Anyone that says 4K video is a required for new cameras should

ain't nothing wrong with future-proofing, my dude. it's really painful to go back to early youtube or dvd days when everything was in 480p or less, and it'll be the same in six-to-ten years when (not if) 4k is the de facto standard. There will also be fucktards at that point in the future as well saying that "HURR DURR 8K IS STUPID NO ONE NEEDS THAT RESOLUTION."

you're just too young and stupid to realize this.

>>3058835
Diminishing marginal returns. Unless you're shooting for a fucking feature film there is no reason for that resolution in video. The human eye can't differentiate between a 4K display at 28inches and a 8k display. The only difference is marketing. Fucking kill yourself my man.

This is the same shit that audiophiles with their magic rocks and floor risers and giant insulated cables believe they can hear. It's fucking marketing and you are a child for feeding the machine.

4k is nice for cropping senpai

>>3058860

>Fucking kill yourself my man

hey that's my catch phrase! no fair!

Anyway, all of your stuff is just regurgitating the same ol' retrogrouch bullshit arguments against the march of progress for, what, 30 years?, and you aren't even doing it particularly well.

You even see it in photography when Nikon announced the D800, fucktards on this very board were aghast. "WHO EVEN NEEDS THAT MANY MEGAPIXELS", etc etc etc.

It's not like they're charging you extra for the 4K mode on your camera. You're literally getting a free upgrade. What the fuck could you possibly be bitching about?

>>3058892
Nobody shoots Nikon for video though

>>3058898

Not anymore, no. They did when the D800 came out for shows like Wilfred, because Sony didn't have a competent full frame offering at the time and the D800 was better than the 5dmk2.

>>3058833
K, I'll bite. I don't normally say shit like "your camera doesn't matter" but some of the posts in this thread triggered me.

If your content is shit in 1080 or below, then all the dynamic range and sharpness in the world won't help it. I am not saying no good quality 4k content exists, just that I watch movies for quality content/storytelling, not just for the sake of a tech demo. It doesn't even have to be super "deep" but what makes content future proof, IMO, is not just the technical quality, it's the quality of the story itself. I still go back to some old movies that don't even have a blu ray release and will probably never see 4K. I wish they would because I love them so much and would like to have them in higher quality, and IMO, that's how it should be. You take quality work and give it the technology it deserves.

Of course, people can do what they want, but I do sometimes get the impression that people who clamor for everything to be 4K/mirrorless/whatever "innovative" thing that's hot are acting too much like tecnophiles and not enough like artists/creators. The technology we have really IS good enough for plenty of applications, but as always, gearfags gonna gearfag. What are you gonna do....

No, no, no, no, no. All of the mentioned things till now aren't the point.

People tend to mess up the difference between a new technology and an improved technology. There is the claim that a new technology will replace an old and that it is mostly better just because of being new. While this claim might (!) be true, it is however not automatically adaptable to an improved technology.

The 4k vs. HD discussion is very similar to the 35mm vs. 70mm discussion in film times. Of course there were people saying a larger format is better and everything. And they expected it to be the standard in future, e.g. for filmmakers and cinemas. But it wasn't.

You can see it like a saturation curve. A specific technolgy - every (!) technology - has a peak of its usefulness to efficiency ratio. We develop technology for a specific use and at some point we reach that peak. Then we may develop it beyond that point, but this doesn't mean the usefulness or efficiency gets any better. Often enough there are even huge disadvantages.

So, of course digital replaced analog. Because it was a new (!) technology. But 4k won't replace HD. Because it is just an improved (!) technology, and digital reached its peak with HD. ... Just btw, same goes for 60fps.

I'm personally in the situation to decide things like that and thus to have an impact on the market, due to quite a big audience. And - till now at least - I did not decide to go with anything 'better' than 1080p 24/25fps because the disadvantages of anything beyond do not remotely justify the (claimed) win in quality.

>>3058833
So by that logic, people that bought cameras that could do 1080p in 2007 were wasting there money in a meme format and should have stuck to trusty dvd quality?

You're a dumb cunt aintcha pal.

>>3059069
Diminishing marginal returns, cunt. If you made a 16k tv sized display you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from a 4K display. You have eyes not microscopes.

But please, tell me all about your placebo with an exponential increase in power and memory/bandwidth consumption. You're a dumb cunt, aintcha pal?

>>3059082
>diminishing marginal returns
>buying something already outdated
Vs
>buying something that's relevant for a decade

This is why poor people stay poor. You don't know how to invest in your future.

>>3059082
You don't get any returns if you can only offer a product that no one wants.

>>3058833
4K has existed for a fucklong time in cinema as a digital intermediate, and later has the capture format for digital cameras.
Even if you never intend to display the output on a 4K-capable display or print to film for theater projection, it's still a good idea to use for a number of reasons during production:
- Being able to shoot wider and reframe the shot in post**
- Being able to add post-stabilization if needed
- Easier and more accurate compositing for VFX
- Higher color sampling due to nature of bayer color filters on sensors
- Reduced aliasing without the need for strong AA filtration, resulting in crisper detail

Because 4K is slowing becoming more commonplace as an actually delivery format, camera makers are now edging to 6-8K for video capture to keep all mentioned advantages even at this higher level of detail.

**almost the entirety of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was shot this way.

>>3059105
>Because 4K is slowing becoming more commonplace as an actually delivery format

But it isn't, anon. Just because Casey Jewfaceuglycunt on YouTube is doing meme 8k doesn't mean the difference that isn't noticeable to the human eye is worth the exponential cost of delivery. Netflix won't even stream in 4K without the latest (((intel))) processor with built in drm, windows 10, and internet explorer.

Please tell me more about how having intels most expensive processor, windows 10, internet explorer, and 4K are the future.

I imagine that if I shot video then I would worry about it. But then I would have an actual video camera for doing it, and not an slr. I do not care if my camera will do video, all I care about is its still image performance.

>>3059107
>ignoring everything else >>3059105
listed
>being this much of a nigger

>>3058912
Good post, anon, and some great points/insights. I can totally relate re: your thoughts/feelings about quality of content over technical perfection.
And in regards to the "your camera doesn't matter" discussion, of course it does to a point, but a talented artist with a cheap camera will still produce great art. As I recently heard someone say, "Nobody finishes a great book and thinks, "Man, that author must have a really nice typewriter!"

>>3060090
Prove me wrong

>>3060171
>"Nobody finishes a great book and thinks, "Man, that author must have a really nice typewriter!"
Well no but that's because you CAN write with anything and it doesn't make a big difference in the end. A good modern keyboard with nice mechanical keys might be a little nicer to type on or certain pens might feel nicer in the hand or have a finer point but that's basically it. Photography is different in that some shots are actually not possible without certain equipment; your gear can affect not only the quality of output, but the ability to produce output at all. Camera equipment can matter also in that some cameras will be more fun to shoot on. It matters more to the user than it does to the viewer.

That said, the used camera market is flooded with fantastic older pieces of kit, so even if you're on a budget, you can buy a nicer, older body/lens/flash/tripod that is probably going to be even more useful than the latest entry level SLR in ways.

>>3060176
Yes, some shots are NOT possible without certain equipment, but that's not my point. The point I was trying, feebly, to make is that artistic output is not camera-dependent. Case in point, Nancy Rexroth...

>>3058833
If NOTHING else 4K downscales really well to 1080P so you can always downscale and have really nice looking 1080p