The cost of 4K or GH4
LUXORPYRAMID
10 May 2014 23:41
Everybody follows his own reference benchmark based on haw frequently he appears in the "just sole list" and the input of the "best of the week" and "best of the month". $199 is not insane since there are quite a few sales from P5 friends in the bracket of $149 to $199; more than $299.
cinecameratv
11 May 2014 00:45
You are right my identical twin brother but back to the thread; $4k as many have said before including Philip Bloom requires much more than just buying a GH4 and good glass. It's a complete system upgrade including storage. I have unlimited bandwidth internet connection but it is slowww. It's going to take me 2 to 3 hours per file, so I may have to spend a lot in cheap pen drives to send my files to P5. I am still worried if P5 is ready to store so many 4k files.
OverheadProductions
11 May 2014 02:47
The system, requirements and workflow practice requires a significant upgrade, if you've been beefing around on a dinosaur system, 4k requires around four times the amount of data used to process HD clips. In addition, the increased upload time is an addition to the equation.
In the short term, there's no chance of flooding the market with 4k stock, it will require selective choice of quality shots. Further, it needs upgrading to compatible software to edit and enhance clips. All this is good as it produces barriers to entry to producers and therefore enhanced market opportunities for sales to those who are progressive enough to invest in the technology.
Looking ahead to future developments, this hurdle is going to come again shortly through the introduction of 8k video with increased frame rates of at least 120fps, that will put further pressures on producers to invest to meet the standard requirements.
Bizarrely, and in contrast, speaking from the UK and I expect comparable to other parts of the world, a lot of TV, is still broadcast in standard definition and will continue to do so, therefore I expect the demand for HD clips to continue to be in demand for a while yet.
For me, the idea of having an ultra high definition format means I can work with it like a Photoshop file, aiming at HD in the end but having room to maneuver and manipulate the footage while maintaining quality of image.That means you need a computer with a load of grunt to allow the overhead of working with the imagery,
In the short term, there's no chance of flooding the market with 4k stock, it will require selective choice of quality shots. Further, it needs upgrading to compatible software to edit and enhance clips. All this is good as it produces barriers to entry to producers and therefore enhanced market opportunities for sales to those who are progressive enough to invest in the technology.
Looking ahead to future developments, this hurdle is going to come again shortly through the introduction of 8k video with increased frame rates of at least 120fps, that will put further pressures on producers to invest to meet the standard requirements.
Bizarrely, and in contrast, speaking from the UK and I expect comparable to other parts of the world, a lot of TV, is still broadcast in standard definition and will continue to do so, therefore I expect the demand for HD clips to continue to be in demand for a while yet.
For me, the idea of having an ultra high definition format means I can work with it like a Photoshop file, aiming at HD in the end but having room to maneuver and manipulate the footage while maintaining quality of image.That means you need a computer with a load of grunt to allow the overhead of working with the imagery,
Normstock
11 May 2014 18:26
I have a MacBook Pro with FCP-X that I'm slowly transitions too and it plays 4K fine and the footage looks great on the retina screen.