burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The primary case for recording 4K video, *other than future-proofing* is ease of editing. If you edit in an advanced software package like Final Cut Pro X on a Mac, or Adobe Premiere on either Mac or Windows, you can CROP 4K video to correct poor framing when the output will be 1080P. Or, you can "zoom in" to as much as 1/4 the recorded pixels to create the look of a second camera with a 2X telephoto lens. Or, you can use "software image stabilization" with minimal or even significant cropping. Again, this applies only to 1080P output.

Recording in 4K and down-sampling to 1080P actually produces sharper, more finely-detailed pictures than recording in 1080P to begin with. HOWEVER, the file sizes are much larger, so you need more storage, more memory, and you need a much faster computer to edit and render the program material.

New broadcast standards are in development now, for 4K UHD and several other picture quality enhancements. When the dust settles, we will have to buy new TVs to view programs that conform to the new standards. But stations will be required to simulcast the same program in the current standard...

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/fcc-paves-way-for-4k-over-the-air-tv-broadcasting/

At some point in the future, 8K video cameras will be common, so 4K productions can reap the same sorts of editing benefits described above. That will require EVEN MORE computing horsepower...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

4K players been around since the 4K sets have been available, otherwise there would have not have been any 4K content. The player I have is the Samsung UBD-KM85c 4K Ultra HD Streaming Blu-ray Player from Costco which only cost $137 on black Friday. We can also stream either from the TV or the player from Netflix, HULU. Amazon, and a half dozen other streaming sites. We have eight 4K Blu-ray movies. We were watching The Martian in 4K the other night. Extremely sharp, very three dimensional feeling, and very immersive. Its no wonder 3D TVs have pretty much fallen by the wayside. Having high quality 4K data playing on a 4K TV is close to 3D without the need for glasses. As you're aware 4K is four times the resolution of Full HD. I'm guessing that 8K, which is 4 times the resolution of 4K, will be pretty spectacular. Some will suggest that 4K is hype and that Full HD (1080P) is as good as you need. My experience, and that of my wife and adult son, is that the difference is not only noticeable, but profound. We were watching the 1942 war drama Mrs Miniver the other night, which was streamed from Amazon Prime, and were amazed by the sharpness and clarity of this 76 year old black and white film.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Do you have access to a 4k Monitor, certainly gives an opportunity to trim and reshape your video or perhaps a younger relative who would appreciate such a camera :)

4k is whats being used to shoot the latest movies these days. I don't think you are limited to shooting 4k, lower resolutions are available plus anything only capable of shooting 1080p is largely going going to be older technology. It should be better in all respects.

If you can afford it , why not? What else are you saving up for?

You can't take it with you...

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

The "early adopters" always help the market get started but I have not updated my video technology from HD just because there is not really much content out there I would like to see.
I read an article a couple of years ago that 4k wasn't being adopted as fast as the manufacturers had hoped it would. The author pointed out that there was no product to satisfy a wide market in 4K and the manufacturers had stupidly announced that 8K was "just around the corner"! Is there a 16K coming?

blackest Loc: Ireland

DVD still sells

moving up from vhs or betamax tape was obvious. There is still tv's being sold as "hd ready" which means can't do 1080p you need a "hd" tv for that. Then you get the choice for SD Channels or HD channels for a bit more, SD is fine and HD requires the satellite broadcaster not compress it so heavy that every time there is action everything gets blocky...

JPL

Yes, I have used 4K TV a lot and HD looks better on 4K than HD Tv. At least on a 65" TV screen.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

These days it's hard to find a large screen TV that isn't 4K.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

On anything much smaller, the difference is slight if you’re not closer than the diagonal of the screen. But at 60” and larger, 4K upsampling of 1080 has an advantage.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I would have thought the same, but my personal experience is that 4K sets are very significantly sharper than 1080p even from a much farther distance than than you suggest. I have a 40 inch Samsung UHD TV and a 40in Samsung full HD 1080p set that is a few years old. The difference in sharpness and detail is obvious even 10 feet away. The 1080p set is very detailed, but fails miserably in comparison to the 4K set. We also have older 32" 1080i and 720P sets, and the comparison between the four different resolutions is very telling. My whole family was really surprised by the significance of the difference between 4K and 1080p.

blackest Loc: Ireland

these 3 articles are worth a read.
https://www.cnet.com/news/can-4k-tvs-make-1080p-look-better/
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
https://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-arent-stupid-anymore/

The last article is the one that makes you wonder because it isn't the 4k resolution that is important but the processing that improves the color range improves motion blur ect.. At one point these were part of 1080p screens but to bring the 1080p cost down its being stripped out so now the 4k screens have the features.
Some of the same discussion thats gone on here about resolution and printing sizes applies to 4k tv's.

Good read anyway.