You Should Stop Debating 8K And Start Embracing It

Will the future of filmmaking leave you behind?  

Resolution has been a contentious topic the last two decades. Any mention of Ks and you’re bound to trigger a knee jerk reaction or hear 10 different opinions from 10 different people. That in itself is not a bad thing. But is it time to set differences aside to get ahead of the 8K curve that’s inevitably coming? And to a certain extent, is already here.  

As creators, it’s important to educate each other about the significance of high resolution workflows now, so when 8K broadcast and televisions do become mainstream, content won’t lag behind. It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

Now, good content is always going to start with a compelling script. Any camera spec, whether that be sensor size, gamut, color, or resolution, is never going to fix a terrible story.

Historically, the leap from standard definition to high definition was perhaps the biggest change. Then came HD to 4K which was smaller, but in terms of image sharpness, was a vast improvement. Soon it will be 4K to 8K, and so on.

Right now there’s a bottleneck of opinions when it comes to resolution at 4K and above. Some say that they (or their clients) just don’t need anything higher than a certain resolution. Others suggest that the human eye can only perceive a certain amount of resolution. Others say there are diminishing returns with resolution passed a certain point, or that audiences will not be able to notice the difference. Some blurt out that broadcast is still 720 or that they are flat tired of hearing about pixel counters.

No matter what side of the fence you’re on, the industry that develops the products and technology does not give a fuck. They are going to move forward. Many are publicly traded companies that, in part, innovate and advance because they need to move numbers on a stock exchange. They are not simply going to stop and say, well this is good enough. We had a great run. Hopefully everyone is cool with that. Now go enjoy because that’s it. The same could be said for private companies.

So why are creators thinking this way? 

One aspect is about accepting change. This is pure speculation, but I’m not going to live forever. And because of that, accepting change is easier for me. I’d much rather push as far as I can into the future during my lifetime then to settle for what’s good enough now. And that’s not just with filmmaking, that’s my perspective in life. When I’m 80 years-old sitting (or hovering) in a rocking chair on my front porch, I don’t want to wonder about “what-ifs.”

It’s why I never quite understood those who put so much effort into despising one brand or another. I mean, I understand if after buying and using something it turned out to not be the right fit. But the ARRI vs RED conversation. Mac vs PC. iOS verse Android. Sony versus Canon/Panasonic/Nikon, etc. What gives? You're rooting for the wrong thing. When you’re old, are you really going to be telling stories about how you burned someone in the comments section of No Film School? I hope not.

And mind you, this is not only about resolution. Wider color spaces, smaller codecs, faster media, better dynamic range, a faster cloud…improving them all can greatly benefit workflows and how stories are told.

Plus, this isn’t about choosing one over the other. It’s not about saying, “well, I’d rather have a higher bit depth or better compressed RAW than higher resolution.” While I unequivocally prefer, a wider color gamut and a higher bit depth over anything, what I’m suggesting is to reconsider the stigma of resolution.  

There’s a reason why you don’t hear anyone complaining about a camera’s dynamic range being too wide. Or the color space being too large. Or that a file size didn’t take up enough space. Because that would be asinine.

So why is resolution the punching bag?

A lot of it had to do with the marketing that went behind consumer and professional products. 4K became such a buzzword it was easy to have a deep-seated aversion. But now that 4K is over a decade old, there is a better understanding of it. 4K is widely accepted and even a mandate.

Now, 8K is going through the same turbulence 4K went through years ago, and there is no reason for it. Especially when considering the past.

HDTV broadcast in the United States came in the late 1990s. Imagine being the person who was against it. Who thought it was unnecessary. And there were those who did. 4K is going through a similar reaction. “Why 4K when broadcast is only HD?” “My client only needs 2K, so that’s all I’m going to shoot.” While both are reasonable points, it creates inertia. Only considering what’s in front of you halts growth. And as mentioned earlier, the companies making the tools filmmakers use are not going to wait around.

What others think about high resolution workflow

Holt McCallany in Mindhunters

In a conversation with the 8K Association, cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt, ASC, who’s behind David Fincher’s Mindhunters says, “The audience goes to the theater for an escape. They want the experience of being wowed, and we have an obligation to give that to them. As the audience gets used to watching 4K images at home, we have to chase that a little bit so when they go to the cinema experience, we are obligated to give them the highest quality image we can. And 8K capture is one way to do that.”

Messerschmidt prefers another aspect in the capture pipeline to be the tipping point. “For me, I prefer the optics to be the bottleneck and not the resolution of the sensor. The highest resolution and sharpest sensor possible is great for me because that’s where I see the optics fall apart. I feel like in that instance, I can make a more measured choice in terms of what I’m trying to give the audience visually.”

Michael Cioni of Frame.io has another perspective about why people put up a wall up against 8K. “One of the arguments people feed me is they hold up a phone and say why would I need 8K if people are going to watch on their phone or their TV? The problem with that argument is that it makes absolutely no sense.”

Cioni says the music industry is a good example as to why. “If the music industry was like the video industry, they would capture and record songs in MP3. If everyone is going to listen to it with Airpods, which are not very good qualitatively, then why record anything better than that.”

Cioni mentions that the music industry understands that if you start with more you end with more. “When people make the 8K argument about resolution and clarity, what they are forgetting is that even if you are going to watch it on a phone or mobile device, the ability to start with more means the result is going to look as good as it possible can.”

Dan Duran of RED, suggests to consider Friends, Star Trek, or X-Files. “They all shot on 35mm film when the standard at the time was standard definition. Did they need to do it? No, because no one was visually seeing a full 35mm, but when you bring it down, it looks great. And it’s future proof. Those shows have all been remastered and have that flexibility.”

Though Duran is connected to RED, the camera manufacturer behind the Helium 8K S35 and Monstro 8K VV, other companies like Phantom and Canon, are developing 8K as a tool for filmmakers. And that’s all resolution is. A tool you can choose or not choose to use. It’s been reported ARRI is also developing a new S35 camera. If it doesn’t offer a resolution higher than 4K or some type of oversampling, it would be surprising.

Oversampling is one of the benefits and it's nothing new. Broadcast TV has been shooting in 35mm and sending it out at 640px well before 4K. Oversampling improves the image quality. Cioni agrees. “One benefit to the oversampling argument is the ability to maintain high quality when things actually go down to scale.”

Cioni says, “When you take an image, and you cut it in half, basically the theory is, every time you cut an image in half it’s the equivalent of minus three dB of gain. Or essentially one stop of gain resolution. The reason this is significant is because as you reduce an image to 50% or even more, there’s a noise reduction. And that simply means you can actually push your images further at the source because you know they are going to resolve when they are supersamples.” 

What Cioni suggests is that there’s an advantage at higher resolutions when it comes to exposure. If you’re shooting at 8K, and planning to deliver in 4K, you can push the low light because there will be a reduction in the noise level as you go from 8K to 4K. 

The benefits of ovesampling are well documented. It's the reason why an IMAX image in HD and S35 image at HD doesn’t look the same. The IMAX image oversamples at a much higher rate and is going to look better.

Outside of film, you can find examples all over the internet. Marques Brownlee, better known as MKBHD, reviews tech on his YouTube channel. Besides understanding the importance of lighting, he shoots at higher resolutions than necessary – which improves the overall quality of the images. 

Bruce Markoe at IMAX says that not every filmmaker understands the benefits of oversampling. “We see it often at IMAX when filmmakers come in and review their movies for the first time on a larger screen. That image starts to reveal the problems.”

Markoe says it’s easier to point those things out in prep. “They may want a want a lens that is slightly vintage or diffused in terms of its look. Then they see it on a larger screen and realize it’s not as sharp as they want it to be. Then they’ll make a more informed decision about how the quality of the image capture is really important on the front end.”

And oversampling isn’t the only benefit. Future proofing is another, especially those in studio and network environments. Cioni brings up a real world example in the Apollo 11 documentary from director Todd Douglas Miller.

Apollo 11 launched in 1969, and its journey on the ground was documented in 70mm. The doc is a found footage story, and it was rescanned with higher resolution in mind. “The very first shot, I almost fell out of my chair. It looked like a visual effect cause it was clearly vintage but the quality was modern,” says Cioni.

Now, does every project need to future proofed? No. Plus, there is nostalgia to watching older formats like 8mm, Super 16, and others. Even when I pop in a VHS tape it takes me back in time. But isn’t that an artistic choice? A tool to tell the visual story? Why are some filmmakers closing the door to the thought of higher resolutions altogether?

On the broadcast side, Messerschmidt says some producers view the minimum delivery as dogma. “They will think that’s our capture spec. That’s our workflow spec. So if the network or broadcast is expecting nothing above 3.2K, there is no reason to shoot anything above 3.2K, because they are not thinking about future proofing. Or not thinking about oversampling. Or scaling in the DI. They are not thinking about HDR finish or high res delivery for theatrical release.”

Anna Torv in Mindhunters

In the first season of Mindhunters, the cinematographer shot 6K on the RED and the second season, he started exploring the Helium sensor and capturing in 8K. “We did tests and looked at raising the RAW compression rate from 4:1 in 6K to 8:1 in 8K,” says Messerschmidt. “We did comparative tests at various resolutions, and not only did we find a significant increase in quality both in color, fidelity, and noise reduction, but no change in file size as the result of the compression shift. It was a no-brainer and there was no additional costs for production in terms of the archival as it was identical space requirements.”

Duran mentions another valid point. “Just because you have an 8K canvas to work with doesn’t mean you have to use all 8K. You can set frame guides inside. You have the ability to pan and scan the image. You don’t’ have to worry about losing any resolution when you stabilize. It frees up more creative controls.”

8K can also be transcoded into 4K or other formats. You can easily go from 8K to 2K, but going from 2K to 8K is nearly impossible without the dupe ratio problems it presents. Higher resolutions give you the opportunity to go back and transcode into a different master file.

Cioni agrees that people still wince when they hear 8K. “They did the same with 4K. People were like ‘oh why?’ And now it’s completely accepted. Once people start understanding how to use it, and take advantage of it, it changes their minds. We are obligated to provide the best quality we can. That is part of the transaction we engage in when we make content and have audiences watch it. Hitting the lowest common denominator or average denominator is totally flawed logic.”

About 70% of Nolan's Dunkirk was shot on IMAX
How can you start embracing change

It takes an open mind. It’s easy to be skeptical when you are asked to make changes to your pipeline. I haven’t polled anyone recently, but the hundreds of filmmakers I’ve interviewed generally seem to be open to collaboration or being a mentor. The latter is key. Teaching those who don’t know helps the industry grow.

It’s not going to happen overnight, but it’s going to happen. It’s wrong to think that future generations will be watching HD broadcast television. History shows the opposite. It leap-frogged from black and white to color and from standard def to high def. Why would it stop there?

It’s the same with film. Theater projectors are evolving from 4K to 8K projectors. The IMAX camera is a 15 perf 65mm negative. Everything at IMAX is scanned at 8K and played back in 4K on IMAX projectors. Markoe says you can see the difference. “The oversampling from the capture medium all the way through is apparent. And even when you keep going down to HD, you will see that increase in resolution.”

So what’s next?

It's understandable not everyone will need or want to work in 8K or beyond. It's understandable there are those who prefer a certain look, format, or style. It's understandable not everyone will be able to afford certain technology. Resolution is a tool. It shouldn't be disregarded. Maybe instead of closing the door on 8K and beyond, for whatever reasons you may have, how about you leave it cracked open while you're here.

When a client says they want to shoot 1080. That’s fine. But maybe share with them the advantages of shooting higher resolution formats. Then maybe on the next project that client will adopt. Instead of saying I don’t need 8K. How about helping lay the groundwork for the future generations that will? If a producer says that the broadcast spec is 2K and that’s all that’s needed. Sure. Go for it. But suggest to them the advantageous of shooting at a higher resolution. Every bit helps. 

The biggest caveat in all of this is cost. The decision makers at the top will have to initiate those changes. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already proposed 4K UHD to become the next broadcast standard. Studios and networks will have to decide if they want to invest now or let the next generation do the heavy lifting.

Hardware, GPUs, and other technology have come a long way. The jump from 4K to 8K is going to be much easier. You can get a laptop that plays back 8K for under $1,500. The biggest transition from video to 4K was the physical tape. The physical asset people didn’t want to give up. Learning that files can be recorded to media cards and switched out was a new technology that took people getting used to. Now that it’s in place another other advancements, technological trends are moving faster. 

Markoe says it boils down to trying "to create a mezzanine master file." "There will be issues with costs, or it taking longer, but the more we start doing it, and the more we get used to the workflow as both content creators and postproduction facilities, the quicker we will benefit from the efficiency."

As creators, it's important to not limit the conversation solely to resolution. Express the importance of color science, bit depth, better RAW, or a pipeline that can be advantageous for a delivery today and tomorrow. As much as filmmakers enjoy talking about the past, and the who’s who of its history, maybe it’s time to start looking at the future and embracing it. It's not going to wait for you. 

What do you think about high resolution image capture? Let us know in the comments below.      

Your Comment

21 Comments

Well, the idea "stop debating" and accept what the market is giving you sounds like a mantra from a George Orwell novel. It's interesting the degree to which consumers internalize, recapitulate, and endorse false needs handed down from the market, which is increasingly directed by hedge-funds to satisfy quarterly numbers (Sony has Third Point for instance and the rest of the entertainment market has been giving way to this over the past decade as well, i.e. packaging at CAA which caused the writers strike - why didn't the writers just "embrace change"?). Aside from reframing and ease of incorporating VFX, the industry has little use for 8K and it's important for filmmakers to be clear on the difference between a sort of planned obsolescence and improved image quality. If we don't really take the time to understand what's being sold to us, it's challenging to identify the value inherent to some of the purported advantages. Take noise reduction, for instance; there are many ways to reduce noise and several of them have nothing to do with resolution and more to do with the quality of the photosites on the camera sensor or capturing the signal using Dual Gain Output, etc. For something so tangible, I wish there were more examples and science and less emotional appeal. At the most basic level, I would encourage anyone who hasn't looked into the relationship between perceived sharpness/clarity and resolution to try and get an understanding of it - there's a limit to the benefits of increased resolution. For some side by side comparisons between 2K, 4K and 6K please watch go to youtube (NFS didn't allow me to post link) and check out "Camera Resolutions, Part 2 | Comparison Demo by Steve Yedlin ASC" - if you want to quickly see side by sides, skip to 8:30. While there are some benefits and resolution can be occasionally used as a creative tool, I think it's disempowering to creators to broadly recommend adoption of the format and misleading to suggest 8K will increase image quality.

May 19, 2020 at 10:20AM, Edited May 19, 10:30AM

5
Reply

Step 1. Have lots of money.
Step 2. Upgrade to 8k.

This isn't a debate. Consumers can't keep up with shifting formats. If broadcast can get to the standard of 4k, if streaming can withstand 4k streaming with so many ISPs not having the infrastructure, if storage (SSDs) continues to decrease in price, and if the cameras used to produce 8k (looking at you GH6) are affordable, computers coming turnkey with 16gb+ of RAM to work with massive video files - THEN, and only then can 8k be viable. I can handle the 4k clips I get now, and I know I would not be able to handle an 8k work flow. I work professionally and my clients 9 times out of 10 ask for videos exported in 1080p.

People would embrace it but let's be clear - we aren't prepared for this. 4k needs to be standardized before 8k can be realistically explored.

May 19, 2020 at 11:01AM

0
Reply
Aaron P-F
102

OMG, we barely made it out of the HD-4K transition debate and now it has to start all over with 8K....

May 19, 2020 at 11:51AM

10
Reply

It's all about selling new cameras.

May 19, 2020 at 1:10PM

12
Reply
Rod P
297

For home viewing anything beyond 4k is overkill, even with a projector on a small screen. For theatres, 8K will have visible benefit in the larger screens, especially IMAX. VR will also greatly benefit from 8K cameras.

May 19, 2020 at 12:26PM, Edited May 19, 12:27PM

4
Reply
Batutta
558

Daron ... did you do any research before you put this together? You could not be more off. I'll just give you a couple of "things to google" ... several studios don't even produce 4k versions of new movies because there is no market ... a couple of equipment manufacturers have stopped making 4k devices .... theaters (95+%) are 2k DLP's ... the majority of cable content is 720p ...... .... to be successful, become a disrupter, move the needle ..you need to do it better, faster and cheaper .. if you don't have least 2 of 3 its a total non-starter ... 4k has not been successfully "mainstreamed" ... we really don't need to embrace 8k, not for a long time ... it's all about diminishing returns... it's that simple

May 19, 2020 at 2:34PM

8
Reply

Unbelievably bad article. In this case, upgrading to 8k involves enormous expense and increased hard ware requirements. For the vast majority of content distribution it is simply not worth it. If you have an unlimited budget and intend your media to be viewed on a theatre screen, then no doubt, it is worth considering, but for the majority of folks who are using smaller format distribution then the balance of cost, hardware requirements etc is clearly in favour of 4k, at most.
To argue that this is a philosophical matter of 'accepting change' is incredibly patronising. Most people who are editing in 4k are already early adopters. If you can't mount a valid balanced argument in favour of 8k on the basis of cost vs output then don't patronise us all by accusing those who dont adopt as being change averse.

May 19, 2020 at 6:17PM

4
Reply

I'm all for higher resolution and larger sensors. One problem is in film and television you always need more money than you have. I would debate that the allocated funds going to an 8k workflow unless required, could be better spent elsewhere in the production. Resolution is a great tool, but I feel using it as a marketing strategy is a mistake. If people are only watching your film because it's in 2k-4k-8k+ you are in trouble.

May 19, 2020 at 9:31PM

10
Reply

The skepticism related to 8k comes as a direct (and negative) result of the 'marketing'.....the same 'mega pixel' 'marketing' that occurred in the stills world when codecs and dynamic range were being neglected and prioritised at the expense of the 'excitement' related to scaling pixels.

It's actually smart to remain skeptical, especially if you are running your own business with finite resources and especially when the marketer is pushing 'easy' over 'innovation'......and are the clients willing to pay for this 'quality' because it WILL unfortunately be saddled to the creator otherwise?

I think most folks have become aware of 'downsampling' we've been doing it in the print world since the Gutenberg press was invented......and you only have to see footage from a measly Canon C100 to see the difference AND value of downsampling.

This stuff needs to be discussed MORE simply so we have a better idea where the diminishing returns of tech actually reside......to just 'accept it all' would be akin to simply blowing the 'marketing director' despite them having signs of an STD.

May 19, 2020 at 10:49PM

1
Reply

I'm doing vfx and finishing for commercials and sometimes shortfilms. The SANs (storage area network) I'm usually on, already choke on ProRes 4444 HD streams when too many of us are working simultaneously. Back ups for HD productions often consist of walls full of hard drives - I guess we'll need warehouses in the future, following your philosophy. Stock footage that we use very frequently barely surpasses HD, often it's worse. Now talking about the realm of CG turns your hilarious statement "You can get a laptop that plays back 8K for under $1,500" into a complete joke. Attempting to render 8K would totally blow up render times so much (if the software is able to cope with the required amount of geometry for this resolution), the average vfx company would be spending the whole budget on power bills already - if the required hardware to render 8K in a viable timeframe would come in for free!
And to conclude, why exactly would anyone do all this? The returns are negligible and rather boil down being technical exercises along the lines of Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose" or take a contemporary counterpart of that airplane, the Airbus A380. 8K, except for a few special cases, is an extremely expensive technical muscle show with no inherent value for the big masses consuming and having to pay for it because, in the end, we're talking about art here, to some extent at least.

May 19, 2020 at 11:16PM, Edited May 19, 11:33PM

6
Reply
DingDong
2095

8k? Well, for big Hollywood productions with tons of cash, sure! You get a huge RAW footage to do wonders and VFX. In the end, most of movie theaters have 2k projectors and just one room with a 4k at the large multiplex.
Do you see soon a movie theater with a new 8k (ultraexpensive) projector? And specially now? Are you going to see soon 8k streaming? Have you seen 6k streaming for those guys who bought a flashy 6k TV to show off (what's the use of a 6k TV?). Let's leave it for the Nolans and hot shot directors for big budget movies and for the RAW and master version that stays at the post house. No need to deliver 8k, neither 6k for, let's say, 25 years? Maybe more.

May 20, 2020 at 1:04AM

1
Reply
avatar
Javier Diez
Director/Writer
164

If i follow this correctly why 8k ? So much talking about it. It is old already. Why not 16 or 32k ? Higher better right ? Jumping at 8k while 4k still isnt widely usable isn't the same as jumping on FullHd many years ago as you say. Many years before you had b&w tv. Need color? - you got it. And this is good, everybody loves color. Step forward. But this is a simple TV with blurry picture (in some content) and then the technology was needed to makes changes. Then flat tvs came. HIGH RESOLUTION which makes big change. And this is after decades! And this is prepared for the same human - normaly 2 eyes 2 hands 2 legs. Now he see it clear and with color (TONS OF COLOR and richness and deepnes and black and whites). Now when you have this big juicy 4k super-color tv in your home, you want something more ? And you say: 8k . This will change my life =D. It sounds like: "-Do you want $4k? -Yes! -Ok take them! -Aaaagh i want $8k now =( "Isn't sound greedy? If you like to accept the new marketing makeup every year just for the fun - no problem. But if you make content on those big jumps you will be feel insecure and nothing more. Today 8k tomorrow 32k? Embrace the greedines. Just point one example what we get more from 8k export except the need of 8k device to play it =D

May 20, 2020 at 5:37AM

1
Reply

*laughs in 1080p*

May 20, 2020 at 9:10AM

5
Reply

I can’t wait for the same article when the first 16K camera is on the horizon. Tech for tech’s sake is not filmmaking, it is the onward march of iterative capitalism and trying to sustain GDP. It actually has nothing to do with filmmaking. So many good films out there shot in SD, HD, Video, 16mm...

May 20, 2020 at 11:40AM

0
Reply
Liam Martin
DP, editor, part time director
1212

When people have burning comments in PC vs MAC, Arri vs RED, etc: it's partly tribal behaviour and partly just trying to show off knowledge/experience.
Nothing wrong with discussion as long as people don't get aggressive about it.

For years pixelcount has become an 'innovation excuse' to upsell. Do we need 8K? Or do manufacturers need it?

May 21, 2020 at 4:15AM

0
Reply
avatar
WalterBrokx
Director, DOP, Writer, Editor, Producer
9661

I don't know about you, but I truly hope I never have to look at a closeup of an actors face in 8K. And when most content is being viewed on handheld devices, what possible sense does 8K or even 4K delivery make?

May 21, 2020 at 9:45AM

0
Reply
avatar
Chris Santucci
Cinematographer
372

I could maybe see an argument for 6K, but 8K is total overkill. I'm in the commercial market and I deliver 100% of my projects to my clients in 1080p for web/social. I shoot 4K currently and the quality is phenomenal. I don't need more, and my clients can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K as it is. The costs associated with storage and the computer power needed for an 8K workflow are ludicrous.... all to deliver in 1080p. People need to adopt a producers mindset, and not get caught up in the hamster wheel of technology. Know when 'good enough' is enough. In reality, 4K far exceeds 'good enough' as it is.

The bottom line is your clients can't tell an iPhone from a Red either way. 8K is silly.

If you're shooting TV or theatrical or whatever, maybe that's a different story. For commercial work it's totally unnecessary.

- Commercial filmmaker in Vancouver, BC

May 21, 2020 at 9:49AM, Edited May 21, 9:56AM

0
You voted '-1'.
Reply
avatar
Chris Stanley
Cinematographer
126

Don't complicate the debate with speculation. I do this professionally every day. In my market I have had ZERO REQUESTS FOR 8K... Let me say that again... ZERO REQUESTS. I don't of know of anyone, that has an 8K TV among my friends or clients. For context I will also say my clients include a number international corporations, for which we produce a variety of marketing and advertising video content. Of those maybe 10% ask if we are shooting 4K. I have NEVER been asked by a client to deliver content in anything above 2K. Even though I have the technical capacity to go higher, if I shoot anything more that UHD it's specifically to have the option to reframe shots in post, pull clean plates, or to extract stills. Those are the facts. Do what you will with them.

May 21, 2020 at 10:13AM, Edited May 21, 10:14AM

2
Reply
Toll
Production Manager / Producer
184

If, and only if, 8K costs the same to produce as 4K will the transition be made. That’s the only valid argument this article makes. Otherwise, this isn’t an argument. 8K is only a company trying to make money, and it is useless except in very limited and specific circumstances.

I don’t understand why these same companies invest in making their cameras and televisions better.

I know everyone knows this, but I’ll say it anyway. Arri is a perfect example of why resolution doesn’t matter. I don’t know anyone who would choose a RED over an Arri when it came to their production. I know people do, but I don’t know any.

Keep giving me larger sensors (I would love a real medium format affordable camera that gives me the look of my medium format film camera), better color, better dynamic range, less noise, better ergonomics, etc.

Keep your 8K

May 21, 2020 at 3:26PM

0
Reply

We understand the idea: all new technologies can be used to create, so what is the point of depriving yourself of it?
Yes, but...
First, the vulgarity of this article is off-putting. The author tries to show us the futility of all these quarrels which animate the enthusiasts of their technological toys, but he does it in the same way as them.

This is the first time I have come across such a poor article here. I do not question the technical demonstrations, but the very personal opinion on the subject. The author would have done better to jump over his intro and go directly to the explanations that follow.

You would almost expect to see a link to a company doing 8K at the very end.

May 21, 2020 at 3:31PM

1
Reply
avatar
Hugo BD
Illustrator-animator-video designer-musician-composer
81

* I am sorry that my first comment here is negative. I usually like to read No Film School articles. It is enriching and there are many exchanges of ideas and it is always full of useful and interesting links.

May 21, 2020 at 3:41PM

5
Reply
avatar
Hugo BD
Illustrator-animator-video designer-musician-composer
81