Camera resolutions by cinematographer Steve Yeldin

[John Matthews]

I've been watching some resolution insights by cinematographer Steve Yeldin that I think many might find very interesting. Not sure if this has already been posted...

It would be interesting to discuss.

[John Matthews]

Sorry, typo in title. His last name's "Yedlin", not "Yeldin". Sorry to Steve. Too late to update.

[kye]

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested.  They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K.

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

[John Matthews]

6 hours ago, kye said:

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested.  They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K.

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

Yes, as he says in the video, people are just looking at that ONE number to make easy choice as to which camera is better. Maybe this is what separates a real cinematographer from wannabes. The image is what counts, not the megapixels (after you get to the "accepted" amount of detail threshold).

[BenEricson]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested.  They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K.

There’s some irony here... 

People talk about the UMP 12K because it is new and exciting tech. If Steve only cared about image quality, he would just shoot 35 or 65 and be done with it. For better or for worse, he’s clearly a tech dork and is obsessed with perfectly the digital capture techniques. 

Image quality is all subjective, anyway. 

[tupp]

15 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I've been watching some resolution insights by cinematographer Steve Yeldin that I think many might find very interesting. Not sure if this has already been posted...

We've certainly talked about resolution, and other Yedlin videos have been linked in this forum.

 

I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered.

 

Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing.  There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.).  One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images.  Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos.  By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match.

 

Also, I am not sure that his resolution demo is valid, as he seems to be showing different resolutions on the same monitor.  I noticed in one passage that he was zoomed in to see individual pixels, and, when switching between resolutions, the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image.  Something is wrong with that comparison.

 

To properly demonstrate resolution differences in regards to discernible detail, one really must show a 6K-captured image on a 6K monitor, a 4K-captured image on a 4K monitor and an HD/2K captured image on an HD/2K monitor, etc. -- and all monitors must be the same size and and same distance from the viewer.

 

The only other demonstration that I have seen by Yedlin also had significant flaws.

 

Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as how resolution influences color depth and how higher resolution can help transcend conversion/algorithmic losses and how higher resolution allows for cropping, etc.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested.  They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false,

There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen.  Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

I would put the Panavision Genesis (and it's little brother, the Sony F35) up against an Alexa any day, and the Genesis has lower resolution and less dynamic range than the Alexa.  However, the Genesis has a lush, striped, RGB, CCD with true HD -- 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups.

 

Similarly, I recall that the Dalsa Origin demos showed a thick image (it shot 16-bit, 4K), and the Thompson Viper HD CCD camera yielded great footage.

 

 

2 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Yes, as he says in the video, people are just looking at that ONE number to make easy choice as to which camera is better. Maybe this is what separates a real cinematographer from wannabes. The image is what counts, not the megapixels (after you get to the "accepted" amount of detail threshold).

I certainly agree that there is a threshold beyond which higher resolution generally is not necessary in most cases, and I think that that such a threshold has been mentioned a few times in this forum.  On the other hand, I don't think that such a threshold is absolute, as so much of imaging is subjective and a lot of SD productions are still very compelling today.

 

 

1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

If Steve only cared about image quality, he would just shoot 35 or 65 and be done with it.

I have shot a fair amount of film, but I would not say that the image quality of film is "better."  It's easier (and more forgiving) to shoot film in some ways, but video is easier in many other ways and it can give a great image.

 

 

1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

Image quality is all subjective, anyway. 

Exactly.

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

There’s some irony here... 

People talk about the UMP 12K because it is new and exciting tech. If Steve only cared about image quality, he would just shoot 35 or 65 and be done with it. For better or for worse, he’s clearly a tech dork and is obsessed with perfectly the digital capture techniques. 

Image quality is all subjective, anyway. 

I'm fairly certain he primarily shoots with the Alexa in 3k as, according to him, it gives the best image regardless of being "only" 3k. When you look at the way he presents, it seems clear that he's right. In the video, he talks mainly about using a camera as a data collection device and wants ALL sensor/film imperfections to be absent if possible. This way, he can add the imperfections in post to give the look he wants (grain, color, halation, etc.) through a comprehensive editing pipeline. Resolution was the ONE criteria that he didn't need as it met the accepted threshold of detail, even in a camera comparison situation, let alone hidden within a story.

[John Matthews]

5 minutes ago, tupp said:

I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered.

I'd recommend you watch the whole video. It was rather eye-opening for me.

His point is to gather data without any imperfections if possible and add value to his content through a streamlined image processing pipeline, regardless the camera used to capture. I highly doubt any viewer would ever see a flaw with his strategy.

I'm aware that sharpness is not detail... and he covers that in the video too. Another major point is that no manufacturer is making a new human retina; therefore, the maximum detail has already been hit (even with 1080p!). Any more efforts at showing more detail would require sitting much closer to the content at which point you'd find yourself moving your head around to see the scene, taking you pointlessly out of the story. No viewer wants that. 

 

 

[tupp]

16 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I'd recommend you watch the whole video. It was rather eye-opening for me.

His point is to gather data without any imperfections if possible and add value to his content through a streamlined image processing pipeline, regardless the camera used to capture. I highly doubt any viewer would ever see a flaw with his strategy.

Thank you for the recommendation!

 

I don't see any flaw in his strategy, but it also seems rather generic.  Not sure if I should spend an hour watching a video that can be summed-up in a single sentence (as you just did).

 

Also, I hesitate to watch a lengthy video that has fundamental problems inherent in its demonstrations (such as showing resolution differences without changing the pixel size nor pixel number).

[kye]

Well, that went about as I predicted.  In fact it went exactly as I predicted!

I said:

On 3/26/2021 at 6:57 AM, kye said:

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested.  They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K.

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

Then Tupp said that he didn't watch it, criticised it for doing things that it didn't actually do, then suggests that the testing methodology is false.  What an idiot.

Is there a block button?  I think I might go look for it.  I think my faith in humanity is being impacted by his uninformed drivel.  I guess not everyone in the industry cares about how they appear online - I typically found the pros I've spoken to to be considered and only spoke from genuine knowledge, but that's definitely not the case here.

18 hours ago, BenEricson said:

There’s some irony here... 

People talk about the UMP 12K because it is new and exciting tech. If Steve only cared about image quality, he would just shoot 35 or 65 and be done with it. For better or for worse, he’s clearly a tech dork and is obsessed with perfectly the digital capture techniques. 

Image quality is all subjective, anyway. 

There's irony everywhere, but I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically! 🙂

I'm not really sure who you think Steve Yedlin actually is?  You're aware that he is a professional cinematographer right?

I'd suggest you read his articles on colour science and image attributes - they speak to both what he's trying to achieve and you can get a sense of why he does what he does: http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/index.html

16 hours ago, John Matthews said:

His point is to gather data without any imperfections if possible and add value to his content through a streamlined image processing pipeline, regardless the camera used to capture. I highly doubt any viewer would ever see a flaw with his strategy.

I agree, but I think it's worth stating a couple of caveats.

Firstly, he shoots large productions that have time to be heavily processed in post, which obviously he does quite a bit of.  Here's a video talking about the post-production process on Mindhunter, which also used heavy processing in post to create a look from a relatively neutral capture: 

That should  give you a sense of how arduous that kind of thing can be.  Which I think makes processing in post a luxury for most film-makers.  Either you're shooting a project where people aren't being paid by the hour, such as a feature where you're doing most of the work in post yourself.  This is a luxury because you will be able to spend more time than is economical for the project.
Film-makers who don't have the expertise themselves and would have to pay someone, or more likely they would just try and get things right in-camera, and do whatever they can afford in post.

The second aspect of this is knowing what you can do in post and what you can't do.  Obviously you can adjust colour, and you can degrade certain elements as well, but we're a long way off being able to change the shape of bokeh, or alter depth of field, or completely perfectly emulate diffusion.

So it's important to understand what you can and cannot do in post (both from a resourcing / skills perspective as well as from a physics perspective) and take that into account during pre-production. 

20 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Maybe this is what separates a real cinematographer from wannabes.

I completely agree with this.  It certainly eliminates great proportions of the people online though.

I suspect that the main contributor to this is that most people online are being heavily influenced by amateur stills photographers who seem to think that sharpness is the most important image attribute in a camera or lens.  I think this tendency is a reaction to the fact that images from the film days struggled with sharpness (due to both the stocks and lenses), and also early digital struggled due to the relatively low number of MP at the start as well.  I think this will eventually fade as the community gets a more balanced perspective.

The film industry, on the other hand, still talks about sharpness but does so in a more balanced perspective, and does so in the context of balancing it against other factors to get the overall aesthetic they want, taking into account the post-process they're designing and the fact that distribution is limited to a ~2K perceptual resolution.

[noone]

2 hours ago, kye said:

 

I suspect that the main contributor to this is that most people online are being heavily influenced by amateur stills photographers who seem to think that sharpness is the most important image attribute in a camera or lens.  I think this tendency is a reaction to the fact that images from the film days struggled with sharpness (due to both the stocks and lenses), and also early digital struggled due to the relatively low number of MP at the start as well.

More so the more pixels = stills camera thing.

Even in this forum I have been told many times my (now aging) A7s is not a photography camera.   

To me as long as you have ENOUGH resolution for either stills or video, that is all that matters.

My best photos have been taken with the A7s including reasonable level photo competition (highly commended) shots and use in newspapers, and now by the Australian national portrait gallery (not portraits).

Enlarging software for stills has also gotten very good lately not that I have had any need for it to date (is there such a thing for video using AI yet good enough to end this debate?).

[kye]

1 hour ago, noone said:

More so the more pixels = stills camera thing.

Even in this forum I have been told many times my (now aging) A7s is not a photography camera.   

To me as long as you have ENOUGH resolution for either stills or video, that is all that matters.

My best photos have been taken with the A7s including reasonable level photo competition (highly commended) shots and use in newspapers, and now by the Australian national portrait gallery (not portraits).

Enlarging software for stills has also gotten very good lately not that I have had any need for it to date (is there such a thing for video using AI yet good enough to end this debate?).

Any camera is a good camera if it fulfils your purpose.

I think we get into trouble when either 1) people don't actually understand what impacts the end result (and therefore rely on rules of thumb that are often not true) or 2) people don't understand that your needs or goals or priorities aren't the same as theirs (and therefore just tell you that you should do X, and/or that you're wrong for choosing something other than their suggestion).

[John Matthews]

6 hours ago, kye said:

That should  give you a sense of how arduous that kind of thing can be.  Which I think makes processing in post a luxury for most film-makers.  Either you're shooting a project where people aren't being paid by the hour, such as a feature where you're doing most of the work in post yourself.  This is a luxury because you will be able to spend more time than is economical for the project.
Film-makers who don't have the expertise themselves and would have to pay someone, or more likely they would just try and get things right in-camera, and do whatever they can afford in post.

After watching the video, I was surprised how many localized edits were made, incredible amounts of finessing the image. The director doesn't like pink; so, we choose a color-space with less pink, but still has significant color saturation and separation. Of course, they shoot it HDR too, but Fincher doesn't that kind of look. "Arduous" was the right word. However, when I watch the Steve Yedlin video, I really don't get the same impression. However, not knowing the entire process, it might be the same. The video you linked makes me never want to be a colorist!

[John Matthews]

4 hours ago, noone said:

More so the more pixels = stills camera thing.

Even in this forum I have been told many times my (now aging) A7s is not a photography camera.   

To me as long as you have ENOUGH resolution for either stills or video, that is all that matters.

My best photos have been taken with the A7s including reasonable level photo competition (highly commended) shots and use in newspapers, and now by the Australian national portrait gallery (not portraits).

Enlarging software for stills has also gotten very good lately not that I have had any need for it to date (is there such a thing for video using AI yet good enough to end this debate?).

As almost no one consumes imagery in print form, the issue of megapixels is completely mute nowadays. Any camera is good enough and will satisfy any non-forensic based analysis. Your A7s should do a splendid job. You just can't crop the hell out of it without AI upresing it if you don't think it'll satisfy people. As I remember it, the only thing you need to "worry" about with that camera is highlight fidelity in jpeg's and video with its tendency to go cyan.

[tupp]

6 hours ago, kye said:

I said:

On 3/25/2021 at 3:57 PM, kye said:

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested.  They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K.

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

Then Tupp said that he didn't watch it, criticised it for doing things that it didn't actually do, then suggests that the testing methodology is false.

Your interpretation of my interaction with your post here is certainly interesting.  However, there is no need for interpretation, as one can merely scroll up to see my comments.  Nevertheless, I would like to clarify a few things.

 

Firstly, as I mentioned, I merely scanned the Yedlin videos for two reasons:

1. I immediately encountered what are likely flaws in his comparisons (to which you refer as "things that it didn't actually do");
2. Yedlin's second resolution video is unnecessarily long and ponderous.

 

Why should one waste time watching over an hour of long-winded comparisons that are dubious from the get go.  Yedlin expects viewers to judge the differences in discernability between 6K, 4K and 2K footage rendered to full HD file on the viewers' own monitors.  Also, we later see some of the footage downscaled to 2K and then upscaled to 4K.

 

Unfortunately, even if we are able to view the HD file pixels at 1-to-1 on our monitors, most of the comparisons are still not valid.  His zooming in and out while switching between downscaled/upscaled images is not equivalent to actually comparing 8K capture on an 8K monitor with 4k capture on a 4k monitor with 2K capture on a 2K monitor, etc.

 

In regards to my claims of flaws in the video which are "things that it didn't actually do," here is the passage in the video that I mentioned in which the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image.  By the way, I disagree with his statement that the 2K image is less "resolute" than the 6K image when zoomed in.  At that moment in the video, the 2K image looks sharper than the 6K image to me, both when zoomed in and zoomed out.

 

So much for the flaws in the video "that it didn't actually do."

 

As for the laborious length of some of Yedlin's presentations, I am not the only one here who holds that sentiment.  Our own @jcs commented on the very resolution comparisons that we are discussing:

On 8/10/2017 at 2:36 PM, jcs said:

I think Yedlin could have made a better point by shortening the videos dramatically: way too long and rambly

Please note that this comment appeared in an informative thread about "Multi-spectral Detail Enhancement," acuity and sharpness, which is somewhat relevant to this thread regarding resolution.

 

 

6 hours ago, kye said:

 What an idiot.

Is there a block button?  I think I might go look for it.  I think my faith in humanity is being impacted by his uninformed drivel.  I guess not everyone in the industry cares about how they appear online - I typically found the pros I've spoken to to be considered and only spoke from genuine knowledge, but that's definitely not the case here.

Nice comments!  Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my points!

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

Yedlin expects viewers to judge the differences in discernability between 6K, 4K and 2K footage rendered to full HD file on the viewers' own monitors.  Also, we later see some of the footage downscaled to 2K and then upscaled to 4K.

For me, he effectively demonstrates the insignificance of taking professionally prepared 4k+ content, downscaling it to 2k, and upscaling it to 4k again. The resulting images, even when compared A/B style, don't show any difference. I'd love for you to prove otherwise. I really didn't think of it like this until after watching him. Again, his point wasn't necessarily this though- it was to show there are many other considerations BEFORE pixel count that show significant importance as long as the detail threshold is met.

[noone]

I guess there are a couple of different segments. 

At his level, I guess you can pick and choose your camera for each job so to me it would be something like....  Choose resolution as an easy first step for the required job, then pick the lenses and the rest to achieve that and not worry about resolution any more.

For most amateurs who are going to own their gear and for who it will be a major purchase, I guess many will want the latest, greatest they can afford and latest greatest for many will mean higher resolution as a by product (though many will chase the more is better thing).

Full HD is still all I need for video still and 8mp for photos is just fine most of the time (which means 4k video too when I need it).

I have just got rid of most of my cheap cameras (film and digital) and am down to just three digital cameras... 20mp, 16mp and 12mp and they all have their uses ... A superzoom 1/2 inch 16mp used at 8mp most of the time....(only full HD video), 20mp 1 inch sensor (has 4k but i never use it) and my 12mp A7s (lovely full HD and has 4k to a recorder but I have never tried).      I can not afford anything else now other than cheap fifteenth hand stuff from Ebay.     Most of my videos will never be seen by an audience not held captive though. 

[tupp]

7 hours ago, John Matthews said:

For me, he effectively demonstrates the insignificance of taking professionally prepared 4k+ content, downscaling it to 2k, and upscaling it to 4k again.

Agreed, but what is the point of all the downscaling and upscaling?  What does it prove in regards to comparing the discernability of different resolutions?  How can we compare different resolutions, if the differences in resolution are nullified at the outset of the comparison?

 

In addition, is this downscaling and then upscaling something that is done in practice regularly?  I have never heard of anyone intentionally doing so.

 

Also, keep in mind that what Yedlin actually did was to downscale from 6K/4K to 2K, then upscale to 4K... and then downscale back to 1080.  The delivered videos both on Yedlin's site and in your YouTube links are 1080.

 

 

7 hours ago, John Matthews said:

The resulting images, even when compared A/B style, don't show any difference. I'd love for you to prove otherwise.  I really didn't think of it like this until after watching him.

I honestly do not understand why anyone would expect to see much of a general difference after straight downscaling and then upscaling, especially when the results are rendered back down to HD.  Please enlighten me on what is demonstrated by doing so.

 

Furthermore, Yedlin merely runs an image through different scaling nodes in editing software while peering at the software's viewer, and I am not sure that doing so gives the same results as actually rendering an image to a lower resolution, then re-rendering it back to a higher resolution.

 

 

8 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Again, his point wasn't necessarily this though- it was to show there are many other considerations BEFORE pixel count that show significant importance as long as the detail threshold is met.

Of course, there are numerous imaging considerations that transcend simple pixel counts.  That issue has been examined endlessly on this forum and elsewhere, and I am not certain if Yedlin adds much to the discussion.

 

By the way, my above quote from @jcs came from a 2-page "detail enhancement" thread on EOSHD.  The inventive and original approach introduced within @jcs's opening post gives significant insight into sharpness/acuity properties that are more important than simple resolution.   In that regard, the 1+ hour video on resolution by Steve Yedlin, ASC is far surpassed by just six short paragraphs penned by JCS, EOSHD.

[kye]

19 hours ago, John Matthews said:

After watching the video, I was surprised how many localized edits were made, incredible amounts of finessing the image. The director doesn't like pink; so, we choose a color-space with less pink, but still has significant color saturation and separation. Of course, they shoot it HDR too, but Fincher doesn't that kind of look. "Arduous" was the right word. However, when I watch the Steve Yedlin video, I really don't get the same impression. However, not knowing the entire process, it might be the same. The video you linked makes me never want to be a colorist!

Hahaha..  I think that this is regarded as a bit of an outlier in terms of the demand placed on the colourist and post-production, but yes, being a professional colourist isn't top of my career choices either!

I'm less familiar with the inner workings of how Steve works in post, although I get the impression that although he has very specific requirements, he's also much more hands on during that process, so it's less of a case of making specific requests of others, but once again, I haven't seen anything one way or the other.

19 hours ago, John Matthews said:

As almost no one consumes imagery in print form, the issue of megapixels is completely mute nowadays. Any camera is good enough and will satisfy any non-forensic based analysis. Your A7s should do a splendid job. You just can't crop the hell out of it without AI upresing it if you don't think it'll satisfy people. As I remember it, the only thing you need to "worry" about with that camera is highlight fidelity in jpeg's and video with its tendency to go cyan.

@noone

I watched a great panel discussion between a few industry pros (I just had a look for it and unfortunately can't find it) debating resolution, and the pattern was completely obvious.  The cinematographers wanted to shoot 2K, or as close to it as possible, because it makes their life easier and the films are all mastered in 2K anyway.  The post-production reps wanted as much resolution as possible (8K or even more if possible) because it's really useful for tracking and VFX work, which they said is now pretty much a fixture of all productions these days.

So in that sense, I think it's just about what kind of production you're shooting, and once again, being aware of what you're trying to accomplish and then using the right tools for the job.

18 hours ago, tupp said:

Your interpretation of my interaction with your post here is certainly interesting.  However, there is no need for interpretation, as one can merely scroll up to see my comments.  Nevertheless, I would like to clarify a few things.

<snip>

You can't make comparisons, discuss, criticise, or even comment on something you haven't watched.

As someone who HAS watched it, more than once actually, I found that it worked methodically, building the logic one step at a time, taking the viewer through quite a complex analysis.  I found it engaging and was surprised that it didn't seem to drag, and found that it covered all the variables, including all the nuance of various post-production image pipelines, including the upscaling downscaling and processing of VFX pipelines.

Your criticisms are of things he didn't say.  That's called a straw man argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm not surprised that the criticisms you're raising aren't valid, as you've displayed a lack of critical thinking on many occasions, but what I am wondering is how you think you can criticise something you haven't watched?
The only thing I can think of is that you don't understand how logic, or logical discourse actually works, which unfortunately makes having a reasonable discussion impossible.

This whole thread is about a couple of videos that John has posted, and yet you're in here arguing with people about what is in them when you haven't watched them, let alone understood them.  I find it baffling, but sadly, not out of character.

[John Matthews]

4 hours ago, kye said:

I watched a great panel discussion between a few industry pros (I just had a look for it and unfortunately can't find it) debating resolution, and the pattern was completely obvious.  The cinematographers wanted to shoot 2K, or as close to it as possible, because it makes their life easier and the films are all mastered in 2K anyway.  The post-production reps wanted as much resolution as possible (8K or even more if possible) because it's really useful for tracking and VFX work, which they said is now pretty much a fixture of all productions these days.

I remember watching both of these. In a nutshell, up-resing tech was good enough for them in 2014, I imagine it's a little better in 2021. They'd much rather work like that and continue with a speedy 2k pipeline. And once again, audiences cannot tell the difference.