UHD - I'm a bit naive

pilsburypie wrote on 10/5/2015, 4:43 AM

Looking to get a new camera, possibly the Sony A7sii, and TV....... UHD is all the rage, most cameras and TVs now have this, but it is still early days and I remember the early issues with 1080 50p with regards to delivery and playback.

I have a few questions - forgive my lack of in depth knowledge but I've done a bit of reading and am still none the wiser.

1. Proxies in editing. I don't really understand this except that UHD is processor hungry and this is a way of giving the CPU and easier time. How is proxy editing achieved?
2. So Vegas can handle UHD, my soon to be new TV can play UHD, but how is it delivered? Most UHD TVs claim to be able to play content through their USB ports.... Is a portable HDD able to be plugged in to provide the source? What about streaming?
3. Does anyone have links to a decent workflow from camera to delivery?

I'm strictly amateur and only produce for myself and have no need to distribute media to anyone else in this format, simply trying to work out if I can utilise the UHD for myself

Back to post

Comments

PeterDuke wrote on 10/11/2015, 12:56 AM

"The quality of the imaging devices and encoding have also improved dramatically since the SD days."

So they might have, but I for one still watch videos that were created years ago because of the content. Yes the quality is relatively poor, but they are classics and I still watch them.

I bought a Blu-ray version of one TV series because I thought the DVD quality was not up to scratch. The BD turned out to be no better!

People still make SD videos and DVDs, and many strive to squeeze the top quality out of them, but not everyone.

I am often dismayed by the "plastic" faces on TV presenters on our SD TV channels. One presenter I saw looked as if he only had two wide upper teeth, one on each side of his jaw. Another had wrinkles on her face which mysteriously came and went as she spoke.

There is no "now" and "then" in reality. Quality can be still good or bad at times, even today.

John_Cline wrote on 10/11/2015, 2:57 AM

"Well, I have seen every single 4K screen there is, from $4000 up to $40,000 and there is no difference ( that matters at least )."

That is YOUR opinion, I shoot my own 4k and I can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that there IS a difference, whether you can see it or appreciate it is your problem.

Your audio analogy is flawed, the human ear can only resolve 44.1k/16 bit audio, 96/24 is overkill, however, the human eye can resolve much greater detail than can be displayed on a 1080 TV. 8k may actually be overkill unless we're talking really large screen sizes, certainly larger than anyone would have in their home.

"but it does fall under "who cares" category right now."

I care and as a video professional, you should, too.

Jeffdj wrote on 10/11/2015, 7:04 AM

I also shoot 4k video and hi def photos. If you compare 4k video or hi def images on a 4k screen and compare that with 1080p files its like chalk and cheese.
All my edited 4k projects are on usb drives connected to my tv for playback. Only major drawback is rendering time but Vegas Pro 13 is usually pretty good. A 15 min 4k project takes about 80 min to render but the wait is worth it.

Hulk wrote on 10/11/2015, 8:04 AM

I'm torn on this UHD.

On one hand for normal viewing distances with displays less than 60" or so I personally don't notice much of a difference unless I close in on the display. In addition, outside of professional cameras, professional camera operators and well lit scenes it's going to be hard to actually resolve more than 1080 lines in actual videos as opposed to test patterns.

On the other hand, unlike 3D, this is coming whether I like it or not so I better just accept it. Hopefully the increased resolution will push both camera and display manufacturers to up their game.

wwjd wrote on 10/11/2015, 10:10 AM

Jeff, which TV do you have, what file format and settings does the TV use for 4K USB playback?

Many of us CAN see a big difference in 4K vs HD. Sorry for those who can't, but it is there.

pilsburypie wrote on 10/11/2015, 2:41 PM

Glad this has sparked a lively debate - just what I was after.

As an amateur, I have no client need for any format, just for my own eyes. My family videos distributed at Christmas pain me as I have to render to SD for almost everyone. All my HD goodness is lost and I can't bear to watch it with them. But I take great pleasure watching on my HD setup. I am very picky about getting the best quality I can on my budget and UHD is here and readily available. If I wasn't in the market for a new TV or camera, I'd be happy with HD.

Reading all the comments seems to me a direct replay of the SD/HD debate.

Cheers