4K vs 2.7

[Hayabusa]

Sorry for stupid question but if I do not have a 4K tv or monitor, than should I filmnin 2.7k? I like that I can use zoom in 2.7. If I’m not benifiting from the 4K then why use it?

 

[BD0G]

Some would say film in 4K for the ability to display it in all its glory when 4 K Monitors/ Television become commonplace.

 

[HWCM]

4K is overkill. 1 out of 10 devices can play it back without skipping or buffering. 4K is silly for YouTube.

 

[Just_nick]

If you're going to edit, film 4k. If you're not, don't bother.

 

[Hayabusa]

Got it.
to all

 

[black_magic100]

Film in 2.7k for reduced noise and upscale to 4k seems to be a solid option

 

[Mr. Salty]

Filming in 4K future proofs your video, and at the very least you can do a lot of cropping in editing without losing quality if you eventually render in 1080p. My 8-year-old Dell desktop plays and edits them just fine without stuttering.

Also, 4K TVs are becoming commonplace above a certain size. When I had to replace my TV a year and a half ago it was next to impossible to find a non-4K TV above 42 inches. So now I have a 55-inch 4K TV that cost less than $600.

And of course these TVs can easily play YouTube content in 4K because they all have YouTube built into them.

 

[Youser]

Film in 2.7k for reduced noise and upscale to 4k seems to be a solid option

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.

 

[black_magic100]

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

 

[Youser]

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

Thanks for putting that time in for us

24FPS or 30?

 

[Just_nick]

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?

 

[black_magic100]

What's the cause of the noise? Sensor-related, or is it intrinsic to the coding of the video?

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)

 

[DaveId]

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.

 

[black_magic100]

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.

 

[Gastone360]

yes, 4k is more detailed but you NEED to use neat video or temporal denoise in Davinci Resolve
I suggest DAvinci if you have a modern machine because is way way way way faster than neat video and the result is clearly visible

 

[swoermck]

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.

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..?

 

[black_magic100]

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.

 

[swoermck]

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.

As I said - my personal taste, I prefer the 4k over anything less. Could be I'm not trained enough to discover the noise in 4k, but normaly I don't see anything that bothers me and I almost never do any post processing except cutting clips and adding transitions.

.. and to add to this: coming from Parrot Bebop 1 & 2, the Mavic footage OOTB is like a dream for me

 

[Cut.Aussie]

I do the vast majority of shooting in 2.7k but I have just taken delivery of my new Mavic Air and that may change as the Air camera and gimbal are just so much better than the Pro