4K and the Future of Photography

I've often taken great pride (and personal amusement) at laughing at photography's doomsday prophets. Digital was going to be the end of "real" photography when it first arrived on the scene, and you don't have to look very far to find old school film guys still clinging to this mantra.

Technically, photography was outdated the moment video arrived on the scene. As technology continues to advance, the still image grows weaker and weaker in value as a commercial product. Mirrorless technology is on the rise. Print is dying. Billboards are being replaced with digital counterparts. Everyone has access to video 24/7. The one thing that photography has been able to claim over video is image quality...but that may soon be a thing of the past.

If you haven't heard of 4K Resolution, let me be the first to introduce you. High end HDTV format (1080p) is 2K resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. The new UHD (Ultra High-Def) is 3840x2160 pixels, capable of 60 frames per second @ 8MP each. Essentially, you could produce a DSLR quality 8x12" image from this video. 8K resolution is already in development, which is 7680x4320 pixels.

Capturing "the defining moment" will be a thing of the past when you can edit video and choose frames from extremely high quality video that captures 60 frames per second. Still photography as we know it, will be obsolete. This technology isn't the future, it's here and now. Some smartphones are already 4K video capable.

I just wonder how many of us will still be pressing shutter buttons 5 years from now instead of merely pressing a red record button?

​Your thoughts?

I wish I had a dollar for all the death knells that I've heard toll over the years. The new threat of 4K is just a glorified version of "spray and pray" and while it may someday have a place in still photography, it's appearance is far from marks the end of the DSLR. I mean, we all still have radios despite TV and film is still thriving and perhaps even growing despite the gains in digital imagery, so any changes wrought by 4K will join all the other "end of days" events whose reputations proceeded their reality.

Well I believe I'll still be clicking the shutter button! Lol I'm not into making videos! Lol So feel free folks to just send me your unwanted Nikon DSLRs! Lol

While I tend to agree, let's look at this from a different perspective. I'm not talking about making the switch to video. I'm talking about pulling stills FROM video.

Currently, my video editing knowledge base is exactly zero. My son creates stop-motion videos with his Legos and iPod, and knows more about video editing than his dad sitting here on a $2000 PC with high end editing software installed.

That said, how many times have we all tried to photograph a group of people and experienced the frustration of getting everyone to be looking at the camera and not blinking? How many family photos are half-assed because Cousin Bill has a goofy smile, and Aunt Flo has her eyes closed? Being able to record a 10 second video would yield 600 still images to choose and edit from.

Imagine what this could also do for HDR.

How would you use this for HDR?

The same as it's used now, only faster. And instead of 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures, you could do dozens.

Sounds like too much work for me. So I would have to film a video and then go back frame by frame to pick out the single pictures I want to save?

Browncoat said:

The same as it's used now, only faster. And instead of 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures, you could do dozens.

Click to expand...

But won't each exposure be the same EV?

Dave_W said:

But won't each exposure be the same EV?

Click to expand...

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, Dave. I don't think it's unreasonable to surmise that when this technology becomes more readily available, that you couldn't change EV value on the fly to create HDR stills and video. It's already possible with those ultra high end RED computer/cameras that are used to record a lot of HD and green screen videos.

"That said, how many times have we all tried to photograph a group of people and experienced the frustration of getting everyone to be looking at the camera and not blinking? How many family photos are half-assed because Cousin Bill has a goofy smile, and Aunt Flo has her eyes closed?

very easy to open eyes and change heads in Photoshop

All this speculation and debate about something that may or has happened when you all know full well that every minute spent here is another minute closer to the death of DSLR - shouldn't you rather spend your time taking photos?

​Just suggesting is all …..

How many of you own a 3-D tv set? I don't and I know a lot of people that are not interested. There comes a point where you have to look at the price you have to pay for these "technical advancements". People are getting wiser. I remember a few years ago (well OK, for me a few years ago might be half of your life time) when the price of a 40" flat screen tv was around 10,000.00 $. They didn't sell that much at that price. Now you can get it for $ 600.00 or even less. But the bigger problem is getting the TV stations to change all their equipment in order to produce and diffuse this "new format". And they are not making the same money they were neither. People download, watch on-line, rent. This has brought the appeal of advertising on TV to a lower value per buck and big companies are starting to re-evaluate their marketing medias.

There is no way we can know for sure what will happen, but the way I see it, it might take more time than we think to see all this newer technology accessible to the masses.

....and back at the farm I will continue to click away with my D4 which by the way will continue to produce stunning results 5,10,15 years from now even at the slow 10 fps.

Well, it will be a cold day in hell when I do video. I don't even use live view even though the D7000 has it available. I will just blunder along one frame at a time.

I don't know about you all. But when I take a shot of a group. I usually set the shutter on high speed and fire off about 10 shots. Takes about 1 second and I always find a good shot amoungst them all. And what are people going to do? Spend 20-30 min setting up the lighting and walk around taking video? Sounds kinda silly. Yea i'm sure i'll still be pressing the button on the right 10 years from now.

What Browncoat is talking about is pulling high definition stills from video, and to produce quality images at 60 frames per second, at 8MP per frame would require each frame to be highly compressed (MP2-MP4), much like JPEGs. Compressing digital images is achieved by throwing away data; in this scenario, high definition data on each frame, which negates the effort. I do like Browncoat’s thinking though.

Most of us who enjoy this forum do the same as above, regardless of what camera or lenses we use, or we shoot FX or DX, or JPEG or RAW, we end up producing highly compressed JPEG images in order to navigate the Internet. It remains very hard to do anything with a compressed digital image, after it is once saved.

I have been choppin at the bit to get a 4K monitor... I am very close to getting one. I have followed RED for a couple years at least. It ain't going to happen... doing away with still photography. It is like the PC, it came first, then the laptop, then the smartphone, tablet... none of them does away with anything else... they serve a different niche. I have a D800, I was on the waiting list... I think I took a video twice... but forgot to look at them. If I was a wedding photographer, maybe I would have to. But they are different median. If someone wants to take a still photo, they are going to pick up a device suited to the purpose. If someone shoots video, and also needs to create a still once in a while... well the RED is good for them. I was certain the SLR was dead, it's not. I am fortunate enough to own a D800, a Fukji XE-1 and a Leica X2. I would not trade in any of them. If I want to take video, I am still going back to a device that is centered around panning and zooming. I know it is fun to get on the bandwagon of change... I personally love change. I anticipate having a 70+" 4K TV by next year, improving my ability to show still photos around the house, and I can't wait for the monitor. But I think it is going to be a long time before camera primarily designed for still photography are on the way out. It's like you can do heavy duty word processing on a tablet... and you can do content consumption on a PC... but when you have a choice, and we all will, content consuption works on a table best and word processing works on a PC the best, so that is where they are going to get done. JD

Browncoat said:

I've often taken great pride (and personal amusement) at laughing at photography's doomsday prophets. Digital was going to be the end of "real" photography when it first arrived on the scene, and you don't have to look very far to find old school film guys still clinging to this mantra.

Technically, photography was outdated the moment video arrived on the scene. As technology continues to advance, the still image grows weaker and weaker in value as a commercial product. Mirrorless technology is on the rise. Print is dying. Billboards are being replaced with digital counterparts. Everyone has access to video 24/7. The one thing that photography has been able to claim over video is image quality...but that may soon be a thing of the past.

If you haven't heard of 4K Resolution, let me be the first to introduce you. High end HDTV format (1080p) is 2K resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. The new UHD (Ultra High-Def) is 3840x2160 pixels, capable of 60 frames per second @ 8MP each. Essentially, you could produce a DSLR quality 8x12" image from this video. 8K resolution is already in development, which is 7680x4320 pixels.

Capturing "the defining moment" will be a thing of the past when you can edit video and choose frames from extremely high quality video that captures 60 frames per second. Still photography as we know it, will be obsolete. This technology isn't the future, it's here and now. Some smartphones are already 4K video capable.

I just wonder how many of us will still be pressing shutter buttons 5 years from now instead of merely pressing a red record button?

​Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Just out of interest, how do I freeze the action and make sure I don't get camera shake using 1/250 - 1/1000 sec shots?

Browncoat said:

That said, how many times have we all tried to photograph a group of people and experienced the frustration of getting everyone to be looking at the camera and not blinking? How many family photos are half-assed because Cousin Bill has a goofy smile, and Aunt Flo has her eyes closed? Being able to record a 10 second video would yield 600 still images to choose and edit from.

Imagine what this could also do for HDR.

Click to expand...

To me.. that would take a part of photography and the artistic form of it away. I'm sorry, but photography is much more than just taking a video and deciding later which still you want to keep out of it.
Getting cousin Bill and Aunt Flo and everyone else to have the expression you want all at the same time is what makes it challenging and fun. Filming it, and deciding later or even edit one frame with another and manipulate it where you want isn't taking a snap and preserving the reality of it anymore.
​