4K Chat

Thanks guys. Varius, the master footage is 4096x2160 at 30p, I down converted to HD so I could upload to Youtube quickly (I need to look into whether Youtube accept 4k uploads now.)

With the lack of histogram I found myself over exposing a few shots, not to the extent they're ruined but it's a major omission from the camera. Another complaint, trying to play back clips and watching them back through the view finder is difficult due to the design of the flip out screen, you can't access the playback control buttons whilst the screen is folded away - annoying when outside in bright sunshine.

Think I might have to take it into Sony to get cleaned up, that damn volcanic ash gets everywhere!

Youtube does accept 4k. Would be awesome to see the full size version.

So I've been playing around with Neat video to eliminate the well known noise issues the Z100 4K footage has and I noticed when exporting PhotoJPEG file the file size is considerably reduced. A 10 second clip WITHOUT Neat applied is about 700MB whereas the same clip WITH Neat applied is only around 200MB. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a very convenient by product of the plugin or am I right to be concerned that Neat might be overly compressing the footage? I have to say the footage with Neat applied looks much better with no noticeable loss of quality, except for slight softening at times.

Footage specs I'm working with are 4096x2160 30p.

Cheers, James

No idea how neat video works precisely, but most noise reduction works by softening the noisy area while keeping edges intact. Noise, however, is information that needs to be stored somewhere (until you decide to throw the unwanted information out). Thus noise reduced images compress a lot better. This is especially true for images with large uniform areas like blue sky.

200MB vs 700MB seems a bit more than I'd expect, but then a 10sec 4K clip with 700MB can't have that much detail in the first place. So, unless there are visible compression artifacts, I would not worry too much.

I have always noticed this with both video and photo. Noise takes a great deal of detail data. With photos the difference can be enormous. High ISO photos are often very much larger, sometimes several times larger, because of all the noise data. Also, all noise eliminating software is basically attempting to smooth out the noise, and you sacrifice a little detail. A lot of people will increase the sharpness carefully after applying de-noisers.

Thanks so much for the input varius, Physics, still learning lots here!

I try to be careful about overdoing it with Neat Video. It does soften the image. I'll often apply it to an adjustment layer and set the opacity of that layer to 50% just to keep it under control. A 4K display has much finer resolution then your HD display.

4k news is in a stand still ........ but wait if you want a BMCC 4k you have to go to Italy - in stock by Jan. 31, 2014:

http://www.bl2.it/blackmagic-cinema-camera/990-blackmagic-design-blackmagic-production-camera-4k-9338716001945.html

I'm rendering my first 4K file. It's a 4K version of this: https://www.pond5.com/it/stock-footage/30478124 I realized that I might as well start getting used to the big files and long renders since I have a backlog of T2i still sequence timelapses. Not sure whether to export as 4096x2304, Quicktime .mov, or to use a more compressed output codec...is it worth doing both?

Gotta figure out how to link the versions (that's a curator thing, right?)

I love Neat, but then I spend a lot of time tweaking when it gets challenging. Sometimes two instances works better. Looking back at my first clips with it a couple years ago, I see I was a little happy with it, but now it's good. There's a very fine line between too much and which frequency, and that can be balanced by careful sharpening. I use the sharpen in Neat, but very very little, barely discernable. Since I have sharpen off or as low as the camera will go, I have lots of room to play. Then I add Unsharp mask, again, very little, barely discernable, and overlay that with a Convolution Kernel sharpen layer, usually at about 17% opacity. I'd love to compare actual files with another pixel peeper/potential buyer, so I can see if I'm going far enough, too far, or if it's just right. Using multiple stages seems to afford a lot more actual detail retention, without the harsh crispiness or halos. Looking at the Still Frames of a lot successful/great clips, I'd say I'm fitting in, but who knows?

So the reason I mention this is because the 4k thing is a game changer, especially when looking at 4K on an HD screen. Seems to me that a lot of the 4k sample videos are too vibrant, too in-your-face sharpened and hyped. Which is a different deal too, since our job is to provide the building blocks, not final product, and there needs to be plenty of latitude for the end user (Our Beloved and Respected Buyers) to work with the file. I've coalesced my own work into productions and found it allows me to push and pull at it plenty, and leaving it flat and drab for maximum future post work is just no fun.

And finally, I'm really in a bind thinking about how to first bust into the 4K realtime acquisition world - Upgrade the FS700 with the Convergent Design 7Q, a GH4, or the smaller faster more versatile and cheaper albeit likely more compromised especially in the compression and fixed lens Sony AX100. If I did the AX100, I'd still do the FS700 thing too, just later. One thing I've noticed after working with the RX100, is that I shoot a LOT more with a smaller lighter faster rig, which is why I don't even consider the bigger Sony 4K cams.

Anyway, so considering the AX100, that brings me back to whether to export in a more compressed codec or QT mov. Would it be similar to shooting in AVCHD and ultimately transcoding to the HD QT .mov? In my mind it is. Things are gonna get bigger, faster, that's for sure!

Anyway, just been thinking about it a whole lot every day, and this babble is what happened. I'm cautioning myself to hang in there as let the dust settle a bit, but I know I'm anxious and excited about it too.

Oh - render just finished - very interesting - took 1 hour exactly for the HD version. Took 50 minutes and 20 odd seconds to render the 4K. Eh wot? Interesting. Yes....

Well I sold my first true 4K video here. Not a digital time lapse. Now just need to get another 4K camera since I sent the Sony Z-100 back for not being up to par.