Playing 4K Videos on 4K Monitors and TV's - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 7Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 55 Old 08-22-2014, 07:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Playing 4K Videos on 4K Monitors and TV's

OK, we now have 4K cameras, camcorders, cell phones and action cams (at least one). And we have 4K monitors and TV's (at least one). How do we play the 4K videos on the 4K display devices?


I think it is unreasonable to expect a 4K TV to also be a good 4K video player, but if your TV does that, you are done. Until you change your codec and suddenly you can't...


So what is needed is a 4K video player to attach to your TV. Right now all of our consumer 4K video camera/camcorders/phones shoot 4K at 30p (or 25p), So we just need a device that will output via HDMI at 30Hz 4K video. The next generation cameras and player and TV's will do 4K 60p, but not now. Let's talk about now.


Of course you could use your computer, but that looks terrible in the living room and is hardly a consumer-friendly player (no remote).


Well, there are now little Android-based boxes (smaller than small bluray players) that perfectly play 4K video via HDMI out, have wifi remotes and can also stream your 4K videos to your TV if you want. They have usb and sd card slots. ready to go, and they cost less than $150. The operating system is just like your Android smart phone (KitKat), but they come with multiple software players that easily play 4K videos with all sort of controls. They work.


Example: http://probox2.com/probox2-ex/
Ken Ross and tingham like this.

Last edited by markr041; 08-22-2014 at 08:16 AM.
markr041 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 55 Old 08-22-2014, 09:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,988
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1007 Post(s)
Liked: 1091
Good idea re this thread Mark and a great find on the hardware! I've never seen this piece and the price is great.

Of course the device has only HDMI 1.4 and does only 30p, but as you say, let's deal with today's issues.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #3 of 55 Old 08-22-2014, 01:03 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
If one does not own a 4K monitor or a 4K television will they still notice an upgrade in the video quality if they are viewing footage that was filmed with a 4K camcorder?
RobertLee is offline  
post #4 of 55 Old 08-22-2014, 01:18 PM
Senior Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
On the product page, I notice it states it is not compatible with either Samsung or Sony 4k TVs. It does not state whether it will accept exfat USB drives or whether the player will play 4k video. Since, the Nanotech that just purchased also runs on Kit-Kat and does not support 4k, other than streaming, I'd say this does not serve as the solution for us that are looking for a small device to play our edited 4k videos. Looks like we still have to wait.
Also, that "air" remote they mention is what comes with the Nanotech and is full of bugs.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #5 of 55 Old 08-22-2014, 01:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by chenderson2 View Post
On the product page, I notice it states it is not compatible with either Samsung or Sony 4k TVs. It does not state whether it will accept exfat USB drives or whether the player will play 4k video. Since, the Nanotech that just purchased also runs on Kit-Kat and does not support 4k, other than streaming, I'd say this does not serve as the solution for us that are looking for a small device to play our edited 4k videos. Looks like we still have to wait.
Also, that "air" remote they mention is what comes with the Nanotech and is full of bugs.
You are just wrong. The ability to play 4k depends on the cpu and gpu not kitkat. My cell phone shoots and plays 4k and it is kitkat.

this is not the nanotech. It is the probox2 ex. New product.

http://probox2.com/probox2-ex/


you misread the specs - the compatability with Sony and samsung was about miracast only.

You also seem to have missed that the specs say explicitly it plays 4k. hdmi 1.4a.

the player works with exfat cards.

I have the device I linked to and it plays 4k.

You don't have to wait. I don't link to products I think might work. This one does. It says it plays 4k and it does.

Last edited by markr041; 08-22-2014 at 02:09 PM.
markr041 is offline  
post #6 of 55 Old 08-22-2014, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertLee View Post
If one does not own a 4K monitor or a 4K television will they still notice an upgrade in the video quality if they are viewing footage that was filmed with a 4K camcorder?
Absolutely yes. Downrezzed 4k to 1080 is better than 1080 shot as 1080 for many reasons. The tv or device does the downrez.
markr041 is offline  
post #7 of 55 Old 08-23-2014, 07:53 AM
Senior Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
You are just wrong. The ability to play 4k depends on the cpu and gpu not kitkat. My cell phone shoots and plays 4k and it is kitkat.

this is not the nanotech. It is the probox2 ex. New product.

http://probox2.com/probox2-ex/


you misread the specs - the compatability with Sony and samsung was about miracast only.

You also seem to have missed that the specs say explicitly it plays 4k. hdmi 1.4a.

the player works with exfat cards.

I have the device I linked to and it plays 4k.

You don't have to wait. I don't link to products I think might work. This one does. It says it plays 4k and it does.
I apologize if it sounded like I was questioning your integrity. I was not aware that you had actually purchased the device and tried it out with an exfat card and 4k material. I thought you were just quoting the product description. I not only read the product description for the Nanotech device, but even sent an email specifically asking if it would play 4k from a usb drive and was told it would. It does not. And I have no idea what the heck is going on with the "air" remote that is useless. The tech support person at Nanotech has suggested I use a wireless keyboard and mouse until such time as he can solve the problem with the exfat non-compatibility. I own neither of those devices.

Now, the Nanotech also offers 4k streaming content. I have no idea how much it costs of how good it is. Does the device you have just purchased also offer 4k streaming material?
Thanks once again for the information and offering a solution to my 4k problem with my Sony UHD TV.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #8 of 55 Old 08-23-2014, 08:13 AM
Senior Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Upon your assurance that you actually own this device and that it performs as it is supposed to, I have requested a return authorization on the Nanotech and have placed an order for the Probox2. Thanks again for your suggestion.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #9 of 55 Old 08-23-2014, 03:16 PM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
Absolutely yes. Downrezzed 4k to 1080 is better than 1080 shot as 1080 for many reasons. The tv or device does the downrez.
Hi Mark.

This isn't entirely accurate. It all depends on the scaling technology. 1080 source to a 1080 monitor can look better for resolution than 4K to 1080.

That box does look very interesting, and will pave the way for a lot more 4K options.

For me personally, I would hold off until TVs have become a little more mature, with frame rates and codec options. There is going to be a good chance that a TV with USB and Internet, is all that will be needed. Look at HD TVs now. Most modern ones will play most modern codecs via USB and network. And also have fairly advanced media options such as Plex client and cool stuff like Netflix.

Cheers,
Dave.
David Harry is offline  
post #10 of 55 Old 08-23-2014, 05:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Harry View Post
Hi Mark.

This isn't entirely accurate. It all depends on the scaling technology. 1080 source to a 1080 monitor can look better for resolution than 4K to 1080.

That box does look very interesting, and will pave the way for a lot more 4K options.

For me personally, I would hold off until TVs have become a little more mature, with frame rates and codec options. There is going to be a good chance that a TV with USB and Internet, is all that will be needed. Look at HD TVs now. Most modern ones will play most modern codecs via USB and network. And also have fairly advanced media options such as Plex client and cool stuff like Netflix.

Cheers,
Dave.

Sure it depends on scaling technology. But, sorry, it is highly unlikely (not impossible) that native 1080 looks better than downrezzed 4K on any device. This is because native 1080 from most cameras is not close to actual 1080. And, I have witnessed the clear advantage on cheap tablets, old 1080 TV's, top 1080 TV's, cheap monitors, expensive monitors, laptops, etc. If you find something specific for which it is not true please tell us what it is. It is a fair warning.

My pointing to the little cheap box is for people who already have a 4K TV and cannot play 4K videos. Their TV is not going to be upgraded. There is no other option. Waiting does not help, unless they want to get yet another 4K TV.

It is also for someone who has no immediate plans to get a 4K TV (perhaps following your advice), but is shooting 4K NOW and wants to see 4K on the 1080 TV that is already owned, to see the superior resolution over existing consumer 1080 cameras/camcorders (see above), rather than just on a computer, NOW.

The box will not be upgradeable to HDMI 2.0 (and thus play 108060p videos). But no current TV or computer without HDMI 2.0 is either.

Last edited by markr041; 08-23-2014 at 05:23 PM.
markr041 is offline  
post #11 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 01:55 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
Sure it depends on scaling technology. But, sorry, it is highly unlikely (not impossible) that native 1080 looks better than downrezzed 4K on any device. This is because native 1080 from most cameras is not close to actual 1080. And, I have witnessed the clear advantage on cheap tablets, old 1080 TV's, top 1080 TV's, cheap monitors, expensive monitors, laptops, etc. If you find something specific for which it is not true please tell us what it is. It is a fair warning.

My pointing to the little cheap box is for people who already have a 4K TV and cannot play 4K videos. Their TV is not going to be upgraded. There is no other option. Waiting does not help, unless they want to get yet another 4K TV.

It is also for someone who has no immediate plans to get a 4K TV (perhaps following your advice), but is shooting 4K NOW and wants to see 4K on the 1080 TV that is already owned, to see the superior resolution over existing consumer 1080 cameras/camcorders (see above), rather than just on a computer, NOW.

The box will not be upgradeable to HDMI 2.0 (and thus play 108060p videos). But no current TV or computer without HDMI 2.0 is either.
Hi Mark.

I work in post production, and see the effect of proper 1080 and scaled 4K. If you scale in post using the right methods, from proper 4K acquisition, and compare this to live scaling. Then the proper post scaled version will win every time, and in most cases be better than a native 1080 acquisition. But live scaling doesn't hold up so well.

You have to remember that there are a number of issues to consider when making a judgement on picture quality, with aliasing being a big one.

When 4K becomes the norm, then I am quite sure that the pathway from lens to TV will be much better. And then 4K to HD will be much better, either post or live. But we are no where near a transitional phase, let alone the norm, for 4K to be a standard in the way HD is.

As for the box. It looks to be an excellent option for many screens. And for people who don't know how to feed their screens the correct codec via USB or LAN.

Aside from the brave few who have jumped in feet first into 4K monitoring. It would be better for most to hold off until proper global standards are in place. Not that 50P is for me, but until the industry agrees on all the standards, I can't see the sense in buying into an expensive piece of kit that is crippled from day one.

Imagine when 4K 50P H265 media becomes the standard? Or 4K 50P Netflix, or any online H265 delivery. The the early adopters of 4K monitoring won't be able to get the full benefit.

Cheers,
Dave.
David Harry is offline  
post #12 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 07:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Harry View Post
Hi Mark.

I work in post production, and see the effect of proper 1080 and scaled 4K. If you scale in post using the right methods, from proper 4K acquisition, and compare this to live scaling. Then the proper post scaled version will win every time, and in most cases be better than a native 1080 acquisition. But live scaling doesn't hold up so well.

You have to remember that there are a number of issues to consider when making a judgement on picture quality, with aliasing being a big one.

When 4K becomes the norm, then I am quite sure that the pathway from lens to TV will be much better. And then 4K to HD will be much better, either post or live. But we are no where near a transitional phase, let alone the norm, for 4K to be a standard in the way HD is.

As for the box. It looks to be an excellent option for many screens. And for people who don't know how to feed their screens the correct codec via USB or LAN.

Aside from the brave few who have jumped in feet first into 4K monitoring. It would be better for most to hold off until proper global standards are in place. Not that 50P is for me, but until the industry agrees on all the standards, I can't see the sense in buying into an expensive piece of kit that is crippled from day one.

Imagine when 4K 50P H265 media becomes the standard? Or 4K 50P Netflix, or any online H265 delivery. The the early adopters of 4K monitoring won't be able to get the full benefit.

Cheers,
Dave.

I do not think you understand what this thread is about. Again, this thread is for people who have already invested in 4K cameras and want to view their 4K video on 1080 or less viewing devices like big TV's. Or people who have already purchased a 4K TV and a 4K camera and want to view their edited 4K videos NOW. And not make a big investment. It is precisely not advice to invest in a 4K TV and spend $1,000's of dollars now in doing that.

Now as to 4K viewed at 1080. Perfect 1080 from a camera would be no worse than downrezzed 4K, and could be better (ignoring, as you do, color sampling). You are correct. But the fact is few consumer cameras come close to "proper" 1080. I would like to know what cameras you have experience with that you think gives proper 1080 video? Not cameras used by people like me or most of the people who participate here.


Almost all my and most everyone's viewing of 4K videos and videos from non-4K cameras is on 1080 or less monitors/TV's. I and anyone I show the 4K videos to clearly sees how much better the resolution is of the 4K videos than my or their 1080 videos. Even the Vimeo transformation of my 4K videos to 1080 streaming videos demonstrate how much better the 4K is on resolution than almost all 1080-source videos.


In sum, you fail to recognize in your argument (I know you know this) that almost all "1080" video is nowhere near actual 1080 resolution - is not "proper" - in cases of many Canon DSLRs not even 720, while downrezzed 4K gets right there, and again on any 1080 device I have seen the advantage is viewable. And I am not even mentioning the issue of 4:2:0 sampling.
markr041 is offline  
post #13 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 08:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,988
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1007 Post(s)
Liked: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
Now as to 4K viewed at 1080. Perfect 1080 from a camera would be no worse than downrezzed 4K, and could be better (ignoring, as you do, color sampling). You are correct. But the fact is few consumer cameras come close to "proper" 1080. I would like to know what cameras you have experience with that you think gives proper 1080 video? Not cameras used by people like me or most of the people who participate here.
And that's the point I believe Dave was missing. It's not a question of scaling, it's a question of 1080 camcorders NOT delivering the full "HD" resolution (whether in the horizontal 1920 or the vertical 1080).

You and I have gone through more DSLRs & camcorders than most, and I'm sure we both agree that down-scaled 4K to HD is far better than anything HD we've owned previously.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #14 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 10:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
And that's the point I believe Dave was missing. It's not a question of scaling, it's a question of 1080 camcorders NOT delivering the full "HD" resolution (whether in the horizontal 1920 or the vertical 1080).

You and I have gone through more DSLRs & camcorders than most, and I'm sure we both agree that down-scaled 4K to HD is far better than anything HD we've owned previously.
Ive goon through equal or more DSLRs/camcorders and I dont agree.
4K does not automatically equal better than all 1080p.
As always its not back or white, it depends.
Mattias Burling is online now  
post #15 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 11:25 AM
Senior Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
I do not think you understand what this thread is about. Again, this thread is for people who have already invested in 4K cameras and want to view their 4K video on 1080 or less viewing devices like big TV's. Or people who have already purchased a 4K TV and a 4K camera and want to view their edited 4K videos NOW. And not make a big investment. It is precisely not advice to invest in a 4K TV and spend $1,000's of dollars now in doing that.

Now as to 4K viewed at 1080. Perfect 1080 from a camera would be no worse than downrezzed 4K, and could be better (ignoring, as you do, color sampling). You are correct. But the fact is few consumer cameras come close to "proper" 1080. I would like to know what cameras you have experience with that you think gives proper 1080 video? Not cameras used by people like me or most of the people who participate here.


Almost all my and most everyone's viewing of 4K videos and videos from non-4K cameras is on 1080 or less monitors/TV's. I and anyone I show the 4K videos to clearly sees how much better the resolution is of the 4K videos than my or their 1080 videos. Even the Vimeo transformation of my 4K videos to 1080 streaming videos demonstrate how much better the 4K is on resolution than almost all 1080-source videos.


In sum, you fail to recognize in your argument (I know you know this) that almost all "1080" video is nowhere near actual 1080 resolution - is not "proper" - in cases of many Canon DSLRs not even 720, while downrezzed 4K gets right there, and again on any 1080 device I have seen the advantage is viewable. And I am not even mentioning the issue of 4:2:0 sampling.
Are you getting my private messages? I was asking you how long it took to receive your Probox2. Of course my experience may vary depending upon where you live in relation to the Probox2 shipping address and where I live.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #16 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 01:41 PM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi Mark and Ken.

I totally understand what is being said, I haven't misunderstood anything. I have already said that certain 4K equipment and methodology can and will look better in HD, compared to the same in HD.

Mark, you mention cell phones, I doubt very much that these are going to do battle with any proper HD camera when scaled down. And using DSLRs as an example, is also not very good, as many do not resolve HD in the same way a dedicated camera would.

I do agree however that 4K footage to 4K monitoring is a potential issue, especially with monitoring that doesn't play well with certain frame rates and codecs. That is where a good media player will really help. But as I said earlier, early adopters will feel the pain of a lack of compatibility, and whether it's right or wrong, a media player will be needed for those scenarios. Newer and future 4K monitoring won't have such issues, and will not need such devices.

Again as I said earlier, there are many issues to take on board when evaluating picture quality, aliasing being a big one. It's an issue that does effect the quality of down scaling 4K to HD, and it is nowhere near as bad on a sensor that maps 1:1 in the first place at any given resolution, in this case HD to HD.

The likes of bit depth and chroma sampling play a lesser part in the evaluation process. Seeing as any native or scaled content will be subject, in the vast majority of cases, to the same output parameters. Namely, 8bit and 4:2:0.

And Mark. You mention the word argument. May I just correct you on that, it's not an argument from me, it's simply me pointing out that you are not entirely correct. While your observations are indeed true in many cases. You use a broad stroke of the brush to paint an over simplified picture of a scenario that really isn't so black and white. Again, as I said earlier. These issues will resolve themselves in the future to be more black and white and as a matter of fact. But for now, a little caution should be exercised.

Hi Mattias.

I have to agree with your statement. But that is hardly a surprise when taking on board the views of someone with your practical experience of "Tech And What Not"

Cheers,
Dave.
Mattias Burling likes this.
David Harry is offline  
post #17 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 03:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Im"proper" arguments and cameras

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Harry View Post
Hi Mark and Ken.

I totally understand what is being said, I haven't misunderstood anything. I have already said that certain 4K equipment and methodology can and will look better in HD, compared to the same in HD.

Mark, you mention cell phones, I doubt very much that these are going to do battle with any proper HD camera when scaled down. And using DSLRs as an example, is also not very good, as many do not resolve HD in the same way a dedicated camera would.

I do agree however that 4K footage to 4K monitoring is a potential issue, especially with monitoring that doesn't play well with certain frame rates and codecs. That is where a good media player will really help. But as I said earlier, early adopters will feel the pain of a lack of compatibility, and whether it's right or wrong, a media player will be needed for those scenarios. Newer and future 4K monitoring won't have such issues, and will not need such devices.

Again as I said earlier, there are many issues to take on board when evaluating picture quality, aliasing being a big one. It's an issue that does effect the quality of down scaling 4K to HD, and it is nowhere near as bad on a sensor that maps 1:1 in the first place at any given resolution, in this case HD to HD.

The likes of bit depth and chroma sampling play a lesser part in the evaluation process. Seeing as any native or scaled content will be subject, in the vast majority of cases, to the same output parameters. Namely, 8bit and 4:2:0.

And Mark. You mention the word argument. May I just correct you on that, it's not an argument from me, it's simply me pointing out that you are not entirely correct. While your observations are indeed true in many cases. You use a broad stroke of the brush to paint an over simplified picture of a scenario that really isn't so black and white. Again, as I said earlier. These issues will resolve themselves in the future to be more black and white and as a matter of fact. But for now, a little caution should be exercised.

Hi Mattias.

I have to agree with your statement. But that is hardly a surprise when taking on board the views of someone with your practical experience of "Tech And What Not"

Cheers,
Dave.

I think we all appreciate your technical caveats. But you also make theoretical statements and advance opinions without any evident extensive experience with consumer devices (see below, viz cell phones). We have seen 4K videos on lots of 1080 viewing devices, so despite your correct caveats, in practice they are simply not important.


More to the point: Take your statement about 4K on cell phones, where you say "I doubt..." and again mention that theoretical "proper" HD camera, the one nobody has, as the comparator. That's a statement again based on theory if not fantasy (proper) and not based on experience with either 4K cell phone video or 1080 cameras most people use. The 4K video from the Samsung Galaxy 5S is stunning (when stabilized) as viewed on 1080 screens compared with any 1080 consumer camera. Sure it is a bit vivid for many tastes, but in terms of resolution and lack of artifacts it is amazing. Download the (stabilized) videos I have posted from that cellphone. I am not claiming you should throw away whatever you use or they are perfect (there is RS) or they can replace the GH4 or the AX100 or even large-sensor DSLRs (for low light), but the video is clearly - visibly - a step up from 1080 consumer cams (see below for specifics). I am sure you will find some fault with it, but the videos we take and view are the evidence, your "doubt" is irrelevant. It is an incompletely-informed opinion.


I also don't understand your dismissal of DSLRs as relevant. They are used for pro video, from commercial TV to weddings and industrial events. They are used by consumers. They are used by film school students. The GoPro is popular too, among consumers and among pros. None of these cameras achieve anywhere near 1080 resolution. Nor do Canon camcorders or "Full HD" P&S cameras or "Full HD" cellphones. What people actually use. Any current 4K camera - including the Samsung Galaxy 5S - will be a visible improvement in real resolution over all of those when viewed at 1080. Just not your mythical "proper" HD camera. Only perhaps shooting RAW at 1080 could rival (and beat if graded "properly") 4K downrezzed, unless also 4K RAW originally of course.
markr041 is offline  
post #18 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by chenderson2 View Post
Are you getting my private messages? I was asking you how long it took to receive your Probox2. Of course my experience may vary depending upon where you live in relation to the Probox2 shipping address and where I live.

It comes from Hong Kong, and it came surprisingly fast (3 working days) to my near-NYC abode. Specifically it was airmailed the day after I ordered it, landed at JFK airport in one day, and the rest was domestic US postal delivery.
markr041 is offline  
post #19 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 03:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Back and white

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
Ive goon through equal or more DSLRs/camcorders and I dont agree.
4K does not automatically equal better than all 1080p.
As always its not back or white, it depends.

You know, that's real easy to say and not very useful. Obviously it is not "automatic". The question is what is the likelihood and under what circumstances pseudo HD beats 4K downrezzed.


Why don't you show us an example, or just name a camera (not the C100 or C300 and not RAW-video sourced) whose 1080 video looks better on a standard 1080 computer monitor than, say 4K video from the GH4 or AX100. And let's be clear, we are NOT talking about DR or color saturation, just pure visible detail.


I am not saying there are no instances of this, or your statement is wrong, just that it is likely irrelevant to any cameras most people use (however they made that decision).
markr041 is offline  
post #20 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
It comes from Hong Kong, and it came surprisingly fast (3 working days) to my near-NYC abode. Specifically it was airmailed the day after I ordered it, landed at JFK airport in one day, and the rest was domestic US postal delivery.
Thanks. That's excellent. I've ordered cellphone batteries and chargers from Hong Kong and gotten them amazingly quickly.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #21 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 08:17 PM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Though I'm not a software engineer. It looks to me the algorithm required to scale the video frame down from UHD (not true cinema 4K) to 1080p must be quite straight forward and simple, a 2-to-1 downsize in both dimensions, and within the capabilities of most modern computers in use nowadays. My Mac Mini with downright pedestrian specs bought over 3 years ago plays back intermediate codec (ProRes) 4K files on my 1080p monitors almost as well as my workstation class Mac Pro with an entirely different class of specs. I use the word "almost" because the only difference in viewable quality on playing back from the two machines is the smoothness of the playback. The lesser machine occasionally drops frames, thus stutters in scenes having complex details while the workstation always plays smoothly. I never noticed any additional flaws from live downscaling aside from the stutters on my Mac Mini driven monitors.

On whether the live downscaled 4K looks better than 1080p sources, it depends. The live downscaled UHD files from my Sony AX100 and Oppo Find 7a cellphones look definitely better in terms of detail and resolution on my 1080p monitors than 1080p XDCAM files from my office's Sony EX1R on the same monitors. You could of course argue about which one has the better apparent color depth or dynamic range. For myself and everyone in my office agree the overall, "apparent" image of the downscaled videos look better or more "real" because of the greater detail. Now if you say the 1080p image from somebody's Canon C300 or Sony FS700 looks better than the live downscaled 4K from my camera and cellphone above, you may be right. However, even so, I doubt the word "better" here includes detail and resolution. But the point is how many casual shooters on this forum and consumers who use consumer video devices have either the budget or the wherewithal to use cameras like the latter two?

I do agree completely with David Harry on the PP downscaling vs live downscaling, though. Downscaling in post, if done carefully comes out better EVERYTIME. Again, the viewable differences on 1080p monitors in any case when compared to live downscaling are very small. These differences, as Mark and Ken point out, are irrelevant under actual viewing due to most consumer HD cameras' inability to resolve anywhere close to 1080p in their original footage. You could say it's in fact not the case of downscaled 4K vs 1080p, it's actually downscaled 1080+p vs upscaled whatever from 500-600p to at most 900+p. No true 1080p to speak of here.

Last edited by P&Struefan; 08-24-2014 at 10:13 PM.
P&Struefan is offline  
post #22 of 55 Old 08-24-2014, 11:13 PM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
I think we all appreciate your technical caveats. But you also make theoretical statements and advance opinions without any evident extensive experience with consumer devices (see below, viz cell phones). We have seen 4K videos on lots of 1080 viewing devices, so despite your correct caveats, in practice they are simply not important.


More to the point: Take your statement about 4K on cell phones, where you say "I doubt..." and again mention that theoretical "proper" HD camera, the one nobody has, as the comparator. That's a statement again based on theory if not fantasy (proper) and not based on experience with either 4K cell phone video or 1080 cameras most people use. The 4K video from the Samsung Galaxy 5S is stunning (when stabilized) as viewed on 1080 screens compared with any 1080 consumer camera. Sure it is a bit vivid for many tastes, but in terms of resolution and lack of artifacts it is amazing. Download the (stabilized) videos I have posted from that cellphone. I am not claiming you should throw away whatever you use or they are perfect (there is RS) or they can replace the GH4 or the AX100 or even large-sensor DSLRs (for low light), but the video is clearly - visibly - a step up from 1080 consumer cams (see below for specifics). I am sure you will find some fault with it, but the videos we take and view are the evidence, your "doubt" is irrelevant. It is an incompletely-informed opinion.


I also don't understand your dismissal of DSLRs as relevant. They are used for pro video, from commercial TV to weddings and industrial events. They are used by consumers. They are used by film school students. The GoPro is popular too, among consumers and among pros. None of these cameras achieve anywhere near 1080 resolution. Nor do Canon camcorders or "Full HD" P&S cameras or "Full HD" cellphones. What people actually use. Any current 4K camera - including the Samsung Galaxy 5S - will be a visible improvement in real resolution over all of those when viewed at 1080. Just not your mythical "proper" HD camera. Only perhaps shooting RAW at 1080 could rival (and beat if graded "properly") 4K downrezzed, unless also 4K RAW originally of course.
Hi Mark.

None of what I have said is based on theory or opinion, it's based on practice, and is technically correct.

The simple fact is that, my experience works very well for me and my clients, and this is based on over 25 years working with audio and moving images, both pre and post.

To get drawn into what looks likes is becoming a pointless pissing contest, is just that, pointless. If your experience dictates that making sweeping statements is good practice, and that you are never wrong, and it works well for you and your clients, then fair enough.

But if you are going to make posts on an open forum, and make sweeping statements that aren't entirely correct. Then don't be too surprised, or take it too to heart, when someone tries to help and correct.

Anyway, I'm a huge fan of your videos and look forward to many more.

Cheers,
Dave.
David Harry is offline  
post #23 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 01:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
You know, that's real easy to say and not very useful. Obviously it is not "automatic". The question is what is the likelihood and under what circumstances pseudo HD beats 4K downrezzed.


Why don't you show us an example, or just name a camera (not the C100 or C300 and not RAW-video sourced) whose 1080 video looks better on a standard 1080 computer monitor than, say 4K video from the GH4 or AX100. And let's be clear, we are NOT talking about DR or color saturation, just pure visible detail.


I am not saying there are no instances of this, or your statement is wrong, just that it is likely irrelevant to any cameras most people use (however they made that decision).
I can just point to your test Mark. The BMPCC footage you showed looked way more natural and clean with better colors than your AX100 IMO and it would in PRORES to. If you have some basic understanding of color correction you dont need to shoot Raw, most people dont.


And if you whant to take it to the extreme just to make the point, your 4K action cam, are you telling me that it lookes better with more detail than alot of 1080p cameras out there, no of course not.
As I said it all depends.


The A7s is going to show more detail than downresed GH4 in the dark again it depends.


And I will never agree to making up rules about how only detail is important in IQ. So from me the argument will always be of the entire picture, because thats what the end viewer is watching.
If a camera with bad DR like the Sony blows out half the Picture, THAT IS LOST DETAILS.
Mattias Burling is online now  
post #24 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 01:40 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
I can just point to your test Mark. The BMPCC footage you showed looked way more natural and clean with better colors than your AX100 IMO and it would in PRORES to. If you have some basic understanding of color correction you dont need to shoot Raw, most people dont.


And if you whant to take it to the extreme just to make the point, your 4K action cam, are you telling me that it lookes better with more detail than alot of 1080p cameras out there, no of course not.
As I said it all depends.


The A7s is going to show more detail than downresed GH4 in the dark again it depends.


And I will never agree to making up rules about how only detail is important in IQ. So from me the argument will always be of the entire picture, because thats what the end viewer is watching.
If a camera with bad DR like the Sony blows out half the Picture, THAT IS LOST DETAILS.
Well said.
David Harry is offline  
post #25 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 08:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,988
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1007 Post(s)
Liked: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
And I will never agree to making up rules about how only detail is important in IQ. So from me the argument will always be of the entire picture, because thats what the end viewer is watching.
If a camera with bad DR like the Sony blows out half the Picture, THAT IS LOST DETAILS.
I think Mark specifically mentioned detail only and specifically omitted other PQ assessments. I don't think he mentioned that 'only detail is important in IQ', so this argument is not pertinent nor relevant.

With that said, your 'bolded' statement above is nothing but hyperbole and, speaking of reality, has no relationship to it. Can I blow out 'half the picture' with the Sony? Sure, by deliberately misadjusting picture parameters. Oh, and BTW, I can do that with any camera. However anyone with an inkling of what they're doing should never blow our 'half the picture' with an AX100. There is nothing 'bad' about the camera's DR.

Again, FWIW, I stick by what I originally said and agree with Mark, the typical HD camera that the overwhelming majority of AVS users will use, will not come close to the quality afforded by downscaled 4K>2K from cameras like the AX100 & GH4. I've never seen it, that's for sure.

Somehow I think this discussion will be going round & round.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #26 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 08:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
I think Mark specifically mentioned detail only and specifically omitted other PQ assessments. I don't think he mentioned that 'only detail is important in IQ', so this argument is not pertinent nor relevant.

With that said, your 'bolded' statement above is nothing but hyperbole and, speaking of reality, has no relationship to it. Can I blow out 'half the picture' with the Sony? Sure, by deliberately misadjusting picture parameters. Oh, and BTW, I can do that with any camera. However anyone with an inkling of what they're doing should never blow our 'half the picture' with an AX100. There is nothing 'bad' about the camera's DR.

Again, FWIW, I stick by what I originally said and agree with Mark, the typical HD camera that the overwhelming majority of AVS users will use, will not come close to the quality afforded by downscaled 4K>2K from cameras like the AX100 & GH4. I've never seen it, that's for sure.

Somehow I think this discussion will be going round & round.
Ken, just stop it. You have to stop taking anything anybody says about your precious camcorder as a personal insult. Thats being a fanboy and it doesnt suit you.

ALL CAMERAS HAVE FLAWS INCLUDING YOURS, LET IT GO.

Im out from this pointless turf war, dont start threads if your not willing to discuss. If you just want to tell people how it is, wright a book.
David Harry likes this.
Mattias Burling is online now  
post #27 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 08:57 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
Ken, just stop it. You have to stop taking anything anybody says about your precious camcorder as a personal insult. Thats being a fanboy and it doesnt suit you.

ALL CAMERAS HAVE FLAWS INCLUDING YOURS, LET IT GO.

Im out from this pointless turf war, dont start threads if your not willing to discuss. If you just want to tell people how it is, wright a book.
Write a book
David Harry is offline  
post #28 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 09:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,988
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1007 Post(s)
Liked: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
Ken, just stop it. You have to stop taking anything anybody says about your precious camcorder as a personal insult. Thats being a fanboy and it doesnt suit you.

ALL CAMERAS HAVE FLAWS INCLUDING YOURS, LET IT GO.

Im out from this pointless turf war, dont start threads if your not willing to discuss. If you just want to tell people how it is, wright a book.
So because I refute the statement that the Sony blows out half the picture, I'm a 'fanboy'.

Wow, just wow.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #29 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 11:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 130
OK already

As the starter of this thread, and also contributor to some of the rukus, let me say that it is clear that everyone who has contributed here has terrific knowledge of video based on experience and deserves respect. I have my views on who is making the most sense in this particular thread, but let's agree (including me) we get back to trying to help as best we can, with corrections when needed, those with less experience.


The original point of this thread was to offer an alternative 4K player that works with 4K30p video, is small, and not expensive, so when the better stuff comes one has not wasted a lot of investment. In the meantime these little players will let people see what 4K video looks like on either older (!) 4K TV's or on big 1080 TV's, which hopefully have decent scalers, rather than just on computer monitors.
markr041 is offline  
post #30 of 55 Old 08-25-2014, 04:15 PM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
As the starter of this thread, and also contributor to some of the rukus, let me say that it is clear that everyone who has contributed here has terrific knowledge of video based on experience and deserves respect. I have my views on who is making the most sense in this particular thread, but let's agree (including me) we get back to trying to help as best we can, with corrections when needed, those with less experience.


The original point of this thread was to offer an alternative 4K player that works with 4K30p video, is small, and not expensive, so when the better stuff comes one has not wasted a lot of investment. In the meantime these little players will let people see what 4K video looks like on either older (!) 4K TV's or on big 1080 TV's, which hopefully have decent scalers, rather than just on computer monitors.
Absolutely agree. And that player you have found looks like an excellent solution for many people for many reasons.

Cheers,
Dave.
Mattias Burling likes this.
David Harry is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off