4K and the future

[JudyKay]

I am not exactly sure how 4K plays out with normal monitor resolution or if I am thinking wrongly to think in terms of "normal monitor" resolution. I create my slideshows and archive my photos--roughly 10,000/year as jpg's at 1920 X 1080 thinking that is good enough resolution for anyone for a good many years to come. I archive as reduced sized jpg because these photos all have to travel internationally via internet.

When 4K came along, I hardly shrugged, thinking it only had meaning for large screens on the wall.

Depending what camera I use, most my photos are shot at 5184 X 3456. I do keep original RAW images in Lightroom.

When photos are selected for magazines or other professional uses I provide the image as a full sized tiff according to whatever spec's.

What do you think? Is archiving jpg's at 1920 X 1080 good enough? Should I be archiving at 3840 X 2160 pixels? 4096 × 2160? Or something else?

​I can re-export the whole mess from Lightroom over a couple days of course--just curious about your thoughts.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Since I went bridge I only shoot JPEG, sized in camera at 16-9 aspect ratio which produces a 4000x2248 pixel image which I archive, I then reduce to 1920x1080 for my PTE shows.

Yachtsman1.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Judy,

By archive I'm assuming you mean in addition to your original 16 mp captures...

4K in the real sense (not the strict sense) is about 8 megapixel resolution. Right now there are only a very few diplays made for this resolution and systems must have some pretty powerful video cards to run them with animation at 60 fps. I think it's fair to guess that it will be several years before seeing these.

I use a 30" 2560x1600 display myself and HD at 1920 by 1080 looks great on it. I've made a few shows at four megapixel resolution just to test the display and video card and they do very well because I have a top-end video card with 3 gig video RAM and a 32 gig 8 core i7 system running it, but I wouldn't create my high resolution shows for normal distribution because they would totally overwhelm most systems. Today the "average" system sold is sold with a 1980x1020 HD display and generally not larger than a 23 inch display.

I think you would be quite happy to archive at four megapixel which would give you plenty of range for deep zooms on normal shows and not take up excessive storage. Keep all your original sixteen megapixel RAW's but as far as the output size for your shows, four megapixel size is more than sufficient. I would not crop them myself, just do all cropping by the position on screen I'm assuming that you shot the originals in 3:2 aspect ration with a dSLR. The 4K stuff will be a long time coming and should you need to make a show for 4K just output from your RAW's for that particular show.

That's my $.02

Best regards,

Lin

[tom95521]

My guess is that 4K UHDTV are currently for files already encoded in video format instead of display mirroring due to the GPU requirements. I am sure that will change as new GPUs that are smaller and faster with lower power requirements. The 8 MP screen resolution should make video slideshows look great. Of course professionals can buy hardware (current gen Mac Pro) that can easily drive a 4K monitor.

I often watch PTE exe slideshows on my HDTV using my desktop PC over wireless (chromecast desktop). It's not bad but not 4K! Also tablets are really getting powerful. 64 bits, quad+ cores.

10K photos a year? Amazing.

Thanks,

Tom

[JudyKay]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. You have cleared things up for me.

I do keep original 18 MP RAW photos. While traveling I export images with the long edge set to 1920 at original 4:3 aspect (not really 1920 X 1020 as I said) unless I have made some other crop--and then ship jpg's to various locations for safekeeping/use (my def'n of "archiving"). I prefer not to have to reprocess someday...

I remember when 640X 480 was awesome and new and we couldn't imagine needing higher that that. And now, open a 640 X 480 image on your 30" 2560x1600 screen--and just try to find it.

I do imagine that someday the images will be used at 4K.

The retina display on my iPad is so fine that I can't imagine needing much more detail---my eye at least couldn't discern it. But blown up on a screen the size of a barn, maybe....?

PS. Yes, I do take a lot of photos. I am working hard on increasing quality over quantity and slowly improving, at least in the quality area. My most recent wedding (I don't prefer wedding photography, but do some when rooked into it) only had 800 images. Years back I used to shoot 1500-2000. But most of those 800 images were pretty good. Very few throw-aways. So there is hope!