I agree with these comments as they relate to broadcast (and other) deliverables, however, there is an argument for higher than 4k x 4k rendering as a production tool when using higher than 4k camera formats. For example, you may need to exchange intermediate files between software programs without "downrezzing" or do a render/replace operation within Vegas. Not a "must have" in my case, but certainly another useful tool for maintaining quality and workflow flexibility.

I will never own equipment to shoot/edit/play 8k, or even HDR. My 4k teevee is sweet with OTA HD, as it is with Fire 4k, so I'm happy as a clam.

For me it's more about the camera than the TV. A Panasonic GH5, for example, has a number of modes that exceed 4k x 4k, and I imagine that in the near future this will be the case for many cameras.

I don't have a problem with acquisition in 8K. I watch my 4K video in 4K though very few other people do.

The pixel dimensions of a camcorder sensor wouldn't be the primary factor that I would consider if I had to replace my current camera.

John-dennis, good point. I remember in VHS days I saw some footage shot on VHS that was outstanding quality. A good recorder and camera can overcome format limitations.

John-dennis, good point. I remember in VHS days I saw some footage shot on VHS that was outstanding quality. A good recorder and camera can overcome format limitations.

I wonder if you would say the same when watching that “outstanding” VHS on today’s 60” HD our UHD screen.

"HEVC is comming on new Sony cameras for sure."

Lossy acquisition video formats are not virtuous. Their use is a compromise that allows camera manufacturers to make a value-judgement about what to keep and what to throw away. If on-board storage was fast enough and large enough everyone would be storing uncompressed.

The same case could be made for networks. Perhaps, society is working on the wrong problem.

OK, back to the real world.

John-dennis, good point. I remember in VHS days I saw some footage shot on VHS that was outstanding quality. A good recorder and camera can overcome format limitations.

I wonder if you would say the same when watching that “outstanding” VHS on today’s 60” HD our UHD screen.

"I don't have a problem with acquisition in 8K."

I don't have a problem with acquisition in any form that's higher than the current state-of-the-art delivery format, quality, bit rate, color sampling, etc.

Today, I would be more likely buy a camera that shoots 4K-60p with a good lens and built-in ND filters than an 8K version with fewer of those attributes.

oday, I would be more likely buy a camera that shoots 4K-60p with a good lens and built-in ND filters than an 8K version with fewer of those attributes.

I second that!

For my needs 8k is overkill, but 5-6k allows for software stabilization and some digital pan/zoom without going below UHD resolution on final export.

Question: besides convenience, is there any advantage to built-in ND rather than good quality solid ND filters? (I use a variable ND sometimes, but don't like it.)

For my needs 8k is overkill, but 5-6k allows for software stabilization and some digital pan/zoom without going below UHD resolution on final export.

Question: besides convenience, is there any advantage to built-in ND rather than good quality solid ND filters? (I use a variable ND sometimes, but don't like it.)

You good quality build in ND? Convince is one but also potential vignetting with screw on NDs and some have reported the threaded X pattern.

For example, on my a6300 I can’t use the lens hood when I use the ND filter. I tried fixed ND’s but is even worth; I would have to change between them all the time. One for really sunny, one for shade and so on. It’s the main reason I prefer my AX700 over the a6300 for video.

Normally, I leave the ND filter on when I shoot in the blazing sun all day. Occasionally, I'll have to remove it and store it in a case. Internal filters don't get scratched.

Though I'm not in this market, I think this is way cool.

Though I'm not in this market, I think this is way cool.

Sure is! No "mechanical" variable ND has auto.

Think I might ditch my variable ND and go with a couple of fixed ones like a 4 stop and 6 stop Hoya IRND.

Any suggestions about what are the most used stop densities?

Think I might ditch my variable ND.

I am not sure that is a good idea. I used fixed ones because I wanted to use the lens hood too. Ended up missing shots and also “destroyed” shots with dust and finger prints that came along during switching filters.

As the saying goes: “been there, done that”.

John-dennis, good point. I remember in VHS days I saw some footage shot on VHS that was outstanding quality. A good recorder and camera can overcome format limitations.

I wonder if you would say the same when watching that “outstanding” VHS on today’s 60” HD our UHD screen.

I am sure not, but it was outstanding for the tech of the time.

@OldSmoke

The variable ND is flexible and allows very quick exposure adjustments, but I do wonder about image degradation from having two opposing polarizers. Also, as I use it in fairly rough conditions outdoors it tends to get dirty and sometimes condensation appears between the two pieces of glass. Mine came from ProTama and was about $170. Maybe I should look at a better/more robust unit. The new Hoya IRND filters seem to be highly rated, but their own website recommends against using variable ND with wide angle lenses.

Any thoughts about image degradation and use with wide angle lenses?

I remember in VHS days I saw some footage shot on VHS that was outstanding quality. A good recorder and camera can overcome format limitations.

Commercial betacam used some incredible glass, arguably better than some of its successors.

Any thoughts about image degradation and use with wide angle lenses?

@Kinvermark I am honestly not much of help with that. I don’t have a wide angle lens and on the 18-105mm lens I use with the a63000 I didn’t notice anything strange. My vND is from B&W and I researched it before purchasing to ensure it wouldn’t have the threaded X pattern as some cheaper ones may have.

The only think I noticed is a loss of colors in the red channel when used with the highest setting; I would have to check what number that was.

I *imagine* increasing the maximum resolution beyond 4096 x 4096 may be relatively cheap and straightforward to do. It might simply be a case of changing a few numbers in the code, and adding a handful of bundled project and render templates. Of course, playback smoothness will be a challenge.

There is some market for >4k already. There are fairly regular posts about it (e.g.1, e.g.2, e.g.3, e.g.4). RED has been shooting >4k for more than 7 years. Vegas has made some effort to support RED footage, so it's clearly a market of interest, but I'm sure the limited editing resolution must have been a factor against a typical RED user choosing Vegas as their NLE. And you already have the more affordable Panasonic cameras shooting 6k.

VP17 is likely to be the current version in 18 months from now. By then it will be much more common for users to capture >4k footage in all sorts of ways. I really think it needs to support it or it will cost sales.

Nick Hope wrote on 12/28/2018, 11:17 PM

I *imagine* increasing the maximum resolution beyond 4096 x 4096 may be relatively cheap 

Along with some more like-minded codecs, which are relatively few, and fairly limited in usefulness for consumer hobbyists at this time.

So if these Sony 8K TV' and new 8K XEVC Handycam are real next week at CES 2019, I imagine it will go like this: Sony will have huge 8k demonstrations with this camera, the press will say WOW,....WOW!!....this is truly amazing! (Im sure their 8k demonstrations WILL be awesome)

Then these consumer products hits the streets in March. Then, NAB 2019 in April could very easily have a new 8K alpha and/or 8K XDCAM product to back up those markets.

We also know Sony has just announced some new 8k video sensors this month. If those sensor specs hold true, they are truely stunnung chips.

Regardless....Sony XEVC is definetely comming and Vegas must support that HEVC codec right away...even if only in 4k resolution.

CT