Please comment if you feel you are knowledgeable on this subject and *please keep your posts as short as practical*.
The following is a far-sighted opinion from a young man with much video knowledge. His final reason for favoring 8K is that eventually it will be in much higher demand. However, also eventually *the industry* will promote 16K and push 8K aside.
Where does it end? If industry drives this..... it will never end (my opinion ).
Considering how long 4K consumption has taken to be adopted and still is relatively scarce, I don't think we'll see the jump to 8K consumption / 16K creation for a very, very long time.
I always shoot at the highest resolution permitted by my desired frame rate, usually 8k. But output to 4k or less. Partially for the reasons expressed in the video but mainly for the zoom and stabilisation latitude the additional resolution confers in editing.
I don't think for moving images there is much practical benefit from going to higher resolutions, and the cost in terms of equipment, storage, processing time, and energy would be high. I think it would be better to put the extra bandwidth to audio. When viewing blurays and 4K blurays, what is stunning is how much better quality the audio is than when streaming. In my opinion, high resolution in video is a distraction and it can remove the viewer's attention from the important things such as the story. I think that's probably part of the reason why Hollywood productions apparently add a lot of noise to 4K movies, to make the details less distracting. I think FullHD with high bitrate and high audio quality is sufficient and I suspect most applications of video will continue at that resolution. Youtube is kind of the exception as they offer only very low bitrates to FullHD videos unless subcribing to Premium. Using youtube, you can get much better quality by uploading 4K content but I suspect once it becomes more mainstream, they will also reduce the bandwidth of 4K for free viewers, after all, it is a business.
Camera and television manufacturers would like to increase resolution to sell new gear but I don't think there is much reason on the viewer's side for 8K or higher, if the viewer is interested in the substance rather than spectacle, even 4K is overkill for the final presentation, but having a bit of extra resolution in the camera can be helpful for editing/cropping/motion stabilization etc.
I work in the motion picture and television industry for the major studios and streamers, and 4K workflows are the standard due to cost and diminishing returns - future proofing not withstanding - as most material is not exhibited or streamed in 8K.
With 8K, you can crop and still output 4K and UHD. But you will no longer have a shallow depth of field if you need it. At this point, I would rather invest in better glass than go for 8K. Also, as has been mentioned, with moving subjects, effective resolution is often limited by things other than pixels or video format.
AcuteShadows wrote:
With 8K, you can crop and still output 4K and UHD. But you will no longer have a shallow depth of field if you need it. At this point, I would rather invest in better glass than go for 8K. Also, as has been mentioned, with moving subjects, effective resolution is often limited by things other than pixels or video format.
---------------------------------------------
RoamingScott wrote:
The only practical reason to use 8K is for cropping/stabilization data. No one is asking for 8K content yet at a consumer level.
For video of birds I find the cropping and ability to stabilize while still ending up at 4K to be the primary reasons for shooting 8K.
When the subjects (birds) are cooperative and I get full 8K footage that doesn’t require cropping and/or cropping for stabilization I like that I’ve captured them at 8K resolution for maximizing detail and for a little bit of future-proofing.
People get excited about resolution but the limiting factor is bandwidth. Consumers fall for resolution claims like 4k and 8k, without realizing that bit depth is intentionally downsampled to allow the transmission of high resolution content on existing bandwidth. Low bit steaming depth is why color banding is prominent on HD streaming movies.
All things being equal, any shift from 4k to 8k is going to require a lot more bandwidth for the data transfers.
For my own use, I pretty much gave up on 8K for now.
Since I don't make any money from photography and video is an interest only because my
camera can do it so this is where I stand. Even with Z9, over heating can become an issue
and the amount of storage space both on site and for backing up later is not a minor issue.
If I am really serious about 8K video, I can see myself investing several more thousand dollars
in storage, cards and computer hardware. Not something that I am willing to do just yet.
Also I find videotaking require a very different mindset and skill set than photography and
I have yet to find mine So 4K is just for fun and 8K is too much hazzle for me right now.
Robert Mustell wrote:
---------------------------------------------
For video of birds I find the cropping and ability to stabilize while still ending up at 4K to be the primary reasons for shooting 8K.
When the subjects (birds) are cooperative and I get full 8K footage that doesn’t require cropping and/or cropping for stabilization I like that I’ve captured them at 8K resolution for maximizing detail and for a little bit of future-proofing.
Birds for sure. I was thinking about subjects or scenes that fill the frame, or almost fill the frame - such as speakers of different heights at an event. I this case, you may want shallow depth of field, but also the possibility to the full frame and the headshot from the same recording, where 4K will usually suffice if your target format is 1080p or similar.
Any content that has longevity, the original format doesn’t matter-
Forget 4k/8k/16k
That has zero staying power- was Scarface filmed on 4k? Goonies? ET? Star Wars?
A video that stays relevant on YouTube for 10 years, 4k or 8k will have nothing to do with it- You are lucky to be relevant for 1 week much less 500 weeks-
I shoot a lot of video...and if your final intent is to make something that a LOT of people will enjoy, any benefits going from 4K to 8K will be about 1% of why people will gravitate to your video, if that. 99% will be your filmmaking talent, audio quality, and storytelling.
And if you're aiming to be popular on YouTube or some site where people primarily use their computers, tablets, and phones, then even 1080P to 4K will likely make only a 5% of a difference, with the other stuff being 95%.
I'll also say this. In the vast majority of videos, people can still improve their filmmaking skills to the point that will make far more of a difference than going to 8K. Actually, even more basically, learn to use a high-end video fluid head first and make smooth pans. 8K wildlife footage that looks HANDHELD will be 10x uglier than a 1080P clip that has a smooth, professional pan. That's especially important for 400mm+ lenses.
If you just want to make very high-resolution videos of birds that only 100 of your birding friends will watch, then 8K might make a difference...maybe. If you need a very particular clip and NEED the cropping power of 8K for a very high-end nature documentary, then YES, 8K WILL help you.
Videography is a lot different than photography. If you want to get good at it, make sure you focus on your weakest points, which will likely be audio, storytelling, and controlling shakiness.
But can't you do both? Shoot in 8K and improve your skills? Well...IMO 8K and all that extra space will just slow you down. While you are still learning, I see zero point in shooting 8K, especially when lots of those clips will just be thrown away later.
bs kite wrote:
Please comment if you feel you are knowledgeable on this subject and *please keep your posts as short as practical*.
The following is a far-sighted opinion from a young man with much video knowledge. His final reason for favoring 8K is that eventually it will be in much higher demand. However, also eventually *the industry* will promote 16K and push 8K aside.
Where does it end? If industry drives this..... it will never end (my opinion ).
Talked to a pro videographer last fall, he surprised me, he still delivers mostly 1080. Everyone is on their phones, etc, also he said TV wants 1080.
8k has longer shelf life if you're doing nature videos, I'm sure, I clicked on a 4k video recently and mostly it skipped though. They say YouTube resizes it, suppose it could have been bad connection, skeptical though
Shooting in 8K is OK. i do it sometimes.
But rendering and uploading is useless, nobody have a 8k monitor or TV, so what's the point?
Next, how many off your target audience have 4k monitor? (most of the TV are).
But they all watch it on their mobile, stats on my site and YouTube say 78% off them.
PS.
When I watch TV, I suspect that practical everything is upscaled from 1080.
To me the discussion for increased video resolution is akin to the very same discussions regarding increased still imagery resolution...those seeing the benefits to their imaging pursuits want and need it, those for whom it is meritless seek other solutions.
I argued years ago the need for 8K for, amongst other things, the abilities it brought to 4K creation/production/consumption to shoot wider and pan and zoom within the frame. As 8K burgeons I hold this same point regarding the need for 12K. Rinse and repeat moving into the future.
Parallel to this is the advent of 3D/VR interfacing, dual-lens/single-camera solutions, for obvious reasons, visually benefit with resolution increases.
And, on a final note for now, 8K, it's what I wish to creatively pursue, plain and simple, along with BT2100 PQ HDR and ≥16-stops DR. Great times to be alive for imagers!
I do a lot of wildlife filming and it's always a tough call shooting 8k @60p and 4k @120p with the Z9. To capture animal interactions, I prefer 4k 120p but I also love 8k for the ability to post-crop the footage to my liking.
IF Nikon or whoever else came out with the camera that shoots 8k @120p, that would be my dream camera. Of course, file size would be massive but the flexibility of the footage would be amazing for wildlife.
If I were shooting typical talking head documentaries, there is no reason for 8k but 8k does make sense in some instances.
).