Sorry about sharing my "Feelings". :) I'm not a pro, nor have scientific tests to back anything. That said, I own a GH4, shoot 4K, don't like HD anymore. Yes, GH4 HD isn't the best, but it's WAY BETTER than the Canon "HD" in my T3i was. Like, noticeably, obviously better.
Downscaled 4K sharper than FHD (1080p)? Obviously false news put out by 4K marketers. But interest finally piqued by this thread, I shot some hairy dog comparisons on an LX100:
And had to change my opinion. Don't know if you can see it on this image, maybe, but full size on a 1080 screen the downsized 4K has noticeably finer detail than the FHD. I also tried to get a comparison from a Canon XA 20, which previously I thought was pretty sharp, not posted here because the dog woke up and wandered off while I was changing cameras. In comparison the detail close up looked like mud.
yup. because your FHD, probably isn't. BUT, now your dog looks TOO SHARP!! :D Whatever happened to that? All the whining about images being TOO SHARP, all BECAUSE OF 4K? We'll NEVER get sharper than REAL, folks! :D
yup. because your FHD, probably isn't. BUT, now your dog looks TOO SHARP!! :D Whatever happened to that? All the whining about images being TOO SHARP, all BECAUSE OF 4K? We'll NEVER get sharper than REAL, folks! :D
No one's been whining about things being too sharp, and that dog certainly isn't; it's just got more detail.
What people do complain about is oversharpening, where an effect, either in camera (as a bodge) or outside it (by a user), is applied and creates an artificial fringing effect between contrasting areas that is attempting to make up for the lack of detail in the original image.
Downsampling is not doing that though.
Ooooh when 4k was newly within consumer reach, and no one wanted to replace all their fine HD gear, all I read in all the forums was "4k is TOO sharp. Needs to be more 'SOFT' to look film like, be watchable". Now, I NEVER hear that anymore. Good!
oversharpening sucks, true
Just shot this today on an Sony RX10iii
So which is which? Half of it is shot in 25P HD, the other half in 25P 4K, both are added together in Vegas15 and rendered to 25P. Normally I film in 50P HD, but for this exercise I use 25P as I cannot film in 4K 50P.
I used the highest bitrate settings in both cases.
So which one comes from 4K? The first or second part?
Does it make sense for the RX10iii to film in 4K if you need HD (and do not need cropping)?
I noticed that filming in 4K with this camera you loose one F-stop of light with the same shutter speed. One F-stop is half the light lost folks! Not to mention you cannot shoot beyond 25P in 4K, in HD you can go up to 100 frames.
http://www.dropbox.com/s/ec9fr4ikrp5isdg/TwoVideoSources.mp4?dl=0
1) I don't care which one came from UHD.
2) Looping the video on a 1920x1080 screen, I was neutral on which one I liked the best.
3) Pixel-peeping in Photoshop using still images saved from the Vegas timeline, the second part of the video appeared to have better detail.
Like any good researcher, I'll show my work.
@john_dennis nice work, and indeed solid research, the second part source is 4K. The second part looks to have more detail in pixel peeping, but maybe Vegas's slightly over sharps due to the down convert. On my monitor, looping the video and looking at 3 fingers distance on the screen I spot tiny white rasters in the second half (the one that comes from 4K) which are not there in the first halve of the clip (coming from HD). For my camera at least I am not convinced to shoot in 4K if you are planning for HD, and loose all the benefits that come with filming in HD with this camera: longer battery life, less space used, high framerate, slow motion, better freehand panning (as I can use 50P or 100P as opposed to 25P), and last but not least, one F-stop more light to work with, not unimportant with such a big zoom lens).
@bitman
For my camera at least I am not convinced to shoot in 4K if you are planning for HD, and loose all the benefits that come with filming in HD with this camera: longer battery life, less space used, high framerate, slow motion, better freehand panning (as I can use 50P or 100P as opposed to 25P), and last but not least, one F-stop more light to work with, not unimportant with such a big zoom lens).
I use Sony FDR-AX53, and very seldom shoot in 4k - at the same reasons.
The first part of bitman's example appears clearer on my 50" screen. There is a magnification and brightness difference which makes a visual comparison tricky.
It's not up to us to prove that the world is a globe to those who keep saying it's flat.