This is going off topic, but from the online discussions I've seen, what some folks don't seem to fathom about the whole resolution debate, when talking in the context of a film like The Hobbit, is the characteristics of perceived resolution when the frame rate increases.
The faster the frame rate, the more that particular series of still pictures are viewed as more RESOLVED and lifelike...even if the pixel resolution is IDENTICAL and shot from the SAME camera.
Everyone seems to focus their discuss pixel resolution, when it (I think) is about the aesthetic issue of slower frame rates. This is an overlooked cinematic effect that shouldn't be ignored on-line, but too often is. (Professionals get it though)
Look, here's a straw man for ya:
"Oh, I like films shot on the Alexa!" people argue, "It's so much better than everything else. So organic and "pure." Well, yeah. It kinda is, but are you enamored with the cinematic look of the frame rate or the actual image resolution? I suggest it's both. If you shot 60p on an Alexa I guarantee you a film purist would take one look at the result and be horrified at the "videoness" of the image. Shoot the same exact scene at 24p on the Alexa, play it back, and the film purist would instantly feel more comfortable.
Aside from all that, just watching a film shot in 48p, then played back and displayed at 24p will certainly alter the perceived cinematic aesthetic of the film. It will present different visual characteristic. At 24p you'd be watching every other frame of a 48p shoot and that's all it takes. Watch the footage at it's initially shot 48p and it starts to look more "video/electronic" (and thus less cinematic) to the human eye.
You got a camera and monitor that does both 25p and 50p? Shoot 50p and put the clip on a 50p timeline and then on a 25p time line. Watch the difference. Or, shoot a horse race at 50p then shoot another at 25p and go look at the perceived change of the image. You'll see in a hurry it's not an issue about resolution that's altering your idea of what it means for an image to be "cinematic."
...and I'm not even getting into motion blur and shutter speeds, which also greatly alter the perception of moving pictures.
Long rant short: It's not just about the resolution.
Philip Bloom had a lengthy blog on this back in October here is the link and his pros and converts
philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/
Now the pros and cons of 4k
PROS:
Incredibly detailed images, 4 times that of HD but they are not obviously so.
Fantastic ability to crop in post. Something I do on all my interviews for docs now that I shoot 4k for them. I am not shooting 4k docs – just 4k talking heads. I can then go in for tights or back out whenever I want in the edit. Way better.
“Future proof†I am bit hesitant about this as I see very little need for future proofing most of my work. Now for high end drama and big docs then yes. Do it.
You have a higher end format to sell to clients. Sometimes an advantage. Not always though…see cons.
Scaling down to 2K in post often yields quite stunning results.
CONS:
Inefficient codec mean massive files. Even efficient ones are pretty big, which means expensive cards and lots of storage.
Inability to edit natively for the vast majority of people. Proxies are used which of course adds time.
Most production companies I have dealt with cannot take it.
Almost nobody can actually watch 4k (yet). I can’t.
It can lead to lazy cinematography. Although I use the crop to help me in interviews, this is not due to being lazy but to give me options. You should never forget the tight shots because you can crop. The whole aesthetic changes. The depth of field remains the same so it doesn’t look like a true close up
You need to be even more skilled, as mistakes are easier to spot.
Incredibly unforgiving and harsh. Showing the flaws in everything, especially people. Fantastic for beauty shots etc..for drama it’s actually too detailed and causes the DP many issues.
Needs a really big screen to really see the difference.
Will it actually take off as a consumer format for the home? I am very pessimistic about this.
Paul Ning reacted to fuzzynormal in Why I am going with 4K and why you should too