DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

4K is way over rated who really needs it

Lightsout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
159
Reactions
58
Age
63
It was time to upgrade my computer and screens so I could effectively process high res video. Not that my computer needed upgrading for every day work (3D Cad design) and leisure but high res video is a game changer, while I can processes 3 D environments just fine 4K video not so much. I had high end 26" 1080P monitors however they were 5 years old and not color certified, I had a triple monitor system and my plan was to go to 4 monitors, 3 side by side and a 34 ultrawide on top for wide screen video processing and cad environments.

What I discovered is that if you intend to process 4K video plan on spending more than the cost of the Drone. 4 Monitors aside even a single 4K Color certified monitor, the Video card and the processor to effectively do the procesing is a expensive proposition. Then you better add SSD drives to speed the processing up.

Through this process I learned that there can be a huge picture quality and price difference between color certified monitors and non certified (which accounts for most), not to mention there are very few color certified monitors available, not to mention price tag. I closely compared 2K vs 4K side by side and I could not see the video quality difference except I could not read text on the 4K because it was too small and the cost of 4K over 2K was substantial and not justifiable

Fortunately I already had a powerful processor and SSD, but in order to power multiple monitors at even 2K I had to upgrade video card to the 1080 GTX. Just a video card and 1 color certified monitor is more than the Mavic.

What I also found was when I watched the videos I color graded (Davinchi Resolve) on the old monitors I had a lot of work left to do as none were properly color graded because my old monitors were not Color, contrast or Gamma correct which left a lot to be desired on the new monitors.

1st off Color grading and or Color correction is often miss understood and very few software programs have true color grading options, Exposure, Contrast Hue, saturation, gamma is not color grading (it is only a very small part). You really need Davinchi resolve (which is free) or Adobe and a very small handful of others to really manage color correctly, especially if you are doing 4K then unless you have a monitor that is color certified or that can be calibrated (most cannot), then you need to buy the sensors to calibrate the monitor. Then to manage 4K or even 2 K you need a strong processor and Video card.

Basically it will cost more than the mavic to really be able to effectively process 4K video. Still unless you have a color certified or calibrated monitors it will be guess work at best.

I ended up buying three Dell 27 Inch Color Certifeid 27" and 34" ultrawide monitors and what a difference it makes in not only processing but watching the video I shoot.

IMO 4K is over rated. For those looking to upgrade monitors avoid Gaming monitors and low ms monitors they are more likely to artificially enhance or distort color.

If you were to buy 1 monitor for all around use and video processing the Dell U3415W is amazing on sale $599 at Staples (online only)

Now HDR will be a whole different animal.
 
Well......I looked at old GoPro footage on a old hard drive the other evening...we have come a long way. Its a matter of what you need and your application, I shoot everything in 4k or 4.5 and even 6k for what they call "Future Proofing". This means that in 4 or 6 years or maybe more the footage will still be good. We are talking amazing footage of something that when I am older I might never be able to recreate....so we would want it to hold up. 4k TVs are getting more popular and we will make the shift. Hey want a mind blower? wait to see the jump to 360? ,I am just learning how to film in that and you want to talk about a "old dog learning new tricks". Things are changing fast....
 
Considering that on Typical TV sizes the Human eye cannot see the pixel benefit over 2K and especially below 60 inches unless you are a few feet from the screen. so shooting over 4K is a waste IMO, while screen technology is leaning more towards features like HDR, we are likley at the ceiling for consumer resolution (except for marketing hype), at least until 150" Screens are the norm. For recreational video, which is the average mavic and Phantom owner 4K is overrated not to mention the cost of processing the video. If you are processing 6K video your processing software and equipment is well over of the pro-sumer budget. That is not the DJI owner I was speaking to.

While 360 is getting some legs it has a long way to go even then there is no use for 4K except for ultra large screens. IMO HDR is the next upgrade in both screens and cameras technology. Frankly is is not about the pixel size anymore rather what that pixel can do and process colors. We are no longer managing 16 million colors rather 1 billion + colors is the new standards and only a few monitors on the market now are optimized for that. What good is resolution if it exceeds what the human eye can effectively see...
 
Considering that on Typical TV sizes the Human eye cannot see the pixel benefit over 2K and especially below 60 inches unless you are a few feet from the screen. so shooting over 4K is a waste IMO, while screen technology is leaning more towards features like HDR, we are likley at the ceiling for consumer resolution (except for marketing hype), at least until 150" Screens are the norm. For recreational video, which is the average mavic and Phantom owner 4K is overrated not to mention the cost of processing the video. If you are processing 6K video your processing software and equipment is well over of the pro-sumer budget. That is not the DJI owner I was speaking to.

While 360 is getting some legs it has a long way to go even then there is no use for 4K except for ultra large screens. IMO HDR is the next upgrade in both screens and cameras technology. Frankly is is not about the pixel size anymore rather what that pixel can do and process colors. We are no longer managing 16 million colors rather 1 billion + colors is the new standards and only a few monitors on the market now are optimized for that. What good is resolution if it exceeds what the human eye can effectively see...
The human eye cannot see past 8K, so 4K and 4.5 is much sharper to see than lowly HD.
I never shoot HD. It's the new equivalent of standard definition!
The next format from Japan will be 8K. NHK is already broadcasting in it.
That will be the ceiling as the human eye can't detect resolutions over 8K!
HDR is just saturated colours in any format
Has nothing to do with resolution!
 
I closely compared 2K vs 4K side by side and I could not see the video quality difference except I could not read text on the 4K because it was too small

Two points: (1) I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between 2K and 4K. Many people can. (2) You should be comparing text with proper settings so that a 10 point font appears to be 10 points tall on both monitors; a point is defined in most software as 1/72 inch or more accurately 1/72.27 inch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eric18 and Kilrah
My computer monitor (and thus viewing/editing surface incl. pro photography) is a 4K UHD TV, currently 49" Samsung SUHD.
Much cheaper comparatively than computer monitors, and an unrivalled experience. Add $150 for a color calibrator (got a Spyder4) and you're on your merry way.

Been using similar setups with various sizes (complicated, had to move for work) since the end of 2014 when the GTX970 became widely available (needed for the HDMI2 port for 4K/60Hz), and interestingly for about a year the main source of good 4K content was... people posting beautiful aerials taken with DJI drones (I1 at the time).
 
The human eye cannot see past 8K, so 4K and 4.5 is much sharper to see than lowly HD.
I never shoot HD. It's the new equivalent of standard definition!
The next format from Japan will be 8K. NHK is already broadcasting in it.
That will be the ceiling as the human eye can't detect resolutions over 8K!
HDR is just saturated colours in any format
Has nothing to do with resolution!

1st off processing in 4k-6K future proofs nothing as long as you have the RAW in 4K you always have the ability to have the higher res if needed. I never suggest not shooting in 4K. I am discussing the processing and current viewing.

Resolution to the human eye is primarily relative to distance from the screen and screen size. For example I have a 116" front projection 1080P at 8' I can see pixels at 16 feet none... The industry will never stop advancing and they will always be marketing features that are new weather the human eye can see it or not. 2K-4K is nothing like the revelations of 480P-720P and 1080P, those were vastly visible improvements, 2k to 4K is minimal at best. The biggest advantage of both 2K and 4K is colors 16mil compared to 1Bil +

I never said HDR was related to resolution, however it is one of the biggest advancement towards picture enhancement and quality in a while.

Sure I can see a difference with my face a foot or two from the screen but at recommended viewing distances any difference is subjective. Referencing the post below comparing 2k-4k is a world of diffefrence between a 70 inch TV and a 27 inch monitor.

One more comment about 4K, Comcast being the largest internet supplier in the US has now capped their customers on data, I know for me I limit any 4K streaming to help stay under the cap.

Again my original post was for the average Mavic and phantom owner regarding the cost reward of 4K vs 2K. and the cost of gearing up to even process 4K and 2K, Interesting how this brings out the neysayer who is defending 6K and future proofing, which would cost $6k-$10k for equipment to effectively process video from your $999 drone. If I was so intent of 4K-6K the mavic would not be on my list of drones...

My overall point is the cost to gear up to process, manage and view 4K is not justifiable especially when everything computer related is at such a premium.

I understand that many of the carrot eating videophiles may dissagree
 
Well......I looked at old GoPro footage on a old hard drive the other evening...we have come a long way. Its a matter of what you need and your application, I shoot everything in 4k or 4.5 and even 6k for what they call "Future Proofing". This means that in 4 or 6 years or maybe more the footage will still be good. We are talking amazing footage of something that when I am older I might never be able to recreate....so we would want it to hold up. 4k TVs are getting more popular and we will make the shift. Hey want a mind blower? wait to see the jump to 360? ,I am just learning how to film in that and you want to talk about a "old dog learning new tricks". Things are changing fast....
My computer monitor (and thus viewing/editing surface incl. pro photography) is a 4K UHD TV, currently 49" Samsung SUHD.
Much cheaper comparatively than computer monitors, and an unrivalled experience. Add $150 for a color calibrator (got a Spyder4) and you're on your merry way.

Been using similar setups with various sizes (complicated, had to move for work) since the end of 2014 when the GTX970 became widely available (needed for the HDMI2 port for 4K/60Hz), and interestingly for about a year the main source of good 4K content was... people posting beautiful aerials taken with DJI drones (I1 at the time).
I would be interested in which TV's Have a calibrated (or can be calibrated) Adobe RGB os sRBG, in addition you really want 8-10 bit color processing, these are features to my knowledge that are not available in most if not all TV's currently. Those are key features for processing video and more importantly color grading video. So you do Professional photography color grading on a TV with a HDMI connection? I say HDMI as that is not the optimal format for computer to monitor connection.
 
IMG_7557.GIF Easy guys.
 
I can only say: the mavic movies look awesome in uhd/4k on my 65e6 OLED [emoji41]
no one is suggesting it does not look awesome, however does 2K look terrible?, my point is there is a little difference to the human eye if any between the two unless you are sitting very close to the screen and on a 27-3" monitor there is no difference unless you face is plastered against the screen.

This thread was about processing the video not watching it on large screen TV's. It is obviously a very subjective subject, but I was describing my findings, as I started out to buy 4K monitors, I first bought 3 (BenQ 4K P series) When I matched them up to the Dell 2K 34" ultrawide I also bought the video quality I could not see the difference, it was clearly (to me) not worth the $$$ to buy 4K for the processing and small screen viewing. Now 60"-70" + with close viewing there is likely a visible difference, but likely negligable. Now put a quality HDR TV next to a typical 4K TV of the same size there is a night and day difference (depending on the programming of coarse). I returned the BenQ and replaced with the Dell U2717 Ultrasharp.
 
There is no need for a GTX 1080 to drive multiple monitors at 2k, that type of graphics card offers much higher 3D performance but its 2D display outputs are the same as lower end cards. An SSD is a nice to have but it's not necessary and not that useful for video work as their storage is simply too low.

I haven't spent a penny more on my desktop PC for 4k video editing, it was a quick machine for 1080p editing and it's still a quick machine for 4k video editing as processor performance hasn't moved on much the last few years. I can use the same workflow as my video editor takes 4k video natively so the only real difference is the output video is larger (as well as the original files), I'd rather work at the highest quality now as it's much easier to reduce quality than work at a lower setting and increase it later.

John
 
The graphics card has only a small impact on video processing however it has a big impact on video editing, it is the computer processor that is the key element. There as been a 40% increase in consumer grade processor speed (intel 4770 to 6800) since 2014, so not sure where you get your data, especially now with 6-core and 8-core processors.

A single 1080GTX can barely handle 3 4K monitors (will not handle 3@ 4K in 3D gaming) and realistically you should have two 1080's. Had I been running a single 4K clearly I would not need a 1080 GTX.

When you host the video software on the SSD as well as all the source files the editing and processing is significantly increased, When I upgraded to Samsung Evo 1tb SSD in raid my speeds dramatically increased. I build 3D cad environments ans do a lot of rendering when I upgraded to the SSD rendering time was significantly lowered. SSD are not that expensive anymore 1tb $250 500gb $150. The real revelation is the M.2 ssd form factor which will be the next game changer (it is here now).

Not sure what software you are using to manage video however I had Sony Vegas 13 and just upgraded to 14, the editing preview window prior to 1080 GTX Video card was very choppy at full resolution (same with Davinchi) and now it is buttery smooth which makes for way better and faster editing experience. it also makes the job go much faster and allows for real time editing at full resolution

Fthe 1080 is not needed with a single monitor or even two the 980 will be fine. However options for a good color grading monitor is limited especially 4K. especially in the under $1000 range.

Understand you do not need a 4K monitor to edit and render 4K video and on monitors 34" and under you cannot even see the difference unless you face is near the screen
 
I have a Microsoft Studio and work exclusively with 2.7k in resolve (free) and am quite happy.
 
I would be interested in which TV's Have a calibrated (or can be calibrated) Adobe RGB os sRBG
I've used 4 different Samsung TVs over the years and they could always be calibrated properly with my Spyder. My current one is SUHD and does pretty much cover AdobeRGB.

in addition you really want 8-10 bit color processing, these are features to my knowledge that are not available in most if not all TV's currently. Those are key features for processing video and more importantly color grading video.

Whether they are "key" features depends at which level you work I guess. It's not because you film and output 4K that it has to be at top level cinema production level - case in point, everybody's got a 4K camera in their pocket nowadays, and often in their drone too. In my case both me and my customers are happy so I'll take the large screen any day, buying a $3500 10-bit studio quality calibrated monitor would make absolutely no sense.

no one is suggesting it does not look awesome, however does 2K look terrible?
Yes, given that I'm at the proper distance for viewing 4K with no scaling if I blow it up 2K in full screen it's horrid. So when I view 1080 I leave it windowed. That means only with 4K material do I really get that great experience of filling my entire field of view with detailed content.

My overall point is the cost to gear up to process, manage and view 4K is not justifiable especially when everything computer related is at such a premium.
I understand that many of the carrot eating videophiles may dissagree
Funny you're somehow criticizing "videophiles" when you argue that if going 4K nothing but the absolute best should be used.
 
I have 2015 iMac [emoji985] with 5K built in Retina Display at times it is grainy or slow while editing but for the most part the picture is pretty awesome color grading seems to be real nice even tho I'm still a novice at it [emoji41]oh Yeah did I mention my eyesight is on some alienishh [emoji89]
 
I've used 4 different Samsung TVs over the years and they could always be calibrated properly with my Spyder. My current one is SUHD and does pretty much cover AdobeRGB.
You realize that very few monitors are even capable of 100% Adobe-RGB as well as sRGB, and those are calibrations that are done during the manufacturing process which for true color grading you at least want to start with a factor certifed minimum of sRGB 99%. Next to a TN panel the Samsung Panels are not designed for color correction, accuracy or management, in fact I do not think I even saw a Samsung Panel on a color certified monitor let alone a TV. What would you want your TV at sRGB or Adobe? only the higher end monitors offer those capabilities and adjustments and like I said those are factory calibrations.



Whether they are "key" features depends at which level you work I guess. It's not because you film and output 4K that it has to be at top level cinema production level - case in point, everybody's got a 4K camera in their pocket nowadays, and often in their drone too. In my case both me and my customers are happy so I'll take the large screen any day, buying a $3500 10-bit studio quality calibrated monitor would make absolutely no sense.
The top rated pro consumer monitor for photo editing and color grading is the BenQ P series and dell ultrasharp, the 2K is $400-$599 and the 4 K is $700-$1000.


Yes, given that I'm at the proper distance for viewing 4K with no scaling if I blow it up 2K in full screen it's horrid. So when I view 1080 I leave it windowed. That means only with 4K material do I really get that great experience of filling my entire field of view with detailed content.

There are many factors that have to be considered, most likley your 4K video by the time it gets to the end users is compressed, then yuou have to condier the bit-rate delivery, which TVs have a low bit rate.

HJere is a article form videoclarity.com regarding 4K vs 2K whereas they actually suggest 2K can be a better viewing experience.

"There is currently a question in the in-dustry about the optimal format for delivering content intended to be viewed on 4K devices. On one hand, tak-ing the original 4K content, encoding it, and then decod-ing in the viewer’s home for 4K delivery to a display should provide a good result. On the other hand, down converting a 2160p60 signal to 1080p60 (i.e. 4K to 2K) prior to compression, encoding the signal at 2K resolu-tion, and then decoding it to deliver a 2K signal that is up converted for the consumer’s 4K display has also been theorized to deliver a high-quality visual experi-ence, particularly if the viewer is watching from a dis-tance greater than 1.5 picture-heights. Under these cir-cumstances, and if the delivery infrastructure requires very low bit rates, it is possible that the 2K signal may deliver a higher image quality than the 4K signal.
One key question that is under investigation is the crossover point where up/down conversion and 2K com-pression yields a comparable image to viewers versus a true 4K end-to-end system over a range of different en-coded bit rates. At high bit rates, quality is likely to be limited by the performance of the up and down converters, so the 4K native signal would be expected to have better quality. At very low bit rates, the reduced load on the compression system of a distributed 2K signal would be expected to produce comparable picture quality given the viewing criteria discussed earlier.
"


Funny you're somehow criticizing "videophiles" when you argue that if going 4K nothing but the absolute best should be used.
my only comment regarding videophiles was my original post was based on consumer needs equipment and talking to the average Mavic and Phantom owner. The overall point is we buy these $1000 flying cameras with the buzz word of 4K, not to mention everyone at the beginning all they did was analyze and critique the picture quality (mostly coloring). Color grading is such a important step in making great video (just like great photography) you have to then also have the equipment to create great content.

Those that think they can take and calibrate their big screen TV's to equal a sRGB 99-100% good luck with that especially at the low bit TV's. By the way the Adobe RGB is the MAC standards why would a TV even calibrate to that standard??? sRGB is the PC standard. The Adobe standard is rarely found on monitors let alone TV's.

Also note the Bit color depth also in part determines color capabilities, for those that think they can just buy the $600 4K tv and think that is the bargain that makes a great color grading screen, think again, just like moniitors if you want the true 8-10 bit color that TV will not be cheap. There is a huge difference grading at 16 million colors vs 1.07 Billion colors.

Again my overall poit was if you want to make great videos you need the right tools and you should expect to invest more than the Mavic itself. If it is just a flying toy that there are way better and lower cost options in the drone world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larkin
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,585
Messages
1,554,102
Members
159,586
Latest member
DoubleBarS