Why not shoot 2k...digital cinema projectors.

[Phil Holland]

This thread made me smile today as I reviewed 4k material projected at 4k today.

[David Mullen ASC]

Oversampling does good things in terms of noise, fine detail, etc. so shooting in 4K and showing in 2K looks better than shooting in 2K.

[Mark K.]

I read somewhere awhile back that over 90% of digital cinema projectors are 2k. If that is the case, what would be the point of shooting 4k.

You're in the wrong place for an objective perspective on this question :p

[Graeme Nattress]

Why shoot 4k for a less than 2k display? Well, 1st off, let's look historically where 35mm and 65mm film was shot even though the end display could well have been that old CRT 24" TV set in the corner of your living room. Although, there was 35mm cinema releases projected 35mm film wasn't that good in terms of resolution compared to what film is actually capable of, and 70mm projection is fantastic, but rare. But why were TV shows made on 35mm film? Because they looked better that way and although there was much more resolution than the TV could display, you got a better image.

Now look at 4k (or 5k) for 2k cinema and the same applies - it looks better. If you shoot for 2k, aiming for 2k with a 2k sensor, you've got some problems in that it's really hard (difficulties include aliasing and moire) to get all that detail packed into the 2k image unless you're sourcing it from a much higher resolution source. The visual benefits of 4k (when you can't see all the 4k detail due to 2k release, or just sitting too far away from a 4k screen) are apparent in terms of better MTF (better reproduction of detail contrast) at the lower resolutions you can see, less aliasing / moire / stairstepping (when 4k is done right, as RED does). As David points out, what you're doing is oversampling and that does give you those benefits too!

In other words you win with 4k (and 5k+) on a 4k display, and you still get most of the benefits on a 2k screen or smaller, and these are benefits you won't achieve by starting with a 2k sensor!

Graeme

[Les C.]

Sound, color and 4K are fads that will never catch on.

Real movies are black & white and have live musical accompaniment.

[Jaakko Rinne]

Sound, color and 4K are fads that will never catch on.

Real movies are black & white and have live musical accompaniment.

Moving pictures are a fad, real pictures are painted with fingers on walls in a cave.

[Lliam Worthington]

Question, has anyone acquired in 4K, released in 2k, and then seen their 2K release projected by a 4K projector? Presumably this would hold up considerably better than having shot 2K to begin with? How will films shot with say an Alexa or a C300 likely hold up with 4K projection? I have still never seen anything projected in 4K.

[Shapour Daneshmand]

I'll stay out of this one...

Bob,
you crack me up.

[Denizhan Nacar]

Why shoot 4k for a less than 2k display? Well, 1st off, let's look historically where 35mm and 65mm film was shot even though the end display could well have been that old CRT 24" TV set in the corner of your living room. Although, there was 35mm cinema releases projected 35mm film wasn't that good in terms of resolution compared to what film is actually capable of, and 70mm projection is fantastic, but rare. But why were TV shows made on 35mm film? Because they looked better that way and although there was much more resolution than the TV could display, you got a better image.

Now look at 4k (or 5k) for 2k cinema and the same applies - it looks better. If you shoot for 2k, aiming for 2k with a 2k sensor, you've got some problems in that it's really hard (difficulties include aliasing and moire) to get all that detail packed into the 2k image unless you're sourcing it from a much higher resolution source. The visual benefits of 4k (when you can't see all the 4k detail due to 2k release, or just sitting too far away from a 4k screen) are apparent in terms of better MTF (better reproduction of detail contrast) at the lower resolutions you can see, less aliasing / moire / stairstepping (when 4k is done right, as RED does). As David points out, what you're doing is oversampling and that does give you those benefits too!

In other words you win with 4k (and 5k+) on a 4k display, and you still get most of the benefits on a 2k screen or smaller, and these are benefits you won't achieve by starting with a 2k sensor!

Graeme

Good Answer...

[M Most]

Why shoot 4k for a less than 2k display? Well, 1st off, let's look historically where 35mm and 65mm film was shot even though the end display could well have been that old CRT 24" TV set in the corner of your living room. Although, there was 35mm cinema releases projected 35mm film wasn't that good in terms of resolution compared to what film is actually capable of, and 70mm projection is fantastic, but rare. But why were TV shows made on 35mm film? Because they looked better that way and although there was much more resolution than the TV could display, you got a better image.

i know this is often used around here to cite reasons for higher resolution capture, but honestly its not really a particularly good example. There were a lot of reasons film was used for television drama for years, and the fact that it "looked better" because of higher resolution origination was a very minor one. The real reasons it was used had to do with practical realities at the time. The production infrastructure was built around film, so adapting those methods, crews, and talents to make television drama was a natural progression. The medium was very evolved, so things like high quality lenses, the ability to overcrank and use other in camera production techniques, and available accessories were not an issue. The only existing alternative was standard definition, interlaced video, and the equipment used for that only came in two form factors: large units used primarily for studio work, and ENG cameras used for newsgathering. Those form factors were never very adaptable to the needs of single camera, high quality production. Not to mention the fact that 24fps capture - an aesthetic that had even then been ingrained in a lot of peoples' minds as "appropriate" for dramatic storytelling, as opposed to the 60i look of live television - was not available in any video camera. And last but not least, film was (and is) an archivable element of sufficient quality that it can be stored and ultimately restored for other distribution formats. In short, in a world prior to 24p HD cameras, film had a LOT of qualities that no video system did. Higher resolution and making "better" pictures are only 2 of them, and probably not the most significant.

Now, having said that, I'm not arguing about the virtues of higher resolution capture for lower resolution distribution. I'm just pointing out that comparing that to the use of 35mm for television drama is not a particularly good or accurate comparison.