September 22, 2014

Is 4K Not as Important as We Think It Is? 3 World-Class DPs Weigh In

Rodney Charters 4K
Chances are, if you've been on our site in the past week, you've seen a 4K camera announcement or two or fifteen. 

4K and higher resolution are clearly the dominant technological focus of camera manufacturers these days. With IBC 2014 and a veritable truckload of 4K camera announcements behind us, almost every single camera company now has a 4K camera of some sort. However, three prolific, high-profile DPs — Geoff Boyle, Rodney Charters, and Bill Bennett — sat down with Dan Chung of News Shooter at IBC to talk about the state of modern digital imaging. Interestingly enough, they're not particularly thrilled with the push towards high resolution.

This dream team of cinematographers is far more interested in dynamic range and color science than they are in resolution, especially when it comes to shooting dramatic narrative content. 4K and higher resolutions don't necessarily help audiences suspend their disbelief, which is (or should be) one of the primary goals for narrative filmmakers. Seeing every pore on an actor's skin can be more of a distraction for an audience than anything else. Many discerning cinematographers know this, and they often end up diffusing and softening their images in order to compensate for the critical (some would call it harsh) sharpness of modern digital cinema cameras. 

Nevertheless, camera manufacturers have caught on to the 4K trend en masse. And who can blame them? Bumping up the resolution of their cameras might mean they'll sell more cameras. The converse is also true; if a company fails to implement 4K, even if they produce an HD camera with truly stellar color science and dynamic range, they might be seen as being behind on the times, archaic even. The reason that 4K is exploding is simple: consumers are demanding it. It's damn appealing and/or trendy to shoot in the highest possible resolution these days, and manufacturers know this.

The problem with all of this is that it has led many filmmakers to believe that resolution is the most important technical aspect of image acquisition, when higher pixel counts don't automatically yield better visual stories. None of this is to say that shooting in high resolution doesn't have real advantages. It allows for more detailed HD and 2K deliverables when scaled down, it can help future proof your deliverable, and it can make a significant difference for reframing in post, stabilizing shots, and tracking VFX markers. Therein lies the most confusing and controversial aspect of the 4K debate. It's a genuinely helpful technology in many ways, and it has numerous benefits for filmmakers as an acquisition format. However, the question of whether or not audiences are currently able to receive any benefits from that extra resolution is debatable (much of which is due to the lack of 4K post pipelines and theaters, at present — keep in mind that most films shot on 4K cameras, even when they end up playing in theaters with 4K projectors, were at some point downscaled/output/delivered as 2K files).

I certainly don't have any answers to these complex questions. However, it seems clear that, on our list of requests, increased resolution should not be slotted above increased dynamic range and improved color science. Maybe now that just about every camera is 4K, camera manufacturers will have no choice but to improve upon the other aspects of image acquisition. As a community of filmmakers and camera consumers, we certainly have the power to make it clear to manufacturers what we want.     

Your Comment

60 Comments

Excellent write-up of these arguments.
However consumers never asked for 4K. It's the manufacturers of consumer TV sets that are pushing into this direction (Sony, Samsung, LG etc) by presenting their new 4K UHD panels, without even the market having made the full transition to the Blu Ray yet. So it's more of a "fake" consumer need, than a real demand. Especially taken into account that no one will be able to spot the difference due to the increased resolution on a TV diagonal 32-42 inches when viewed from the couch.

September 22, 2014 at 6:23PM

21
Reply
Stel Kouk
Filmmaker
3131

Go to best buy and look at the Samsung 55" UHD. For things like Nature videos, sports, (that might be it) oh concerts... I guess anything live or nature based. UHD is gonna be incredible.

September 22, 2014 at 6:54PM

0
Reply
avatar
Mike Holt
VTR / DIT/ Media Management
185

Best use of a mirror rig yet - 20 stops of dynamic range. Though I think if you shot with correct settings on the latest RED camera (which allows you to shoot in two different color profiles on different media - right?) you should be able to get more even range (with a mirror rig and 2 cameras).. if you wanted for test purposes. Something close to a heightened HDR look we have seen in recent digital still photography.

September 22, 2014 at 6:41PM

0
Reply
Patrick Hoelscher
Director/DP
158

That was great and so insightful. However, WHY WOULD YOU SHOOT ANYTHING FOR CINEMATOGRAPHERS INTERLACED? That being said, I've definitely been swept up in the 4K rage myself as of late. But I think I have always agreed, I am not so sure that for cinema, more resolution is a good thing. I know that whenever I go to my buddys house with his 70" Samsung with his 60Hz refresh rate that he refuses to take off, it's hideous.

So my cinema may not need to be UHD. On the other hand, Now I've been watching the Star Wars Despecialized Edition and I must say, the high resolution on those films (1080) looks incredible! I never thought I'd have enjoyed them in any higher a resolution... I can say with certainty... I am excited to give 4K a shot in the theater! Very excited!

September 22, 2014 at 6:51PM

4
Reply
avatar
Mike Holt
VTR / DIT/ Media Management
185

Interlaced because broadcasted broadcast interlaced. For web and projection progressive makes sense.

September 23, 2014 at 2:53AM

6
Reply

I mean Broadcasters

September 23, 2014 at 2:56AM

8
Reply

I believe you mean 120Hz/240Hz. 60Hz is normal :)

September 23, 2014 at 2:37PM

0
Reply
avatar
Alex Smith
Documentary/Cinematographer
1434

Same thing happened years ago with the megapixel race in still photography, when manufactures marketed their cameras based in the number of megapixels and not on glass quality, sensors or images processing. Most people won’t need any still camera shooting more than 6megapixels the same way most people won’t need go over 1080p. But here we are again, over and over, thinking that bigger is better and that to have a Ferrari will get you faster thought the city traffic jams than driving a Cinquecento.

September 22, 2014 at 6:54PM

14
Reply
avatar
Jupiter de la Bâtardise
writer/filmmaker
187

Vittorio Storaro gave a masterclass in Cannes this year and said somthing similar, he's hoping the 16bit color depth. not too worried about resolution

September 22, 2014 at 6:57PM

1
Reply
avatar
William Peña Vega
camera operator - graphic artist
69

Color depth is relative to the resolution. 8bit 4K can potentially be finished as 10bit HD. Even if you only have color detail for 25% of your 4K image (compressed 4.2.0) that's the amount of color detail that a 4.4.4 HD image has.

Am I right? Can anyone confirm that I'm not crazy?

September 23, 2014 at 4:09PM

0
Reply
avatar
Josh Paul
Most often DP, Direct or Gaff
1070

I actually don't think it works that way. You're comparing the number of potential color values for each pixel (256 vs 1024) to chroma subsampling. So whether the codec you're using is 4:4:4, 4:2:2, or 4:2:0, it shouldn't affect the color depth, just whether or not the color values you do have will be duplicated to preserve a small file size, and if so, how.

September 24, 2014 at 6:09PM

3
Reply
Hannah Bowman
Editor
74

I like 4K. Not because it offers 4 times as much color detail, not because it makes less noise when under exposed and not because it provides extra options for composing a shot in post.

It's just awesome and I'm a stereotypical guy who likes awesome things.

September 22, 2014 at 6:58PM

0
Reply
avatar
Josh Paul
Most often DP, Direct or Gaff
1070

Personally, I'm still blown away by 1080p. I did see the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony in the 16k, or w/e they shot it in. It was stunning, but completely unnecessary. Lets just make the digital cameras better than film stock and then just chill the hell out. It'll be like trying to sell tooth brushes. How can you improve on a toothbrush?

September 22, 2014 at 7:06PM

8
Reply
avatar
Mark Leeming
Sound Recordist
83

It'll all plateau eventually. Music recording went through pretty much the same process. Music is at the point now where the big studios and your laptop are all capable of recording 96khz 32bit wav files. Then 99% of the time, the delivery format is a shitty mp3 because 99% of the population can't tell the difference.

Video is the same. In 5-10 years, everything will record 8k 16bit raw, and delivered at 1080 or 4k. At that point it'll all be about cool vintage glass, just like the audio engineers who fight over analog preamps from the 70's.

September 22, 2014 at 8:06PM

2
Reply
Frank
328

What was the "lightweight camera" that Jeff Boyle was saying was the most significant thing he found at IBC?

September 22, 2014 at 7:29PM

0
Reply

September 23, 2014 at 2:28PM

0
Reply

Thank you

September 25, 2014 at 11:24AM

2
Reply

Just got my hands on the a7S and what a piece of lovelly tech! HD as it was meant to be (comparing to the canons). All of that on a small form factor, amazing low light and features (Slog2, Aps-c mode...)
4K is a great feature for cropping but I agree that a better color management is crucial but the race is going the opposite way.
My clients don't pay and don't care for the extra resolution, fullhd is perfectly fine. So be it.

September 22, 2014 at 8:01PM

3
Reply
avatar
Alex Mandarino
DP / VFX Generalist
186

I couldn't agree more. I think 4K although a very interesting future potential for certain things like VFX, doesn't necessarily add anything to narrative film; in fact in many ways it takes away. There is a reason Alexa is still the #1 digital cinema camera in use today; because it has some of the best color/dynamic range and work-flow. I personally own a Red Scarlet, but often find myself wishing it was something else; perhaps even going to switch it to the FS7; love that image and DR.

September 22, 2014 at 8:03PM, Edited September 22, 8:03PM

8
Reply
avatar
Vladimir Druts
Founder & Director at Intangible.co
272

no one in VFX wants 4K - it doesn't really offer any advantages and rendering elements that size is a massive pain in the ass...and it's always softened in comp anyway.
Alexa footage is lovely and nice to work with.

September 22, 2014 at 11:32PM, Edited September 22, 11:32PM

4
Reply
Michael Goldfarb
Senior Technical Director - Side Effects
317

I second that.

No one in VFX wants to do an entire movie in 4k. Yes, there are some shots with very fine detail that are sometimes done at 4k to avoid aliasing, but other then that it's 2k all the way.

4k Render times would go through the roof, the networks and workstations couldn't handle it and you would end up having to soften the 4k renders in the comp to match the 4k live action footage anyways.

September 23, 2014 at 11:43AM

1
Reply
Ed Jones
258

I remember when I was a teenager, they replaced my drums at church with electronic drums. The sound guy said, "Aren't they awesome! Now I have complete control over the drum mix." That was the day I stopped believing in God.

I get the same feeling every time I see the phrase "re-frame in post."

September 22, 2014 at 8:10PM

5
Reply
Frank
328

So I was at Shane Hurlbut's illumination tour/workshop last week. Definitely worth the price of admission. Surprisingly cheap considering the experience.
The best part (imo) was the Q and A session at the end. I loved the stories. Someone asked about 4k.
He shared a story about a film he recently shot in 4k. One scene in particular, they felt like the shot would be stronger with a slow push in. Because they were mastering in 2k they were able to do some camera moves in post with the 4k footage.
Get it right the first time, but the more options we have in post, the more tools we have to tell a compelling story. With current tech, I think cameras should always (and will always) shoot higher res than distribution.

September 22, 2014 at 8:34PM, Edited September 22, 8:34PM

0
Reply

Signed up for the same tour today, looking forward to it.

September 22, 2014 at 9:15PM, Edited September 22, 9:15PM

0
Reply
avatar
Vladimir Druts
Founder & Director at Intangible.co
272

Completely agree. I will take 14 stops of dynamic range over 4K any day

September 22, 2014 at 9:23PM

0
Reply

This is a crock.

Consumers are not demanding it!! Thats just BS. 4K is just another marketing push.

Have a look around, the only camera manufacturers going hard on 4K are the TV manufacturers. Sony, Panasonic, now Samsung. Sure there were 4K cameras before this TV push but they were there for different reasons.

Most consumers don't know about 4K let alone give a crap about 4K.

On a 50inch screen you can't see 4K past 5 1/2 feet and I don't believe consumers really want 80 inch TVs in order to see the difference.

One BIG thing to keep in mind in every 4K display has very slow moving or static images to show the difference... Nobody seems to be commenting on this but it only takes a small amount of movement to introduce enough motion blur to nullify any increased resolution 4K has over HD.

To me the much higher data rates for broadcast and our own workflows combined with minimal improvement and interest make this batshit crazy.

September 22, 2014 at 9:49PM

0
Reply

I'd thought I'd love the 4k revolution, I certainly don't hate it but looking back I wish it was the "dynamic range revolution" instead.

September 22, 2014 at 10:55PM

0
Reply
avatar
Anthony F. Marino III
produce shoot edit
225

Geoff's been saying this for ages so no news there really and I have to agree, colour, DR, the most important things you want. 4K great for reframing, less noise etc but wait until the data storage becomes a lot cheaper, media becomes cheaper, then we wont stress about 4K.

September 23, 2014 at 1:03AM

0
Reply
avatar
Jonathon Sendall
Stories
1245

I bought a Sony AX100 and it looks great for a consumer 4k format. This is my last camera for a while. I'm not upgrading until 128K comes out . . and you know it will!

September 23, 2014 at 1:06AM

0
Reply
avatar
treykaiza@gmail.com
Cat Herder
241

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l0lvwGZFR4

From last week's IBC'2014, an interview with the NHK rep about their 8K system.

4K is soooooo 2013.

DLD.

September 23, 2014 at 2:36AM

0
Reply
Dan Leo
175

Lol, Was wondering where you been.

September 23, 2014 at 7:37AM

5
Reply
avatar
Anthony F. Marino III
produce shoot edit
225

Digital Bolex Vs Black magic production camera?
I'm shooting a film in November. Which is best?
For color science and dynamic range?

September 23, 2014 at 2:41AM, Edited September 23, 2:41AM

0
Reply
avatar
Aaron Cabrero Jr
Writer/Director/Producer
168

I'd go Bolex before BM but I'd go A7s before either of those and if your budget allowed I'd go F5 before A7s, but only just. F5 and A7s are so close in image quality its crazy. That goes for the F55 too because it has the same image as the F5.

September 23, 2014 at 3:11AM

0
Reply

Thank you. My budget is $4,000 for the camera. My DP already has a sweet set of prime zeiss glass. I'm leaning towards the Bolex. To me it feels organic like the Alexa. I'm shooting a narrative short film. A contemporary spaghetti western. So I'm looking for something that can get me that gritty Sergio leone look on a digital cinema camera under $5,000

September 23, 2014 at 3:19AM

0
Reply
avatar
Aaron Cabrero Jr
Writer/Director/Producer
168

I would go with the a7s.

I shot a neo western with a C100 and Ninja Blade, and the look is made afterwards with filmconvert or other software and considering this, the a7s gives you loooots of dynamic range and the image quality is second to none. Also keep in mind the stunning Noise performance!

Cheers.

September 23, 2014 at 7:19AM

0
Reply

I'm going with the sony A7s. I don't mind shooting in 1080p. Since film festivals only accept DVDs for short film submissions. But what about 4K? I read the A7s can do 4K externally.....but I need a HDMI 4K external recorder?

September 24, 2014 at 1:04AM

0
Reply
avatar
Aaron Cabrero Jr
Writer/Director/Producer
168

D16. I have one and the color out of the Kodak/Truesense CCD is stunning. Just make sure you properly import the footage in to Davinci 11 to avoid the magenta color cast you see in a lot of clips.

September 23, 2014 at 11:46AM

7
Reply
Ed Jones
258

All update in film technology it's welcome. I am very happy por this. but the Storytelling still being the most importan in a good movie.

September 23, 2014 at 7:22AM

0
Reply
avatar
Ragüel Cremades
Film producer and director
7670

I remember going to a talk Rodney gave a few years back when DSLRs first showed their hands and he unequivocally said 'You stand there and see this 4k image and it's mighty impressive.' And yes, it is. Personally I find 4k images more involving than 2k ones, the detail draws me in, the pictures feel alive in a way 1080p don't.

There's this rote response that no-one will be able to spot the difference on a TV from the couch. To which I say bollocks. If you're on this blog then you have a keen interest in this kind of thing and you ought to be able to see a very noticeable difference. 1080p is great as shot but most people only experience it as crappily encoded broadcast signals and if we can make that experience better by pumping out a 4k signal at the source then surely that's a win for everybody?

Resolution is good. It gives you options. Master at 2k if you like. Shoot on film if you like...

That's the impossible dream though right there, the 'as-film' digital camera. One day we'll have it then we'll all be sobbing into our CMOS sensors.

We've come along way in the last three years, long may it continue.

September 23, 2014 at 11:51AM

0
Reply
avatar
Robin Schmidt
Director
292

This will kill 80% of arguments around here. But will it future proof them?

September 23, 2014 at 12:00PM, Edited September 23, 12:00PM

3
Reply
Charlie K
1317

Why not have a camera that has all of it? Resolution combined with excellent dynamic range and color science? The digital IMAX and Alexa 65 are seemingly headed that way. Plus, isn't the Sony F65 a camera with all those three things?

September 23, 2014 at 1:32PM, Edited September 23, 1:32PM

0
Reply
avatar
Henry Barnill
Director of Photography
553

"It allows for more detailed HD and 2K deliverables when scaled down, it can help future proof your deliverable, and it can make a significant difference for reframing in post, stabilizing shots, and tracking VFX markers. Therein lies the most confusing and controversial aspect of the 4K debate."

This is the part that rings true for me. I so badly want to incorporate 4k into my workflow more regularly, but for run and gun traveling documentaries, for short commercial pieces…it is hard to justify the space and computing power. I can be in Alaska filming and go back to my hotel and edit on my laptop - for the sake of quick turnarounds that still look pretty amazing, ProRes is still where I'm placing my intentions… for now.

September 23, 2014 at 6:36PM

0
Reply
avatar
Paul Kachris-Newman
DP, Writer, Editor, & SoundClown
222

Remember the megapixel craze...

September 23, 2014 at 7:33PM

3
Reply
avatar
Jason Kaiser
I own a camera
77

I think for most of our corporate work the only real benefit is the "punch in" factor. Just having that flexibility in post has been terrific.

September 23, 2014 at 10:28PM

7
Reply
avatar
John Foundas
DP, Editor, Director of Production Services
81

Argh, I've been saying this from the beginning of the 4K onslaught. It's the megapixel wars of stills cameras, for video. Advantages? Certainly. Is is the most important area of tech to work on? That shouldn't even be a question to the informed.

September 24, 2014 at 12:49AM

0
Reply

Maybe it also depends on what you are filming, I do a lot of corporate type interviews and having 4k to re-frame (I know some say this is lazy) would actually be a great feature for me (plus the added detail compared to the image my good old Canon gives me...). I don't have a 4k camera yet and it won't be a decisive factor when I buy a new camera but what I'm getting at here: not everyone can afford high end film cameras and it doesn't even make sense to use them for many jobs. I don't think consumers are demanding 4k at all but it's here now and I'd be happy to make the best of this new feature.

September 24, 2014 at 5:19AM

0
Reply

Yep, it really depends on what you're filming. The guys in the interview work mostly with narrative stuff. I agree that it's no good with images too sharp when you make close-ups of people. 2K is the limit, that's my experience. Sometimes people look even better in 720p! A smoother image is also more dreamy and is often a better choice if you make drama or commercials. But for sports, documentaries and corporate work, there's no doubt 4K is a step forward.

September 24, 2014 at 6:40AM

3
Reply
avatar
Martin Karlsson
Director, Director of Photography, Writer, Composer/Musician/Vocalist, Editor
102

4K for doc filmmaking is an awful idea usually, if not every time. Considering that docs take thousands of hrs of footage to work with, more so than narratives, 4k would be a friggin' NIGHTMARE...not to mention completely unnecessary.

September 24, 2014 at 2:55PM, Edited September 24, 2:55PM

7
Reply

Where's my photo credit for the picture of Rodney? I kid, it's all good, interesting discussion. With 4K you really do lose the ability to suspend disbelief.

September 24, 2014 at 10:12AM

4
Reply
Phil Arntz
Director of Photography
81

Thats a great point that mustn't be forgotten "higher pixel counts don't automatically yield better visual stories"

I agree with this completely although I must say I fell in love with the detail that I can capture with the Blackmagic 4k. I find the quality of the visuals can often inspire stories when shooting in dramatic or thought provoking locations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5ubbNraRMY&list=UUupXa7M-cf7RYkBU1AE8JYw

September 24, 2014 at 10:30AM

0
Reply
avatar
Jack O Dowd
Camera Operator
74

We're shooting on a Phantom Flex4K today - commercial, not drama - and while I'd agree that it's not even vaguely a necessity on most shoots, on ads it'll be very handy and (rightly or wrongly) it gets the client excited (which is no mean feat on commercials shoots).

Personally - like many of you - I'd love a camera that shoots great quality 2k, with mega dynamic range, long battery life, cheap storage etc. etc. etc... But for stuff like today, we'd be foolish not to take advantage of then benefits of 4k.

September 25, 2014 at 4:17AM

0
Reply
avatar
Alex Richardson
Director
3046

Without sounding like a 'yes-man' I would totally agree with these guys. I'm far more interested in dynamic range and colour reproduction than 4K. The only exception for me would be genres like Sci-fi, high end commercial or medical-type projects where it actually serves an artistic purpose. 4K to my eye speaks of perfection and Prometheus was better because of it. It made it look more futuristic.

On the other hand I wouldn't want films like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo be shot on 4K, except because the film was set in wintery Scandinavia so actually Red Epic was the perfect choice for both this _not_ because of the 4K but because of the more cold image I believe comes out of Epic. Same benefit for Prometheus.

But you could've used a 2K Sony for TGWTDT just as well as Sony's tend to have more cold cast too (but generally worse colour reproduction than Red, to my eyes anyway)..

September 25, 2014 at 5:06AM

0
Reply
avatar
PJ Palomaki
Cinematographer | Motion Graphics
336

Funny, this is the same argument still photographers have been having over megapixels for years.

September 25, 2014 at 6:55PM

0
Reply

A few years ago 3D was the fad, now its 4K... I've had this same discussion with a few filmmakers, for me dynamic range will always trump pixel count.

September 26, 2014 at 2:55AM, Edited September 26, 2:55AM

0
Reply
avatar
Kayode
989

I love what 4K brings to post production. I try to separate the consumer marketing hype with the practical applications of 4K. Even if 4K broadcast never becomes commonplace, I'm happy to have the option to shoot/edit 4K footage.

September 26, 2014 at 1:18PM

5
Reply
avatar
David Patterson
videographer/editor
427

Thanks Robert, nice article and, a lot of really good comments.
Its funny how the conversation changes as technology evolves. Do you remember when HD was first on the horizon, reading article after article comparing the resolutions of film & video? Sure people also talked about dynamic range but "resolution" seemed to be both the sticking point and the Holy Grail on each side of the debate, never mind that, as mentioned in the feature, DOPs, as long as cameras existed, partially occluded light with filters for the effects we love and imitate.

In the end Film 4K, 6K, Mattel cameras, these are tools, and I for one am ecstatic that they exist, its nice to be able to choose the right tool for the shoot at hand. I suppose the ideal capture tool would have a knob attached that would let you select anything form a Bolex Rex to an IMAX or Phantom image but, no matter what or how you capture, you'll still have to work to tell your story and achieve your vision in post.

September 26, 2014 at 8:21PM

0
Reply
avatar
Tom Montvila
TVProduction supervisor
262

If I had $2,000 to spend on either a 7DmkII or GH4 I'd take the GH4. Not because of the 4k, though that would be nice, but more because it gives me more options. No doubt Canon has great color science, but the camera is still locked into 8 bit h.264 and that just doesn't cut it. Sure, maybe ML will get raw going on it. Tired of shooting with hacks. The GH4 has the ability to export a raw 10 bit image, with the additional advantage of 4k, for all those reasons you mentioned in the article. Sure, it costs more, but it's there if I want or need it. Can't say that about the 7D

I agree that too many people clamor for 4k! 4k! 4k! when all I really want is more dynamic range and larger color gamut. But with the 7D we've gotten neither.

October 8, 2014 at 11:45PM, Edited October 8, 11:45PM

0
Reply

I was just wondering about 4K myself for a indie film I'm the DoP for.

As a DoP I see 4K as falling solidly into the "nice to have" camp, but also being very non-essential (at least for now, this will change with time). So I really don't mind hugely either way, to have 4K or not. There is other more important considerations to take care of first.

But maybe there is an extra point to 4K that I'm missing when viewing it solely through my DoP eyes.... and that is *marketing*!

Might it make it easier for the producer/director to sell afterwards if it is a "shot in 4K" film? I thought I read somewhere that there are content providers (for instance Amazon who announced they'll be filming all their created content in 4K) who have a lack of 4K content and thus could pick up indie 4K films simply as "4K fillers"? It is after all very common to read consumer articles about the lack of 4K content out there.

October 9, 2014 at 11:50AM

0
Reply
avatar
David Peterson
Wedding Cinematographer
2469

Cameras are being pushed by TV makers, NOT consumers.

ARRI shrugged off the resolution thing off with ALEXA and only put out 3.5K. The AMIRA only has a 4K module because the NFL demanded it when they switched over from film this year.

I think SPORTS is the ONLY area that will be consumer-driven and can really benefit from the resolution. Audiences want to see that itty-bitty player throw that itty-bitty ball in the same clarity as if they were in the stands.

But if the broadcasters can't up their bandwidth, then consumers are just going to get higher-resolution compression artifacts.

October 20, 2014 at 8:06PM

0
Reply
avatar
Jeremy Parsons
Director of Photography / 1st Assistant Camera / Crane Tech
15

I feel that most comments here are selling resolution increases short. Sure right now the 2K realm is totally fine but what about in 3 years, in 5 years, in 7 years. It is NOT just TV manufacturers pushing this. Look at the new 5K Retina Display iMac. A friend took a photo of a 1920 x 1080 photoshop canvas and how much of it fills the screen on that new machine.... It then hit me, it looks like what an SD clip from my first mini DV camera in 2004 looks like on my current monitor. F'en small. More people are watching things on computers, fiber internet is coming to more towns and Apple is making 5K displays on their consumer dekstop, don't act like resolution is not a big deal. It is.

Obviously bad data rates, color & compression will cripple an image and everyone loves great dynamic range. But saying "id rather have dynamic range than 4K" doesn't really solve the question.

I would have a hard problem spending 7,000 on a camera that doesn't at least have an option for 4k expandability right now.

November 20, 2014 at 6:43PM

0
Reply