Description image

1080P is Better Than 4K (Or Why I Chose the Canon C100) with Ryan E. Walters

05.3.13 @ 5:22AM Tags : , , , , ,

This is a guest post by Cinematographer Ryan E. Walters.

After many years of owning a wide range of camera systems, including a RED ONE and an EPIC, I decided to sell it all and rent. So for the past three years I have been exclusively renting cameras on a per project basis, that is, until recently when I made the plunge and bought the Canon C100. Little did I know how many eyebrows and questions it would raise when I posted a picture on Facebook. Here is why I chose a 1080p, 4:2:0 camera over a 4k RAW camera.

Reason 1: It Is The Craftsperson, Not The Tool, That Matters

I am a firm believer that it is the talent behind the lens that matters most, not the camera. I want to surround myself with people and productions who value the craft more than the tech. When was the last time you hired a carpenter and asked what brand hammer he was using? Or what brush the painter used on the oil painting you bought? Or how about the contents of this blog — does it matter if I am writing it on a Mac, PC, iPhone, or Android?

What matters most is the craft that goes into delivering results that are appropriate for the project at hand. The people who get that, and have those values, are the ones who I work with. I’m not a monkey pushing buttons on a camera.

The C100 is a tool that checks off enough of the boxes that are important to me in owning a camera system. It is far from perfect, but it is a capable camera system that will allow me to create the images I want.

Reason 2: I’m Not A Rental House

While I do rent equipment on the side to generate additional income, the tools I buy are the ones I use frequently. I am not interested in owning everything, nor am I interested in worrying about making a camera work every month in order to make it pay for itself. Instead, I would rather choose the appropriate tool for the job, and not force a camera onto a shoot just because I own it and need to make a payment. For example, last year I chose the Alexa, Epic, Canon C300, Sony FS100, and the Canon 5D MKII & MKIII to shoot different spots for Adidas. Each tool was appropriate for that specific application.

With the instant $1,000 rebate on the C100, I felt that it came in at a price point that allows me to own a camera system objectively without forcing me to choose it due to financial reasons. (Although at $5,500, I think the camera is still about $1,000 over priced for the features it offers…). But I can’t complain too much. Within a week of buying it, it is already going out on rentals that it is a good fit for. And with no payments on it, that is a great feeling!

Yes there is a 5D in there somewhere…

Reason 3: Some Tools Are Easier To Use Than Others

A 4k camera for $4k sure does sound appealing; I can’t deny that. However, the truth is that in order to get that camera to play nicely on an actual shoot it has to be outfitted with external batteries, audio adapters, and other accessories. So the cost is more than $4k. (The same can be said of DSLRs). As cameras get smaller and smaller, my frustrations with them grow.

Straightforward and simple= no mess (But what's the deal with that handle?)

Straightforward and simple = no mess (But what’s the deal with that handle?)

The C100 comes in a form factor that works straight out of the box, with real professional, industry standard connections (1/4″ is great for mics & guitars… XLR is for video), and even an included microphone. (Not that the on camera mic is good for anything other than natural sound/scratch track). I don’t have to buy any accessories to make it work on a shoot if I don’t want to. Instead, the accessories I buy will be for my own needs and style of working.

Reason 4: I’m Not Interested In Hype, I’m Interested In Reality

Reality check: 4k is not here, nor will it be for at least 5-10 years. Camera manufacturers and sales people love to play on our insecurities and want us to buy into their 4k and beyond hype machine. It is how they make their money — selling us new technology. If you were at NAB this year, 4k was everywhere, just like 3D was everywhere last year. (And 3D was nowhere to be seen at NAB this year… but I doubt 4k will disappear like that).

However, I found it interesting that out of all of the booths displaying 4k content, NONE of them had it next to 1080p content for a side-by-side comparison. To me that is very telling. When we made the transition from SD to HD, the show floor was FULL of SD and HD comparisons and it was easy to tell the difference on the same sized screen. THX even states that most people will not see a benefit of 4k content on a 50″ screen, which supports the claims of this chart: 1080p Does Matter, Here’s When. So for the vast majority of end viewers and clients, all that 4k does is add overhead, expense, and complication without any real reward.

By the time the marketing machine has gotten us all to succumb to our insecurities and upgrade our tech to 4k, it will be light-years ahead of where it is today. And that will be the time to make the switch. Today’s 4k+ cameras will not be able to compete with what is next. When 4k is a reality, I HIGHLY doubt that Adidas, Autodesk, or Nike will be wanting to have their 5+ year old commercial remastered in 4k. They will be on to new marketing campaigns shot with the newest cameras/tech available.

This is NOT to say that 4k doesn’t matter; it does. Especially at origination of the recorded image. A 4k image down sampled to 1080p will have more detail in it than a straight 1080p image. This is where the brilliance of the C100 comes into play. The C100 has the SAME 4k sensor as the C500 and C300. So I am getting the same performance as their $26,000 camera at 1/5 the price without the added expense or complication that 4k brings with it on set or in post.

Reason 5: Protecting Vision Is Important

While I have to admit that I like working with RAW 4k images (I did own a Red after all), it is a double-edged sword. The proliferation of affordable camera tools and post tools means that a lot more people can play with and manipulate footage. This is GREAT when working with people who care about the quality of the finished image, and who work with you to get the most out of it.

This same power can be disastrous when people who think they know something start playing around with reframing and grading the images, destroying what I have worked hard to create. I have been burned on projects by people who have done just that — poorly reframed images & poorly graded them.

In an industry where you are only as good as your last project, this can have a real negative impact on your career. Which is why I am now selective about whom I work with. (And I’m not alone, other cinematographers on CML have expressed facing these same problems).

The compressed footage, and the fact that the C100 only outputs a 1080p file means that there is a lot less that can be done in post to drastically change what was shot. Another upside of the compressed format is that it keeps me honest while shooting. I have to be much more precise in what I do as I have less flexibility in post if I screw up — I HAVE to be on my A-Game at all times, and I like the discipline that it reinforces in my work.

Comparison of Dynamic Range Of Various Camera Systems

Reason 6: Dynamic Range In Over Exposure Latitude Is Important

The smaller the production’s resources, the more important the overexposure latitude becomes in the camera choice. The smaller that range, the more work has to be done on set to protect the highlights by bringing up ambient levels on the set. (Or a compromise has to be made by letting them clip). That is one of the major reasons why the Alexa is my favorite cameras to shoot on. With ~7 stops of overexposure latitude, it is hard to clip highlights, and even when they do clip it is more pleasant than other camera systems.

The RED ONE MX and the EPIC-X*, on the other hand, have ~5 stops of overexposure latitude. While this is a lot better than previous cameras, the headroom is not the same, nor is the roll off as pleasant as the Alexa. (As demonstrated by my extreme test). The Blackmagic Cinema Camera also has a similar overexposure latitude, as does the C300 and C100 (and presumably the C500, but I haven’t tested it). So if all of the cameras have the same overexposure latitude, then I do not see a reason to jump on the 4k+ bandwagon just to be cool. All I am gaining is additional expense/work on set and in post.

I wish that the C100 had more overexposure latitude, but at least it doesn’t have less than the other “affordable” options out there.

*I realize that the EPIC-X has HDR-X. However, I have yet to see an implementation of it that I personally like. Furthermore, it adds extra hassle and potential for BIG problems in post. See Reason 5 above.

Reason 7: Low Light Performance Is Important

Cameras these days can see more in the dark than our eyes can. The ability to work with and shape existing light on an exterior night location should not be overlooked, especially when working with a small crew. When a camera performs well in low light, it becomes more about removing light than adding it. And that directly translates into smaller setups, smaller power requirements, smaller everything. (Side note: I’m really interested in testing out and working with the F5 & F55 for this very reason).

This is where the C100 really shines over the RED MX, EPIC-X, and the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. Coming from the pedigree of the C300 sensor, the C100 allows for astonishing clean imagery at EIs (A.K.A. ISOs) of more than 3200.

Yeah, but the C100 is only 8 bit 4:2:0…

Yep, it sure is. One of the huge takeaways I had from participating in Zacuto’s Revenge Of The Great Shootout is that today’s 8-bit 4:2:0 is not the same as when it first came onto the market. Now it doesn’t come close to 16 bit 4:4:4 imagery, but if it is shot correctly, it can be graded well, delivering beautiful results. And, as a craftsperson, I should be skilled at choosing AND using tools that are appropriate for every job.

When I do find that I need a 4:2:2 color space (for green screen, or other VFX), then I can always add a Ninja 2. And if I find myself on a project that needs more than that — then I can rent a better tool for the job. This is the beauty of owning an affordable camera system. See Reason 2. :)

Yeah, but the C100 only shoots up to 30p at 1080…

Correct. :) That is why I think this camera should be priced at $4,500. After all, even cameras like the AF100 can shoot in variable frame rates up to 60 fps in 1080p. This is a major oversight by Canon. I think they are working too hard at protecting their higher end cameras. The sensor is capable of 60 fps at 1080p. Why cripple it, other than to make more money?

This is when I have to realistically evaluate the work I do. While I would love to have 60 fps at 1080p, I don’t shoot a lot of high-speed work. And when I do shoot high-speed work, it tends to be around 100-120 fps, which means I’m renting anyway. So while this is a downside for the camera, it isn’t one that will impact me significantly.

The Bottom Line

Is the C100 the end all, be all camera? Not even close. I like it, and it will allow me to do what I need for the money I spent. If you haven’t caught on by now, let me say it clearly — I’m not interested in being a fan boy who is entrenched in one camera system or platform. The end all, be all camera doesn’t exist. There isn’t one camera system that fits every situation. It is about knowing the camera and using it effectively. After all it is just a tool.

What are your thoughts? Am I completely crazy, or only partially? ;) Why did you choose to buy the camera you have? Or have you chosen to continue to rent?

This post originally appeared on Ryan’s Blog.

Link: 1080p is better than 4k. (Or Why I Chose The Canon C100) — Ryan E. Walters

Ryan E. Walters is an award-winning Oregon-based cinematographer. His work has allowed him the opportunity to travel worldwide in the pursuit of telling stories that are visually compelling. His experience includes feature films, documentaries, commercials, and shooting for Comcast, TLC, Oxygen, and the Discovery Channel.

Related Posts

  1. Which is the Better Value, Canon C100 or C300? Plus a Short Film Scene Shot with the C100
  2. Canon C100 vs. Canon 5D Mark III vs. Sony FS100 with Magnanimous Media
  3. Is the Canon C100 Currently the Best Fully-Featured Budget Filmmaking Camera?


We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 314 COMMENTS

  • The article, while well written, is full of contradictions. Getting rid of all cameras so you can rent – only to then buy the C100. Saying that you are not interested in gear renting out only to mention few lines bellow that shortly after you bought the C100 is already renting out. Making a point that inexperienced post people will ruin “flexible” RAW footage?!? Etc…

    But all that is irrelevant to what I want to say in response…

    A. The C100 is great tool for short-shelf-life projects like TVC’s and other marketing material that is primarily destined for internet and that don’t have the time and resources for proper post. As the adds will be irrelevant in few months (if not weeks) – to future-proofing of such a content is irrelevant and super fast workflow with limited budget is the word of the day…

    B. 4K. We are talking here about cameras – the acquisition end of the workflow. Anyone thinking 4K is away for even a 1 year is kidding themselves. FYI – NHK here is Japan is trailing 4K broadcast as we speak and will officially initiate it next year. It does not matter that there are still people in rural Japan that don’t even have a TV or internet. You don’t evolve by matching your standards to the lowest available denominator. Aside of commercial content (that is time critical) pretty much everything else has future potential. Broadcasting is also changing as we know it (I for one watch more content online then on TV these days) and to add to the likes of NHK – you will see 4K content online. Speaking of RED – they have already demonstrated that 4K content can be streamed with data-rates lower then current HD – which seems to work just fine for the millions of users connected via broadband… All of these 4K content providers are already hungry and in search of 4K UHD content…

    And speaking of UHD – upscaling is not accepted. Check the SMPTE specs – UHD content has to be acquired at 4K min…

    So wake up. 4K is here now. Not in 5 years, not in 25 years. NOW.
    (again we are talking about acquiring content – not a ordinary folks in a remote areas actually watching it…)

    C. Owning a camera. Ryan is certainly right about skills and experience being ever more important (even thou he used the point in a wrong way). I, as a DoP and Colorist, improve myself with every single project I do. Back in the days of 35mm the thing I hated the most was that it was $$$-wise impossible for me to just go out and shoot stuff in order to practice and improve my skills. I use every little time I have between paid jobs to improve my skills and gain more experience (even thou I have been doing this for 15 years now). The only way I can do this is owning a camera. And more importantly – I need to own a camera that limits my creative expression the least. When I sold my 235 in order to buy the first (720P) Varicam back in 2003 – I did so for the very reasons I have just mentioned (the cost of practicing with 35mm). But I immediately hated the limitations imposed by the then-emerging digital formats. I have worked with pretty much every major digital camera available on the market since. And have settled on the RED. Simply because it get closest to least limiting of what I can do as a DoP / Colorist in all aspects of the image quality. Resolution, RAW format, DR, modularity – and by far not the least – future-proofing of my equipment. Yes. Until RED these two words could not have been used together. Not only all improvements implemented via SW (firmware) are completely free with RED, they also have an amazing upgrade and trade-in programs that keeps my investment up-to-date. This allows me to constantly improve my skill-sets and gather ever more experience between paid jobs…

    Now do I enforce the RED on my clients? Not in the least. In the last year alone I have done projects on Alexa, C300/C500, 5D/7D, several SONY models and all three RED flavors. Sure – when the client wants to use the RED – by all means mine is there for taking. But this is not why I own the RED…


    So I do understand why Ryan have chosen the C100 – as he mostly shoots commercial projects with extremely short shelf-life. Good for him. I just wish he made this key point clearer in the title and in the article itself…

    Choose the right tool for what you do…
    There certainly is not a camera that does all and kills all out there. But there are cameras now that come pretty close to do all kill all for what YOU PERSONALLY NEED. That means different cameras for different people. It is C100 for Ryan and it is the RED for me. And it is the F55 for Mr.X and BMD cams for Mr.Y…
    Choose wisely and rent for those (hopefully rare) instances when you need something else…


    • Marcus Filho on 05.4.13 @ 11:23PM

      Hi Peter,
      There’s one point that a lot of people don’t seem to mention, Visual Effects. Broadcast is one thing, sports coverage, news casting, etc, another is high budget films and TV shows, and we all know the rely a lot in visual effects, and I mean a lot. And visual effects are extremely expensive, and most of all visual effects studios are struggling to survive right now, their overhead are high and equipment expensive and they are only rendering for a 2k delivery, and… its hard!

      4K aquisition is now, or maybe 5k or now even 6k, but to deliver something with this resolution in a movie with 1000 vfx shots is another beast. Render times, render power, network speed, STORAGE, becomes a huge factor.

      When the first hollywood movie is delivered in 4K, I will say the transition will start, but even that might take years. I know people working on big movis to be released in 2 years from now and trust me they are all in 2k deliveries.

      There will be a lot of upscaled stuff/ scams hovering out there.

      • Ironically it is the VFX-heavy films that benefit the most from shooting in 4K+ resolutions on the RED’s. The big hollywood pictures you are talking about are precisely the wrong example if you want to argue against acquiring imagery in 4K+ and – more importantly – they represent a very small percentage of content being broadcasted (whether it is via traditional TV or internet). The wast majority of content does not utilize such a heavy graphics and the kind they do can easily be handled in 4K. I actually started in this industry in VFX/3D and I remember the times when we waited for hours to see even single preview frame. VFX is where the More’s law applies the most IMHO. The iPhone 4s I have now seems to process graphics better then my old SGI Indigo 2 (if I was actually able to fire it up)…

        In any case Ryan’s post was about “1080P being better then 4K” – which IMHO is misleading at the very least. It’s like omitting a key part of a sentence that changes the meaning 180˚. The title should have said:

        “Why 1080P is better for my work then 4K and why I have chosen the C100″

        Once again – we are talking about cameras and about acquiring imagery at the very beginning of your workflow. And for that 4K not 25 years away, nor 5 years. It is here today and it has been for some time now… Sure – not every projects needs it – Ryan’s commercial work is a good example. But the VFX-heavy hollywood films you are mentioning are definitely an example why to shoot on 4K+…


        • Marcus Filho on 05.5.13 @ 11:22AM

          Peter, you are right however blockbusters are the ones leading technology for movies, whatever they start doing, you know it will be followed by smaller productions/ movies in the following years, moreover they are the biggest source of income for any big studio. If they can create something to increase ticket prices and bring more people to be dazzled upon a new tech they would. I’ve worked on the first stereoscopic ( the current tech) live action movie, Journey to The Center of The World, the technology used was as a test bed for Avatar to come 3 years later, by that time, the movie release was delayed by one year just so more theaters could have the proper projector, sometimes you do have the tech but you don’t have enough places/theaters to justify the cost. It will be the same with 4K.
          They were trying to deliver Oblivion in 4K but gave up after receiving the vfx studio bid and time frame required, and that was last year with an over 100 million movie. And if you ask me, even if they would have paid for 4K, the vfx studio would have had a horrible time delivering.
          Broadcast is another thing, more compressed footage goes from camera almost directly to broadcast, for cheap productions you have an editing process that nowadays can easily handle 4K. If you are doing for the internet, I’d say we are few years away of having 4K streaming freely, 720p for me is still the most popular format in websites in general.
          The article was well written, with valid points, I think throwing the C100 there was the reason for so much passion amongst the readers.

  • The new H.265 format will bring in 4K.

  • I told myself I was done posting on this topic, and yet, here I am. Oh well…

    Many of you are superimposing historically analog TV timeframes on digital television. One of the reasons for the slow adoption of SD to HD was due to it coinciding with the larger, more expensive and troublesome switch from 60 years of analog to digital broadcasts and sets. Not to mention 60 years of a certain type of viewing that analog and SD forced on us. Now that the infrastructure and technology are digital, TVs are just another digital appliance. I can’t think of one other digital device that progresses at the snail’s pace some of you are predicting for TV, even on the consumer adoption side of things. A significant number of people update their phones every two years. Apple and Samsung have the profits to prove it. The Galaxy S4 has 1080p resolution that fits in your pocket for crying out loud.

    Sony is the one, true, soup-to-nuts, a-to-z, front-to-back, acquisition to delivery media company on the planet and they’re all in on 4K. Their Cinealta line consists of 8 cameras, 4 of which are 4K capable. The other 4 are cameras probably no one is ever going to buy new again, including the F900, F23, F35 and even the F3. Just like that, Sony is effectively a 4K camera company when it comes to digital cinema. This year saw their first UHD sets priced within striking distance of early adopter consumers. Sony is working to make sure those people have 4K content to watch and they’ll dig deep into their back catalog (see my other posts) to make sure that happens. Don’t be surprised if some of that content is from the 80s or 90s.

    Technology ALWAYS gets pushed on us. No one sent out a questionnaire asking what you thought of the specs for CDs, DVDs, HDMI, WiFi, hybrid cars, email, etc. before they entered the market (focus groups don’t count in this context). They developed them, standardized them (in some cases) and they just started showing up. Now, consumers have some control over what technologies succeed or fail, but they all get pushed on us. People will adopt 4K TVs like they do everything else because there’s nothing different they have to do in order for it to happen, if the price is right. Cost will be the determining factor, not whether or not you can see 4K’s worth of detail. The only people complaining about 4K are the ones who may have to work with it. It’s NOT average consumers. Stop projecting your concerns on people who won’t give a crap for the most part if they can afford it.

    Any person who’s ever bought a 50″ TV or bigger, going back to the 80s and regardless of resolution, will buy a 4K TV if the price is comparable to HD. There’s absolutely no reason to think they wouldn’t. Lack of an abundance of 4K content won’t be the deterrent many think it will.

    Ryan made a choice that I hope works out well for him. But, I think he misjudged some of the factors that led to his decision. I’m not saying it won’t be without its issues but 4K is a done deal, folks. Obviously, I think it will happen a lot faster than Ryan and some others. Then again, I’m just a guy on the Internet. I could be wrong (I’m not, though).

    • You can go to Frys, today, if there’s one near where you live, and see a 4k tv. And the 4k tv will be priced lower than some of the “High End HD” tvs in the store. I don’t think any 1080p tv manufacturer wants that 4k tv sitting next to theirs just like no average woman wants a super model sitting next to her.

  • With Gigabit internet on the way, and already in a few towns, like Kansas City and Omaha, 4k will be even easier to view, AND UPLOAD, on the internet. Gigabit internet has insane upload speed:

  • when in doubt rent it out

  • Just because theres a broadcast in 4K doesn’t mean its going to talk off. I don’t believe it’s ever going to happen unless the TV cost the same as HD TV’s because people cant notice a difference. The general public have never even heard of it and when they start to and go into stores to see the emperors new clothes only to find it looks the same as what they have at home, worse for fast moving motion, they will stick with what they have. Especially when they start discussing how mush it looks the same amongst themselves.

    From a VFX point of view its a nightmare. Rotoscoping will take so much longer. 3D tracking in particular has to be so much more precise as the 3D plate will have to be that much more pixel accurate to the live action plate. Then render times!! Texture detail/realism that much more complex, especially displacement mapping which already kills render time so thats going to be a double whammy. Wwhhaaammy! (I love Anchorman)

    4K acquisition would be nice. Just think, if broadcast stays HD because of the limit of human eyes, and then the resolution race can settle and camera manufacturers can give us what we want, higher frame rates and dynamic range… That would be Epic ;) but cheaper.

    • 50″ Seiki 4K UHD tv’s are now available for $ 1299,- USD at Tiger Direct…

      And one last time – this is not about whether end consumers will start adopting 4K (the above tv’s are selling like a hot cakes) – this is about whether we should be acquiring images at 4K+ resolutions to start with…

      Anyone thinking not yet is in for a rude awakening…


      • Its absolutely about whether users adopt 4K or not. If they don’t buy theres no need and if theres no need then for us to adopt a 4K workflow to produce a 4K output that will never be seen (if they don’t buy) would be crazy. Everything I’ve heard at the moment says the codecs cant cope with 4K compression of fast movement and looks terrible in 4K as a result.

        When theres a noticeable user base, when clients ask for it we will shoot it in 4K. If the electronics product marketers want to try pushing the public into buying something they cant see the least we can do is wait for clients to actually ask us for it before we go and shell out a lot of money for something thats got a good chance of going the way of 3D. All the same stuff was said about 3D. If those marketers want us to invest and shoot 4K before theres an audience, in the hope there is going to be an audience, then they could start by not charging so much for the cameras we need to produce it. They want the content to sell the TV’s but want to profit from the content creators at the same time. Make the cameras the same price as 1080p cameras and they will have their content overnight almost.

        • I have one TV in my house. It is a CRT Sharp that is 12 years old. Got a free digital converter box when the govt was giving out vouchers. I’m not upgrading to a 4k tv anytime soon. My kids aren’t old enough to hate it yet. lol

        • With a mindset like that we would still be tied to the ground (not flying in airplanes, never mind the space) thinking the Earth was flat. By the time you wake up to the reality you will have to fight your way through hoards of the 4K content provider to get to any potential client…

          Best of luck…

          • Its not a “Mindset” its a physical limitation of our eyes. This is not about forward thinking. Its rational thinking. None of our clients are asking for 4K. 99% probably don’t know it exists. I dont have an issue with 4K acquisition from time to time for post reasons but for delivery its batsh#t crazy. We just got to the point where we can stream and download 1080p movies comfortably and now they want to choke our bandwidth with this?…. And in a cinema unless your in the first 6 rows you cant see 4K, at home the limit was about 5 feet I read.

          • Simon, given that screen sizes are increasing and typical viewing distances will eventually decrease (I’ll get to that in a minute), 4k exceeds the physical limitations of human visual acuity in virtually every reasonable viewing situation, but not grossly so. It’s more than enough for where most people are right now, but it’s not overkill and scales nicely for the future. 1080P is right on the cusp. 4K takes us over the threshold with a little headroom to spare. Going a little beyond what humans can physically detect sounds like a good idea to me. It works just fine in the audio world.

            The days of technology taking 10 years to saturate and another 10-15 for it to settle in and give people a chance to get tired of it are over when it comes to digital. Let’s not forget also that technology progresses on many fronts simultaneously. H.264 is a decade old. To think there won’t be several new, more efficient and better looking codecs to handle 4K imagery is to be ignoring a major part of the equation.

            You gave the example of people viewing 1080p next to 4K in a store and not being able to tell the difference. But you’re not taking into account how people actually shop for TVs. If the two displays are set up side-by-side at eye level with no limitations on how close you can get to either of them, the difference will be more than apparent. When it’s physically possible, from what I’ve witnessed and recently experienced this past December, people stand about 5-7 feet from TVs when they shop. Based on the chart Ryan provided, at those distances, a 65″ 4K TV WILL look sharper without fully tapping its resolving potential where a 60″ 1080p set will have maxed out. 4K will only look better if one moves closer. Almost no one is ONLY going to stand 10-15 feet from a set when they’re in the store if they can help it, especially when comparing various models. The typical viewing distance in a store is not necessarily representative of what people will experience once they get it home. If the prices and other features are comparable, the 4K TV will win.

            Speaking of that chart, the same logic applies as much to 720p vs. 1080p as it does to 1080p vs. UHD. You’re not getting the FULL benefit of 1080p at 10 feet on a 50″ screen like you would with 720p but how many people are demanding all 50″ sets be 720p? I don’t think manufacturers even make 50″ sets in 720p anymore. People buy the 1080p 50″ because it’s available and affordably priced. There was no rebellion, no backlash, no outrage, and the same will be true with 4K.

            People who grew up under NTSC’s super long reign have been conditioned to watch TV a certain way. High definition viewing has an inverse relationship to standard def. In the bad old days of SD, the bigger the screen, the further away from it you had to be because you could see the individual pixels quite plainly. With higher resolutions, you should actually start to move closer to the screen to reap the benefits and to better simulate the cinema experience, which is one of the reasons a wide aspect ratio was chosen. Remember, we have to overcome 60 years of conditioning.

            I remember when HD was new and I’d hear people say they could understand HD for big budget FX movies but not for things like local news and reality shows. I was in total disagreement with that sentiment and could see how years of accepting poor quality pictures was causing people to compartmentalize quality they should’ve been getting for everything they watched, regardless of content. I’m a firm believer that high resolution is what ALL television was ALWAYS supposed to look like, it just took eons for it to happen. First it was HD, not it’s UHD. Even C-SPAN 2 should be shot and displayed in 4K. Yeah, I said it.

            This part will take about 15-20 years to happen but I believe those children born a few years ago and on that grow up in households with 50″ TVs and bigger will have a different perspective on screen sizes, viewing distances and resolution. All three will have a nostalgic component that will drive an opposite reaction to how many NTSC survivors view television watching today.

          • I meant “now” it’s UHD.

          • For the most part I agree with you but I still cant see if happening. It has so many hurdles with little reward if any at the end. SD to 1080p was a massive difference MASSIVE and even then it took forever for people to change, many still changing. If they fix the fast motion and fast cuts issues then people will pick the 4K over the 1080p if its the same price. But none of this makes any sense to me. The networks at least in Australia had to be dragged kicking and screaming (well required by law) to provide at least one HD channel each. They aren’t going to want to be re-outfit all their switchers, cameras, trucks. If networks were a lot quicker in the U.S. to adopt 1080p then it will probably be fine. Are there any networks in the U.S. that have announced plans for 4K? Or is it just one channel in Japan?

            As for resolution its not even going to be 4K. UltraHD is only 3.8K.

            Doesn’t sound like much of a difference but its a difference of more pixels than SD ever had in the first place and when we couldn’t see the difference at normal viewing distances of 4K (unless you have a massive TV) then 3.8K is going to be even worse.

            I couldn’t wait for 1080p. I was an early adopter. This difference is too fine at the moment. Maybe in the future there might be a demand but who apart from the manufacturers are asking for this? Just speaking for myself but I dont know anyone that’s not in broadcast that has even heard of 4K, I very much doubt the networks are asking for it from the manufacturers.

            When 3D came back to the movies in the past few years people could see the difference, they saw movies in the cinema and came out either saying they loved it or hated it but at least they could see it. Enough liked it to go out and buy 3D TVs and glasses for home that barely ever get used, but the whole time I didn’t see any networks planning to adopt it. And now look where its at… Not necessarily because the networks didn’t want it tho. Interesting times I guess and the next few years will tell a lot but this isn’t something I can see myself adopting early.

          • It’s odd this debate is going on this long. 4k looks better than 1080p. There is no question. I was in Frys today. The resolution on the 4k set was so good one guy said it looked strange because of the 3D appearance on a flat screen. He said it was messing with his mind. Another guy was gawking at how “crisp” it looked. If high end 1080p tvs cost more than these 4k sets, and they do, people are going to take the 4k set instead. It looks like the high end buyer will be the only customers buying right now. I’m sure Sony knew that. But 4k will come down in price. I bet some people that think 4k isn’t going anywhere, or is just a money making gimmick by Sony, Red, and BM, will buy a 4k set then, and some will even buy a second one to use as a computer monitor. I’m very happy with my 60″ 1080p tv as a monitor right now. I want a 4k tv for a monitor soon as I can though.

            A note: I like 1080p a lot, especially at 60 fps. I even love it in the GoPro videos. Really, I love it more in the GoPro because the GoPro costs only $399.00. I’m not saying what I said about 4k because I don’t like 1080p.

          • Erm… I just think 4K looks pretty :)

          • i have yet to see a great film shot on 4k. oblivion and elysium are great video games. not sure that’s where the future of film is.

          • resolution is now an aesthetics question for the DP and director. i would not shoot a film about the vietnam war in 4k. i would shoot a porno in 4k tho

          • Peter sounds exactly like every red-fanboy that ever posted on that useless forum they so love to hang out on. it’s a sad, sad and embarrassing place to see people (nerds) join together at. I can shoot all day long with my F3 and show it to you and call it 4K red crap and no one here would be able to tell. FACT. I have done it 3 times here in LA when the 4K TV’s were popping up. I recently played the same file i put on those TV’s at a post house for an editor and he didnt know if it was 4k or 1080. ITS ALL A GIMICK! I FRIGGIN USE SOFT FX FILTERS ALL THE TIME to soften my images because I DONT WANT everything to look like plastic red crap. GROW UP KIDS.

    • You do know that nearly every film ever made from 35mm has been scanned for a 4K acquisition? Film was traditionally the go to because it blended well with VFX.

  • I think his title is great. Perfectly inflammatory and made me read the post. Exactly what a good title should accomplish. Great foder for the future of 4K.

  • So damn true! I think the point about ‘The Craftsperson, Not The Tool’ is very important. If you are truly talented, you can do better with an entry level model than a less talented person can with the best camera available.

  • I told myself done posting on this topic, and here I am. Many of you are superimposing historically analog TELEVISION timeframes on digital television. One of the reasons for the slow adoption of SD to HD was due to it coinciding with the larger, more expensive and troublesome switch from 60 years of analog to digital broadcasts and sets. Not to mention 60 years of a certain type of viewing that analog and SD forced on us. Now that the infrastructure and technology are digital, TVs are just another digital appliance. I can’t think of one other digital device that progresses at the snail’s pace some of you are predicting fo

    • +1

      People will chose 4k over 1080p when they cost the same. And 4k sets are already in the public. Within 1 year they will cost virtually the same as 1080p sets. I can’t imagine any reason for loyalty to 1080p then. It would be stupid to take a 1080p set instead of a 4k at the point they cost the same. Even those arguing for 1080p now will take a 4k set then—or will they cling to their argument and cut off their nose to spite their face and pay the same for an inferior set?

    • Since there aren’t any quotes around this post I’m going to count it as the first time I’ve been publicly plagiarized (on the same page, no less), as far as I know. I’m actually a little flattered.

    • You are forgetting about the real cost—the people who make the content. It’s not a switch you flip to turn TV stations into 4k. It’s a total rehaul of all their equipment (not just cameras—literally everything), which they JUST did for HD and digital, and they are already losing money. They will fight this harder than anyone.

      • Glenn Tennis on 05.8.13 @ 10:43AM

        Except that more and more content will not be delivered by TV stations. They can fight it all they want and watch their subscribers move to online sources such as netflix, hulu, and whatever 4k streaming service is as of yet unlaunched but surely receiving millions in VC capital as I write this.

        • TV stations were about the last to switch to HD.

          • Here in Germany we still don’t have a lot of real 1080 HD tv channels. Some are broadcasting in 720 50p and quite frankly it is hard to see a big difference even on a good tv screen (mostly because the bit rates for 1080 aren’t that high on tv either, I guess)

            I just bought new FullHD equipment for my workplace where we produce mostly for the web and regional television. The small regional tv stations that we deliver to are still broadcasting in SD and I am not sure when they will ever be able to switch to HD. So for our purpose, shooting documentary pieces for web and regional tv, I think we will be set with 1080 for the next few years.

            Not saying 4K doesn’t make any sense, but it costs a lot more than HD, so I rather shoot 1080 with a nice camera and have everything else I need instead of spending the last dime on 4K when none of my viewers will ever get to see the product in 4K.

  • Thanks for the article. Is there somewhere I can compare the C100 footage at 24mbps with the C300 footage at 50mbps? I’m just a little worried that it might not be flexible enough in post, and I’d rather not use an external recorder.

  • Very well said Ryan! I don’t care what manufactures are hyping, or what the client “thinks” they want. What it comes down to is what/where this project is going, and what type of camera/tool will do the job efficiently. Based on the my workflow the Canon C100 fits those needs. Anything else can be rented.

    … I’d rather sit back, let the dust settle on this whole 4k bit, let them work out all the bugs, and then make a choice.

  • I disagree with this article… 4k allows you to down convert to 1080p which means the master source is higher resolution, thus better looking than native 1080. It could be the difference between broadcast quality and not. Film is able to get up to 4k, so what’s the problem? Also, your Facebook photo doesn’t exist. ;-)

    • Plus, 1080 is still grainy and not that sharp. Look at 24megapixel pictures, isn’t that beyond 4k? yep

  • Quite the conversation piece? WE can argue till the cows come home, but the bottom line of the article is a case for the camera and the diminishing returns for the investment to get to 4k. He is stating the enormous amount of work, resources, camaeras, skills, and other factors simply do not justify the returns he can get back. For now, 4k is NOT used in the marketplace – the argument that it will be a few years at the very least before it becomes economical. Why? Because no one is watching it – the infrastructure is not in place – not for a while. Sure Sony will push it, but the media content, the broadcasters have already taken a beating by upgrading to HD and it will take a long time to recover their investment – some are still switching over.

    Unless you are doing it for theaters, which is 4k, and have Megabucks behind you, what is the point? And ya, I love his reasoning – it is a reality check. If you want to invest $30k in gear to make a 4k that no one is going to appreciate or watch anyway – be my guest.

    On the other hand, full HD well crafted is spectacular. If the story is really good, anyone watching that movie or show will be so drawn in to the story, they will not even notice the less resolution of HD vs 4k. Look at the Hobbit – 4k, 48 fps and people had a hard time with it. Plus the story was nothing like Lord of the Rings. It lasted – what 2-3 months in the theaters and was for many – a bit of a yawn. So much for technology. Same with Skyfall.

    We go to get emotionally involved and have a ride on an emotional or intellectual level – not to gawk at resolution. Damn it, even that crappy film, Blair Witch project attracted tons of people and it was done on crappy SD. It is the story for crying out loud, not DS, k4, Uber hD or 1080 pi!

    Yup – I like his argument – get the story right and the seats will fill up – get the priorities right. Spend your resources where it counts most. Somehow I think that the 4K is a bit of mental crutch that states, “well if my story sucks, the audience will appreciate it for it technical wow”. errrrrrrrrrr NOT! But being of HD might even psychologically cause you to try even harder to make up for loss of detail because you have to try harder. Second place has a narcotic, powerful, driving desire to win.

    I’m in,
    Take 5

  • Creative people and rental houses have different struggles. Camera equipment rental houses like us, need to have variaties and affordable options for creative people across the board. Listening to different views are so important to strike a balance. Thank you for all the inputs and effort in writing.

  • Great thoughts, I too just purchased the c100 for many of the reasons above. And your views on other people destroying your work through bad grading is spot on- granted I’m nowhere near a pro colorist (though i would put myself in the much better then most section) it is a sore spot for me of how bad most people are with it. Many times I’ve been burned on either giving people neutral/flat footage even with test grades done on the side to stress the fact = THIS IS UNGRADED, and still ive had tv stations not take the time to grade and then show live onair or even worse= had people that DID grade my footage and completely destroy it.

    alas, i digress. great writeup.

  • Chris K Jones on 05.15.13 @ 7:44AM

    Yes the c100 is a great little camera and ok for the money but a modded 5d canon mark2 is better and cheaper still so why bother spending the cash. Have just been using the c300 to shoot for BBC Broadcast and i can honestly say I found it pretty rubbish, I ended up rigging all the bit from my 5dmk2 setup just to make it nearly as useable. Definitely a joke at £10k plus. If you are going to spend the cash then invest in something with a bit of future proofing e.g. sony f5. or don’t spend at all……anyone want to by a low mileage sony DSR450? it’s the best obsolete camera I have.

  • Looking at this camera as well and the FS700. Leaning toward the C100 currently for many reasons, although 240fps overcrank is very attractive. Thanks for the article well stated.

  • The only real issue I see with 4k is the extra computational power and storage needed. Having said that, it’s 2013. Anyone who can afford a 4k camera can afford the hardware to store and edit 4k footage. A 1.5TB HDD can be had for under $100.

    The main benefit that I see with 4k is the ability to downsize it to 1080p for a sharper picture. There’s a noticeable difference between footage shot at 1080p and footage downsized to 1080p from 4k.

    If storage and power is really an issue, just convert all the footage to 1080p beforehand. Either way, you’ll get a superior image in terms of detail.

    When you have to stabilize footage in post, it can really destroy the quality of the footage because it often scales it up for motion compensation.

    I disagree with the whole “inferior tools make your craft better” excuse as a valid argument. Superior tools shouldn’t cause harm to your craft. That’s a personal issue.

    If anything, you have to be careful with 4k because of its unforgiving detail.

    • I bought the c100. This article influenced me a lot and what a god buy! Such a difference with the 7D I had. Truly a huge step up and very good for my purposes; tv and internet. I had some difficulties with loading it into FCPX. Anyone got some tips on it. I also read with the atomos it showed some extra noise. Any experiences with it?

      • I found FCPX to be very cooperative… did you transfer the files to your HD first, and then import them? That has worked for me with all kinds of footage so far…

  • Very interesting. I am actually planning on getting a 1D-C which is how I came across this post – I wanted to read some more about the rest of the Canon Cinema “squad” and see where each one makes its point…

    Well, for television these days you might not need 4K. But I’m still gonna go for it for a number of reasons:

    • Digital “zoom” in the post production (yes, I needed that sometimes… shame on me!)
    • No 1080p resolution (tried 1D MkIV and 5D MkIII so far) has really convinced me yet – by the way: I don’t know about the C100, but those DSLRs squeeze NONE of their 16-22 MP sensors’ details into the full HD image. The 1D-C however does, according to the stills grabbed from 4K footage I have seen – I was DEEPLY IMPRESSED!
    • I am shooting music videos, later I will get into short and independent films, and I want those to be ready for the big screen. I see your point though: Commercials have to work on today’s TVs – they’re not going to be broadcast in five years – yet they would still look okay.

    Not everybody needs 4K. And I totally agree with your rental “policy” – it makes a lot of sense. I would not (unless the money just sits around otherwise) buy a RED camera to shoot SLO-MO footage. And yes, buying the one tool you always need makes even more sense, because owning the one you know you’re going to use all the time just pays off (and renting it out is clever indeed, if you can trust those guys… ^^)

    I also deeply agree with your statement about low light performance, and I am somewhat excited to hear the C100 does so well at 3200! That’s impressive.

    Even if I could afford it, I would always try to use as little artificial light as possible. Even in large film productions it bugs me how there’s tons of light coming “from the sky” at night. By now I always see those huge spotlights, even if they’re not in the shot, and the more impressed I am to watch productions that have that intimate, natural look of available light shots – TRON Legacy (the opening) was quite close to that, by the way.
    This also allows much more flexibility concerning the shooting angles…

    Anyway, I really enjoyed this post, and found it full of interesting ideas – especially someone finally talking about clipping highlights – basically the reason why cameras will never take pictures like our eyes do – unless you show them on screens that reproduce the brightness of the sun…

  • C100 is increasingly my entry choice based on price and the back end workflow. I love the idea of davinci and the 2.5k BM and the 4K but I have seen the BM being used and it would drive me insane to work in that clunky way. I appreciate quality as a stills photographer who shoots Phase One and the latitude that gives in post production of images. I can however handle these files on a Mac book pro retina display because that is how I personally like to work. To try and work with 4K raw files I would not only need hugely expensive storage cards but an entire new high end workstation plus drives and mases of time to create anything at all. I would also need a 4K monitor to see what I was producing. The outlay would be treble perhaps the entry price of the camera to get a functioning system working.
    The C100 for me would fit into a normal existing workflow and allows me a quality that is within budget and way beyond what I could have imagined at this price point 5 years ago. I can learn to shoot video and develop my craft. I certainly do not imagine perfection but I can afford the entry price to work in that way and the price / quality ratio I can live with. For professionals being paid, I guess there are a whole host of other variables. I think however professionals wouldn’t be mulling over too much given they know their market. skills and the equipment required to satisfy their customers.

  • if you need 5-7 stops overexposure latitude in a camera, are you sure you know what you are doing is the question.

  • it’s aesthetics and trends. when everyone shoots hi def, ultra hi def, then there are artists who want to do something more abstract. it’s a cycle. modern visual artists in other mediums such as painting are definitely not into realism and skin pore resolution

  • I have owned and operated a RED Scarlet since its release about a year and a half ago. It produces stunning images straight out of the camera and gives me a ton of flexibility in post. However I have also found out that it is not the right tool for every job and have more recently invested in the C100.

    As much of what I do at present is documentary and television series work in fast paced and often challenging environments, I have found the RED requires too much effort and attention. Firmware updates will often throw up new and unexplained issues, fans are noisy and struggle in hot conditions, boot up time is slow, there is no XLR for sound, a poor quality headphone jack, low light sensitivity isn’t the best (though with a fast prime lens and enough exposure great results can still be obtained) and loaded up with batteries and a shoulder rig it becomes quite the weighty unit. When travelling OS the weight of your luggage becomes higher again with a kit of v-lock batteries and red volts, media, media reader, chargers, shoulder rig, hard drives to accommodate the extra data etc. etc. Don’t get me wrong, I love my RED Scarlet and hope to shoot many more documentaries and TV series on it- unfortunately it just wont be in too many of these more challenging types of environments.

    At present, I have only had my C100 for a handful of days so haven’t done any more than some low light tests to find out the limitations of the AVCHD codec, some external recorder tests, some audio set up tests and some handheld tests. It’s a fantastic camera and I’m really looking forward to putting it through its paces in these coming weeks. As a documentary camera it ticks a lot of boxes- It’s light weight and can be used as a genuine hand held camera, it takes small and light batteries which last all day long, it records to two SD cards, it has incredible low light performance, it has XLR inputs and full audio controls, it boots up within a few seconds and most importantly it is reliable and trustworthy in all types of conditions (of course this is still to be proven but I am very confident that this is a camera I can depend on). With the ability to record a clean signal to an external recorder I also have the flexibility to produce an image that can stand up to the rigors of more serious colour correction work.

    It may sound as though I am favoring the C100 over my Scarlet but this is not at all the case. The Scarlet, despite not being the perfect camera for every job, does produce stunning cinematic quality images. If it weren’t for some of these more practical considerations I would happily shoot every project on the Scarlet. Compared to the C100 (and most other cameras for that matter) it produces an image that is sharper, has superior colour depth/information, has greater dynamic range, smoother roll-off, looks more cinematic and has loads of flexibility in post. And upon a recent discovery R3D RAW files also convert to full de-bayered 10bit DNXHD or ProRes files in near realtime through Adobe Media Encoder on a quad core laptop. In all, the Scarlet is still an incredible camera and I’m sure will continue to be so for some time to come. I guess for me though it really is going to come down to the requirements and challenges of each job as to whether I use the Scarlet or the C100. For now having two uniquely different cameras to choose from is a comforting thought in tackling existing projects and chasing new ones.

  • I can’t see how this camera is good other than “getting the job done” for basic 1080p. I understand wanting the restriction of a a cameras specs to improve skill but you can do that with a RED, Alexa, whatever by just shooting in basic settings and being intelligent. We are human beings, letting a machine become a crutch isn’t the machines fault, its yours…it’d be like saying its alcohols fault for making alcoholics, its not. The difference between 8bit and 10bit and 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is astonishing when I color grade and need to make minor changes…8bit just planely sucks…I only have 8 bit but if I had the option to shoot 10bit all the time I would because no matter what I’m shooting it just works so much better with 10bit. This camera isn’t even a bridge between 1080p cameras and 4K cameras….Something like the BMC in the form of the C100 with a 35mm sensor would have been PERFECT yet Canon continues to price gouge. I’m not a RED fanboy either, I prefer Alexa and I think the Alexa is perfect, the 2.8K (or 3.3K~ sensor technically) is perfect IMO, looks like 35mm but offers all the benefits of digital, more significantly though is the frame rate options and 2.8K resolution are perfect and something tells me that 2.8K, 35mm sensor, 1080p60, etc. will trickle down to a nice priced camera. Last night I was thinking of the GoPro Hero3 Black edition, $400 camera that does 2.7K at 30p, now granted its not on par with an Alexa but FINALLY something that goes over 1080p that does cost an arm, leg and a testicle! If that thing can do 1080p60, 2.7K @ 30p, 4K 15p (meh), etc. in a package that small that tells me that on a normal sized camera image processing power is NOT the issue. Also I highly doubt in 5 years that a RED Epic is going to be obsolete or inadequate for 4K I feel like we are actually eating the crap price gouging companies are feeding us or trying to justify our buyers regret. Man if I had the money and the know how and the people I would start a project like the digital bolex to make a decent camera that doesnt overcharge for things we should already have.

  • When I walk into a TV store and see the ultra hi-rez, super sharp 4K footage, its a terrific experience– for a while BUT my eye and brain tires quickly. Its tooooo clean and sharp. And Im not the only one out there to feel like this. For me HD content is a good blend of resolution and low brain/eye fatigue.

  • I recently bought a C100 after buying a BMCC. Why? Because I often don’t have a crew.
    The C100 is an excellent one man camera.
    Great low light, long lasting battery, Professional sound inputs and monitering.

    The BMCC is better on paper, but when you actually get to using it, it’s only applicable to certain jobs.

  • Great post. I totally agree about your point that the type of camera won’t make or break your production. It is all about the content, storyline, cinematography, actors and the overall execution, the soundtrack: Everything. I watched James bond on a 7 inch Air Canada screen when traveling to London and I was completely entertained. Of course having a bigger screen and more resolution helps but it begins with good storytelling and good filmmaking.

    Funny how people always ask what camera you shoot with in a way that people ask what kind of car you drive. Red Cam? Wow Awesome… Ferarri 430. Oh, you use a 5D….I see…

  • I know this is an old post I read it a while back but just happened to go through the comments. Mostly this response is directed at Peter. I was in Hollywood for 17 years doing various jobs, Most notably I worked for Francis Lawrence, Nigel Dick, A Band Apart etc… I just wanted to point out that while you are in the “bubble” it’s probably not your fault that you come across so arrogant as if you are some artiste. Now that is not an attack on you, just an observation by some who no longer lives out there. Why you feel the need to go after someone about a C100 post is beyond me. Let me give you some perspective if I may. My buddy bought us a C-300 which was awesome, I couldn’t get clients to pay for it, so it went back to L.A. to a rental house to recoup the $16k. I have fed a family of 5 on a 5D Mark ll for the past 3 years. (I have made a feature film btw theatrically released) In SW Florida I know of 10 -15 production companies who make their living this way. Most of them hire me to shoot. I’m no great DP, in fact I know Roger Deakins so I probably would’nt call myself one, but to get a 15K budget I advertise as one. None of those houses have a RED, 1 has a F-700, the rest are Sony Pro-sumer. I guy has a Red but he doesn’t work here, he works in NY. And nobody wants to pay the camera fee here. I did a lot of research on cameras and this article helped me make my decision. Or course I wanted a RED, slow mo and all that crap, but then I’d get into another $5k for computer just to process. Also there is no market for it here. I constantly shoot on the beach here, the budgets don’t include a 1st AC, grip etc… If you can’t do it all well, i.e.. sound, camera, edit… you don’t eat! Rather than constantly changing ND filters on my glass when I’m alone, The built in ND filters on the C100 SAVE MY ASS every shoot. Recently I’m 12 miles out in Gulf of Mexico at Noon. Been out about 12 times now, the C100 is an awesome tool. Also great when I build it up on sticks. Post is simple as you will get no more than $400 a day to edit here ( we don’t have colorists btw) we do everything. The C100 is the best all around camera I’ve used for this Market. I can only assume all over fly over country similar markets are doing the same. 4K is awesome. It ain’t happening here. I have a Sharp Aquos 52 inch, 1080i Tv, that grabs the 720p signal from Dish Network. I download 1080p content on my apple TV and plays on my 1080 i. Most of the commercials here (local) are broadcast in SD. Quite a bitch delivering 1080p to SD stations. I’m sure 4k is coming, but it ain’t coming here any time soon. For that I will probably get a 1DC, because it you can’t do double duty as a still photographer here, you lose money. I was quite the artiste, when we made “Lunatics, Lovers & Poets” on super 16mm just 4 years ago. Now I’m a realist who feeds my kids. This article was very helpful to some of us. Best of luck to you.

  • I’m in agreement that it’s the Indian not the arrows. And I’m also not sold on the whole 4k platform yet so I’ll be shooting in regular old boring high def until I find a reason not too. The C100 is pretty sweet looking. I’m definitely going to look into getting one soon.

  • selling us new technology. If you were at NAB this year, 4k was everywhere, just like 3D was everywhere last year. (And 3D was nowhere to be seen at NAB this year… but I doubt 4k will disappear like that).

Comments pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Description image10 pingbacks