Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Playing 4K Video

Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
596
Reaction score
101
Location
Austin, TX
Does anybody have any experience with 4K video playback? I don't have a 4K capable computer, but was looking at 4K TV's - they have some great Black Friday deals. What type of player could I use to playback 4K video files from the Inspire 1 directly on a 4K TV?
 

ctp

Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
I've only played 4K on my computer, but that has the advantage of a $600 video card. In theory if the TV has a USB or SD Card port you could load the video on that and play it on the TV.

FWIW I have a 50" Seiki 4K TV connected via HDMI to my computer. I can not recommend the Seiki unless you find it super cheap (I got mine a year ago for $500 on clearance).
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
596
Reaction score
101
Location
Austin, TX
Samsung has a Black Friday pre-order deal - 4k 55" for $1200. I'll post the link later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctp

The Editor

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
10,002
Reaction score
5,253
Does anybody have any experience with 4K video playback? I don't have a 4K capable computer, but was looking at 4K TV's - they have some great Black Friday deals. What type of player could I use to playback 4K video files from the Inspire 1 directly on a 4K TV?
YES! - I have a lot of experience with 4k, both acquisition and display.

To be honest you'd be better off saving your money as at normal viewing distances you will not be able to tell the difference between HD and 4k.

The human eye is simply not capable of resolving that much resolution. At best, assuming you have 20/20 vision you will be able to resolve 1/60 of a degree of an arc. You would need to sit closer than 8 feet from a 60" screen to be able to perceive only a 10% improvement over HD !

I'm sure a lot of people that have purchased 4k panels will go "ohhh...ahhhh.... the picture is soooooo much better" but they are fooling themselves into believing they can see an improvement - they simply can't..... It's biology and physics. Unless you are projecting 4096 x 2160 onto a 10 foot screen you are wasting your money.

Also, do not forget that UHD (4k) does not even enter the Blu-Ray spec. In fact nor even does 1920x1080 50/60p! You will be watching 50i or 60i footage if you dump your 50p or 60p footage to Blu-Ray which means loosing circa 1/3 perceived resolution due to the Kell Factor.

4k as an aquisition brings it's own problems when it comes to post, editing and workflow although it does allow you to manipulate the footage somewhat.

OK - you asked the question as to what sort of player you could use to put 4k footage onto your TV (assuming you have decided to waste your money and buy one ! :p). Since you cannot use Blu-Ray, in order to maintain the integrity of your wonderous 4096 x 2160 footage you will be limited to:
A solid state device (hugely expensive and will not allow large/long video files to be stored)
A dedicated 4k recorder like the AJA Ki or Atomos (more expensive that buying the DJI Inspire 1 !
Some sort of hard drive/SSD hybrid device which will of course re-compress the original footage from it's original MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 format and may well not preserve a high enough bit rate (the Inspire peaks at 60Mbps) which will of course be is counter productive in shooting in 4k in the first place :mad:

It's not easy.... this 4k malarky !!!
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
90
Reaction score
64
The above lengthy post was completely unhelpful and full of inaccuracies.
 

The Editor

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
10,002
Reaction score
5,253
The above lengthy post was completely unhelpful and full of inaccuracies.

Ahhhh... I take it you are one of those individuals who has wasted their money on a 4k panel/TV then :p

So as to educate me (and others no doubt) could you be so kind as to point out where the inaccuracies are in my post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InspiredOne
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
319
Reaction score
45
Location
GUerneville Ca.
i have mountain lion on my macbook pro and did not upgrade because of losing certain abilities. i am fairly happy with what i see on my computer screen..but somethings just spool forever and ably play a few seconds at a time.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
50
Reaction score
26
Age
53
Our only use of 4k right now is added flexibility in framing. With my P2V+ I've slightly missed the mark now and again and had the desired action not quite when I would have liked it to be. With 4k reframing would be possible in post while still retaining full HD thus making a good shot much better.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Age
66
New Member

WOW, that looks unbelievable on my MacBook Pro 17" can't wait to be mine.

Thanks Tahoe Ed
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
45
Reaction score
23
Perhaps more significant than Ed's magnificent videos are the bit rates. The 6 second 470 MB file averaged with the 3 second 188 MB yeilds an average archive rate of 73 MB/s. This exceeds not only the DJI published max video output bit rate of 60 MB/s, but well exceeds the H.264 minimum 4k requirement of 30 MB/s. This might help answer my previous query about the potential to adjust bit rate to reduce compression. It looks like that may be the case

Makes me feel a bit better about investing in 90 MB/s write speed cards.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
136
Reaction score
44
Age
41
YES! - I have a lot of experience with 4k, both acquisition and display.

To be honest you'd be better off saving your money as at normal viewing distances you will not be able to tell the difference between HD and 4k.

The human eye is simply not capable of resolving that much resolution. At best, assuming you have 20/20 vision you will be able to resolve 1/60 of a degree of an arc. You would need to sit closer than 8 feet from a 60" screen to be able to perceive only a 10% improvement over HD !

I'm sure a lot of people that have purchased 4k panels will go "ohhh...ahhhh.... the picture is soooooo much better" but they are fooling themselves into believing they can see an improvement - they simply can't..... It's biology and physics. Unless you are projecting 4096 x 2160 onto a 10 foot screen you are wasting your money.

Also, do not forget that UHD (4k) does not even enter the Blu-Ray spec. In fact nor even does 1920x1080 50/60p! You will be watching 50i or 60i footage if you dump your 50p or 60p footage to Blu-Ray which means loosing circa 1/3 perceived resolution due to the Kell Factor.

4k as an aquisition brings it's own problems when it comes to post, editing and workflow although it does allow you to manipulate the footage somewhat.

OK - you asked the question as to what sort of player you could use to put 4k footage onto your TV (assuming you have decided to waste your money and buy one ! :p). Since you cannot use Blu-Ray, in order to maintain the integrity of your wonderous 4096 x 2160 footage you will be limited to:
A solid state device (hugely expensive and will not allow large/long video files to be stored)
A dedicated 4k recorder like the AJA Ki or Atomos (more expensive that buying the DJI Inspire 1 !
Some sort of hard drive/SSD hybrid device which will of course re-compress the original footage from it's original MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 format and may well not preserve a high enough bit rate (the Inspire peaks at 60Mbps) which will of course be is counter productive in shooting in 4k in the first place :mad:

It's not easy.... this 4k malarky !!!
Every person who has ever walked in and seen my 4k not knowing it was 4k always comments on the incredible picture over there high end tv they have. but yea no one can tell the difference what a load lol.
 

The Editor

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
10,002
Reaction score
5,253
Every person who has ever walked in and seen my 4k not knowing it was 4k always comments on the incredible picture over there high end tv they have. but yea no one can tell the difference what a load lol.

I assume you are sitting circa 4 feet away from your 60" screen then!

Both Sony and THX laboratory tests seems to differ from your eyesight! I'm sorry but the difference simply cannot be perceived at normal viewing distances because of the limitations of the human eyeball. Human physiology does not extend to that resolution - FACT.
I work in the industry (my username is a clue) and we daily ingest HD and UHD footage. We have 4k monitors for reference purposes which are THX calibrated but these are for working on post production and not for viewing at distance. Additionally, we have done our own in-house testing in a screening room with carefully controlled light levels and uncompressed 4k material - We came to the same conclusion as Sony/THX and the rest of the industry...... There is no benefit for the consumer of 4k over HD at normal viewing distances. There is certainly an argument to be had for 4k acquisition and flexibility in post but not for 4k delivery for the end user.
Contrast ratio, colour saturation and colour accuracy are more important to picture quality than resolution when talking display panels/TV's. Unfortunately, like cameras, the marketing hype has brainwashed the public into thinking more pixels is better.
I'm not going to get into a drawn out debate on whether you and your friends can see the difference as it's well documented that you can't but if you are happy telling yourself that you have spent good money on your 4K panel then that's fine. I hope you enjoy it.

I suppose you could put your super human vision receptors to good use, join the army and become a sniper :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InspiredOne
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
136
Reaction score
44
Age
41
I assume you are sitting circa 4 feet away from your 60" screen then!

Both Sony and THX laboratory tests seems to differ from your eyesight! I'm sorry but the difference simply cannot be perceived at normal viewing distances because of the limitations of the human eyeball. Human physiology does not extend to that resolution - FACT.
I work in the industry (my username is a clue) and we daily ingest HD and UHD footage. We have 4k monitors for reference purposes which are THX calibrated but these are for working on post production and not for viewing at distance. Additionally, we have done our own in-house testing in a screening room with carefully controlled light levels and uncompressed 4k material - We came to the same conclusion as Sony/THX and the rest of the industry...... There is no benefit for the consumer of 4k over HD at normal viewing distances. There is certainly an argument to be had for 4k acquisition and flexibility in post but not for 4k delivery for the end user.
Contrast ratio, colour saturation and colour accuracy are more important to picture quality than resolution when talking display panels/TV's. Unfortunately, like cameras, the marketing hype has brainwashed the public into thinking more pixels is better.
I'm not going to get into a drawn out debate on whether you and your friends can see the difference as it's well documented that you can't but if you are happy telling yourself that you have spent good money on your 4K panel then that's fine. I hope you enjoy it.

I suppose you could put your super human vision receptors to good use, join the army and become a sniper :D
so sony did test to prove that people should not buy there 4k tv ? hmmmm interesting logic. your right just like my 5k mac has the same picture as a non 5k oyeeeeee well don't know what else to tell ya. as to your last comment well you never know.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2013
Messages
109
Reaction score
72
Age
56
Location
Centennial, Colorado USA
"Normal viewing distances" are rapidly decreasing thanks to 4K.

In the past, distance was required to let the large pixels meld into an intelligible image. But with 4K resolution people are getting much closer to their screens because now there is detail and the small pixel/increased pixel density allows this. Anyone who's used the new 4K iMac has seen the immediate benefit to sitting within an arms reach of their screen with it's increased detail and more immersive experience. The industry bumping the BluRay spec to support 4K is the sorely need piece….. no easy local playback and there's not much of a reason to have a 4K TV. My 2 cents…...
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
326
Age
72
Location
Chaska, MN
"Normal viewing distances" are rapidly decreasing thanks to 4K.

In the past, distance was required to let the large pixels meld into an intelligible image. But with 4K resolution people are getting much closer to their screens because now there is detail and the small pixel/increased pixel density allows this. Anyone who's used the new 4K iMac has seen the immediate benefit to sitting within an arms reach of their screen with it's increased detail and more immersive experience. The industry bumping the BluRay spec to support 4K is the sorely need piece….. no easy local playback and there's not much of a reason to have a 4K TV. My 2 cents…...
Agreed, that "normal" viewing distance has decreased. Screens are getting larger as well, specially as prices for large (65 or 80 in screens) have come down. Lack of 4K media players and content are the biggest drag on the adoption of 4K monitors/TVs. Once the industry big players agree on a format, things will speed up.

Having said that, I agree with @The Editor that human visual acuity has its constraints, and a UHD TV viewed at the same distance as optimal HD format will have negligible benefit. The greater detail enabled by 4K will make people want to pull up their chairs closer to the screen. It will result in a more immersive experience, just as HD resulted in a better experience than SD. 10 years ago, who would have imagined needing (OK, wanting) a 55 or 80 in screen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidbarwin
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
399
Reaction score
130
Location
Chicago
Website
vimeo.com
Our only use of 4k right now is added flexibility in framing. With my P2V+ I've slightly missed the mark now and again and had the desired action not quite when I would have liked it to be. With 4k reframing would be possible in post while still retaining full HD thus making a good shot much better.
Right, and for me the big advantage of 4K
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
19,717
Messages
192,831
Members
29,089
Latest member
Wayne Houston