Who's actually filming and Editing in 4k

[Phloppy]

Just a guess, but perhaps the the P3 Pro is selling well because most people who can afford such an expensive toy, can probably also afford a good computer. 4k monitors are coming down in price very fast (they already cost as little as £250) and anyone who claims it isn't worth the extra money or effort probably hasn't seen the difference. 1080p doesn't look bad but then neither does 720p - it just isn't as nice to look at.

I film in 4k and edit / watch it on a 15" Macbook Pro Retina. It is as fast to edit as 1080p media in Final Cut Pro (i.e it is instant) although generating an final output file takes a little longer. When watching footage I 'zoom to fit' so that it fills my 1800 pixel vertical resolution and clips the sides a little (which have the worst of the fisheye effect anyway) to 16:10 aspect. It looks pretty good.

 

[DaveDorn]

So this is all in 4K. Seems to work nicely, and folks with lower res monitors get a nice view in 1080 or whatever...

 

[4wd]

Yes that looks pretty good.
I find if I render at 4K with a bitrate around 25 the file sizes are still reasonable and it looks fine on YT.
Downscaling to 1080p considerably increases rendering time, leaving it on 4K I can do 2 minutes in 30 minutes.
Youtube's own downsize for 1080p seems quite good I think.

 

[DaveDorn]

yeah... I had been using FCP's direct to YouTube export, but decided this time to export to HD and set my own parameters. Seems to have sorted the few glitches I was seeing with artefacting on large expanses of grass, and maintains the aspect ratio the way I want it.

 

[Ryan Nelson]

Believe it or not, Windows Movie Maker for Windows 7 will import the 4k video just fine and allow you to edit (quickly too). You can only export to 1080 though.

 

[Andy Boyd]

A bit of an old thread now, but Phantom 4K does NOT have 4x more video data than Phantom 1080p. Just check the bitrate spec. Nor does it record in 4:4:4. As others have commented , the playback quality improvement is pretty marginal. We are just being fooled by PR.


Andy

 

[dixter]

the reason 4K is such a hog on a normal computer vs workstation is due to the way the footage is compressed... the computer has to uncompress the footage during editing...
one way that works pretty well and is free is to use the GOPRO video converter.... that converter is actually not GOPRO but is a company called Cineform... the compressed footage is uncompressed and then converted to " wavelet " format.. a non-compressed and non destructive video format... once its converted most computers don't have any issue editing it.... it also has ability to output your footage in 444 color.... it works quite well...

 

[gravity]

I'm interested to see the 4k side by side with 1080p for myself. I still film in 4k even though I have no 4k TV or monitor, which may or may not turn out to be a waste. I guess we'll see.

 

[Keelbyfish]

Has anyone actually compared 4K downscaled to 1080p and 1080p footage on a 1080p tv?

 

[Grae]

I guess unless the footage is going to be viewed on a 4K-capable monitor, it is needless. That said, being able to crop areas of footage whilst maintaining high resolution in post is a huge benefit - something that can't be done in 1080. I know a lot of people take stills from 4K footage which is another benefit. But shooting separate photos in RAW beats that option.

 

[m0j0]

I guess unless the footage is going to be viewed on a 4K-capable monitor, it is needless. That said, being able to crop areas of footage whilst maintaining high resolution in post is a huge benefit - something that can't be done in 1080. I know a lot of people take stills from 4K footage which is another benefit. But shooting separate photos in RAW beats that option.

Not true at all. As a pro videographer there are a number of reasons to film 4K even though you don't plan on the final edit being 4K. You names two big ones in your post.

I shoot all my events 4K and output videos for a number of different platformsWorks fantastically.


Phantom 3 Pro / iPad Air 2

 

[PinesPhantom3]

the reason 4K is such a hog on a normal computer vs workstation is due to the way the footage is compressed... the computer has to uncompress the footage during editing...
one way that works pretty well and is free is to use the GOPRO video converter.... that converter is actually not GOPRO but is a company called Cineform... the compressed footage is uncompressed and then converted to " wavelet " format.. a non-compressed and non destructive video format... once its converted most computers don't have any issue editing it.... it also has ability to output your footage in 444 color.... it works quite well...

Can you explain in more details about the conversion? I have a GoPro but don't use the gopro program anymore. I usually record everything in 1080 but I have this one video of the fireworks right at midnight on the 31st of December that I mistakenly did in 4K and my laptop can't handle it. I have no issues editing and rendering 1080... Thank !

 

[Grae]

Not true at all. As a pro videographer there are a number of reasons to film 4K even though you don't plan on the final edit being 4K. You names two big ones in your post.

You seem to disagree and then partly agree with me here. Can you be specific in outlining why you would shoot in 4K when not outputting to 4K, outside of the reasons I gave? I'm not being argumentative - genuinely interested.

 

[Luap]

Isn't the FOV different between 4K and 1080p?

 

[m0j0]

You seem to disagree and then partly agree with me here. Can you be specific in outlining why you would shoot in 4K when not outputting to 4K, outside of the reasons I gave? I'm not being argumentative - genuinely interested.

No I get it.

It comes down to a number of things. First 4K is the highest quality. The theory is similar to taking a photo in RAW. You aren't going to send a raw file to anyone. You will edit and make adjustments then output at a number of different resolutions depending on your audience. You still retain the RAW file though because it retains the most information. A 4K file is much larger than 1080 so... if you get the file and have to reframe the shote e.g. props in it picture, horizon is off... You can actually crop that out or reframe the shot and still output a 1080 file that retains it's quality. Another reason is it gives you room to stabilize shots and not lose resolution when you output to 1080.

For me.. I always shoot at the highest resolution possible regardless of how I intend to deliver to the customer. You lose nothing by doing it. You can always downrez. You can't do the inverse. The only time with this cam that I would not shoot 4K is related to the amount of movement in the video. If there are quick pans required or a ton of movement then I might choose a lower resolution that supports the framerate necessary. To be honest though.. I understand the benefits of 24p and work within the constraints of the framerate.

Some may disagree with my point of view but it has served me well.

 

[chapsrlz]

New one is configurable with a 5k display. Pretty sweet.

5k is awesome

and i shoot and edit in 4k and 1280 for crappy facebook hd videos

 

[Grae]

Thanks for this. Really useful. In terms of frame rate, as shooting 4K does not support 60fps (for example), do you consider this a significant disadvantage in terms of slowing footage down for that type of effect? Can you still slow footage down effectively in 4K? I read a lot of conflicting views regarding low and high frame rates.

 

[JFHughes08088]

4K recordings downsized to 1080p indeed gives you a better quality - but not noticeable if you do not compare both material.

I own a 65" 4K TV (Sony) and the 1080p footage even looks stunning on it! You're fine getting the advanced now and upgrade in in the future to the Pro-Cam.

BTW: if you have a crash and need to repair the gimbal/cam you can still buy the 4K cam for just a few bucks more and his will give you a full Phantom 3 Professional!

No it won't. The advanced, even with a 4k camera upgrade, still doesn't transmit video back to the RC at 10 mbs. If only does 2

 

[m0j0]

Thanks for this. Really useful. In terms of frame rate, as shooting 4K does not support 60fps (for example), do you consider this a significant disadvantage in terms of slowing footage down for that type of effect? Can you still slow footage down effectively in 4K? I read a lot of conflicting views regarding low and high frame rates.

Personally, I do not shoot video in 24 or 30 FPS if I intend on slowing it down. If I was going to do a significant amount of slow motion I would not shoot the video in anything less than 60.. I do shoot slow motion for some events. I use a gh4 for that and shoot 90 fps. Comes out buttery smooth.

 

[dixter]

Can you explain in more details about the conversion? I have a GoPro but don't use the gopro program anymore. I usually record everything in 1080 but I have this one video of the fireworks right at midnight on the 31st of December that I mistakenly did in 4K and my laptop can't handle it. I have no issues editing and rendering 1080... Thank !

Here is some info for you...
Cineform