Amazon and iTunes only accept 2K files, and 4K streams are fake...?

[kye]

Just watched this video from Crimson Engine about camera trends, and he dropped an absolute bombshell....

"We shot and mastered The Devis Fortune [his recent feature film] in 4K, and then when it came time to deliver it to Amazon and iTunes, I was told they would only accept a 2K file, they would then up-res it for 4K delivery if that's what people wanted to watch".

Link to the video at that point:

I understand that this is a lower-budget film and not a blockbuster and I don't believe it was through a major distributor or studio, so maybe those films are actually uploaded in 4K, but.....

How much actual 4K are people watching?  Does anyone have more information on this?

Wouldn't it be hilarious if all the people watching YT for free were demanding 4K at the minimum, when all/most/some paid content was all 2K.

[Phil A]

I wouldn't be surprised if no-name content gets second class treatment to save on storage.
I heard often (i.e. don't know by evidence) that big YouTube channels get better compression than small ones.

From a business perspective it makes sense. No need for super high quality cat videos that 3 people will see, better give some more performance/storage/bandwidth/whatever to MKBHD or MrBeast where millions will watch it. I'm not saying their content is better, I'm just saying from a business perspective you focus on the "product" that is in demand.

Perspective: I used to be Product Manager for a not-in-demand product in an industrial area 🥲

[newfoundmass]

This is just speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that he might be using one of those distribution companies that works as a middle man between the creator and the retailer. On Amazon, at least, there isn't a lot of (maybe none?) 4K content that isn't a major studio release or an Amazon original. I just don't think they're interested in having most independent/low budget content in 4K and consider it a waste of resources. While most filmmakers would probably disagree that their films aren't worthy of being in 4K, when you look at all of the stuff on there and you look at it from their perspective, does no budget found footage horror film #25679 really need to be available in 4K? Probably not. Besides, 2K is the standard for DCPs isn't it? 

I do think it poses a bigger question though: is "4K" streaming, at least as it stands now, really necessary? When I watch 4K blu-rays the image is stunning on my television. You can genuinely see a significant difference between 1080p and 4K. The gap though narrows significantly when you compare 1080p and 4K streaming, to the point where I downgraded my Netflix account (before eventually closing it) because the difference was so minimal. Don't even get me started on comparing streaming 4K to a 4K disc.

When it comes to streaming I don't think it's the resolution that makes it better, but the better bitrates. I think you'd get essentially the same results if they used the same bitrates on a 1080p stream as they do for a 4K stream. My 4K uploads to YouTube I think look better in 4K for that reason, too, not because of the added resolution. Maybe I'll upscale a 1080p version of a video to 4K and compare it to the source 4K version to see if there's much of a difference after YouTube finishes with them? Either way, the streaming 4K version still looks inferior to 1080p blu-rays I've made for clients. 

[kye]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Maybe I'll upscale a 1080p version of a video to 4K and compare it to the source 4K version to see if there's much of a difference after YouTube finishes with them?

Here's a test I did some time ago, downscaling an 8K clip to various resolutions then putting them on the same 4K timeline and uploading in 4K.

The shot at the end puts them all side-by-side for direct comparison.  There are differences, but even pixel peeing, they're pretty minimal.  If you're watching something rather than talking tech or doing tests, then it doesn't matter, plus if you add a bit of sharpening to a lower resolution file then it can easily make up small differences.

You're right that YT in 4K looks much higher quality than YT in 1080p, but it's a bitrate thing rather than resolution.

[FHDcrew]

1 minute ago, kye said:

Here's a test I did some time ago, downscaling an 8K clip to various resolutions then putting them on the same 4K timeline and uploading in 4K.

The shot at the end puts them all side-by-side for direct comparison.  There are differences, but even pixel peeing, they're pretty minimal.  If you're watching something rather than talking tech or doing tests, then it doesn't matter, plus if you add a bit of sharpening to a lower resolution file then it can easily make up small differences.

You're right that YT in 4K looks much higher quality than YT in 1080p, but it's a bitrate thing rather than resolution.

This is so true.  I mean, on my Z6 when I record oversampled 1080p, the difference between it and native 4k is very minimal even when viewing the Prores copy.  I can even get away with punching into the 1080p footage for interviews and while it gets softer it isn't unusable.