Any reason not to use 2.7K?

Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Age
28
Hi there,

I'm new to this forum and I have a small question I haven't seen being asked before. Please forgive me if it's a silly question.
I was wondering, is there any downside to always film in 2.7K opposed to just 1080p? It seems that the available framerates between the two are identical (like, there's no 60FPS for 1080p I could otherwise use), so I guess it's best to record 2.7K at all time since it simply grants more resolution, which comes in handy when editing videos at 1080p later on.

Aside of a possibly larger video filesize, are there any downsides to filming at that resolution, or could I just stick with it if I'm not bothered about filesize?
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
123
Reaction score
48
Age
49
Location
Latvia, EU
Hi!
There aren't any downsides except the mentioned file size and its consequences - longer import, slower rendering by editing, in slower computer cases (like me) the need to generate proxies for smoother editing process, etc.

The Upsides are obvious - even if the final video will be 1080p, the larger source/master video gives place for edits, like faux second camera with narrover field of view (like you had two cams with different lenses), vertigo/fake dollyzoom, etc, etc - you can crop the frame without dropping below native 1080 resolution/quality loss.

So - in case the added file size isn't a dealbreaker, go for 2,7K.
With photos - shoot RAW (DNG)
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
815
Location
Surrey, England
Hi there,

I'm new to this forum and I have a small question I haven't seen being asked before. Please forgive me if it's a silly question.
I was wondering, is there any downside to always film in 2.7K opposed to just 1080p? It seems that the available framerates between the two are identical (like, there's no 60FPS for 1080p I could otherwise use), so I guess it's best to record 2.7K at all time since it simply grants more resolution, which comes in handy when editing videos at 1080p later on.

Aside of a possibly larger video filesize, are there any downsides to filming at that resolution, or could I just stick with it if I'm not bothered about filesize?
You won't notice any difference on an HD display/TV so you'd need a UHD unit to seen any benefit.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
123
Reaction score
48
Age
49
Location
Latvia, EU
You won't notice any difference on an HD display/TV so you'd need a UHD unit to seen any benefit.

As I told, there are upsides even for FHD final use.
And, in case You have UHD TV set, the 2,7K will look better than 1920x1080 (ok, you will lose the advantage to nondestructive crop).
And - usually, the FHD will be of better quality after colorgrading/adding effects etc, if it will be rendered from 2,7K source instead from 1080 out-of-camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naohiro
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
815
Location
Surrey, England
As I told, there are upsides even for FHD final use.
And, in case You have UHD TV set, the 2,7K will look better than 1920x1080 (ok, you will lose the advantage to nondestructive crop).
And - usually, the FHD will be of better quality after colorgrading/adding effects etc, if it will be rendered from 2,7K source instead from 1080 out-of-camera.

Well, I'm sure you'll agree that an HD monitor cannot resolve more than its physical capability? Editing techniques gives the visual perception of "better quality" and then by cropping it back to 1080, you've effectively arrived back at square one.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
123
Reaction score
48
Age
49
Location
Latvia, EU
Well, I'm sure you'll agree that an HD monitor cannot resolve more than its physical capability? Editing techniques gives the visual perception of "better quality" and then by cropping it back to 1080, you've effectively arrived back at square one.

Sure, no better than physical/native.
But, in editing process, I assume there are some quality advandages by using larger source data pool (due the quantization effects etc.).
But that wasn't my point - my point in favor of 2,7K boils down to more creative space in editing.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
529
Reaction score
229
Location
San Diego, CA
Sure, no better than physical/native.
But, in editing process, I assume there are some quality advandages by using larger source data pool (due the quantization effects etc.).
But that wasn't my point - my point in favor of 2,7K boils down to more creative space in editing.

Agreed. When it comes to quality, I have my doubts that a 2.7K video resized in post-production to 1080p will look any better than a 1080p video straight from the camera. I did some tests, couldn't tell the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mix_
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
123
Reaction score
48
Age
49
Location
Latvia, EU
Agreed. When it comes to quality, I have my doubts that a 2.7K video resized in post-production to 1080p will look any better than a 1080p video straight from the camera. I did some tests, couldn't tell the difference.

aye, maybe - never tested side-by-side.
But, due to cropping/zooming I do every time by editing, I better prefer to have 2,7K recorded footage.
Not much reason (except filesize and their consequences) not to shoot the best quality Your camera can give.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
815
Location
Surrey, England
Agreed. When it comes to quality, I have my doubts that a 2.7K video resized in post-production to 1080p will look any better than a 1080p video straight from the camera. I did some tests, couldn't tell the difference.
Exactly, it doesn't.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
815
Location
Surrey, England
aye, maybe - never tested side-by-side.
But, due to cropping/zooming I do every time by editing, I better prefer to have 2,7K recorded footage.
Not much reason (except filesize and their consequences) not to shoot the best quality Your camera can give.
But you're not accessing the best quality when you edit and then crop to 1080, are you?
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Age
28
Thanks a lot for the replies. I'm glad to know that there aren't any real downsides to filming with 2.7K so it seems that keeping on filming in 2.7K is the best idea for me. My PC doesn't seem to have any struggles with it and I have plenty SD capacity to take shots.
I love to apply effects such as the dolly zoom on occasion or an overall more zoomed-in effect in some shots like Mix_ described. I also reckon that it could be handy to crop footage in case parts of the drone such as the wings show up in the footage. Somehow I forgot that the P3S could film in this resolution, so I was pleasantly surprised to ecounter this setting.

But you're not accessing the best quality when you edit and then crop to 1080, are you?
I think he simply means being able to digitally zoom in without any quality loss. Footage recorded on 1080p obviously degrades in quality the moment you crop it, whereas 2.7K footage allows a decent margin of cropping footage without losing any resolution when finally rendered to a 1080p video. Playing 2.7K footage on a 1080p monitor does indeed not look any different. But I guess aside of the "lossless"cropping possibility, it could be useful with pixel based effects in editing software as they can be calculated more accurately.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
529
Reaction score
229
Location
San Diego, CA
aye, maybe - never tested side-by-side.
But, due to cropping/zooming I do every time by editing, I better prefer to have 2,7K recorded footage.
Not much reason (except filesize and their consequences) not to shoot the best quality Your camera can give.

Absolutely, if you do post-processing, then you definitely want to extract the best from the camera sensor, and that means full resolution (2.7K for P3S) and typically very "flat" color profiles with minimum in-camera processing (sharpening, contrast, saturation).
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
529
Reaction score
229
Location
San Diego, CA
Exactly, it doesn't.

To clarify: video taken at high resolution and then downsized in post-production should look marginally better than video coming straight from the camera at a lower resolution, assuming you know what you are doing and pick the right encoder settings. My observation was that such difference is negligible in the P3S, which can only go to 2.7K.
But even with 4K cameras, the quality honestly is pretty similar, as you can see from this example:

 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
815
Location
Surrey, England
To clarify: video taken at high resolution and then downsized in post-production should look marginally better than video coming straight from the camera at a lower resolution, assuming you know what you are doing and pick the right encoder settings. My observation was that such difference is negligible in the P3S, which can only go to 2.7K.
But even with 4K cameras, the quality honestly is pretty similar, as you can see from this example:

Thanks for this. I think your comparison shows my point well.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Age
28
Interesting example. Yeah it would seem that filming 2.7K just to render it as 1080p straight out is rather pointless, and it's good to know that I don't need to bother about that. So it seems the question of whether or not using 2.7K or even 4K has any benefits, depends on the intended use;
-To render sharper footage, no -or barely if one really wants that extra refinement.
-For more creative freedom, yes.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,953
Age
65
Location
UK Brit living Latvia
I changed to 1080 recording and my file size hardly changed ... seriously !

If you upload to YT / Vimeo etc. - your super duper video will be downgraded anyway.

Unless you are a pro user - and then its unlikely you would use a P3S .... its a matter of discussion only IMHO.

Nigel
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
126
Reaction score
47
Age
68
Location
Virginia
If you upload to YT / Vimeo etc. - your super duper video will be downgraded anyway.

I routinely upload 2.7k to YouTube and it plays beautifully as 1440p without any rendering down to 1080p. You just need to be sure to not cause YouTube to re-render it by editing your video within YouTube (e.g. adding music, or any of their other "enhancements"). That will definitely destroy the 2.7k and limit you to 1080p, and in many ways it looks even worse than original P3S 1080p. The trick is getting YouTube to leave your uploads alone. Do all your own editing with your own tools that preserve original 2.7k or 4K quality, and then just upload the final product to YouTube.

Of course, you still need a monitor or TV that can play 2.7K or 4K video, whether the video comes through YouTube or not. That is probably the biggest limitation of posting high quality video to YouTube. There just aren't enough people with the means to display beyond 1080p anyway. But if you have the equipment and the bandwidth, it plays beautifully.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
140,618
Messages
1,449,361
Members
102,421
Latest member
ОliverСhristopher