I completely understand what both sides are arguing. Mike and Tony - if you are getting premium, paying, 4K finishing clients - that's great! In my little neck of the woods (Florida), the only requests I see for 4K finishing are from amateurs. First-time indie filmmakers who are buying into the hype that they need 4K. Of course, they have very little money for standard post, let alone 4K.
Plus the industry is arguing out of both sides of its collective mouth. Either you want 4K as a deliverable or you want 4K for reframing within 2K or HD. You can't have both. Yes, I know RED has 5K and higher, but that's really only to deliver very clean 4K (resolution, not frame dimensions) when downsampled.
At NAB, ARRI was showing a short film on a 4K monitor. It was created using an Alexa with the 4x3 sensor (raw 2.8K files), but with anamorphic prime lenses. It looked outstanding. I would offer that it looked like film at 4K. Others would argue that it wasn't as crisp as an F65, Epic, etc. My guess is that based on the image alone, most DPs would pick the Alexa, even through it technically isn't 4K by the numbers. Although with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze, the image is really larger than 5K wide.
- Oliver
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (76) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment