4K vs HD

matti · Apr 22, 2016

I briefly tested P3P video modes 4096×2160, 3840×2160 and 1920×1080 (footage at ground, imported to Final Cut Pro 10.2.3 and output to 1920x1080 H.264 10Mb/s. I evaluated images exported from video in Photoshop).

The only difference between 4096×2160 and 3840×2160 is that the latter is 256 pixels narrower and fits the 16:9 frame with no top & bottom letterboxing.

I output 1920x1080 so I might switch using 3840×2160 from now on. 4096×2160 needs 107% zoom in so I can skip that unnecessary step. Setting the horizon straight is another story (usually 1° or so with about 110% zoom in).

For some reason compared to 3840×2160, the 1920x1080 slightly zooms in to the video and there seems to be some "lens distortion-like" stuff going on between them.

There wasn't much difference between 4096/3840 × 2160 vs 1920×1080. Only at 400% zoom the 4096/3840 × 2160 were different but even then I wasn't quite sure whether I prefer the pixelated but sharper 1920×1080 vs detailed but pixel-smoothed 4096/3840 × 2160.

I have a real-world clip shot at 4096×2160 with 4096×2160 vs 1920×1080 Final Cut H.264 output. The 4096×2160 video is somewhat more crisp, but on the other hand, it somewhat stutters even on very recent PC HW and 6MP screen on VLC so I prefer 1920×1080 for presentation.

As expected, there was no difference between MOV and MP4.

WLS350Z · Apr 23, 2016

so here is where i digress a bit, honestly to the Eye the difference is really not that great between Full HD and above, unless you have all the equipment to take advantage of it. for me Filming in full HD is more then enough. when you need to upload and watch on Youtube ect, the difference in file size moving up to 4k is nothing short of ridiculous.

Malakai · Apr 23, 2016

Filming in 4k and downscaling the output to 1080p will maintain a lot more detail. It also gives you wiggle room for zooming and panning. It will also greatly reduce moire if you use a good downscaler. For the average joe recording clips that are going on youtube this wont matter. But to a videographer it makes the world of a difference.

So, anyone who has the P3P and only wants to capture 1080p give me a shout and ill happily swap you my advanced gimbal for your pro

Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

Ramphex · Apr 23, 2016

This is all at 30fps right?

matti · Apr 23, 2016

WLS350Z said:
to the Eye the difference is really not that great between Full HD and above, unless you have all the equipment to take advantage of it

I agree. 4K/UHD might have slightly more real resolution compared to HD (with the tiny sensor the P3P has), but they tend to stutter on playback even with fast HW and a display that can show all those pixels. Any decent HW has no trouble showing H.264 HD. Then there is the issue of large file sizes with 4K/UHD.

On the other hand, fixing a tilted horizon or cropping AFAIK produces slightly better HD output if the input is 4K/UHD.

So I'm not regretting getting a P3P.

matti · Apr 23, 2016

Malakai said:
Filming in 4k and downscaling the output to 1080p will maintain a lot more detail. It also gives you wiggle room for zooming and panning. It will also greatly reduce moire if you use a good downscaler. For the average joe recording clips that are going on youtube this wont matter. But to a videographer it makes the world of a difference.

In my quick test comparing extracted still images, there was a difference between 4K/UHD vs HD input with HD output, but I'd say the difference was only apparent at 200-400% zoom in (I used only a low-res 1280x1024 display in my test, though).

In my test I didn't have much moire inducing patterns.

But from now on I plan to shoot UHD because it has the same 16:9 aspect ratio as HD so there is no need to zoom in 107% to get rid of the letterbox with HD output.

matti · Apr 23, 2016

Ramphex said:
This is all at 30fps right?

Living in a PAL country I shoot at 25fps as an old habit.

Ramphex · Apr 23, 2016

Would be curious to see above comparisons at different FPS

Malakai · Apr 23, 2016

Regarding frame rates, I guess it all depends on what you want out of your footage, if you want action cam style footage go 60fps if you want the real cinematic effect record 24 with a shutter speed of 50, use a set of ND filters or a ND variable to keep it nicely exposed.
In reference to living in a PAL country, thats old school for old TV sets. Its still lingering around like a bad fart. Its back when OLD CRT displays could only show 25 frames per second based on the 50hz frequency of our electricity supply (NTSC is 30fps 60hz)
In this digital age this frame rate limit doesnt apply any more. Your average LCD TV/monitor now can output at 60fps, some even more.
Even though I too am from a PAL country (UK) I have my phantom set to NTSC simply because I only capture in 2 styles. 1080p 60fps or 1080p 23.97fps. 60 for the action stuff and 23.97 for the cinematic look.
If its set to PAL it will only capture at 1080p 50fps and with action shots the more frames I can capture the better and those extra ten frames make a difference.

Ramphex · Apr 23, 2016

Any suggestions on filter sets for P4?

matti · Apr 23, 2016

Malakai said:
PAL country, thats old school for old TV sets. Its still lingering around like a bad fart. Its back when OLD CRT displays could only show 25 frames per second based on the 50hz frequency of our electricity supply (NTSC is 30fps 60hz)
In this digital age this frame rate limit doesnt apply any more.

PAL 25fps is very close to the "real cinematic effect" 24fps

But I've been wondering if I should switch to 50fps or, gasp, even to the NTSC "never the same color" format with slightly higher frame rate because I don't really remember when was the last time I watched my footage on a telly

Malakai · Apr 23, 2016

matti said:
PAL 25fps is very close to the "real cinematic effect" 24fps

But I've been wondering if I should switch to 50fps or, gasp, even to the NTSC "never the same color" format with slightly higher frame rate because I don't really remember when was the last time I watched my footage on a telly

Go for NTSC, grab those extra 10fps for some buttery smooth action shots.
Although 25fps is close to the cinematic 24 (actually 23.97), it doesn't have the same cinematic affect. When you watch footage captured at 23.97 fps and a shutter speed of 48 (50 is the closest we can get) This creates just the right amount of motion blur between frames so that your mind see's the footage like a dream sequence, hence giving the cinematic feel to it. Its difficult to get footage that has been captured at 60fps and output it at 23.97fps and achieve the same cinematic effect.