4K 30fps or 2.7K 60fps?

[benz240]

I know the 4K vs 2.7k debate has gone on for a while now with the Pro and Phantoms, etc. but specifically for the Air, what is everyone using for video? I am really tempted to shoot in 2.7K just to have the 60fps so that I can get some buttery smooth 50% slowdown in post, but does it really result in a lot of quality sacrificed over 4K?

 

[waddellw]

60 fps is better if the video is slowed down or there's a lot of movement going on from drone movement to things in the frame.


I am new to drones and just have a Mavic Pro but understand you want to get the highest quality video without sacrificing frame rate.

I'd shoot 4k in still environments where you will slow down the drone and don't create a lot of fast movements then 40 fps would look fine because not much is changing that fast.

But say you're flying around super fast or watching cars zip by at 80 miles an hour and might want to slow the footage down, do 60 fps. It will be a lot less choppy on the quickly changing frames, and can be slowed down much more.




Even though I don't have the air this should be a pretty universal argument related to quality/fps!

 

[Oyibo VFX]

It comes down to editing. And then, what you do with your product. Please note that most computer screens are “only” 1080p (like the tv at home) and even YouTube reduces your image to 720p.
So, higher framerate is easier to edit and most play devices can’t handle high bitrates anyway.

 

[TroutboyNZ]

4K is a ***** to edit and not really necessary for most people - it's not better quality - it's just a bigger image! 2.7K still allows for a decent crop, and 60fps is a real sweetener for smooth pans and some slo-mo to 50%... love it!

 

[BLZeebub]

4K looks absolutely stunning but file sizes and the processing power to edit is worth considering. I used to do a lot of PC editing in the mid 90's as well as 3D rendering with Lightwave. That was back in the early days of MiniDV and first signs of 720 HD. When you have 2 SCSI 9GB hard drives to keep your captures on and settle on 1+ hrs per frame as acceptable rendering times in Lightwave it makes you wonder how we used to manage!

The accepted mantra is always shoot the highest res you can as you can down size but it doesn't work the other way so well. But, if your end user will only see 720 or 1080 then do you really need the hassle and space taken up for 4K?

Just my thoughts!
Cheers
Nat

 

[Damaran]

let's set one, 60 frames are not slowmotion yet, but we can try to introduce a soft slow effect. However, 60 frames are still a video recording technique for standard image display speeds, the only thing that increases the smoothness of the image and allows you to see more details. As for the use of 60 FPS on a daily basis (except for the drone), I would use it, for example, by recording some sports, martial arts, circus shows, etc., and thus dynamic scenes. in the case of drones, I would use 60 FPS if I would record an image on the fly (so I can see the movement in the frame, the trees, houses, objects) when the camera moves quickly. if I record the scenery and the drone remains practically all the time in the overhang, then using 60 FPS does not make much sense.
60 FPS enforces the use of a higher ISO time or a faster shutter speed, so be careful. on the other hand, if in the frame (even static or with a small movement) we have some objects, such as a car, roe, 60 FPS will be useful to make this move even more fluid.
similarly if we do not have enough time and we want to get a longer stage, it is worth using 60 FPS to later go down to 30 FPS and gain additional seconds of recording.

 

[Kilrah]

Please note that most computer screens are “only” 1080p (like the tv at home) and even YouTube reduces your image to 720p.

I've had 4K screens for 4 years now. And Youtube doesn't reduce anything when you've got the proper playback device.

 

[Damaran]

as for the resolution itself, it is still a question of debate. take a look at the google statistics on the resolutions in which the video materials are played and the devices on which they are played (by analogy, Vevo and other websites where you can upload a video) then rate if you need 4k. Are your materials are or will actually be watched by those who want 4k or maybe they will fire it on the phone. My equipment can not cope with 4k, so 2.7k and even FullHD is still the desired resolution. 4k showed that he has a pass, but the question is whether it is a necessary condition for recording a good movie.

 

[Oyibo VFX]

I've had 4K screens for 4 years now. And Youtube doesn't reduce anything when you've got the proper playback device.

Since when is a playback device responsible for an uploaded file?

 

[Damaran]

Perhaps it was about scaling the image to the display resolution. The fact that YouTube displays in 4k, and you have montir FullHD does not mean that you have a 4k image. Of course, downscaling is always nice to see, but it does not always look good, sometimes the picture can strongly deceive and introduce undesirable effects. But it does not matter. Publishing Video in 4k is not a bad thing and will definitely stay, but remember that the video image published in 4k and then made available by Google in FullHD, 2.7k is already a picture compressed on the YouTube side. Certainly, when exporting a computer from a computer, you can squeeze more from it if you decide in what resolution the image should be presented.

 

[Fmoots]

For me, it really just depends if you want to slow the footage down. If you're not planning to slow anything down/if there's isn't much movement in your shot (other than the drone movement) - always shoot at 4k (24fps or 30 depending on your preference, 24 is the most used 'cinematic' framerate).

If you want to slow you're footage down to 40% (on a 24fps timeline) shoot in 2.7k 60fps. I found this works well with cars/birds flying in your shot. I would never film in 60fps and output in 60fps, you're footage will look too smooth and give you the 'soap opera effect' and look very unnatural and look the complete opposite of cinematic.

In regards to not using 4k because 'I don't have anything that will play back 4k/most people will be watching in 1080p idea, I don't agree with that at all. Firstly, you really want to future proof your footage, you may not have a 4k display now, but they will become mainstream in several years, just like 1080p screens did. You can even shoot in 4k and just downscale it to 1080p, the footage will still look a lot crisper.

Also if you're uploading to Youtube in 4k, millions of others around the world can enjoy your video in 4k, even if you can't. Even the latest iPhones can display resolutions above 1080p now. 2.7k upscaled to 4k also looks perfectly good.

In terms of processing power, I appreciate editing 4k files straight out of camera takes a lot of power, however you do not need to edit in native 4k. Most editing software (even free ones) have proxy editing options, which downscales your footage for the purpose of editing, then relinking back to the original media before rendering fully back to 4k. You can edit 4k footage even on lower end machines

 

[hquant]

I failed miserably in playing back 4k video on my computers, let alone 4k editing. So I switched to 2k, which works fine on both accounts. I may switch back once I upgraded my PC equipment but I am in no hurry.

 

[Kilrah]

Since when is a playback device responsible for an uploaded file?

It's not responsible for "the uploaded file", but for what a streaming site will push to it.

You do know that when you upload a 4K video to Youtube it generates a bunch of different sized versions of it, right? The player then queries the device you're using to watch on for screen resolution and size, then evaluates your internet connection bandwidth, and streams what it thinks most appropriate to you by default given those parameters, with the ability to switch. It also prevents you access to some sizes on some devices e.g iOS devices never see 4K - but that doesn't mean that others don't either.

When I open a 4K Youtube video on my 4K display but in a small browser window it logically chooses 1080p since that's about the size of the playback window. When I click the full screen button it sees it and automatically switches to 4K after a few seconds. "Magic..."

 

[Reed]

One argument in favour for 4k has not been presented yet: you can easily extract high quality pictures, or digitally zoom in still keeping good resolution.
So.for me 60fps are not important: For slow motion production I use external programs like Speeds.

 

[cwil193]

I've had 4K screens for 4 years now. And Youtube doesn't reduce anything when you've got the proper playback device.

“Most”. Not all. You are just one of the few.

 

[Oyibo VFX]

Just bought a Gopro Hero 6. They can go upto 240fps. Can't wait

 

[baksideDisaster]

I generally shoot 2.7k 60FPS, render out 1080p 60FPS. 2.7k gives me good crop and flexibility for speed changes. Most of my videos are filming action sports.

 

[sgb27]

I much prefer the smoothness and realism of 60fps compared to the benefit of 4K over 2.7K. I see a lot of people on YouTube are uploading at 60fps now, so much so that when I start to watch something in 25/30 fps I immediately notice that it's kind of jerky. It doesn't just have to be fast motion either, even things moving relatively slowly on screen benefit from 60fps.

 

[Chadnovz]

I've had 4K screens for 4 years now. And Youtube doesn't reduce anything when you've got the proper playback device.

Whats your playback device

 

[rolin]

Something no one mentioned yet - the 2.7K 60fps lacks detail compared to both 4K and 2.7K 30fps. That's cause by performance limitation in the camera hardware. So, unless you need to slow down I don't recommend to only use the 60fps. The smartest way is to do two passes - one in 4K and one in 60fps.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

BTW, the difference in the quality is visible even on 1080p screen.