To 4K or not to 4K?

Is 4K a direction most of you are trying to take your studios over the next 12 months?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Not to 4k!

Unless you are shooting for the big screen it makes no sense. It has been proven over and over that at any normal viewing distance, the eye cannot discern the difference between 1080, 2.5k, and 4k. 4k televisions are dropping in price rapidly but for me (and I'm a techie), there's no point in buying one if 1) I can't tell the difference in the picture quality and 2) the infrastructure to deliver 4k content is at least ten years away.

I learned a interesting lesson a while back. I thought for sure a certain pool of semi affluent customers would want HD resolution, so I offered Blu-Ray as a delivery option. No one wanted them. They all wanted DVD.

If you are shooting shorts or features for film festivals, then maybe 4k makes sense. I know there are a good number of theatres that project in 2.5k and I think I've read that some Imax have 4k capabilities.

Now, I am very interested in the latitude and creative options afforded by shooting RAW but, I will limit myself to 1080 for many years to come. No sense in crippling my computer with so much information I don't need.

Bob

RAW is the way to go.. Pixels don't matter nearly as much as DR and color depth, along with low light performance.

I will be going 4k and shoot corporate/industrial mainly.
Reason #1 is ability to scale and do camera moves in post. Most of my deliverables are 720p or 1080p. I can shoot one camera and make it look like several were used. Next is I do a ton of greenscreen work and more pixels the better. Easier keys and sharper when scaled for delivery. The specific camera I'm eyeing is the new Sony PXW-Z100 which shoots 10bit 4:2:2 4K internally. $6500 makes this even better. Less than what I paid 3 years ago for my Canon XF300 which has been my main workhorse.
I get the reasons most are not making the move but I see it as a tool that will save me money on crew and provide a better end product.
I am not going the interchangeable lens route because the camera I need at the price I can justify doesn't exist. I'd love a 1Dc as I'm kitted for shooting DSLR but $12k?? And the C500 requires an external recorder and starts at double that price. Forget the Scarlett...I'd have to drop $20k to make that shoot the way I need. And Sony's interchangeable lens 4k require external recorders or are out of the price range too.
I think the Z100 is going to be very popular for studios like mine. Hopefully Canon will update the XF line before the Sony is available.
Just my 2 cents!

yipDog Studios wrote in post #16285970
I will be going 4k and shoot corporate/industrial mainly.
Reason #1 is ability to scale and do camera moves in post. Most of my deliverables are 720p or 1080p. I can shoot one camera and make it look like several were used.

This is a big reason why I am considering the move.

I don't intent to deliver in 4K, but the flexibility in post will be very nice. Not only can you simulate multiple camera placements, but also retain more detail when scaling down to 1080p.

I'm curious why the BMCC isn't under consideration given you are set up to shoot with DSLR equipment.

I have all the tools to shoot dslr but i really only use it for b-roll and for certain types of projects. I had the BM 4k on order but cancelled it when they started pushing back the delivery dates. After the debacle with the 2.5k camera, I have no confidence in BM to deliver a reliable camera. Just my head...and probably a little harsh but that's how I feel.
Storage requirements are heavy as is the post workflow. BM's cameras are more suited to cinema style and that isn't what my company is setup for. An example...Q4 of last year I delivered 200 3-5min videos for one client. I have many clients. I was the only shooter and editor and only used one workstation. In most cases I had the day's shoots edited and off to the client within 24 hours. No way a cinema camera would work in that situation.
What's interesting is a close friend runs his business the exact opposite way and is also successful. He shoots cinema style and spends a lot of time in post. His projects are generally one-off shorter videos that take much longer to shoot, require a crew and look beautiful. He is saving for a Scarlet as his clients are starting to ask for it. And once again, not to deliver in 4k but to get the best 1080p output.

4K delivery is coming but won't be the focus of smaller production houses for many years. But the cameras certainly have uses. Much like the bulk of still shooters out there that have DSLRS with high megapixel counts and great glass but only post to Facebook or similar.

Good points.

In my world, the best fit is the 1DC. Unfortunately, the price point is double my budget.

Kylemorgan88 wrote in post #16288261
Good points.

In my world, the best fit is the 1DC. Unfortunately, the price point is double my budget.

I'd love one too! I'd even swap my 1Dx for it as it's a great "all-in-one" camera. Have to see what happens in Dec when the Sony is released. It's little brother is coming in October but only shoots UltraHD and 4:2:0 color space. It's $4500

I definitely wanna go 4K and like YipDog, I put a Black magic cinema camera on order but doesnt look like the camera will be dropping anytime soon. But until then my 5DMK3 is working good for videos.

If you shoot footage you need to future proof as much as possible, for instance stock video, then you might preserve your long term sales by moving to 4k. If you are shooting for immediate consumption there may be little justification for the added expense of storage and workflow requirements.