Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I meant what percentage of your overall work in say the past year? Like what, one job out of 100, so 1%? And if it actually is a very low percentage, then renting a higher resolution camera for those rare high resolution jobs would make more sense than buying. In other words, I'm backing up Puredrifting's claim that "no one cares," of course with "no one" meaning not literally, but meaning not enough to actually have a need to buy a higher resolution camera.Maybe 25-30% is that agency - they do consumer branding, facebook, POS (point of sale) -not really films or broadcast; it is usual for them to require odd formats - this is the worst so far.
Their editor is also a fan of digital zooms and always wants '4k' for HD delivery.
Im just rebuffing Pure Driftings claim that 'no one cares' about resolution![]()
Then with the money you save from not buying into high resolution, you can buy say a 17-120 and show that editor what a real zoom looks like.
It's a pet peeve of mine when a client thinks cropping in 200% on a 4K camera looks good; just do it right and use two cameras if you want a second tighter angle. I'm biased, though, because I own multiple cameras and make more money when clients rent more of them. Still, it is better quality that way. Even if the sharpness looks good at 200% (which it doesn't on a lot of cameras, like the C300 Mark II or Amira), it's less of a jump cut if you have a different focal length and angle from a second camera.
Last edited: