This IS the Avid L2: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks, now 24bits sound

Point taken. It was a loose analogy. ;)

Bottom line, it's always better to work with the highest dynamic range material -- up to a point. Where that point is is debatable. In the case of audio, I maintain that 16 bits is adequate but not ideal. It's adequate for final delivery, but not ideal for mixing and mastering. The artifacts are often audible. Which is why mixers and mastering engineers don't work at 16 bits anymore. Bouke and I will agree to disagree on that, and I'll follow up with him privately.

The 2k vs. 4k debate seems directly comparable to the "megapixel myth" in still photography. At a certain point, a good, large sensor and better image processing (and lenses, lighting, camera technique, etc.) are much more important than more pixels in almost all practical situations. But if you want to put your picture on a billboard or a bus....

For video delivery to the home viewer, I don't know. I kind of lean toward your side, that 4k will not catch on.

Take care -- Mark

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, MarkB wrote:
>
> "Maybe it's sort of like zooming into or boosting the brightness of a dark area of the picture; you're going to see blocks that were not visible before. Which is why it's better to shoot at 4k if you're going to manipulate the picture in post."
>
> Actually, that is a sensor sensitivity or dynamic range issue, not resolution. So shooting 4k would just give smaller blocks, but they would still be blocks.
>
> And the compression used to get 4K down to a manageable level will most likely increase these issues as the first step of compression is to throw away what it's presumed the human eye can't see.
>