[Wawhiker]

No endorsement (on my part) - just some incredible 4K video...

[Jaberwock]

Someday.... That 4K is 4096×2160 pixels, my computer screen is 1440x900...

[Jim Dockery]

That is some beautiful footage. I love the drone viewpoint. Thanks for sharing.

[boot up]

to mean anything, don't you need to compare the same scenes taken in "standard" HD? How much is 4k versus how much is the setting and optics?

[mike]

Are 4K TV's worth it yet? Only used for watching movies so thought that the upscale algorithm might be worth it.

[NacMacFeegle]

I'd love both shoot and watch 4k, it really is noticeably better than 1080p. Unfortunately not only are the cameras and screens still really pricey, but editing video at that resolution is a pain in the neck. Also, my impression is that unless you're shooting it yourself it's not that easy to find 4k media. All things considered, I think 4k is on the cusp of becoming the mainstream standard, but that it has a few years to go before it becomes truly affordable and practical. One thing I have noticed is that 4k video looks better than 1080p even when viewed at lower resolutions than 4k. Is this just because the down-scaling results in better image quality than native 1080p video? Perhaps because some of the greater detail of 4k is preserved in the down-scaling process?

[Opus]

Things are changing quickly now. I bought an 8 megapixel Canon s95 back in 2011 and still use it regularly. I never really made any large prints from the camera and always felt 8 megapixel was plenty. Now I have a computer with a 4k screen and if I do any sort of cropping on the photos in Lightroom I don't have enough pixels to fill the screen!

[williswall]

Editing 4K in 1080 leaves lots of options for positioning or zooming, plus stabilization. I've shot a lot if it this year with nice results.

[moonspots]

[touron]

2k 4k 8k a dollar all for 16k stand up and holler!

[GrnXnham]

[Sore Feet]

4K won't be worth the investment until there's a viable, affordable 4k media to supplant Bluray with. Also, the way ISPs are treating video streaming (Netflix) and punishing their users with unwieldy and unnecessary data caps is going to limit high res video to disc rather than streaming - I'm not even sure there's a viable compression algorithm that can handle that amount of data in a feasible way yet. Even then, I doubt it'll be nearly as impactful of a difference as DVD to Bluray was. I certainly don't feel any pressured need to upgrade or convert. VR is going to make a much bigger difference in the living room entertainment spectrum than 4k will. And 4k VR headsets are a looooong way off.

[captain jack]

I do those 100-200" theaters, and yes, the more you spread out pixels, the more apparent the gaps in between become. Resolution is resolution, and more is always better. 4K adds more depth of field than 1080P, even on smaller sets. Is it the best value right now, no, not by a long shot. The price can still drop by at least 50%, and native content is extremely limited. New technology should be a couple of years away, when that happens 4K will be commonplace, every panel maker will be in the program, and sets will become affordable..

[Randito]

[mike]

I'd have trouble with streaming 1080 We're pretty much stuck with NF disks. We don't have a dish or watch TV. We have an old CRT HD TV which has a perfectly good 1080i picture and a better viewing angle than some flat screen TV's at friend's houses. So what I was really wondering is if and when we do get a new TV does it make sense to get the 4k? My thought is that the up-rez algorithm would improve the picture of normal DVD or BD disks. Screen size is 42" viewed at ~8-10'. And sometime in the future I might even be able to get native 4k content so want to future-proof.