From: Aaron F. Ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Dec 07 2010 - 15:07:31 PST
Just one relevant point I'd like to make. The difference in
resolution between 1920 and 2048 is really negligible. We should be
much more concerned with bit depth at this stage in the game. 8 bits
per channel just doesn't cut it anymore. Even 10-bit Cineon is
looking pretty shabby these days. I'm rendering all of my new
computer animation work out to high dynamic range formats, kind of
like a digital negative. This eats up a lot of disk space, but
greatly facilitates quality compositing, grading, and output to
various distribution formats.
The real coming revolution is not in packing in more pixels to the
same screen space. We've already reached the limit of what most
people can see. HD/2K projection is fine for any theatrical
presentation, unless it's a truly massive screen such as IMAX.
The revolution is in higher dynamic range capture and display
devices. Therefore I'm future-proofing my work by maintaining an HDR
signal path through post-production.
At 12/7/2010, you wrote:
>Chris the difference between HD and 2K at this point is really a
>question of what is marketed to whom. Otherwise it's 1.9K vs 2K !
>Hopefully the serious ones will accomadate the full 2048 in the
>I myself am working in HD/1920 because it works with my displays w/o
>scaling and seemed the safer move... and if it went to 2K it can just
>be padded out with black, no scaling needed. But I personally would
>prefer working in 1.85 to the 1.78/16x9 I'm doing now, it's a better
>AR for me... of course I'd like to be working in 4K, more samples =
>better, better to oversample than scale up etc etc.
>FrameWorks mailing list
Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild
FrameWorks mailing list