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.
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.