pretty much a moot question, if you shooting 4k with a camera that uses h.265, because sony doesn't support modern codecs, so how will you edit the footage.

no, transcoding isn't a solution, it's a bandaid.

h.265 was announced well over a year ago, so they have had time to get with the program.

again (and again), it's CONTENT that matters

I am different. I don't watch shows with good or even great content in SD... I just don't. In other words, no content in SD can get me to be interested, there is just too little detail in it. It's like looking at a Polaroid picture and a Hasselbad. If the content is really that good, all I would say is: "too bad it wasn't shoot at a better resolution".

for once old smoke, you leave me completely speechless.....

Well Oldsmoke blew it, and I think he is probably a young feller green behind the ears.
Or he means by content - the pixel count in the frame? What I mean by content is watching the art of Charlie Chaplin and it looks just perfect in SD.

Well videoITguy, you don't have a choice anyway, I doubt CC exists in HD. But let me ask you a question. Do you think CC would have shot in HD or 4K if it would have been available or we have said "let's stick with SD because it looks better" ?

I wish I would be still green behind the ears and all candles would still for on my B'day cake but they don't. I am just some who empraises quality as much as content. What I meant was that if you shot something today in SD, sorry I wouldn't watch it no matter what the content is.

OldSmoke said, "I am different. I don't watch shows with good or even great content in SD... I just don't."

I am also different. If the content is super, super, duper great, I might reluctantly watch it in SD. Else no go.

While content is King, how it is presented is Queen! You do not use SD (the Joker) to present a King. You use HD (the Queen) to present the King.

I may not say this in a serious way but I am very serious about this.

Color motion pictures have been in existence for a very long period of time. Everyone shoots color stock. AND Then a known director makes a curious choice, he shoots in black and white and makes one of the all-time best movies (CONTENT) of the century. This happened many years ago. Probably could happen again.

@ videoITguy

And when someone did an excellent job of colorizing it it looked gorgeous! Some cheap producer chose B&W!

And guess what, I didnt watch that B&W movie. Not because of the content but because it was in B&W.

While I really LOVE color, I can watch a clear and sharp HD B&W movie.

Color make it a whole lot better though!

The colorized B&W movies where they did an excellent job of colorizing them will come to life in a gorgeous way. And the colors are so beautiful. Still, it would have been so much better if they did it right in the first place!

I switched to 4k once the AX100 came out (bought it on day one) and haven't looked back. Over 100+ shoots with it so far. My fans love it, but my audience is 99% computer users who use laptops, tablets, etc to access my websites so > 1080p resolution is very common. Delivering 4k content is cake, no different from delivering 1080p content but then again I'm not bound by tv broadcasting limitations since my audience is entirely online and my content is all posted to my websites. I get compliments on the quality of my footage all the time, including many fans asking me what camera I use to record my 4k content. As they say, your mileage may vary, but 1080p for me died the day I got my 4k AX100 and my fans couldn't be happier, I'll never go back. I'm actually happy when I read that others will avoid 4k because it ensures that I remain ahead of the quality curve. That's great for business :)

After checking out a Samsung curved 4k demo in a local retail store, despite some current delivery limitations, I do believe it will gain traction.
1. Most people own still cameras that would display most impressively.
2. The displays themselves are pricing only at a slight price premium.
3. You can sit very close to a high rez display, allowing for a big display in limited space.
4. No glasses, etc required.

OldSmoke was on about not watching a film or show due to it being in a lesser quality. I can empathise with this because on the flip side I can watch something I wouldn't normally watch because of super PQ.

For instance, once I got my HD TV some years ago, there was a nature documentary shot in HD. Now nature documentaries have never been my thing but I sat and watched the whole thing simply because the pictures displayed before my eyes were so amazing...... kind of like when I stood in the store and admired the massive 4K set with its demo reel playing. I'd very much like a piece of that. Roll on next year - we will all be 4K discussing why we are not going to move to 8k.....

I don't watch SD anymore, EXCEPT where there is no other choice: Some DVDs I have don't have a Blu-Ray version - still got a lot of those, so there is no choice. But, I've deleted all the SD channels from my TV, and simply have no interest looking at the old system quality - not matter how many 10-12-bit 4:4:4 chroma subsampling it has, or how good the color correction/grading is - it looks, well, no good anymore to me.

I have to chuckle every time my 24-year-old daughter says that a movie made roughly before her birth (1990) is "old." She actually becomes reluctant to see such ancient fare.

As for myself, on the other hand, I just love seeing the old B&W classics on Turner Classic Movies. Maybe it's partly a "circle of life" thing, knowing that every single person in the film has long ago departed this mortal coil. But I think it's also because the style is so different. For example, there were "morality police" back then so films couldn't show hard stuff or even really suggestive situations. But the storyline was just as sophisticated as anything today; all that was lacking was a few moments of "prurient interest" for the guys in the audience in the more-contemporary films. Oh, and also I've come to really disdain a lot of the CG visuals and blowing-up-stuff. And the fake heavy booming bass line that accompanies such theatrics.

By contrast, what I really notice and strongly dislike in many old films are jump cuts (they make my eyeballs bleed) and positioning errors between takes (a hand is positioned one way in the scene and then is positioned an entirely different way in the immediate next scene). Perhaps DVRs like Tivo make it too easy to review such errors these days. But B&W? Never notice it after a few minutes, just like I never notice the audio hiss level after a few minutes. A good story is a good story and a satisfying experience.

Everyone of course is entitled to their own opinion, this is mine.

I can not imagine the loss to ones film education by refusing to watch a movie because of the format it was shot in. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Foreign Correspondent, Night of the Living Dead, It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds goes to Washington, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc, etc, etc.

Do I look for the best quality in my shots, of course. My new Sony X70 looks great even in lowly 1080.

So rather than dismiss a film because its old and not up to current specs, give it a look anyway, the story might just pull you in.

If your up to making the next Citizen Kane, get after it. You can shoot on the worlds best, hottest equipment, but if the story sucks, no one will watch.

John M.

Would rather have a 4k or 8k computer monitor, so as to view my Nikon d800 pics better. Could care less about TV or movies because they are not interesting anymore. 4k at 30p is still not 4k at 60p, so 4k cams are not up to my standard.

The ps4 is full HD and the games look amazing compared to the ps3 because finally games match the native resolution of my TV.

I dunno what it is like where you live, but where I am the television channels are absolutely full of reality show cr*p plus Z rate reject shows like 'Turtleman', 'Gator Boys' and such rubbish, not to mention boring game shows from countries that have no relevance to me.

Therefore I will seek out movies in any format, SD, low-fi or even if they are painted by pixies on celluloid, because the average movie is vastly more interesting than what is on offer. Even if I have seen it 20 times before. The other day I sat through 'Doctor Zhivago' because it was playing around lunchtime, haven't seen that movie since it came out in the 60s.

Shouldn't an old movie that's shot on 35mm film look better than a new movie shot on a 4k camcorder? I was under the impression that film is higher resolution than video.

+100% geebax....

i find it surprising that people can enjoy watching absolute drivel just cause it's in colourfully graded hd or crammed full of fx or cg, and while i like nature docos i very easily tire of mind numbing, dumbed down, badly scripted, banally delivered vo's no matter how spectacularly they're shot.

but hey, i'm just another old f*rt out to pasture.

Of the truckload of my current relatives (hundreds) 90% of them don't have BluRay players and don't even know what the hell it is. 3D, 4K, OLED? All greek.
JJK

madmaverick, the film people have started quieting down about resolution lately. now, they are on about dynamic range but none of that even matters with lighting and post production grading and the bandwidth it has to fit in to be projected anyway.

And I absolutely watch all the old movies in SD if I have to. But if there is an HD version, I'd go for that instead. Old old movies in HD is a thing of beauty.