What Resolution Are Movies Produced At? - Video Tech Explained
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2021
- A lot of people seem to think that hollywood films are produced at some incredibly high resolution. In reality, most are rendered at a surprisingly low resolution...
== Links ==
Join the official VTE Discord server: / discord
Support me: / videotechexplained
My portfolio: camoncrocker.com - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Wow! You're the first person I've ever seen explaining those DCI standards with such simplicity!
Great job on this. Exactly the right right amount of depth and breadth on this topic for my taste. Looking forward to more videos from you.
Thank you, your videos are always increadibly helpful and answer the more nuanced questions I find myself asking.
I love this channel. Precise, informative and well made!
Camon Crocker, how old are you? With that cowlick stickin' up in the back of your hair, you reminded of Alfalfa--of the LITTLE RASCALS(WAYWAY before your time...and your parents, even)... Your presentation was informative, well done, spot on--thanks. 'new subscriber, here.
Enjoying your videos, just subscribed to the Patreon!
The clearest explanation I can find to date. Thanks for sharing.
Finally a video on this topic that gets to the point!!! Soooo many others make long winded boring videos that go off topic.
Well done. To the point, with enough context to understand the "why"!
I watched this on a 1440P gaming monitor. You did an excellent job in describing the pixel format.
Nice explanation bro👏👏
full of enjoyment and easy to understand. informative video too much☺️
Great video
Oly pointing out that the film we're talking about in the beginning moves vertically 😅
Good job young man, very well explained. I am familiar with the animation process and rendering. It takes serious computer horsepower to create even 1 second because there are 24 frames to render all that detail and movement. I heard that back around 2000 when the Lord of the Rings was being produced, they had about 100 Linux-based computers working around the clock for weeks to create the animation then needed. Computers are lot faster now, but then the digital effects being created are a lot more complex too.
Cool outro music.
Yeah man great job. I couldn't find a single thing to argue with and that's a huge compliment.
Great video - informative and entertaining :) I bought an Arri_Alexa with the 3,4K Sensor - and I don't think I am going to jump onto the 4K-hype train - it's not only the resolution to get "detail", but also depents heavily on the lens, etc. - in my oppinion many people get confused with "detail vs. resolution vs. sharpness", because for example in most cases those camcorders (as an extreme example) can normally deliver a super sharp 4K image - but it doesn't contain any kind of detail - because what makes an image interesting is not the amount of "sharpness", but the amount of visible information :)
excellent videos
great job my all doubts are clear
I set your video to 4k, I can't see any difference. You are still cool.
Thank You.
Thank you
A small point (I realise) regarding your comment...'for the first few decades of motion pictures existence'. Film has been around for more than 130 years!
Good video.
"... the first few decades of motion pictures existence..." You made me laugh there, 9 decades is just a few for you?
I have always wondered why cinema cameras tend to only use a super 35 sensor instead of full frame or medium format. This probably is the reason why.
No, sensor size is not the same as resolution. Full frame over super 35 is more of an narrative or artistic choice. There are higher resolution options in super 35 than there are in full frame.
Yeah there are full frame sensors that range from as low as 12 megapixels, all the way up to 60. Then there are smartphone sensors that reach as high as 108 megapixels (which is dumb in my opinion), but resolution and sensor size are not tied to eachother.
As some smartie pants pointed out, resolution and sensor size are not tied to each other, however the smaller the sensor, the smaller the pixels, given same aspect ration. Smaller pixels, less light sensitive, crappy low light performance = bleh
So yes, that is the reason. Full frame cinema cameras absolutely do exist, yet their native resolution is usually higher than 4k and as pointed out, those high resolutions are often unnecessary, hence undesired, so people do go for a 35mm more often than one might think. Because why buy/rent a full frame camera if you're eventually gonna downscale your footage to 4k or 2k anyway? Yeah, re-framing, post prod image stabilization, yaddayaddaya. That however does not make a compelling argument for full frame, a lot of the time.
best explainer ever on youtube, even better than my payed teacher
thanks
good video. Thanks sir. Can a clip be stretched down to the same ratio without loss of quality?
What resolutions are you referring to, what do you mean by "quality"? Also "stretching down" doesn't make any sense 😐
@@uhuhno6441 bro , sorry for my question. I asked to stretch down instead of stretch up. For example if i did a clip of 1920x 1080 . Now i want to increase the res to 3840x2160. Now what will happen to my video.
@@kudilkudil9459
What? "Stretching down" doesnt make any sense. "Stretching up", yet grammatically wrong, still makes kinda sense, whatever, but stretching down makes no sense at all. Stretching means expanding. Expanding sth down is incoherent nonsense. Sorry but 🤷🏻♂️ I actually tried to understand what you're saying but it's hopeless because "stretching down" to a *higher resolution* is even more nonsensical than what you said before.
@@uhuhno6441 Thanks for your kind reply.
@@kudilkudil9459
Well, it was a reply 😅 sorry bro, I wish I could help but I really don't know how...
No mention of 8k, I kind of get the idea the hardware developers want to push it but content creators don't seem to see any benefits IMO.
thanks genius
does that mean every movie we watch is interpolated from dci 2k to the resolution of 2k tv's?
If the film was mastered at 2K and the TV is 1080p then it will often be downscaled to fit the lower resolution, yes
@@VideoTechExplained interesting, thanks for answering! So that means it wouldnt be an issue to watch movies on p.ex. a 1440p screen because scaling happens all the time anyways?
Edit: or are there special movie enthusiast screens that im not finding?
Exaktly: shoot in 4/6/8/what ever pu•syas• teenangstfanboi K and deliver in 2K
I can't wait until we get 128K
I can't wait until we get ∞k. That'd be like God mode right there.
Bro r u editor
very good video, however, the music in the background, very anoying
It's not only expense, there's actually little difference in quality between 2k and 4k, a modern film mastered at 4k will not improve the audiences cinematic viewing experience. Most people watch movies at a certain comfortable viewing distance, the ceiling of resolution or the ability of the human eye to tell the difference between 2k and 4k is gone when at normal viewing distance. The pixels are already so tiny at 2k, that shrinking them even further, will hardly or produce marginal difference at best. The ceiling of resolution has been met ever since we made the leap from SD to 1080p.
I went to see the movie 'Dune' last year at my local cinema. I hadn't gone to the movies in about 10 years and was taken aback by how pixelated and crap it looked. It looked like 1080p which had been blown up to the size of the cinema screen. I won't be going back any time soon if this is what the future of cinema is going to be like,
Gwyneth Paltrow for president of the USA?
*"Most movies nowadays use digital visual effects."* That's a sad thought. Even sadder because Rogue One is onscreen when this sentence is uttered. An poor imitation of the 1954 masterpiece Seven Samurai which used no digital visual effects to tell the same story only better. _I weep for the species._
Wow that’s pathetic. Videogames run at 4K and render a frame in 16 milliseconds.
Pathetic to not take color depth into consideration.
Actually, he doesn't know what he's talking about! Movies are SHOT and RENDERED at 16K or BETTER and DISTRIBUTED on hard drives at 8K generally but most theaters' projection equipment can't deliver 2K to the screens. Why? Their imaging sensor would get too HOT and cooling with liquid gases is too costly for most movie houses which are barely able to pay rent today!!! 8 out of 10 movie houses are LOSING MONEY! Read "Variety". AMC may not last out the year and Hollywood Theaters is dead in May legally. HT might have a "White Knight" (Viacom???). IF YOU COULD SEE WHAT STUDIOS SHIP, YOU'D BE SHOCKED!!! But that was true in film days too.
err….what? Which cinema cameras or editing software pray tell support 16K. I think we know who doesn’t know what they’re talking about….
Why do you even bother posting this?
sources: Trust me bro
Why is the internet full of people like this...
The world is getting dumber.
This is the dumbest and least informed opinion you could have
I would not say he is wrong, like you said most theatres will stay at 2k. In the film days many theaters stayed with 35mm and optical sound. Optical Dolby tracks helped but it is mostly an economic decision. Also this sort of information becomes dated every year.