Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

Talley wrote in post #18107032
12' away from 135" and I'm suppose to have 4k but 1080P looks great. Thats been my point... ya it could be a major impact but for me... I know I'm not adapting 4k for some time.

Hosted photo: posted by Talley in
./showthread.php?p=181​07032&i=i56241227
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I dont plan on adapting anytime soon either, want a 75" LCD if possible. I bought my 1080 tv only 4 years back and got a super cheap plasma (which has been fantastic). Been planning my 4K move since then!

wilt FEChariot, do you use a retina/super hd device? You'll appreciate how sharp those things are, same with 4K tv's. By the same mentality, I was told a 32" 720 vs 1080, wasnt worth getting 1080.... I swapped out a broken 720 for a 1080 in the kitchen, and theres definitely a difference. Viewing distances can change, some folks watch closer, some further. Even further back, that extra crispness is noticeable. 4K is good, embrace it, it's getting inexpensive as well.

back on topic please? less tv talk

Why are so many people harping on about the lack of video features? Buy a video camera!

Talley wrote in post #18106975
Video is dominating by the broadcasting. all broadcast right now is 720P which is why services like direct tv/dish etc are only 1080i because after the signal is transmitted it's upconverted. Broadcasting is having a hard time figuring out 4k.

??
When HDTV began, TV channels/networks/stat​ions had to choose between 720p60 (preferred for action, sports) and 1080i60. 1080i is still very common for direct OTA broadcasting. List_of_current_Americ​an_high-definition_channels
Since 1993, the U.S. HDTV standard has supported 720p60, 1080p24 and 1080i60. Broadcasting is still having a hard time figuring out 1080p60!

Origina BluRay did not support 1080p60 (but UHD BR will handle 2160p60 - aka "4K"). 1080p60 displays/converters have been aroud for a while and upconvert 720p60 or 1080i60 inputs to 1080p60 for display. 1080p60 video capture capability is recent and is now transitioning to 4K 30fps.
However, UHD displays are already getting affordable, so recording UHD/4K at 30 fps (as these cameras do) will already have good playback options and the displays double as ~8MP digital picture frames

(Now back to the 5D4)

thc1979 wrote in post #18107074
Why are so many people harping on about the lack of video features? Buy a video camera!

Why harp on the Mk IV? Buy a point and shoot.

Yeah and BTW, to the person who wrote the 720p TV post. You are so far off base that you can't even see the ballpark where you are. I'm an amateur over here but I live in that space and you are simply wrong. Period. And to add insult to injury, that first sentence was never true. Not even in the beginning.

Capital Broadcasting (WRAL) was the first to pioneer HDTV in the US and the first station in the US to broadcast full time in HD. They are currently up and running and broadcasting/testing UHD 4k OTA already. The dogs bark but the caravan rolls on.

Seems like there's only 2 things people are whining about with the 5D4.

It doesn't have enough video features. Or that it even has video at all.

thc1979 wrote in post #18107074
Why are so many people harping on about the lack of video features? Buy a video camera!

why?

similarly priced cameras have that feature already for at least a year.

canon is perfectly capable, they have a camera that does it.

4 more years until another upgrade.

canon has been criticized many times during its lifespan for slow upgrades, this is one of those times where they have the tech but dumb down a product.


BTW, buy a 1Dxii if you want FF video.... see how silly that was?

delta0014 wrote in post #18107090
Seems like there's only 2 things people are whining about with the 5D4.

It doesn't have enough video features. Or that it even has video at all.

"Its video sucks and it needs lots of video accessories, video should be in a dedicated video camera, leaving us with a good stills-only camera!"

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #18107087
Yeah and BTW, to the person who wrote the 720p TV post. You are so far off base that you can't even see the ballpark where you are. I'm an amateur over here but I live in that space and you are simply wrong. Period. And to add insult to injury, that first sentence was never true. Not even in the beginning.

Capital Broadcasting (WRAL) was the first to pioneer HDTV in the US and the first station in the US to broadcast full time in HD. They are currently up and running and broadcasting/testing UHD 4k OTA already. The dogs bark but the caravan rolls on.

I'm halfway right too you know.. many companies like fox and espn broadcast live 720p signals only.

Wilt wrote in post #18107021
What is the point of diminishing return? At 6 meters or 20 feet, a human eye with 20/20 performance is able to separate contours that are approximately 1.75 mm apart.

So if we interpolate, 1.75mm at 20' is 0.875mm at 10', is 0.438mm at 5'...our eye will SEE the pixel only when it is larger than (rounded) 0.44mm when viewed at 5' away.
With 4K TV that is 60" in size, the pixel pitch is 0.372 apart. But remember, we are VIEWING at 60" (horizontal) monitor from 60" away, which is closer than the suggested 1.5 * diagonal viewing distance suggested (screen diagonal = 68") . Yet even with a 4K screen viewed from a close 60" it has a pixel pitch (0.372mm) which is smaller than our eyes can detect...an online calculator program for screen size
https://www.projectors​creen.com/projector-screen-calculators
says that with 4K screens you need to sit 4' away or closer simply to 'see all the detail'. 8K for home viewing is pointless.

For the monster cinema screens, 8K is necessary because the 4K screens show us pixels which are visible in the forward areas of the seating.
The optimal viewing distance for a 50' diagonal 'standard house' cinema screen is said to be 19', the pixel pitch is 1.7mm on that 45' wide screen, so we can sit as close as 20' and not see each pixel on the 8K screen.

The old "recommended" distances hardly apply these days It would be interesting to calculate how many pixels could be distinguished in a typical human field of view - if we use 0.5 to 1 arc minute as visual limit and pixel spacing, then we need 60 to 120 per degree and human FOV (although technically close to 180° but as you go out acuity goes down) let's say, would be comfortable viewing a 110° field. So one limit might be a horizontal field with 6,600 to 13,200 pixels. The 110° field then determines the distance to view any given size display. Just an example ball-park calculation, not for use at home

delta0014 wrote in post #18107090
Seems like there's only 2 things people are whining about with the 5D4.

It doesn't have enough video features. Or that it even has video at all.

"if you're going to do something, do it right"

So what lens will be your first to de flower your mark iv?

I gotta go with the old trusty 50l.

AltgnJoey wrote in post #18107105
So what lens will be your first to de flower your mark iv?

I gotta go with the old trusty 50l.

200/2

pop that hoe with something important like my stupid cat.

AJSJones wrote in post #18107101
The old "recommended" distances hardly apply these days It would be interesting to calculate how many pixels could be distinguished in a typical human field of view - if we use 0.5 to 1 arc minute as visual limit and pixel spacing, then we need 60 to 120 per degree and human FOV (although technically close to 180° but as you go out acuity goes down) let's say, would be comfortable viewing a 110° field. So one limit might be a horizontal field with 6,600 to 13,200 pixels. The 110° field then determines the distance to view any given size display. Just an example ball-park calculation, not for use at home

I used a program oriented around the 16:9 screens as background for this post...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18107021