Why is it that when I film in higher resolutions, the colors become much different (better, more natural looking).I have a sonya6400, and the 4k footage has tremendously bette colors than 1080p footage. And I now just got a new gopro, and I see the same pattern. 4k has much better (more natural) colors than 1080p, and 5,3k is even better than 4k.I've also tried youtubing some resulotion comparison videos on the same camera (with the same settings), and it's the same. Higher quality nearly always produces better and more natural colors.What the hell is going on? I would like to not be limited to the highest possible resolution, but I just cannot unsee how bad the colors look on 1080p.
computer
Good morning sar
>>4303613it's the bit rate of the recording.
>>4303637this. 100 mb/s vs 24 mb/s
>>4303613bigger color spaces
>>4303613as the other posters said, better bit rate, better color space (4k 4:2:0 is the equivalent of 1080p 4:4:4), most if not all Sony APS-C 4K capable cams lineskip 1080p instead of downsampling. Here is a comparison between the a6400 and the RX100III which doesn't line skip.
So this is why on cameras that have only 1080p video, the video looks worse than stills from the same camera downsized to the same resolution?
It depends on how the camera records the 4k, bitrate, etcSometimes recording 4k with a 1.5x crop actually looks better because it downsamples instead of lineskips. There are a lot of quirks to be aware of, but thankfully, you only have one or two cameras so you can learn the ideal video settings for what you do in 5 minutes and just never touch them. For me it's 4k30p max quality in DX mode with auto ISO on. I just never touch that shit. Exposure mode goes to manual, 180 degree reule, I flick the video switch, I get nice movies SOOC.
>>4307631Do you know if Nikon Z6ii line skips or downsamples?How do you figure this out?
>>4308031God has to reveal it to you in a dream
>>4308031You ask a turbo gearfag. Usually panasonic micro four thirds users have these things memorized because pointless frame peeping video shit on full frames forms the basis of their self worth. Most of them will gladly write you an essay format shitpost about which FFs line skip or “dont even do DCI 4k”.
>>4308031Z6ii probably line skips or at least is definitely not downsampled. Quick way to see is using DPReview's video comparison tool and looking at the Siemens star targets. Jagged lines/false color/moire are the giveaways.Downsampling is a very electronically intensive process since you have to capture the whole sensor and then resize it down dozens of times per second. Upping the frame rate makes it even harder so skipping pixels was and often still is a common way to achieve that. Attached is a sample from the GH5 which downsamples and in its high frame rate mode so you have an idea of the difference. Also included is the A6400 which line skips but in high frame rate line skips even more.Years ago, video resolution was just a spec sheet checkmark so they could plaster "FullHD" in marketing materials. The HD video from the older dSLRs (and the Sony's I mentioned in the earlier post) is a clownshow. It makes sense since companies were targeting photographers and if you wanted good quality HD, Canon wanted you buying the XC10 and not a Rebel. But a lot of buyers just going by the spec sheets would be disappointed. Panasonic usually avoided this in 1080p which is probably a reason why m43 had a strong following for years. Nowadays, downsampled 4K is common so use that if you can for 1080p.Lots of factors involved in final quality. Bigger colorspace is better e.g. 4:4:4>4:2:2>4:2:0; higher bitrates are better; RAW > advanced codecs > primitive codecs; downsampling from 8K > 6K >5.3K > no downsampling > low to medium to high line skipping (for 4K output anyway. 2x resolution eliminates Bayer softening with more being introduced as you move down to no downsampling).The crop factor falls under "no downsampling" and is worth thinking about since if you are losing sensor area a smaller format is worth looking at. E.g. the m43 LX10 cropped to smaller than the RX100 in video, EOS R cropped to near m43 size but with m43 you could get IBIS nothing else could touch.
Video quality is very meaningless, fyi, most people literally can not view 4k video as actual 4k, their display software will downsample or otherwise interpolate it. Unless you are shooting for a professional job it's literally just the color space changing. Remember these retards are zooming in on 2mp/8mp video frames. Which are usually motion blurred.Holywood even tolerates rolling shutter dramatic enough for gunfire to illuminate only half the screen.
>>4308073Wanted to add that some sensor crops also involve downsampling as >>4307796 pointed out. Personally, I don't like sensor cropping since you lose out on some of the benefits of the larger sensor.Just to reiterate, unless you really need 1080, just use 4K since most modern cameras downsample from the full sensor in normal 4K modes these days (apart from a few super high resolution cameras). But if you are like me and want 60p with full sensor readout, then options drop fast. A7SIII, R6 Mark II, and R8 and maybe some of the flagships for full frame. R8 has no IBIS though. APS-C has the X-H2S and A6700. m43rds has most of the GH series and the G9s. Oddly, the 1 inch cams don't do this outside of maybe some smartphones/action cams.
