Yi 4K Action Camera - Techmoan's Review

[Module 79L]

 

[Nigel]

The audio quality was rather poor by the time it reached my ears, what is the original Yi 4K audio like?

Not too keen on the shaky video, I could get a larger screen to properly appreciate the 4K resolution, but that would just make the size of the shaking larger...

 

[Module 79L]

The original files' audio is the same.

 

[Module 79L]

Here's the original file's video info. Despite being 4K, it's not HEVC H.265, it's AVC.

 

[Module 79L]

I really don't understand all this hype around 4K when people hardly take any advantage of it. 4K televisions are still very expensive, and as Mat pointed out, you'll need a super computer to work with 4K files, so why would someone buy a $280 4K camera and then have to spend an extra ton of cash just to be able to use the 4K resolution?

 

[Nigel]

I really don't understand all this hype around 4K when people hardly take any advantage of it. 4K televisions are still very expensive, and as Mat pointed out, you'll need a super computer to work with 4K files, so why would someone buy a $280 4K camera and then have to spend an extra ton of cash just to be able to use the 4K resolution?

Even the most basic action cameras have "4K" these days, obviously it is essential!

I think for most action camera users, 60fps is more important than 4K, and for a lot of action camera users video stabilisation is more important than 4K. This camera has neither unless you use it at 1080 so for most people it doesn't seem a big improvement on other much cheaper cameras even if you do have a big screen and powerful computer, except that the touch screen looks rather nice to use, as long as you don't have it in the waterproof case in which case you are reduced to single button operation with no possibility of taking a photo!

 

[backz]

For a 1080p output project, shooting in 4K has 3 advantages :
- Zoom at 200% max without loss
- Postproduction stabilization
- and sharper image by interpolation

So, even if you do not use a 4K monitor, shooting in 4K is interesting.
I hope we will have a 4K 60fps action cam in the years coming

 

[Nigel]

For a 1080p output project, shooting in 4K has 3 advantages :
- Zoom at 200% max without loss
- Postproduction stabilization
- and sharper image by interpolation

So, even if you do not use a 4K monitor, shooting in 4K is interesting.
I hope we will have a 4K 60fps action cam in the years coming

But it is always best to do all three of those in the camera before most of the detail is lost in compression. Postproduction stabilization is nowhere near as good as in camera gyro stabilisation. There is no reason why you should be able to get a sharper image by interpolation in postproduction than you can in the camera, although you can with most of the current cameras, that may not be true with the next generation, there are still a lot of improvements that can be made to the camera 1080 output.

 

[backz]

But it is always best to do all three of those in the camera before most of the detail is lost in compression. Postproduction stabilization is nowhere near as good as in camera gyro stabilisation. There is no reason why you should be able to get a sharper image by interpolation in postproduction than you can in the camera, although you can with most of the current cameras, that may not be true with the next generation, there are still a lot of improvements that can be made to the camera 1080 output.

About the post production, you are right, but here we deal with ACTION camera. You can use a gimbal though it's (very) expensive.

For the interpolation, most of non-professional videos are encoded with a 4:2:0 sampling. And when you downscale a native 4:2:0 4K signal in 1080p, you obtain a 4:4:4 1080p by interpolation. So it's better.

And finally, all the cameras don't have an optical zoom, but a digital one that produces generally poor results. A postproduction zoom is interesting.

 

[Module 79L]

I think for most action camera users, 60fps is more important than 4K, (...)

I bet that anyone who buys this camera will use it mostly at 1080p 100/120 and will be happy with it. I don't see too many people who is willing to spend almost $300 on an action camera and then be "forced" to spend another 4 or 5 times that amount of money on a computer capable of handling 4K's file processing.

 

[Kaouthia]

I really don't understand all this hype around 4K when people hardly take any advantage of it. 4K televisions are still very expensive, and as Mat pointed out, you'll need a super computer to work with 4K files, so why would someone buy a $280 4K camera and then have to spend an extra ton of cash just to be able to use the 4K resolution?

4K TVs are expensive because they haven't been adopted much yet, because there isn't any 4K content. They're already coming down, though, and as more people pick them up, more will be made, and they'll get cheaper and cheaper. It was the same with 3D Blu-Ray, 1080p and 720p.

People aren't going to invest in a 4K TV if it's just playing 1080p content, hence why companies want to get 4K in the hands of content creators. Lots of people watched DVDs on CRTs, and Blu-Rays on 720p TVs. Most consumers just don't invest in the newer playback hardware until there's enough content out there to justify it.

You don't need a ridiculous system to edit 4K, though. I built my main editing PC up about 3 years ago, and it really wasn't that expensive. Asus Sabertooth 990FX motherboard, AMD 8350 (8 cores @ 4.33Ghz), 16GB RAM, GTX760 (not a ridiculously overpowered graphics card), and both DaVinci Resolve and Premiere run just fine with 4K. I have a pair of HP LP2475w monitors (which were kind of expensive), but I already had those from my previous editing machine.

The biggest issue is storage space. I have about 12TB total in this PC right now, and I'd pick up some of those new Seagate 10TB drives and replace each of my current drives with htem if not for the fact they're made by Seagate.

Personally, I'd be going Yi2 for 4K. Otherwise I might as well just stick with the original Yi.

 

[gretl4]

I really don't understand all this hype around 4K when people hardly take any advantage of it. 4K televisions are still very expensive, and as Mat pointed out, you'll need a super computer to work with 4K files, so why would someone buy a $280 4K camera and then have to spend an extra ton of cash just to be able to use the 4K resolution?

4K viewed at 1080p looks better than native 1080p viewed at 1080p. The footage at 14:35 from the tower shows the difference.

 

[Module 79L]

4K TVs are expensive because they haven't been adopted much yet, because there isn't any 4K content.

And there won't be any time soon. The existing broadcasting platforms with the widest coverage, satellite and terrestrial, don't have enough bandwidth or channel availability to support UHD data streaming, at least for now, and there's a bit of cat and mouse play among content makers and platform operators: the first ones won't start making more contents in UHD until the distribution platforms can support them and the second ones won't invest the millions needed to upgrade the networks until there's enough contents to justify the investment.
The only platforms where UHD is being broadcast, and not in a regular way (some of the Euro 2016 games, for example) are the physical ones, like fiber and cable, but their coverage is very limited.

 

[Kaouthia]

And there won't be any time soon. The existing broadcasting platforms with the widest coverage, satellite and terrestrial, don't have enough bandwidth or channel availability to support UHD data streaming

But how many consumers are actually watching satellite or terrestrial TV now? Most are watching online, on-demand, or some form of portable media (DVD, Blu-Ray, memory stick, etc).

Remember, nowhere (at least in the UK) sent out an HD signal, either, until long after 1080p TVs were in most peoples homes, and even then they were only broadcasting 720p.

Just because something may take a long time to propagate doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Everything you're saying about 4K was also said about HD (and just as many are now capturing 4K to downscaling to 1080p for higher quality, people were shooting 1080p and downscaling to SD, too).

 

[Module 79L]

But how many consumers are actually watching satellite or terrestrial TV now?

In Europe, the large majority. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the internet is going to be UHD's biggest market. They're not going to invest huge sums of money just for a market with such a small coverage compared with the other two, or at least compared with satellite coverage. That's why satellite is UHD's main testing platform at the moment. The terrestrial platform will take longer because they have to implement the DVB-T2 (HEVC H.265) norm first in order to be able to broadcast UHD programmes without taking up much more frequency bandwidth than the one that's available now.

Remember, nowhere (at least in the UK) sent out an HD signal, either, until long after 1080p TVs were in most peoples homes, and even then they were only broadcasting 720p.

Unfortunately that wasn't the case everywhere in Europe but anyway, HD ready TVs existed on the market long before the HD contents started to be broadcasted, so no difference there to the UHD and I'm also not disputing that.

Just because something may take a long time to propagate doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I'm not saying that either. I'm not a native English speaker but I'm pretty sure "won't be any time soon" doesn't mean "it'll never happen".

Everything you're saying about 4K was also said about HD (...)

No it wasn't because the existing digital broadcasting platforms only had to suffer minor changes to be able to broadcast HD or Full HD programmes. The only platform that struggled at the time (and it's still struggling today in some areas) is ADSL, due to the bandwidth limitations. Every other platform adapted very quickly.

 

[Kaouthia]

No it wasn't because the existing digital broadcasting platforms only had to suffer minor changes to be able to broadcast HD or Full HD programmes. The only platform that struggled at the time (and it's still struggling today in some areas) is ADSL, due to the bandwidth limitations. Every other platform adapted very quickly.

The UK had to have a whole new countrywide television system, because the UK was still on an analogue standard definition signal. That means every person in the country had to buy a new TV whether they liked it or not, or they wouldn't be able to watch any content at all. It was pretty much a forced upgrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover_dates_in_the_United_Kingdom

Not exactly a "minor change".

 

[Nigel]

The UK had to have a whole new countrywide television system, because the UK was still on an analogue standard definition signal. That means every person in the country had to buy a new TV whether they liked it or not, or they wouldn't be able to watch any content at all. It was pretty much a forced upgrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover_dates_in_the_United_Kingdom

Not exactly a "minor change".

I've been watching digital terrestrial TV in the UK since last century, initially on an analogue TV via a converter, HD only arrived in 2010 and I still only have 4 channels on HD, all of which are also available in non-HD so that there is no need to upgrade your equipment for HD even today. I imagine that the majority of people in the UK never watch HD TV, although of course there are a lot of people that watch via satellite rather than terrestrial.

 

[Kaouthia]

I still only have 4 channels on HD, all of which are also available in non-HD so that there is no need to upgrade your equipment for HD even today.

Can you buy a TV that isn't HD any more? Or still buy digital converters for analogue CRTs?

 

[Nigel]

Can you buy a TV that isn't HD any more? Or still buy digital converters for analogue CRTs?

The cheaper TVs are still "HD Ready" with resolution of 1366 x 768 pixels, I guess that they account for the majority of sales?

There are still convertors with SCART sockets available! I doubt that many people still use CRT displays though...

 

[Module 79L]

The UK had to have a whole new countrywide television system, because the UK was still on an analogue standard definition signal. That means every person in the country had to buy a new TV whether they liked it or not, or they wouldn't be able to watch any content at all. It was pretty much a forced upgrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover_dates_in_the_United_Kingdom

Not exactly a "minor change".

We also had a digital switchover in 2009 but unlike the rest of Europe, which was using MPEG-2, we switched directly to MPEG-4, even with DVB-T(1), that is HD compatible. But, like Nigel said, most people here didn't have to buy a new TV set because there were MPEG-4 DTT boxes for CRT TVs and analogue LCDs available right from the start. In fact, if it wasn't for us, the UK, France, Italy, Spain and all the other countries who already had DTT but in MPEG-2, that switched after us would have to pay much more for those boxes than they cost nowadays. The first ones cost between 70 and 120€ and now you buy even the brand new DVB-T2 boxes for less than 40€. And they're still on sale because there are still a lot of people who can't afford to buy a digital LCD/LED TV.

But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Digital broadcasting exists since 1998 (1999 for the end consumer) and the system was easily and rapidly adapted to broadcast MPEG-4 and HD transmissions. Even now there are many satellite operators that were still using DVB-S MPEG-2 transponders and overnight they switched all their transponders to DVB-S2 MPEG-4 HD. Since 2004/2005 (or even earlier), satellites TPs support both systems and it's easy for any operator to switch at any time. I don't see the same happening with UHD. There are some tests going on but the capacity needed to broadcast it is so big that either they would have to reduce the number of channels available now to accomodate the UHD channels or replace all the satellites by ones with larger capacity TPs.