Monitoring 4k edits: 4k TV or PC monitor?

megabit wrote on 3/2/2015, 2:34 AM

As some of my Friends here on this forum know, due to my disability I had to quit using my 2 HD cameras (am in the process of selling them). Just turned 60, so I'm thinking about getting myself a future-proof (yes, 4k) camera instead for those beauty shots from time to time that would not require to carry it for a long time, but make it possible to continue my "serious hobby" videography has been in my life...

Of course I'l also need a faster computer to edit 4K, and above all - a 4k monitor. And here is a question: I've always used Vegas in 3 monitors configuration:

- the main monitor with the program interface and Preview Monitor window
- the 2nd monitor (full screen, configured as Windows Secondary one in Vegas) for my MC display; 20" has been just enough to enlarge the tiny preview window so that the action in all 6-10 cameras was visible clearly enough for cutting (take selection)
- the 50" plasma HDTV hanging on the wall in front and above me, angled slightly down, so that I could see the final HD output with FX'es added for grading etc. The plasma made it also possible to assess the rendered output of my projects, and inspect it closely - the distance of watching small enough for true pixel-peeping :) This short watching distance becomes even more of an argument when it comes to 4k.

Now my main question: assuming I want to keep the price down as much as possible, but not give up too much of the functionality - what would be better for me to buy for my 4k editing:

- one of those (now not so expensive) 4k LED TVs (like the Samsung UE50HU6900), which could replace the current HD plasma on the wall, or

- one of the 4k monitors, which in this price range are usually up to 32" at max (with 4k, not enough for pixel-peeping :))?

Interestingly, 4k monitors seem more expensive than TVs when it comes to 4k - even though in some aspects they are not as feature-rich (e.g. they usually are just 60 Hz refresh rate, while the TVs are rated at 2000 Hz). Yeah, I do realize the 2000 Hz quoted is a marketing slogan for some "movement fluency" gimmicks, but no matter what - I was after a 50" 4k monitor (the size of the Samsung model mentioned above), it would cost many times more than the TV!

So I do realize that for editing, all those gimmicks consumer products like those 4k TVs offer are unnecessary (or even more - unwelcome), but - just as I have been doing with my HD plasma so far - I hope they can just be switched off. So, from the price viewpoint the choice is obvious - a TV set like the one I mentioned is the way to go... Or is it, really? Please name a single (or several) reasons why I should buy a 4k PC monitor rather than a TV, and let us discuss it :)

Piotr

PSDisclaimer: please keep in mind that - considering my personal situation - price is unfortunately a very important factor in this choosing dilemma; otherwise it's obvious a professional monitor - not a consumer TV set - is the way to go...

Back to post

Comments

Wolfgang S. wrote on 3/15/2015, 6:01 AM

"Vegas uses OpenCL for timeline preview and a faster CPU only will not help; been there done that."

There are enough examples where that is not true. Take AVCHD 1080 50p/60p. Take s3D MVC footage. Take also the UHD-ProRes generated by units like the Shogun. In all that cases the encoding speed can be a limit - and the limit can comes from the CPU.

True, we have seen a change in behaviour from Vegas 12 to Vegas 13. For Pro 12 the NLE was more CPU dependent - with Vegas Pro 13 the GPU has become more important too. We have seen that when some users with onboard GPUs only upgraded from Pro 12 to Pro 13 - and complained about the lower performance of playback.

So to get a good performing CPU is still important - especially for UHD/4K one should be aware that SCS specifies a 8-core for 4K. The GPU is important too, but more for the preview of effects. The shame is that the older OpenCL 4.2/4.3 seems to behave much better in Vegas then the later OpenCL versions - that is why the newer AMD cards performs better then the newer GTX or Quardro cards in Vegas, and that is why older cards like the GTX570 still performs great (but without UHD capabilities).

megabit wrote on 3/15/2015, 6:36 AM

Wolfgang is absolutely right - with the Fermi GTX 580 and relatively slow 2600K processor, I'm getting the full 25 fps from the newest, 100 Mbps XAVC-S codec of the upgraded AX100!

Since my 4k needs really aren't reater than this (at least for the time being), it's such a pity I cannot monitor with 4K@60 Hz with this card... Adding another card with Displayport 1.2 would cause PCIe to fall-down to 8x speed,, and replacing the GTX 580 with a newer nVidia or AMD card with UHD monitoring would probably cause the fps to slow down...Not having enough money now for a completely new system, I'll probably will have to give up on 4k for now (even the entry level XAVC-S)...

Piotr

PS. You may wonder how come the 100 Mbps material from the AX100 plays with full 25 fps at Best/Full, while earlier in the same thread I wrote about 18 fps at max; well thee secret might be that having downloaded a 100 Mbps sample and expecting it needs faster disk I/O, I put it on my RAID 0 - and voila! - a full 25 fps is what I'm getting. I also tried a 30p clip with the same great result.

OldSmoke wrote on 3/15/2015, 7:51 AM

Wolfgang S
I said that a faster CPU ALONE will not help and I still stand by that. You can have the fastest 5960X 8 core and still won't get proper preview. Yes, a sample clip alone will play fine but anyone who cares a bit about their videos will at least apply a B&C and CC FX and then you are done with your CPU alone. GPU is important especially with 4K. The 100Mbs files, like a transcoded XAVCS to XAVC Intra file, play better because the XAVCS is heavily compressed.

Piotr
I would say if you can playback EX1080 MXF files at Best/Full, full 25fps with your most common FXs on the current system then stick with it and use proxies. I only recommend then using Vegasaur latest version for proxy building, it is easy and provides a lot more control over the whole proxy process. One more thing, Try two or three different sample files with a 1sec cross fade and see how well the system can handle that.

megabit wrote on 3/15/2015, 8:09 AM

What do my EX 1080 25p files have to do with it?

With those files I don't need proxies at all - and that's with as many as 8 tracks in multicamera edits, along with media level FX (like curves and alike). I still have full 25 fps with that - and with 2 monitors one of which plays the selected take with the FXes.

I am sure I could do the same with the 100 Mbps XAVS S from AX100, as - after all - this is just a 100 Mbps clip. My only problem the entire thread is about is monitoring it at 4k@60 Hz on 4K monitor. This is my problem; is my English really that bad?

Piotr

OldSmoke wrote on 3/15/2015, 8:30 AM

Piotr

This has nothing todo with your English but with your vision or imagination. I am using AX100 files for almost a year now and noway your system will be able to handle multicam editing with XAVCS files, that would mean it so soooo much better then my system.

The reason I asked about EX1080 files is that this is my choice of proxy for 4K editing and I use Vegasaur for building it.

You are jumping the gun, yes your thread is about the preview but you first should establish if you even can edit native 4K files, don't you think? I can upload a few AX100 30p clips for you to download and try if you like to test your systems editing performance first. In addition you are talking about 4K at 60fps if I got that right and that is a whole other story.

megabit wrote on 3/15/2015, 8:39 AM

No, No and No :)

I'm only talking "consumer" 4k (XAVC S at 25p as I'm in PAL) area, and have no plans of using them for MultiCAM.

But enough has been said; thanks all for their input

Piotr

OldSmoke wrote on 3/15/2015, 8:49 AM

Piotr

That is exactly my point! XAVCS from the AX100 is heavily compressed and requires a lot more computing power then you might think.

megabit wrote on 3/15/2015, 2:24 PM

Guys,

Just one more question - the last one on this subject, trust me :)

Since I can't upgrade the whole system now, and really only need it for relatively "light" XAVC-S files - please tell me: [b]have you heard of R9 290X cards which would offer not only Display Port 1.2, but also HDMI 2.0, full 4K resolution[b]? For some reason this is extremely important to me at the moment:

Piotr

Wolfgang S. wrote on 3/15/2015, 3:11 PM

OldSmoke,

That is exaxtly what I said that you need the GPU for effects.

piotr,
I know that quite well that you fall back to 8x if you have to share both slots on your board. I run my pc in that way - since I use one Quadro for s3D and one gtx570 for the opencl performance. Works fine but for hd only. But uhd footage from my gh4 playback at full fps on my hd preview. What is not bad.

Pete Siamidis wrote on 3/15/2015, 4:11 PM

Just wanted to add to this that much of the performance issues are due to Vegas Pro being poor at using gpu resources. I love Vegas Pro 13 and all and use it extensively, but I tried the latest Premiere Pro free trial just to see how it would run and it ran my AX100 4k footage far smoother on the timeline on the same hardware than Vegas Pro 13 does. I was surprised quite frankly to see my little quad core 750m Macbook Pro laptop on Windows 8.1 run my AX100 4k footage at full speed on the Premiere Pro timeline without issue! I still stick to Vegas Pro because of it's scripting which i desperately need, but the reality is that Vegas Pro is very poor when it comes to timeline performance compared to the competition. I really wish they would focus on improving that on Vegas Pro 14.

megabit wrote on 3/16/2015, 5:49 AM

Just added to add to my last post about the availability of full HDMI 2.0 on R9 cards: I should have added that it's going to drive one of those early QHDTVs rather than a QHD monitor, so Display port is not the option.

I read all websites with specs for the R9 output - and while they say about HDMI "Quad HD, deep color" I'm afraid this is just going to be 4k@30 Hz (or 24Hz) only which is not enough for me (DP 1.2. provides full UHD@60 HZ and 30 bit color - 10 bit per channels, I guess). So:

- is the R9 HDMI 2.0 (which also provide full UHD@60Hz)
- or is the HDMI 1.4a, and you suggest using DP 1.2. with one of those DP->HDMI converters which are mixed opinions as far as drinking QHDTVs is concerned?

Thanks,

Piotr

megabit wrote on 3/18/2015, 11:17 AM

It has been a consensus here that for timeline playback (of a clip or several clips like in the MC editing, with our without FXes), an AMD card would be the better choice over nVidia, and indeed I found some benchmark results from SCS that would seem to confirm it:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/14

However, the authors of the linked article are not very clear (to me at least) in their wording when they say:

"With video encoding being increasingly offloaded to dedicated DSPs these days we’re focusing on the editing and compositing process, rendering to a low CPU overhead format (XDCAM EX). This specific test comes from Sony, and measures how long it takes to render a video."

Well - the very last sentence seems to contradict the previous, when they say first:

" we’re focusing on the editing and compositing process", but then the benchmark results comparo "measures how long it takes to render a video."...

So how do I understand the results (in which the R9 290X indeed rules over even the nVidia's Titan) - do they show XDCAM EX render, or timeline "edits and compositing"? Anyone, please?

Piotr

Wolfgang S. wrote on 3/18/2015, 3:01 PM

To my opinion, they show here a render test.