KyleProhaska
Veteran
In light of all the madness going on between the C300 and Scarlet and whatever else, I'm very curious about the future proof mentality I read so much about. I'm a filmmaker and plan to be for as long as I can. My first feature Standing Firm was released in the US on DVD and in foreign markets in about a dozen countries. It's made its money back plus some, and has launched a more legitimate career for me. I mention all that because it has me looking at my past and looking toward the future, and the kind of quality I want to bring to new and future products.
The most common argument for shooting in something like 5k or 4k over 2k or whatever else is so as new technologies come out that can display that footage in its native resolution, your product will look better then anything shot at a lower resolution. It's also a pretty good match for the "technical" resolution of film. All of this I understand, and can agree with on principle. The question I want answers to (or mere opinions) is, how great is the threat to 2k? Why is 4k touted as the only smart persons choice while Roger Deakins sits at 2k? Even if the Arri with T-Link can output really close to 3k, it still seems there's more going on here. Obviously he picks that camera for a ton of reasons, but resolution tends to be the heat of the argument all over the internet.
Theaters are the other consideration, and yet...a movie like Like Crazy sells for 4mil after an all night bidding war at Sundance, after being shot on the 7D. Nobody post and say "content is king," because we all know that.
I've heard 4k TVs are coming soon, but how long before you think they're in homes like 1080p TVs are now? Probably quite a while. On top of that you have the fact that many beloved movies are still coming out on Blu-ray with consumers finally getting used to buying movies that way instead of DVD. It will be MANY years before 4k TVs are popular enough for studios to consider releasing films all over again on a new format. Also what is that new format? Is there such a thing yet? Not that I know of. Of course there's options, but they're a long ways away. Blu-ray hasn't been around in common usage for very long and it's my guess that regardless of TV's advancement technology wise, Blu-ray is going to stick around for a long time like DVD has, and 4k might take way longer to become the standard so many already hold it up to be. Of course it's a higher and better resolution, and will give you delivery options later at higher quality, but how much worse will well shot films posted in 2k look? Can't be that bad. Don't most Hollywood movies post in 2k...that's gotta count for something.
"Future proof" can be such a BS term because if 4k is the new 1080p like some say (or 5K, whatever), then you can be sure a new 4k will rear its ugly head soon enough, and there's already remnants of that. Even if 4k becomes broadcast standard sometime (which would be huge but that's still a long ways away) there will be a new change after that coming and the talk of DVXuser will be 8k or something else. 4k will only last so long.
When is enough enough? How in danger is someone's film who's shooting in 1080p to look like garbage 10 years from now on the typical consumer TV set? People talk as if 1080p is dead already when it's far from it. How long do you think it has left? I hear more talk about the growth of VOD in the next decade, you think 4k is an easy thing to stream? Hardly...even if 4k TV's became a standard, it'll take some more innovation in the simple way we do internet to pump volumes of 4k to TV sets around the country and beyond. For pete's sake, the Apple TV is still 720p.
Lots of questions here...but I wonder what others think.
NOTE: This is NOT a hit at RED or any other camera. Please, do what few in the last week have dared to do...breath...think...then post.
The most common argument for shooting in something like 5k or 4k over 2k or whatever else is so as new technologies come out that can display that footage in its native resolution, your product will look better then anything shot at a lower resolution. It's also a pretty good match for the "technical" resolution of film. All of this I understand, and can agree with on principle. The question I want answers to (or mere opinions) is, how great is the threat to 2k? Why is 4k touted as the only smart persons choice while Roger Deakins sits at 2k? Even if the Arri with T-Link can output really close to 3k, it still seems there's more going on here. Obviously he picks that camera for a ton of reasons, but resolution tends to be the heat of the argument all over the internet.
Theaters are the other consideration, and yet...a movie like Like Crazy sells for 4mil after an all night bidding war at Sundance, after being shot on the 7D. Nobody post and say "content is king," because we all know that.
I've heard 4k TVs are coming soon, but how long before you think they're in homes like 1080p TVs are now? Probably quite a while. On top of that you have the fact that many beloved movies are still coming out on Blu-ray with consumers finally getting used to buying movies that way instead of DVD. It will be MANY years before 4k TVs are popular enough for studios to consider releasing films all over again on a new format. Also what is that new format? Is there such a thing yet? Not that I know of. Of course there's options, but they're a long ways away. Blu-ray hasn't been around in common usage for very long and it's my guess that regardless of TV's advancement technology wise, Blu-ray is going to stick around for a long time like DVD has, and 4k might take way longer to become the standard so many already hold it up to be. Of course it's a higher and better resolution, and will give you delivery options later at higher quality, but how much worse will well shot films posted in 2k look? Can't be that bad. Don't most Hollywood movies post in 2k...that's gotta count for something.
"Future proof" can be such a BS term because if 4k is the new 1080p like some say (or 5K, whatever), then you can be sure a new 4k will rear its ugly head soon enough, and there's already remnants of that. Even if 4k becomes broadcast standard sometime (which would be huge but that's still a long ways away) there will be a new change after that coming and the talk of DVXuser will be 8k or something else. 4k will only last so long.
When is enough enough? How in danger is someone's film who's shooting in 1080p to look like garbage 10 years from now on the typical consumer TV set? People talk as if 1080p is dead already when it's far from it. How long do you think it has left? I hear more talk about the growth of VOD in the next decade, you think 4k is an easy thing to stream? Hardly...even if 4k TV's became a standard, it'll take some more innovation in the simple way we do internet to pump volumes of 4k to TV sets around the country and beyond. For pete's sake, the Apple TV is still 720p.
Lots of questions here...but I wonder what others think.
NOTE: This is NOT a hit at RED or any other camera. Please, do what few in the last week have dared to do...breath...think...then post.
Last edited:
I guess I'm pointing more towards the image, and whether or not a really well shot film posted and filmed in 2k will look as awful later on as many seem to suggest. I say no, but am I wrong?
