4K

arty tribe

If you have a 4K capable camera, but only want to output in HD for now, do you film in 4K and let the editor sort it out, assuming it is able, or film in HD as usual? Why?

sound idea

If you have the necessary resources (sufficient camera memory/powerful computer/plenty of storage etc) I'd film in 4k. Otherwise I'd stick with HD.

Filming at 4k future-proofs your footage and also enables you to re-compose and select part of the frame (within reason) with minimal quality loss if you're outputting in HD from a 4k project. Some say the rendered HD output from a 4k project looks better than an HD original too.

My 2p.

chrishull3

Agree if you have a 4k camera always film in 4k,you can still render the films in HD,the quality of the HD render will be better and you have the 4K origional files to keep.

arty tribe

Thanks guys, makes sense.

Kevo

I shoot sometimes in 4K and sometimes in HD, it just depends.
I wouldnt say  4K transfers to HD better, not in my case anyway as my 4K camera only goes up to 30fps which can look awful once you start moving the camera!  I still prefer the 50fps of HD.  One day I will get a camera that does 4K 50/60p but are still quite expensive atm

chrishull3

Never get that problem,although one of my cameras will record 54K 50P i usualy record 25P to use less card space,but most of my filming is with a tripod,hand held with a lot of panning and zoomong  would not help the quality.

12harry

4K does offer you the ability to zoom-in at the EDIT stage....if you have mis-framed a scene between two people for example.... but that supposes the shot was sufficiently WIDE to allow for this.

The downside of 4K is the need for Large/fast Memory-cards in the camcorder. Also, the PC needs to be high-spec unless you can operate the Editor in "Proxy" mode.... but then this may be inconvenient and needs some time to create the proxy-files.

It's a sad fact that even if you don't want 4K, it's difficult to buck the Market-Trend. What's good is that lenses have improved ( although Zooms are still restricted to ~24x - some a lot less.)... and storage will have to be greater.
Having "better" shoots is probably a good thing, as it should be quite a while before good HD is seen as unacceptable. Where HD fails is the Mfr attempts at compression, to make memory-cards accept more footage, while the cost of cards was falling.
If you can take-off an HDMI feed from a live camcorder, this can be recorded at a higher spec. Whether this is worth the investment in a dedicated Recorder is another matter . . .  but it does make HD look a lot better ( although taking up more memory of course). The big issue remains that tiny-sensors need sharpening... which means it is difficult to get a shallow depth of field. This effect is much-loved by those trying to replicate Cinema. It is possible to have a false-effect using differences in lighting ( so your attention is on the well-lit subject ), but IMHO lighting-technique is mostly reserved for professional use.

Cheers.

EDIT 28Aug2018 . . . . That "4K advantage" - if there is a limitation with frame-rate, that may scupper things . . . . I do wish we could have a standardised frame-rate.  Others have explained in the past, but I'm still confused by Mfrs numbers/specs. It's not helped by the "Cinematic" 24fps - how does that fit?  Probably best to wait another year before buying 4K - at least then, any changes should be included and we can "make films" with less bother.

arty tribe

Thanks for your usual thoughtful insight Harry