I just saw the movie DRIVE with Ryan Gosling. It was shot with the Alexa and let me tell you, the images were stunning. STUNNING.
Even though the camera only outputs 2k, at no point that I go "hey, I wish I had more resolution". In fact, the resolution was pretty amazing folks. Very, very detailed. Even more so, the color science was spectacular.
So I ask, is having ultra high resolution that important? (for feature film that is. I'm not interested in corporate or wedding videos). Don't get me wrong, I'm a Red supporter and I like their cameras. However, I get the feeling that certain manufacturers really push ONE aspect of shooting, when in my opinion, it's the camera that does several things well. It's not just about resolution, it's about resolution plus DR plus compression (or lack of).
The images I see coming out of the Sony F3 s-log are impressive. And think of this: if you're recording 444 s-log, you're getting 2k out of every single channel. The resolution with that type of recording ought to be fantastic.
I know Red is great with resolution, but it seems that when it comes to DR it's a bit behind on the Alexa and Sony F3 s-log. I'm starting to believe that although resolution is important, dynamic range could be even more. I mean, a Scarlett at 3k resolution ought to be more than enough, considering that I just viewed a 2k film and it looked sufficiently detailed for a 50 foot screen.