Who's actually filming and Editing in 4k

[keithmh]

I just thought I'd mention some things in here. I'm a professional film editor and I work in 4k a lot. If you just want to film and trim your video files 4k is great. If you want to actually manipulate the image or whatever, you're going to end up with some major issues as far as storage and workflow. Think 1080 when it first came out. If you have a low end computer you can do it, it's just going to take some time and patience. Another thing is that when you downscale to 1080 you can end up with moiré issues. word of advice if you're going to actually be editing. Convert your footage into an intermediate codec. It's going to take up more space but h.264 is very processor intensive. It was designed as a delivery format and not as a file you should be working with, even if you're rocking premier pro.

4k is great though. Even if you don't end up using now it having it available when computer hardware catches up in a couple years at the consumer level will be awesome. Even though I film and work with 4k footage almost all my output files end up being 1080 because unless you are putting something on the big screen there's no point. Most people don't have 4k screens, it's not deliverable on television, and even if you do have a 4k tv you aren't going to be able to tell the difference unless your <2 feet away

 

[gravity]

I was under the impression that the Pro also had a faster charger than the Advanced.

On another note, is it possible to record at 1080p through app settings on the Pro if you want to? Or does it only record in 4k all the time?

 

[envisionabove]

4K all the time now unless that's what is causing my disconnects will be testing in a minuet or two. 4096x2160 24fps Codec Xavc-s

 

[chapsrlz]

i am!

i upload my videos to youtube in 4k (youtube now supports 8k btw...)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Av6dOzCEHlcRoRzGdlSiQ

but im filming on a hero4, im selling my p2 and as soon as its gone ill be buying the p3 to continue shooting/editting in 4k.

and about times and file sizes... 8.54 minutes (largest file with gopro) = 4 gb

 

[ctp]

do you also have picture of the controller board?

What you want is here http://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=19599&pid=144431&fromuid=6139

The image processor is an Ambarella A9 SOC. It's a two year old SOC, but impressive specs and capabilities claimed by the manufacturer. The fan is positioned specifically to cool the A9 processor which is connected to the housing by a heat transfer pad inside the case.

 

[Bosque]

There's a bit of confusion here when you are all talking about 4K. 4K doesn't necessarily mean it's filmed in 444 bit depth. Most of what you see is 422 which save file size by storing less chroma information. Whether the Phantom 3 shoots in 444 or not, I don't know. I could show you samples of 444 vs 422 and there's no way you could visually tell me which is which. As to downrezzed 1080 being sharper than native, it depends on the software and downsampling algorithm it's using. If your software uses a simple bicubic without low pass filtering, I guarantee you the result will look like *** compared to a decent lanczos downconvert. We use hardware boards like Terrranex, or the AJA Kona and Blackmagic Extreme do a pretty good job.

Next, there is how the files are compressed. Phantom 3 is storing in H264. H264 will look great out of the box with the right compression and settings, however, when we try to grade it next to pro footage (Arri, Red, Sony , Panasonic), it falls apart pretty quickly. Try to pull a key on a blue sky using H264 and you'll see what I mean. Same issue that Go Pro has.

All that being said, I would definitely shoot 4K if given the option, being able to reframe shots for HD output is a great benefit. Plus your footage is future-proofed. For a while, I spent my time rebuilding shows that no one had the forethought to build in HD, I've worked with footage all the way up to 8K and it is possible on the right hardware. Doesn't take much nowadays.

I have been filming with Phantoms for a couple of years now, bought my first at Cinegear from Collin. Love the possibilities. I haven't made the leap to Phantom 3 yet, I am waiting to see what happens with the Micro Cinema camera which shoots in raw and ProRes with a hell of a lot of latitude. It doesn't shoot 4K, but I'm more interested in retaining detail in shadows and sky. Plus with HDR sets on the horizon, dynamic range will become another reality we have to deal with.

These are just my two cents. I don't normally post here, but thought I could add something to the conversation. 20 years in the film business, 4 Emmys, a NASA award, hundreds of shows and films.... yada yada yada

 

[aburkefl]

There's a common misconception about editing 4K. I have a very much run-of-the-mill PC (I do do Mac) and I have no problem editing 4K - admittedly, I'm downsizing it to 1080, but it's really pretty trivial. And there are several videos floating around that prove 4K downsized to 1080 *is* better, even without a 4K display.

Look how quickly 1080 HD fired up. 4K won't be too far away for most people. And storage now is dirt cheap - you can store the 4K stuff for later.

Editor - The GoPro Studio (FREE) will edit everything that comes out of my P3P. I don't know if it can edit 4K into 4K and I've not tried - no one I know has anything that's a true 4K so I've not even tried to process it to that level.

Someone else also pointed out - you're gonna spend $1,000 and start quibbling about a couple hundred bucks difference?

 

[4wd]

So if we want to downscale in the best way possible before any editing, is it best to convert to something else like AVI too?

 

[ctp]

There's a bit of confusion here when you are all talking about 4K. 4K doesn't necessarily mean it's filmed in 444 bit depth. Most of what you see is 422 which save file size by storing less chroma information. Whether the Phantom 3 shoots in 444 or not, I don't know. I could show you samples of 444 vs 422 and there's no way you could visually tell me which is which. As to downrezzed 1080 being sharper than native, it depends on the software and downsampling algorithm it's using. If your software uses a simple bicubic without low pass filtering, I guarantee you the result will look like *** compared to a decent lanczos downconvert. We use hardware boards like Terrranex, or the AJA Kona and Blackmagic Extreme do a pretty good job.

Next, there is how the files are compressed. Phantom 3 is storing in H264. H264 will look great out of the box with the right compression and settings, however, when we try to grade it next to pro footage (Arri, Red, Sony , Panasonic), it falls apart pretty quickly. Try to pull a key on a blue sky using H264 and you'll see what I mean. Same issue that Go Pro has.

All that being said, I would definitely shoot 4K if given the option, being able to reframe shots for HD output is a great benefit. Plus your footage is future-proofed. For a while, I spent my time rebuilding shows that no one had the forethought to build in HD, I've worked with footage all the way up to 8K and it is possible on the right hardware. Doesn't take much nowadays.

I have been filming with Phantoms for a couple of years now, bought my first at Cinegear from Collin. Love the possibilities. I haven't made the leap to Phantom 3 yet, I am waiting to see what happens with the Micro Cinema camera which shoots in raw and ProRes with a hell of a lot of latitude. It doesn't shoot 4K, but I'm more interested in retaining detail in shadows and sky. Plus with HDR sets on the horizon, dynamic range will become another reality we have to deal with.

These are just my two cents. I don't normally post here, but thought I could add something to the conversation. 20 years in the film business, 4 Emmys, a NASA award, hundreds of shows and films.... yada yada yada

That is some really helpful information. I believe that the P3Pro records in 4:2:0, which makes it possible to downsample to 1080P and end up with 4:4:4 color data in the final video. The tools I have (Sony Catalyst) won't show me chroma data in the video.

DJI chose to use the first generation 4K/UHD chip, the Ambarella A9, for the P3Pro. Hopefully the next generation Pro camera will bring us up to at least the Ambarella H1, which brings 4K60 and H.265 support. Do you think the H.265 will be helpful when (and if) we get it?

 

[desdeundron]

I am recording, editing and uploading video in 4K, using P3 or GP4B, downsampling the video give me better results than recording At 1080p

http://youtu.be/taKVl_dZR5w

 

[Bosque]

I am recording, editing and uploading video in 4K, using P3 or GP4B, downsampling the video give me better results than recording At 1080p

http://youtu.be/taKVl_dZR5w

Beautiful footage. I believe you when you say you are getting better quality from downsampled 4K, however, in the Youtube video you posted, the details are soft, so not a good demo of this (look at the trees) there's loss of High Frequency, smearing, compression artifacts. Of course, Youtube is compressing the hell out of the frames. The best way to tell, would be to shoot the same scene with two cameras shooting 4K and 1080 at the same time. These are the kinds of test we do with clients when they are deciding which cameras to go with. As I said in the previous post, depending on a huge number of factors, you can get worse quality out of downsampled 4K. The most obvious would be what software you are using to create the 1080 downsample. We use software most people won't ever touch, it's made specifically for transcoding from one format to another. I don't know if anyone has compared different Prosumer/Professional softwares like PP, FCP, Avid etc, would be a very useful comparison.

One of the questions asked, was whether converting 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 footage to 4:4:4 would help picture quality. The answer is not really. Same as when you are working with 1080 and upressing to 4k, or taking 8 bit material converting to 10 bit.You are having the computer pad the file with data that wasn't there to begin with and making a larger file. Computers can interpret pretty well, they can create new pixels or frames from surrounding material, but in doing so, it can also create artifacts that are worse than leaving the frame in it's native format.

H265 is an up and coming format that has a lot of interest. It can handle resolutions up to 8K and can record in 422 or 444. Better quality video at the same data rates as the current H264 specs. So, I would say that yes, H265 support will get us better looking pictures with a smaller file size.

I would say, the easiest way to get cleaner video in your final result, sharper images, is to color correct your footage. Adjusting contrast makes a great first step. The human eye is more sensitive to changes in Luma/Contrast than Color, there are 120 million rods (light) versus 6 to 7 million cones (color), adding contrast also has the benefit of perceptually adding saturation giving you a nice, rich picture. The first thing I do, is set the black level (shadows/setup), then the white level (highlights/gain), then I ride the middle ranges (mids/gamma). Next I'll cure any color casts (some software has an eyedropper to set the white balance) by finding something white in the frame and adjusting out any tint. Lastly, I'll use secondaries (choosing a range of values or color) to deepen skies, pop the grass, fix skin tones etc.

At the end of the day, unless you're showcasing your work on a 4K monitor from a hard drive setup to play uncompressed files (a horrendous undertaking that even the film studios don't attempt), it's going to end up getting further compressed. Either the networks will compress it to send it over their broadcast, it'll end up on Youtube, Netflix, Vimeo etc, or you take it to a buddies house and play it from your iphone. Don't laugh, but I have clients calling me to complain that their shows don't look good on their iphones, boyfriends tv, ipads etc, even though they loved it in the $40,000 viewing room that we used to create the finished look. I even had one executive complain that he was viewing on his boat in the marina, and the black and white commercial was looking too blue. I had to explain the image had no color and his viewing copy was compressed to hell in order to email, and to please come into the color calibrated room in order to judge.

So final thought, just go out and shoot, have fun, and don't get too hung up on the tech.

 

[Ari]

Macbook Pro laptops don't have 4K monitors but it can do 1440p, already a nice step up from 1080p. When uploading my 4K files to YouTube in addition to 4K playback option folks with retina displays can now enjoy it in 1440p as oppose to 1080p.

Sampling down 4K to 1080p is better than recording in 1080p.

My 4K mp4 files is about 5GB for every 10min, just drop 3TB time capsule or WD on your network and you won't have any storage problems.

Here's first 4K video I did and I noticed significant bump in quality of video files.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If you can afford it, don't settle for 1080p. 4K displays will be as common as 1080p displays in the next couple years.

BS that your drone lasts a couple years. I have a 4k TV and I still went for the 1080P

 

[Bosque]

Beautiful footage. I believe you when you say you are getting better quality from downsampled 4K, however, in the Youtube video you posted, the details are soft, so not a good demo of this (look at the trees) there's loss of High Frequency, smearing, compression artifacts. Of course, Youtube is compressing the hell out of the frames. The best way to tell, would be to shoot the same scene with two cameras shooting 4K and 1080 at the same time. These are the kinds of test we do with clients when they are deciding which cameras to go with. As I said in the previous post, depending on a huge number of factors, you can get worse quality out of downsampled 4K. The most obvious would be what software you are using to create the 1080 downsample. We use software most people won't ever touch, it's made specifically for transcoding from one format to another. I don't know if anyone has compared different Prosumer/Professional softwares like PP, FCP, Avid etc, would be a very useful comparison.

One of the questions asked, was whether converting 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 footage to 4:4:4 would help picture quality. The answer is not really. Same as when you are working with 1080 and upressing to 4k, or taking 8 bit material converting to 10 bit.You are having the computer pad the file with data that wasn't there to begin with and making a larger file. Computers can interpret pretty well, they can create new pixels or frames from surrounding material, but in doing so, it can also create artifacts that are worse than leaving the frame in it's native format.

H265 is an up and coming format that has a lot of interest. It can handle resolutions up to 8K and can record in 422 or 444. Better quality video at the same data rates as the current H264 specs. So, I would say that yes, H265 support will get us better looking pictures with a smaller file size.

I would say, the easiest way to get cleaner video in your final result, sharper images, is to color correct your footage. Adjusting contrast makes a great first step. The human eye is more sensitive to changes in Luma/Contrast than Color, there are 120 million rods (light) versus 6 to 7 million cones (color), adding contrast also has the benefit of perceptually adding saturation giving you a nice, rich picture. The first thing I do, is set the black level (shadows/setup), then the white level (highlights/gain), then I ride the middle ranges (mids/gamma). Next I'll cure any color casts (some software has an eyedropper to set the white balance) by finding something white in the frame and adjusting out any tint. Lastly, I'll use secondaries (choosing a range of values or color) to deepen skies, pop the grass, fix skin tones etc.

At the end of the day, unless you're showcasing your work on a 4K monitor from a hard drive setup to play uncompressed files (a horrendous undertaking that even the film studios don't attempt), it's going to end up getting further compressed. Either the networks will compress it to send it over their broadcast, it'll end up on Youtube, Netflix, Vimeo etc, or you take it to a buddies house and play it from your iphone. Don't laugh, but I have clients calling me to complain that their shows don't look good on their iphones, boyfriends tv, ipads etc, even though they loved it in the $40,000 viewing room that we used to create the finished look. I even had one executive complain that he was viewing on his boat in the marina, and the black and white commercial was looking too blue. I had to explain the image had no color and his viewing copy was compressed to hell in order to email, and to please come into the color calibrated room in order to judge.

So final thought, just go out and shoot, have fun, and don't get too hung up on the tech.

Also, just to show what I'm talking about with the new HDR sets coming in to play. Here's a couple of screenshots showing the great range between shadows and highlights.

 

[Sammynels]

By the time 4K is widely used and more affordable for the average consumer to purchase, there will be a new badass DJI Drone that u will to buy that comes standard in 4K. Save the cash and buy a few more batteries.

 

[Bob Publicover]

I purchased the Advanced and have no regrets. I'm not a "professional" photographer and have no equipment to view 4K. For a premium price of 25% more, No way!
The Advanced does everything I need it to, the single shots and videos are spectacular.
4K may be the main stream in 4-5 years, but will you still have that same 4K Phantom in 4-5 years?
Save the extra expense and purchase 2 additional batteries with it.

 

[SteveMann]

I would definitely not "zoom" in the picture because obviously the quality will get worse and worse every zoom %. Rather, you can compress your 4k video into 1080 which has already been proven to be better quality than normal 1080.

You miss the point altogether. I shoot in 4K because that gives me quite a bit of frame that I can edit in 1080 without losing any quality. I am not compressing anything. Look at it this way - I have a big 4K picture and a 1080 frame. I can move that 1080 frame anywhere on the 4K picture to crop what I want, and I don't lose any picture quality because I am not compressing anything.

 

[SteveMann]

BTW, TV makers were already demonstrating 8K at last April's NAB [Website]

 

[DrewFlies]

You miss the point altogether. I shoot in 4K because that gives me quite a bit of frame that I can edit in 1080 without losing any quality. I am not compressing anything. Look at it this way - I have a big 4K picture and a 1080 frame. I can move that 1080 frame anywhere on the 4K picture to crop what I want, and I don't lose any picture quality because I am not compressing anything.

I was commenting on another comment. What you just descibe is not "zooming" on the 4k picture like somebody mentioned. Zooming on 4k picture is pretty stupid if you ask me.

 

[chapsrlz]

BTW, TV makers were already demonstrating 8K at last April's NAB [Website]

youtube already supports 8k z

 

[Chris P Duck]

I'd love to do some blind tests (no pun intended) on people's 4k TV's vs 1080 to see if they can really tell the difference.

Yes 4k is obviously vastly superior to 1080 technically (and yes 8k will/is better then 4k) but you are chasing deminishing returns.

The jump from 480 to 1080 was noticeable to all.
The jump from 1080 to 4k I doubt most would notice in a home environment as they don't sit close enough, to a big enough TV, with no calibration of TV or environment to notice.
The jump from 4k to 8k, well I'd love to see the size of the TV you'd need to make that worth while.

This all assumes good compression. I dread to think what youtube will do to an 8k file to make that streamable. A 1080p video with minimal compression (as stored on a blu Ray) needs something like a 20Mb/s download speed to stream assuming zero overheads and no other traffic.

I have an old Panasonic Plasma (VT65) in a purpose designed room with a decent calibration. Guests always assume it's 4k but it's not, it's just 1080 done properly.

As many have said we'll be on the Pahantom 8+ by the time 4k is anywhere near mainstream.