to require a pro level camera that will cost around $4000 unless you go without a lens.
He also mentioned 1080 in his question as well. We're merely pointing out why 1080 still seems the way to go right now.
Christ, 4K is not some revolutionary technical marvel. It's an evolutionary step up in resolution. It looks great, and so does 1080 (with many consumers not being able to tell the difference at all). And we're talking about home movies here, not some big budget summer blockbuster (many of which over the past decade have been shot at 1080).
I would be very curious if the hardware the OP is using could handle processing a 20-30 minute clip of 4K video at 30fps. I have a feeling it might choke just a wee bit.
For me it is all about the bang for the buck. If I can get a really good 1080p video camera under $1000 as opposed to a 4K camera that is 2500+. For shooting home video. I am going to spend my money on a 1080p camera.
I would also like to know what monitor/tv the op plans on watching the video on? Does the OP have the correct player to view the content? Someone correct me if I am wrong please, but won't the OP need a viewing device a 4K blu-ray player that down converts the picture so that it can be viewed on a 1080p tv set if there is no 4k tv?
Future proof. You will not future proof this. Zero's and One's are always evolving.
For me it is all about the bang for the buck. If I can get a really good 1080p video camera under $1000 as opposed to a 4K camera that is 2500+. For shooting home video. I am going to spend my money on a 1080p camera.
I would also like to know what monitor/tv the op plans on watching the video on? Does the OP have the correct player to view the content? Someone correct me if I am wrong please, but won't the OP need a viewing device a 4K blu-ray player that down converts the picture so that it can be viewed on a 1080p tv set if there is no 4k tv?
Future proof. You will not future proof this. Zero's and One's are always evolving.
I'll try to be polite:
With all do respect you don't seem to have even understood OP's original question and the "advice" you are giving is probably not helpful. Per OP's posts the 4k option was viewed as superior to 1080 based almost solely on resolution and not all the other specs / attributes that would make one camera better than another given a particular use and budget.
Also, OP started out by saying (and reiterated in posts 8 and 18) that a $2,000+ camera is out of the question.
The essential question then is what kind of camera is best suited for OP for about £200 or should OP stick with iPhone or replace with a Note 3 which I gather can shoot some impressive 4k video?
GoPro is probably one of the few 4k options available at OP's price point aside from the Note 3 and it will have some limitations.
My personal view is that existing iPhone plus a DSLR will do nicely with a stretch of the budget; the DSLR does have some disadvantages compared to a dedicated camcorder but will give great stills (also nice to have of the kids growing up) even in low light conditions and can produce fine video. The DSLR will also be adaptable in the sense that if OP really likes it, new lenses (aside from the kit one) will bring new filming options.
My kids each have a DSLR and they and their friends love using them. They take pictures they would not have taken with their phones because the cameras are so much fun to use! My son is also producing some very nice videos and is thoroughly happy with his T2i at only 1080p.
With all do respect you don't seem to have even understood OP's original question and the "advice" you are giving is probably not helpful. Per OP's posts the 4k option was viewed as superior to 1080 based almost solely on resolution and not all the other specs / attributes that would make one camera better than another given a particular use and budget.
Also, OP started out by saying (and reiterated in posts 8 and 18) that a $2,000+ camera is out of the question.
The essential question then is what kind of camera is best suited for OP for about £200 or should OP stick with iPhone or replace with a Note 3 which I gather can shoot some impressive 4k video?
GoPro is probably one of the few 4k options available at OP's price point aside from the Note 3 and it will have some limitations.
My personal view is that existing iPhone plus a DSLR will do nicely with a stretch of the budget; the DSLR does have some disadvantages compared to a dedicated camcorder but will give great stills (also nice to have of the kids growing up) even in low light conditions and can produce fine video. The DSLR will also be adaptable in the sense that if OP really likes it, new lenses (aside from the kit one) will bring new filming options.
My kids each have a DSLR and they and their friends love using them. They take pictures they would not have taken with their phones because the cameras are so much fun to use! My son is also producing some very nice videos and is thoroughly happy with his T2i at only 1080p.
Last edited:
The GoPro BE is useless WRT 4K, compared to the Note 3, because of the severely limited framerate. This is why I only recommended the Note 3.
BTW, now that LG announced the Pro 2, it may be worth waiting a bit more - it has OIS (already working great in last year's G2) and, of course, 4K recording. As I've stated earlier, the biggest problem with the Note 3 is the lack of OIS.
----------
The iPhone shoots great 1080p video unless you need significantly wider FoV (the iPhone is pretty narrow, even if you use my tweaks I've developed for all iPhones starting with the 4 - see https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1538193/ ), rock-solid stabilization (albeit the 5s already has pretty good IIS), and/or stereo audio. For family shooting, particularly when doing it using a tripod, it's perfectly OK until the OP upgrades to a, preferably, 4K camera. They'll surely drop in price in the near future.
Of course the OP could always use the equipment in this video to shoot with!
http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/
http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/#video-1242014-film
http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/
http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/#video-1242014-film
Of course the OP could always use the equipment in this video to shoot with!
http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/
http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/#video-1242014-film
The iPhone can certainly shoot good video under the right conditions but I think most, myself included, would rather a camera more suited as such. I listed pros and cons to it above.
I love the camera in my 5S, don't get me wrong, but it hardly replaces my D3200 with 50mm f1.8 lens.
oh i agree! but there was a lot of help with the video even though it was shot on the iPhone....
Sony 4K camcorder for $1000. I just saw this and was very surprised:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1109387-REG/sony_hdr_ax33v_4k_ultra_hd.html/prm/alsVwDtl
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1109387-REG/sony_hdr_ax33v_4k_ultra_hd.html/prm/alsVwDtl
4K was meant to make people buy new TVs.
Notice that all 4K TVs are 60" or more, that is because there is when you MAY notice some pixelation from HD. THEN... you have to consider (and they do not tell you this) the distance from where you are watching (and I know a load about this).
If you watch a TV from a distance your eyes will not notice the pixelation, so, if you are 8 feet away from your TV, the reality is that HD and 4K look basically just the same, specially in a 42" TV or 50" and below.
So... it all depends on the implementation. On the other hand... you may get a 4K camera but if the chips and the lens are not professional, you may end up getting the equivalent to an HD camera or even less.
The optics in a camera are 80% of the quality. I have a Nikon 6MB camera but the lenses I am using are awesome and I can beat a Cannon D5 in quality. I have.
So... get a good HD and that is it. For family videos I would go SD 720 x 480 at the most, you are not shooting a landscape, just people talking.
Notice that all 4K TVs are 60" or more, that is because there is when you MAY notice some pixelation from HD. THEN... you have to consider (and they do not tell you this) the distance from where you are watching (and I know a load about this).
If you watch a TV from a distance your eyes will not notice the pixelation, so, if you are 8 feet away from your TV, the reality is that HD and 4K look basically just the same, specially in a 42" TV or 50" and below.
So... it all depends on the implementation. On the other hand... you may get a 4K camera but if the chips and the lens are not professional, you may end up getting the equivalent to an HD camera or even less.
The optics in a camera are 80% of the quality. I have a Nikon 6MB camera but the lenses I am using are awesome and I can beat a Cannon D5 in quality. I have.
So... get a good HD and that is it. For family videos I would go SD 720 x 480 at the most, you are not shooting a landscape, just people talking.
Another problem with amateur 4K is what do you do with it after you create it? The file sizes are huge, difficult to work with and store, and almost impossible to host. The time to download or stream 4k is prohibitive.
Yes, no to mention the render times.
I have work in TV stations where they still working in standard definition. Actually almost 50% of the tv channels still sd.
Not anymore. The Pannys output great 4K at a very reasonable bitrate, with great results.
Using a phone as a camera is like using a riding lawn mower to get to the grocery store. If you are halfway serious about photography, get a camera, and if you want the best of both worlds, at present, and for the money, it's the Panasonic LX-100. On sale at Best Buy right now for 800 bucks, and if you've got a ten percent coupon, even less. Check out the reviews and samples made by pros. It is nearly as good as the GH4 at 4K, with the main limitation being a fixed lens…a darn good one though. Sony and Panny both have announced sub 1,000 dollar UHD (4K) camcorders coming in the next few weeks too.
Why on earth would you recommend 720x480 for anything at this point? Who cares if they're just family videos? HD is cheap and file sizes are manageable.
Because 720 is cheaper. Who wants a family video in HD unless all your family is super hot. Other wise 720.
Where is 720 cheaper? SD is dead. Good affordable consumer HD cameras are readily available. Sure, you may save some space archival wise, but drive space is cheaper now too. Not to mention you're likely viewing this stuff on your 720p or 1080p tv. There is absolutely no reason to recommend SD anymore.