Prepping for a 4k World - By Michael Cioni

MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
I found this presentation and had to share.  Hope you enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qztrb9arZl4#aid=P-yryGdyfts
«1

Comments

  • MatthiasClaflinMatthiasClaflin Website User Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    Very much enjoyed this. Just before I saw your post, I saw this and thought it was very informative.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=rzhIRR7pH0I&app=desktop
    I am not a fan of 4k. I think it is great for those who can afford it, but I can't and won't be able to any time soon. 4k is way out of my price range, as far as hardware upgrades. I think it has a lot of potential for reframing, but as far as distribution, I don't see it any viable options yet. I could watch a 4k YT video on my computer but I would only see it at 1080p and in the end, it would look no better than watching that same video at 1080p. Some people may have 2k monitors/TVs but I don't see it being practical for people to buy 4k monitors/TVs, at least not consumers.
  • TimLan635TimLan635 Website User Posts: 50 Enthusiast
    I saw the Michael Cioni talk (that MichaelJames posted above) over on the Sony Vegas forums the other day.  (I did watch it, even though I'm just a hobbiest, handycam guy that usually still shoots SD rather than HDV even...)
    I just wanted to point out that Cioni's talk is actually from more than 2 years ago (January, 2012), so the workflow he describes might be very by different now, depending on how those tools have evolved in the past couple years.  Still, it's an interesting talk -- I don't mean to diminish that in any way.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Matthias great video... where's tooshka so I can point to why codec support in hitfilm is needed? I wish I had the money for 4k
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Lol comments on another thread.
  • MandalorianMandalorian Website User Posts: 79
    Michael Cioni is a genius.  Always very informative and innovative.
      With the last CES as well as NAB, it's obvious that 4K is finally here to stay.  I for one am very happy for that.  And the cost of entry is dropping rapidly.  We see that with cameras, storage, and hardware.  It's all getting cheaper and better, which is great.
      I've been working on 4K files for about a year now at a local motion picture studio, and I never want to go back to HD.  4K just makes everything so much better.  Keys and Roto become easier, downscaling looks better, reframing and post-zoom is practical, and overall you just have a lot more room to play with.
      It also surprised me how quickly I could actually work on 4K DPX files, even on a tiny mac mini.  It'll be fun to start messing around with the possibilities on my PC in the near future.
      As far as cameras, I'm hoping some of the lower end camera manufacturers start addressing some of the issues they have.  There are compromises on everything from the sensor to ergonomics to storage, which you would probably expect for the low price point they hit.  Even so, with the target markets they are trying to hit, there really are some things they should work out before releasing their products.  You truly do get what you pay for.
      It's probably a curse that I've had the privilege to work with footage from some of the higher end 4K cameras on the market, because it makes working with anything less almost painful.
      The same can be said of 4K monitors and TV's.  The prices are dropping drastically on these, which is great, but sadly the quality is following for the most part.  Some of the really cheap 4K monitors I've seen just don't seem worth their price tag imo.  I personally think this will change over the next few years, and good 4K screens will become just as affordable as good HD screens are now.
      Overall, the future looks bright, and I'm very excited to see where things go.  End rant.
  • mark_emark_e Website User Posts: 190 Just Starting Out
    edited April 2014
      I've been working on 4K files for about a year now at a local motion picture studio, and I never want to go back to HD.  4K just makes everything so much better.  Keys and Roto become easier, downscaling looks better, reframing and post-zoom is practical, and overall you just have a lot more room to play with.


    This is why I'm so excited about the GH4 in a few weeks, going to a demo in london next week to have a look at it and some of the folks who have been filming using the pre-production models.  Even for the light weight stuff I do it should make such a difference looking forward to the reframing and post zoom stuff for delivery at 1080p I won't be taking my primes off now! 

  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    I think 4k is here to stay for higher end indie productions and up but is a long way from staying for consumers.  Where is 4k broadcast at? Also, the increased storage requirements and lack of significant improvements in storage is going to keep 4k as a unwieldy beast for many no budget, low budget content producers and the producers of hours of high quality content.  Suddenly shooting a documentary or news program becomes a pain.  either things will be highly compressed or companies will start feeling the growing pains.  We need 100+ Tb hard drives to come into existence to help allow 4k to grow for everyone. 
  • MandalorianMandalorian Website User Posts: 79
    Dunno about broadcast, but seeing that Netflix, Amazon and Youtube are all onboard for UHD, it seems that it will definitely start to influence the consumer market.  And with normal vendors like Best Buy selling 4K TV's, I think it will be a bigger influence on more consumers when they're looking at new TV's, if nothing else than to have the latest thing right now.  When there's more 4K content then it will get more attention.
      I don't know how long it will take for news to move to 4K, but they're moving in that direction.  The Olympics for example were being shot in 4K, so 4K broadcast definitely out there.
      Storage is definitely an issue for lower/no budget productions.  Data management is also a big issue.  If you don't know how to create a good file structure and backups, as well as manage raid systems for large data storage, it can be a problem.  However, short projects without a ton of VFX work shouldn't be that much of an issue, especially since you can easily pick up an external 4TB HDD for less than $200.  It won't be ideal, but it is a solution.
      The compression is another issue.  With the current 4K delivery codecs for streaming such as H.265 and VP9, they're making progress, but there are still some problems with them, even with higher data rates.  Other than streaming, we still need to wait for a good 4K delivery method, since right now, there's no standard to conform to it seems, unless you're shooting for a cinema release.
      There are a lot of good technologies out there that would make 4K more viable for everyone, it just seems that we need to play the waiting game to see them really come to market and push UHD forward.
  • MproducerMproducer Website User Posts: 45
    I have a GH4 on order and plan on jumping into the 4k workflow as soon as I get it. Maybe I need to document it on you tube. It will be a learning experience and will require a lot more resources to be spent using it. I find it exciting, but I understand why many people will wait for a while. My plan is to convert 4K footage to prores, and use proxies in FCPX. In my testing this is working well. The heavy work is done when I have to render 4K. Yikes. So I may have to upgrade computers as projects get larger. There are a lot of new 4K storage options announced at NAB, but I fear there will be a hefty price tag. My goal is to start a short project and work my way up from there considering the storage issue. My current HD feature film is filling multiple terabyte drives now!
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    @Mandalorian there was the same or greater push for 3d remember? The television set creators are trying to create a demand the same way they tried for 3d TVs. 
    As a techie who has learned to control his tech urges I can say that most of the people who are lusting for 4k typically have 0 reason for it.  Its like buying a car that's 2x too big for your garage because the dealer is telling you that one day you'll own a house that will have a garage that will be big enough to fit it.  Yes some of the video content distributors will support 4k but even their full HD isn't that great.  You can find articles on Netfix's resolution being bad and they over crop movies.  4k is technically 4 times the information, but lets say through compression magic they work it out so you get a overly compressed 4k at twice the space.  watch your DVR and harddrives fill up twice as fast.  Are you going to rush out to replace every tv, harddrive, older bluray player and computer just for this?  Nope.  If we continue holding the line at rejecting their forced demand we will see prices on everything keep dropping.  Remember when getting a 42" hdtv of good quality cost 600? 500?  Now you can get a decent 42" for under 400 if you give up smart tv features. 3d tvs were an excuse to push prices up and so is 4k.

    @Mproducer There was a compelling argument in the 2nd video as to why you might want to hold off on 4k for a little while if its not solely for the digital reframing and zoom.  Where are you displaying your work?  Will it be a heavily compressed 4k that you display your work which won't look as good as a 1080p video that's not as compressed?  4k Resolution only is noticeably better at a specific distance to size of display ratio.  Its why overly bright 4k tvs that are 60"s look amazing 2 feet away and not any better 30 feet away.  Is it going to make the content better? Is it going to make your color grading better?  Will it make your workflow easier?  I bought a BMCC 2.5k camera after they announced the 4k camera.  I realized that going 4k wouldn't benefit me and only hinder me.  The 2.5k camera appealed to me really for the dynamic range and the full copy of resolve with it.  I built a new computer that would be able to handle the BMCC and didn't need to go bleeding edge to do it.  I went with a i7 3770k on a mobo that could take thunderbolt, topped out at 32 gigs of ram and went with a GTX 780 SC.  I am not saying make the same decisions or use the same reasoning but don't over burden yourself
  • MproducerMproducer Website User Posts: 45
    Like I said I enjoy the ride of new technology, and I do not blame anyone else for not wanting to jump on board. But don't be critical of those who do. It's our money, sweat, and tears. I find it fun even if it fails.
  • MandalorianMandalorian Website User Posts: 79

    Mproducer and Tooshka said it perfectly.
      It's not a big thing right NOW in the consumer market, but it will be eventually.  3D has always been a gimmick.  It worked for some projects, but definitely not for all.  4K is entirely different.  I know a few people who have nothing to do with this industry that want, and in some cases have purchased, 4K displays.  They love them.  I've never really heard the same reactions about 3D.
      As I mentioned, the current compression codes and methods aren't the best, but will grow over time.  There are some codecs that do a fantastic job at maintaining visual fidelity while creating very small files.  Not all codecs are created equal, so just because there's 4x the resolution doesn't mean the files need to be 4x as big to look good.  Codecs also do better compressing data when they're given more data to compress, so a heavily compressed 4K video on a 1080 screen could look better than a lightly compressed 1080 video.  The tech is there, it just needs to become more prevalent.
      I do plan to build a dedicated workstation for my work, but I definitely don't "Need" it to work effectively with 4K footage.  Remember in my earlier comment where I said I had been comping in 4K on a mac mini?  That computer is far from a beast, and it got along just fine.  Sure I didn't get real time playback at full res uncompressed, but I really didn't need that for the work I was doing.
      This being said, everyone obviously needs to take a look at their needs.  4K isn't right for everyone (should be clear since there are some people that still work in SD).  If it's not right for you, find what is and go with that.  Just be sure you know what options are available to you and the pros and cons of each.  For me, 4K makes sense.  It makes my life so much easier, and even though I don't have my own 4K camera yet, I'm getting very close and already have people wanting to use me and my camera on paying projects as soon as I get it.  Because of this, 4K is the way to go for me.

  • RodyPolisRodyPolis Website User Posts: 613
    Shooting in 4K definitely has a lot of advantages, and displaying 4K footage on a very large screen in theaters will be great as well. However, I think it's pretty useless to invest in smaller 4K screens like TVs, tablets, laptops, etc.
    Unless you're going to stand 1 ft away from the screen, you're not going to be able to really notice the extra pixels. I can't even see all the sharpness my 60 inch 1080p TV has to offer when I sit on the couch which is about 6ft away. In fact, I can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p if I'm on the couch, and that's a 60 inch screen!
    How big would my 4K TV need to be to actually see a difference? During NAB I had a chance to check out Sony's 4K theater, and while the images looked great, it wasn't the resolution that made them stand out. To me it just looked like really nice HD footage on a big screen. There was one clip they showed where they cut back and forth between 4K shots and HD shots, and surprise... I couldn't see a difference!
    So personally, while I can see a great need to actually shoot 4K, 4K output has massively disappointed me so far (except for that one time I watched a 4K TV from 1 ft away at Best Buy. It looked great, but that's not how you watch TV!)
  • mark_emark_e Website User Posts: 190 Just Starting Out
    edited April 2014
     Will it be a heavily compressed 4k that you display your work which won't look as good as a 1080p video that's not as compressed?  


    Compressed yes in camera, but from what I've seen specifically for the GH4, in camera it's recording 4k at 100mbps all intra 8bit 4:2:0 with latest codecs in camera and it looks pretty dam nice even on the pre production firmware and you can technically scale that down to 1080p 10bit 4:4:4 to preserve as much details as you can and avoid introducing aliasing through compression etc. (you obviously can't create what's not there and artificially extend the dynamic range etc. but from what I've seen it looks pretty dam good from initial tests and you are hiding the noise even more as part of that)  So it looks like even if you are just shooting for 1080p delivery to get best quality in camera looks like shooting 4k is best option.
    David Newman talking about it here and he's someone who knows what he's talking about seeing as he wrote the ciniform codec :-)
    http://www.eoshd.com/content/12140/discovery-4k-8bit-420-panasonic-gh4-converts-1080p-10bit-444
    There's some conversation around why you can get as good results in 4k at that 100mbs as well around pixel density etc. I haven't read up on it properly to fully understand it yet, will do at some point, I just know it looks nice :-)
    In addition with a break out box and an external recorder you can record 4k 10bit 4:2:2 off the sensor, that's a game changer in this type of camera and drops that capability right in the scope of pro / prosumer territory so I'd guess around £4K all in excluding lenses for proper 10bit 4:2:2 if you were doing it from scratch which while not cheap at all is when you compare it to what else is out there at the moment.

  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    @mark 100mbs is going to look better then 50 or the 5 mbs of the LG G2 recording 4k, but that 8 bit 4:2:0 is cutting out so much of the image that if you got something that records full hd at 4:2:0 at 200mbs you'd love the quality a lot more.
    @Mproducer at the end of the day it is your money and you'll do whatever you think is best. The critical analysis is for all the people who read threads and don't comment. Gear lust is very common in tech related communities, back when they announced the bmpc4k I talked myself into being ready to double my investment in building a new computer and the camera. People hear the term bleeding edge but don't always understand what it means for them and their investments. That's not to say that you don't but I'm on the BMD forums and theres a vocal group of people who are displeased at the bloodshed they experienced from being on the bleeding edge.
    @tooshka 0 marketing relationship for content creation compared to 3d?  Really?  Very few major productions or indie productions actually shot in 3d, they just did it in post.  4k really is having an appeal to people because its being made out to be a god send for content creation.  Most people are only talking about 4k because they have bought into that its going to make what they do better some how.  4k you'll be able to reframe, zoom in, stabilize and have 4k the resolution.  So people are less concerned with making the same level of investment in the content/story of their project and are enamored with the great feats of technical prowess that they will  be able to now accomplish.  Personally, I think Glasses free 3d offered more to content creation then 4k(though 4k will benefit 3d).  THink back to what kicked off the latest craze of 3d, The movie Avatar.  It truly added a level of depth to the movie that added something to the experience of watching the movie.  That being said the current lack of maturity in 3d technology does not have me interested in investing in that technology.
    4k has potential but not currently a huge market, especially on the delivery side.  There was 3d tv content, but when are you getting 4k tv content?  When are you getting 4k from online content or even in cinema format(because apparently most 4k cinema just has 2k content that they upconvert)?  How are you watching 4k?  How is someone else going to watch 4k?
      Blu-ray may of supplanted HD-DVD for a hd format but the adoption rate for Blu-Ray over DVD is pretty terrible.  If you look around the stores though you see so much Blu-Ray you would think it won and DVD is on its last legs.  Now they need to do Bluray 4k to try to keep up and most Blu-Ray players currently cannot output 4k. 
    Im not saying 4k isn't nice and that I'll never use 4k.  Im saying that outside of the people who have already been using 4k, 5k, 6k for years now... Everyone else will be better supported by quality FullHD for a while.  On the indie content creator side?  Not until everything improves substantially.  4k doesn't do to HD what HD does to SD.  Its technically better but in real world its not David vs Goliath.  Its more like Goliath versus Goliath that's just a little taller.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    The production benefits of 4k (aside from any broadcast/output issues) are really the Trojan horse by which 4k is likely to succeed. 4k will establish itself as a production technique for many productions, even if consumers have no interest in 4k final content at this point. Then, as the technology becomes cheaper, it'll start to appear on the output end as well. That's really the key, I think - and it's an 'in' that 3D never had. 4k can infiltrate in stages, rather than having a boom/bust like 3D.
  • NullUnitNullUnit Website User Posts: 791 Just Starting Out
    edited April 2014
    I think thats how its going to work too, Simon. Practically nobody (consumers) was watching SD at its full quality when SD was the standard. Now that 1080p is the standard most people are watching at 720p. 4k adoption is a long way off for the general public.
    The thing no one has brought up is net neutrality and data caps. Am I going to watch 4k streaming video on Netflix if AT&T is charging me per gig downloaded? Nope.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    edited April 2014
    @Tooshka
    The fact that you could so boldly say im just wrong should maybe highlight how you are on a extreme level of belief here.  I said 4k has potential, because its not anywhere close to HD or FULL HD which has complete market saturation.  The major studios and major indie studios have been filming in 2k-4k for how many years now?  So they aren't who 4k is being marketed for. The tech companies and major conglomerates who produce hardware have a vested interest in getting 4k to go mainstream, because its the next thing which keeps costs up.  You claim these companies know their respective market?  You are completely wrong and forgetting their missteps.  Flashback to 2011 - 2013... Those SAME companies were pushing 3d down people's throats.  Weren't the Olympics and PGA broadcasted in 3d?  I guess its easy to say 3d is a fad and that the companies know what they are doing if you ignore the previous mistake.
    @Simon
    That same Trojan horse you mention will also carry with it 3d tv.  Some of the technology for 3d tv relies on cutting the resolution.  Cutting hd media's resolution in half is completely unacceptable.  Cutting 4k media down to 2k 3d fixes that issue.  Broadcasters still need to deal with storage(short and long term) and delivery prior to their adoption.  That delivery brings in tv and internet providers who will need to upgrade their existing infrastructure to handle the increased bandwidth.  HD TV channels are highly compressed.

    Here is an older article on TV networks out here compression their HD stations more to fit them in the same bandwidth.
    http://www.techhive.com/article/144800/article.html
    H
    ere is a quick article on 4k being helpful for 3d.
    http://aframe.com/blog/2013/06/does-4k-really-mean-the-end-of-3d-glasses/

    H
    ere are some interesting 4k conversations for people who want to read past the marketed hype.
    http://www.andrew-robinson-online.com/an-indie-filmmakers-take-on-4k-and-the-consumer-market/
    A 4k camera is like any other tool in a filmmakers tool bag.  Use the right tool for the right job.  What tends to happen is people get tools and try to find an excuse to use them.  They will eat up more time on set to use their new jib, new steadicam, new slider or do things which require more work in post production.  A good story and a interesting concept and competent cinematography skills will provide you the most stable film making platform.  Want to watch a big budget disaster of a movie that had better visuals, filmed in 4k that no one wants to watch?  Go watch Battleship and see what unlimited toys and terrible story and abuse of hollywood techniques gets you.  
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 18,307 Ambassador
    edited April 2014
    Ah.... Interesting thread.
    I have random thoughts:
    I, too, have seen 4K monitors--no, my eyes cannot tell the difference between a 1080 set and a 4K set at normal viewing distance.
    4K will succeed, simply because of the eventual advantages in image clarity.
    3D will remain niche--mostly because about 20% of people can't perceive it, and about another 10-15% just get a headache--these numbers change depending on who's study you read and I have chosen a median number. Still, 3D only remains viable for about 2/3 of the market. Period.
    Net streaming of 4K will happen, but, again, bandwidth? Netflix and Hulu stream HD at about 13Mbps. Unless that bandwidth usage goes up to over 60Mbps for the additional pixel data, then we're getting crap-compressed 4K mud.
    Mainstream/wide adoption of 4K is still 10-15 years away.
    Same goes for capture codecs: Trying to cram 4K into the same 100Mbps codec of a high-end 1080 camera implies compression mud. Right no it's early adopter tech-love.
    I would enjoy 4K soley for pan/crop for 1080 output.
    Finally, it's 2014, and, as an event/wedding videographer, I should note that only two of my jobs for the last two years required HD output--everyone else wanted DVD. 4K will happen for theater release and ambitious indy producers, but, even in Los Freaking Angeles, 15 years after HD was launched, it still has low penetration. I am shocked at how often I have to deliever DVD output.
  • mark_emark_e Website User Posts: 190 Just Starting Out

    Same goes for capture codecs: Trying to cram 4K into the same 100Mbps codec of a high-end 1080 camera implies compression mud. Right no it's early adopter tech-love.
     


    Have a download of the original GH4 footage here, does not look muddy to me :) I'm also happy to be wrong!, I can't find the piece I was reading about pixel density with 4k and compression was interesting.   Anyway fingers crossed this is a typical example, it looks perfectly usable to me.
    https://vimeo.com/90794067

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 18,307 Ambassador
    I wouldn't mind being wrong. ;-)
    Besides, even if compressed 4K footage exhibits the same 8x8 Macroblocking artifacts that plague SD and HD under MPEG compression, the pixel density of a 4K Image might overcome the issue. :-)
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    @tooshka calling 3d a fad forgets the fact that fad has been around and popular more then many styles of shooting
    Movies. Handheld and shallow depth of field come to mind. Avatar 2-3 will keep peoples interest in 3d.  Movie companies make their investment back but the hardware companies who mass produced 3d sets and phones did not. Some major companies are scaling back their lines to offset their losses.
  • NullUnitNullUnit Website User Posts: 791 Just Starting Out

    Finally, it's 2014, and, as an event/wedding videographer, I should note that only two of my jobs for the last two years required HD output--everyone else wanted DVD. 4K will happen for theater release and ambitious indy producers, but, even in Los Freaking Angeles, 15 years after HD was launched, it still has low penetration. I am shocked at how often I have to deliever DVD output.


    I think thats because DVDs are the "ultimate" video delivery system. DVDs are the most popular video format on the planet. You can get a DVD player for $20 and DVDs will play on multiple other systems. It's also super cheap to produce them. I really believe that the average person is fine with good DVD quality. I've had several people comment, when they see a DVD playing on my setup, that "HD looks great".
    And on a side note, the company that I work for also delivers video exclusively in SD and probably will continue to into the foreseeable future.  

  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Yep, it's easy to think that HD is more widespread than it is, because we all exist within a filmmaking bubble. While HD TVs are probably quite widely distributed now, I wonder how much actual HD content is watched on them?
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 18,307 Ambassador
    Hey, my parents are still watching the SD versions of theor channels on their HDTV. They prefer the SD because lower thirds and information text are too smal for their aging eyes on the HD channels.
  • MandalorianMandalorian Website User Posts: 79
    While that's pretty cool, it bothers me that they're saying it has a 4K Screen when it doesn't even meet the standard 3840x2160 resolution.  Whatever.
    Just wanting to lend some more links to this discussion, specifically the talk about codecs.  Here are 2 posts that show the potential of up and coming codecs:
    VP9 sample
    Another sample
    Considering the data rates of these codecs, they're doing pretty awesome at this point IMO.  They still have a lot of development and usability issues that need work, but this is good progress.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    The specs on that dell are nice but id rather go for this Asus
    http://www.amazon.com/G750JM-DS71-17-3-inch-Gaming-GeForce-Graphics/dp/B00IKF2H12/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398288996&sr=8-3&keywords=asus+rog+g750jx-db71
    I can upgrade the graphic card later and the harddrive.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Not sure how comparing 1 non 4k laptop to another isn't similar?  The laptop you point out as a below the standard definition of 4k screen.  I pointed out this lower spec'ed laptop because the pro mobile gpu can always get dumped in there after the fact.  So for some of us... we don't need to be able to see the difference in above hd as long as our system can run it. I also didn't say they were the same, I said that dell was nice but id rather go for the Asus. No need to look for any reason for us to butt heads;). Its what id go for, not what you should go for.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Uhd is 3840x2160 and cinema 4k is 4096x2160. Those are the 2 definitive standards that have been chosen to compete for the 4k crown. 3800x1800 is below the specs of either. In a 4k thread you mentioned a laptop that isn't able to full display the 2 dominant standards, which is cool. You have a problem with me mentioning a full hd laptop that will give about the same performance when dealing with 4k.  I brought it up because any computer that can handle 4k material is worth mentioning.  I'm not comparing a netbook to a laptop... I'm comparing similar spec'ed systems and saying id rather get the one that would save me money thanks to a lower resolution screen and a still pretty decent mGPU.  You are allowed to think its not relevant but who made you internet hall monitor? 
    Yes I've mentioned your name and many peoples names in threads they weren't apart of, always in jest. If its easier for you I can make sure to preface all of my posts with a notice that there maybe some jokes in the following posts and that any reference to any other user should be taken as a joke. 
    Its really no ones job, obligation or responsibility to point out on a message forum what is relevant or who which opinion is wrong(which in itself is a opinion). I love the free flow of ideas and information but I get into it with anyone who starts throwing their weight around and saying someone's wrong when it comes to opinions, or gets snarky with me.  You are 100% able to express your beliefs but so am I.  If someone has a fact they can cite when it comes to information I am cool with, but this isn't the place to say anyone opinions are wrong... they are just that opinions.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Tooshak/MJ - if you want to discuss your personal relationship any further please do so in private messages rather than on the forums. Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.