4 K camera (Page 2): DSLR'S are limited to 29 minutes and 59 seconds not because of internal temperature or any physical or mechanical limits, the European Union is the reason for...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Fat Gregory wrote:

In my experience Nikon, and others, limit video shoots to about 20 minutes per session... then the cameras shut down to manage internal temperature. Most dedicated video cameras 🎥 can run until they reach media capacity. Consequently DLSR video use depends on segment length.

DSLR'S are limited to 29 minutes and 59 seconds not because of internal temperature or any physical or mechanical limits, the European Union is the reason for this. According to them, any camera that can shoot continuously for 30 minutes or more is considered a video camera. I don't know if that has anything to do with tariffs or taxes in EU countries but apparently Canon and Nikon and the rest of the DSLR manufacturers, don't want their DSLR'S referred to as video cameras, since their main function is still photographs.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

bsprague wrote:

4K capability has value beyond just viewing on a 4K TV. You get better editing opportunities because there are more pixels to work with. Perhaps the most fun is being able to extract JPEGs from clips using simple software.

This week I shot a stage perfomance of my granddaughter from my seat in the crowd. The best 8x10 prints came from the 4K video clips.

I've been testing the video grab feature in my new Canon 5D IV; it's the main reason I got the camera. In still image mode the camera is capable of 7 fps, but in video mode it's capable of 30 fps. That's twice as fast as the 1DX II. The video capture images may be cropped but the 5D IV has higher resolution than the 1DX II and the resulting still images are quite remarkable.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

How do you go about extracting the still? In Photoshop?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Fotoartist wrote:

How do you go about extracting the still? In Photoshop?

I think you'd need a video editing program. There are a few free programs or Adobe makes one called Premier.

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Fat Gregory wrote:

In my experience Nikon, and others, limit video shoots to about 20 minutes per session... then the cameras shut down to manage internal temperature. Most dedicated video cameras 🎥 can run until they reach media capacity. Consequently DLSR video use depends on segment length.

The official reason for the time limit is related to import tarrifs. Any device with a record time over 30 minutes is considered a video camera.
Good explanation:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/27/encounter-eurocracy-digital-cameras-30-minute-video-recording-limit/

Jim Bob

MT Shooter wrote:

Oh you can DEFINITELY see the difference! But it does take a 4K TV/Monitor to view 4K.

Not unless you sit close to the TV.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Fotoartist wrote:

How do you go about extracting the still? In Photoshop?

I use three ways.

1-Lightroom has a video preview mode in the Library module. Since I use Lightroom to transfer all my image files from the camera, it is very convenient.

2-Premier Elements is my favorite video editor. It can extract single frames two different ways.

3-The free, downloadable and very good "VLC Player" is probably the easiest if you don't already have a favorite method. ( http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html )

I've never tried Photoshop for frame captures. I'm sure it does it somehow.

GWolf Loc: Ashland, OR

Most or all video editing programs have a crop feature. 4K, having almost four times the amount of lines of resolution, offers a much finer and more detailed image. Just like cropping a still image, where the higher the resolution will yield a higher quality image, cropping a 4K all or part of the video if you need to do that would yield much better results.

duanes Loc: Madison, Wisconsin

I guess it depends I hate to say on your age. I am 67 and there is no difference to my eyes, even side by side monitors.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

CPR wrote:

How important is 4k "REALLY"? Even with an older D5300 you can shoot 1920X1080 at 60 frames/sec. That's good video.
I would like to see a comparison to see if the human eye can see the difference? And, if that difference is worth the money?

2016 is the year of "worth the money" for 4K. Quality, price and ease of use arrived.

First, I would agree that when watching broadcast TV shows it might not matter (much). With broadcast compression schemes, a lot is lost.

For personal photography and videography there is plenty of value packed into 4K now.

--> Photography: 4K TVs have dropped in price to the point that it can be considered a good thing for a photographer. For around $800, your TV you can display glorious "slideshows" at 55 inches with the images out of your high megapixel DSLRs. You copy the images to a thumb drive, plug it directly into the TV and run the show with the TV's remote. If you shoot JPEG, buy a $10 USB Card Reader and plug the card into the TV straight out of the camera...no processing needed.

--> Videography: 4K video shooting, editing and playback has become "consumer priced". A couple weeks ago I shot a granddaughter's basketball game in 4K on a $1000 camera, edited it with $90 software and played it on the $800 4K TV. The detail and color were a couple steps above broadcast TV. By photo gear standards, the camera and display screen are not expensive. The entry point for 4K video shooting is down to about $450.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

duanes wrote:

I guess it depends I hate to say on your age. I am 67 and there is no difference to my eyes, even side by side monitors.

There won't be if you are watching broadcast TV. If you've got a good HD set, keep it till it dies.

As a a photographer and videographer, my 70 year old eyes (with glasses) see a difference.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

rmorrison1116 wrote:

DSLR'S are limited to 29 minutes and 59 seconds no... (show quote)

Isn't it great when bureaucrats control things they don't understand?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"DSLR'S are limited to 29 minutes and 59 seconds"

Don't let the 30 minute limit keep you from buying a good camera!

There are mirrorless and P&S cameras like that too. The reality of video shooting makes it meaningless. Watching anything continuously for 30 minutes is brain numbing boring. It may be humanly impossible to pay attention to video like that. Consequently, the vast majority of video is 3 to 10 second clips with only few exceptions. Watch the national news or some Youtubes. The audio track may run longer, but at least the camera angles change.

The only time one would ever want a clip longer than 30 minutes would be for historical records, lectures, depositions, etc. Even stage and musical performances break into parts. More than that, long recordings need more than battery power and resolutions that make manageable sized files. Long recordings need video cameras made for the purpose.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

trainguy wrote:

I see references to a drone with a 4 K camera. What specifically is the 4 K as compared to my Nikon and its 55 mm lens?

The spec for consumer 4K is video with a resolution of 3840x2160 pixels as opposed to HD of 1920x1080 pixels.

I find the major problem with consumer drones capturing 4K video is most of them only have a 20-22mm (35mm equivalent) lens. So your Nikon with its 55mm lens even recording HD video would give about the same resolution for a captured image.

bwa

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

CPR wrote:

How important is 4k "REALLY"? Even with an older D5300 you can shoot 1920X1080 at 60 frames/sec. That's good video.
I would like to see a comparison to see if the human eye can see the difference? And, if that difference is worth the money?

Yes, if you pixel peep the monitor, you can see the difference. Yes, it is worth having a 4K camera... at least for the editing options it provides (cropping and software image stabilization in post), and the enhanced 1080P downsampling quality you can get.