The Silliness of 8k and More…

There seems to be a lot of hubbub recently in the film and video production community of cameras that are higher resolution than 4k… such as 8k, 12k, and even 16k(!!). Wow! 16k! Imagine how much resolution that is.. so much so that it practically goes beyond human perception, yet, manufacturers are creating imaging sensors capable of that much clarity (by making the pixels tinier and tinier and then fitting them onto the same amount of space used for a 4k camera sensor).

Okay, so let’s be clear (no pun intended)..

Anything above 4k is a waste - of data, memory (4k can itself take up GOBS of storage), computing power, and so on. The list of how much this takes is more than I really need to expand on. But know that 4k in and of itself is a memory hog.

Granted, if a production is shooting for transfer to some film format (actual film) like 70mm or IMAX as an example, then having something that’s what is known as a “full frame” camera that records at 8k is nice to have - and overall, pretty necessary, though one could shoot 4k with a full-frame camera and transfer to 70mm motion picture film. (We are shooting for 70mm on a 5.7k Super35 sensor and it works..so..)

Most theatrical prints are 1.5K-2K in resolution… keep that in mind.

The thing is, anything above 4k, 99.9% of the time, is waste - again, storage is one thing, but when edited, all that lovely 8k and above footage is edited at 4k, or even 2k or good old HD 1080p, and then output as such,. I shoot at 4k (4096×2160) on a camera that’s actually a 5.7k camera, which takes that extra data of the 5.7k sensor, and compresses it down to 4k on the fly - so you end up with an extremely lovely 4k image.

At times I shoot at good old HD, because that’s all the client needs (like sports or maybe some event), but will shoot 4k usually and then edit at either 3k or 2k, or even HD. The advantage to shooting 4k for a project, is that it gives me the ability to recompose a shot for instance - if the video is twice the size of my edit, I can essentially zoom in and change the composition of the shot as need be.

BUT…

As a cinematographer of many years (30+), I shoot with intention - in other words, I compose for the shot I want. I don’t shoot with the intention of changing that composition in edit. I know what I want when I shoot it. That comes from a background initially in still photography - using what’s called “The Photographer’s Eye” (and there happens to be an excellent book of the same title and concept). See the shot, know the rule of thirds, know how to compose, and then shoot. Sometimes things happen - and you can crop something out if need be. But, for the most part, shoot with intention.

Which brings me back to this whole 8k, 12k, 16k mess. The question is, what is the real purpose of having a camera that shoots at such incredibly high resolutions when that will never be seen? Large film format is one reason (if it evert goes to film which is rare these days). A camera with an S35 sensor (which is similar to 35mm film) and shoots 4k or 5.7k, plays nicely on a projector on a big screen in most movie theaters. Plus we do all sorts of stuff to take out all that incredible sharpness - to make it look like analog film. Filters on the lens that take off some of the edge, diffuse, add that glow around lights, etc. Then we add coloring to make it look like film, and then sometimes we add scanned film grain to make it look even more like it was shot on 35mm motion picture film.

SO…

When a production company tells you that they shoot on 8k (or above) cameras, know that it’s a lot of hype because it sounds good or impressive. Chances are they knock it all down to 4k because it costs tons to have all of that memory storage - and they will charge you for it - especially the cards used in the camera to film your project. Television is still 1920×1080 HD, and most films you watch at home are still that as well - though some streaming services are 4k as well, but it’s dumbed down to some degree in order to even stream to your house.

Everything you see here on this website and our YouTube was shot at 4k, but edited in 2k and presented as such. And it looks great on a big TV, in a movie theater, and on the web.

That being said, be wary of when a production company throws around that they have 8k and or higher resolution cameras. We use Netflix approved cinema cameras that shoot in 5.7k. Big Whoop. It gives us what we want so we cab deliver to you what you need, plain and simple.

Unless a camera that’s 8k or higher is using a MASSIVE sensor to be able to gather all that imagery, it’s just trickery. Same as having an iPhone with a tiny sensor that’s 4k… it’s just a ton of very tiny pixels shoved into the same amount of space. One can only gather so much detail, color and light based on the size of the sensor that’s capturing all of that. A 4k camera with a 35mm sized sensor is going to perform much better than one with a roughly 10mm sensor. An 8k camera is almost the same size as a 35mm sensor, as does a 12k camera… more pixels yes, but tinier ones at the same time.

It’s a cheat more or less… and $10 bucks says my 5.7k camera with a 35mm sensor outperforms those. But for some reason, people are swayed and wooed by the idea that “bigger is better”.

It’s not.

So don’t be wooed or swayed by someone who says they have such and such gear that’s anything above 4k (as I mentioned, ours is 5.7k which is compressed into a 4k recording and works mathematically very well), and then use that to leverage higher production costs or why you should hire them because they have that "“Ferrari” instead of the “Unimog”. Look instead at their work. Do you like it and does it fit with what you want? And if they try to charge more by using more impressive sounding gear, run. They are more about how much they can make vs how much they can produce something you’re truly happy with.

If you want to talk more about all this and learn more about how we would love to help you tell your story, please reach out anytime and let’s chat!