Youtube 4K quality is so poor you might as well shoot 1080p

[Geoff CB]

Most digital projectors are 2K (Even digital IMAX is 2 2K projectors next to each other), compression and color win out over 4K every single time unless the audience is told the difference. I can spot it because I look at this stuff constantly. 

11 hours ago, kye said:

I've heard that VFX is a different thing entirely, and that you want RAW and at a high resolution as possible.

The RAW is because you want clean green-screens without having to pull a key and be having to battle with the compression that will blur edges etc.   

The resolution is so that the tracking is as accurate as possible so that when you composite 3D VFX into the clip the VFX parts are as 'locked' to the movement of the captured footage as possible - VFX tracking has to be sub-pixel accurate so that the objects appear like they are in the same space as the footage.

Screening in 2K is probably an advantage as well as it would mean that there is a limit to how clearly the VFX will be seen, so in that sense 2K probably covers up a bunch of sins..   like SD (and then HD) hid details in the hair/makeup department work that higher resolutions exposed.

Your essentially correct on the VFX side for capture, though the 2K for visual effects has less to do with masking flaws than it takes 4 times as long to render a 4K frame than a 2K frame. It's a cost saving measure.

[SteveV4D]

21 hours ago, Towd said:

Meh, even Avengers: Endgame was mastered in wait for it.........  Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format).  At least according to IMDB.

Granted, it was captured in ArriRaw 6.5k...  go figure.  

That explains why Endgame looked quite soft to me in places both on my local cinema screen using 4K projectors and also on my 4K Bluray.   Ironically movies shot on 35mm decades ago, look more detailed than many stuff shot more recently.  

[Towd]

7 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

12 hours ago, kye said:

I've heard that VFX is a different thing entirely, and that you want RAW and at a high resolution as possible.

The RAW is because you want clean green-screens without having to pull a key and be having to battle with the compression that will blur edges etc.   

Your essentially correct on the VFX side for capture, though the 2K for visual effects has less to do with masking flaws than it takes 4 times as long to render a 4K frame than a 2K frame. It's a cost saving measure.

Yeah, VFX houses will charge more for 4k shots, so some project with wall to wall VFX will probably look to save some costs by mastering at 2k even today.

To Kye's point, recording in a higher resolution than your delivery format is a good way to deal with all the stuff that may be happening depending on your camera and recording format.  (Lossy compression, debayering, chroma subsampling, etc.)  You don't have to shoot in raw, but minimally it is best if you can record in 4:4:4 so you're not throwing out chroma information.  Or just shoot 4k 4:2:2, for a 2k delivery.

But if Avengers was recording in 6.5k uncompressed ArriRaw, I'd hazard to guess they had detail to spare.

4 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

That explains why Endgame looked quite soft to me in places both on my local cinema screen using 4K projectors and also on my 4K Bluray.   Ironically movies shot on 35mm decades ago, look more detailed than many stuff shot more recently. 

Yeah, I've been told that it is still common for a film to get mastered at 2k and then have the post house do some fancy up-res for delivery in 4k for cinemas that have 4k projectors.  There are more and more films that are mastered in 4k though.  I just find it interesting that some of the biggest tent pole films are still mastered in 2k.

I read an article a while back that streaming services would outpace Cinema and broadcast TV in the move to higher resolutions and that's pretty obviously what we are seeing today.  It is probably one of the reasons Netflix quickly made the jump to require that their own original content be captured and delivered in 4k.

[SteveV4D]

7 hours ago, Towd said:

 

Yeah, I've been told that it is still common for a film to get mastered at 2k and then have the post house do some fancy up-res for delivery in 4k for cinemas that have 4k projectors.  There are more and more films that are mastered in 4k though.  I just find it interesting that some of the biggest tent pole films are still mastered in 2k.

If I sold 4K to my clients that was upscaled HD, I would be mortified, but studios have no problem selling 4K blurays that are not 4K masters.  It is frankly criminal.  There should be labels that confirm a 4K master or a 2K upscale.  But of course, its not so well regulated, and people can be fooled with clever algorithms.   Reviews of Endgame show this deception and I kick myself for reading them too late.  I felt watching it, I wasn't getting the 4K experience.  But until you see it, you don't know what the results will be.  

[kye]

Another comparison video...  spoiler, he plays a little trick and mixes in EOS R  1080p and 720p footage with the 8K, 4K and 1080p from the R5.

As we've established, there is a difference, but it's not that big, compared to downscaled 1080p and through the YT compression.

[TheRenaissanceMan]