Film in 2.7k for reduced noise and upscale to 4k seems to be a solid option
It is a FACT that 4k has significantly more noise so unless you plan on using NEAT video which cpu/gpu intensive and costs $100 and also takes a ton of time, shoot in 2.7k.4K has more noise? I think I noticed this as well during my last flight. Thought I might've had the EV values set wrong.
It is a FACT that 4k has significantly more noise so unless you plan on using NEAT video which cpu/gpu intensive and costs $100 and also takes a ton of time, shoot in 2.7k.
You can always upres to 4k.
P.S. I am no expert, but I have done about 40 hours of research on this if not more...lol
What's the cause of the noise? Sensor-related, or is it intrinsic to the coding of the video?It is a FACT that 4k has significantly more noise so unless you plan on using NEAT video which cpu/gpu intensive and costs $100 and also takes a ton of time, shoot in 2.7k.
You can always upres to 4k.
P.S. I am no expert, but I have done about 40 hours of research on this if not more...lol
IDK much about cameras, but I would assume it is the sensor. That is probably why the mavic can only really shoot at 400 ISO before footage becomes grainy (unless of course your shooting at night in which case you have to)What's the cause of the noise? Sensor-related, or is it intrinsic to the coding of the video?
4K is recording at a lower bitrate, meaning more compression artifacts will be visible, with a reduction in detail. My opinion is that the 2.7K setting retains finer details, and generally produces video that looks better than the 4K. This is not sensor, but encoder related.What's the cause of the noise? Sensor-related, or is it intrinsic to the coding of the video?
According to the film poets, this is 100% false. 4k does in fact keep more detail than 2.7k. There is no arguing this. Not trying to sound like a **** because I am just regurgitating what somebody else said, but based on what he showed in his video you can clearly see that 4k has more detail over 2.7k.4K is recording at a lower bitrate, meaning more compression artifacts will be visible, with a reduction in detail. My opinion is that the 2.7K setting retains finer details, and generally produces video that looks better than the 4K. This is not sensor, but encoder related.
According to the film poets, this is 100% false. 4k does in fact keep more detail than 2.7k. There is no arguing this. Not trying to sound like a **** because I am just regurgitating what somebody else said, but based on what he showed in his video you can clearly see that 4k has more detail over 2.7k.
I don't totally agree with that video. Just because you are getting more detail does not mean you should always shoot in 4k. As I said 4k has more noise. So essentially you are sacrificing the tiniest bit of detail for less noise, which is arguably more noticeable. I say use 2.7k unless you plan on spending hours de-noising your footage, in which case 4k all day long.Agree: you keep more details in 4k, like shown here:
(And many more examples on YouTube)
Personally I always film in 4k, although having no 4K Monitor. Even on my MacBook Retina 12" 4K looks better, as I still see more details, like trees in the distance.
Anyway, my personal taste - maybe others prefer more blurry trees at the horizon and keep objects in the front sharp, like in classic camera photography..?
I don't totally agree with that video. Just because you are getting more detail does not mean you should always shoot in 4k. As I said 4k has more noise. So essentially you are sacrificing the tiniest bit of detail for less noise, which is arguably more noticeable. I say use 2.7k unless you plan on spending hours de-noising your footage, in which case 4k all day long.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.