Perrone, I didn't make that statement; it was made by Les Wilson. I don't mind debating the finer points of the industry with you, but it would be helpful if you quoted me, not someone else:)

But really, if you are planning on projecting in a theatre, why would you be shooting on a $2000 camera made for stills?

To look at it from a different perspective Liam, you say yourself it is only a 6.6% difference from 1080p. So, is that 6.6% difference in resolution worth the effort and pain of having a resolution/aspect ratio that is not compatible with many standard NLE's or any consumer TV's?

Not really, so why would we expect or want to see 2k in camera which, 99.999% of the time, is going to be shooting for projects where the output is going to be either 1920x1080p Blu-ray, 1280x720p web videos, or even standard definition DVD's?

"if you are planning on projecting in a theatre, why would you be shooting on a $2000 camera made for stills?" Who said it was planned? The fact that it ended up in the cinema and it looked great is all that's important.

As for your second point; 2k can be any aspect ratio you want - the measure is just the horizontal, you simply alter your vertical resolution to make whatever aspect ratio you like. Also, more pixels is usually a good thing, particularly in post where FX and grading are important. Indeed, no one ever complained that 35mm film had too many pixels, even when it was destined for a standard definition output. Anyway, there are ever increasing options available for quality 1080 capture.

The resolution between 2K and 1080p is no big deal. You just resample the image as needed for the required delivery.

One source of confusion relates to some analysis of ATSC (broadcast TV in the US) 1080 vs. 2K. Broadcast TV is heavily compressed, it's 1080i, it's 8 bits-per-pixel, and it has reduced color resolution (4:2:0). 2K shot for film is progressive, is lightly compressed if compressed at all, and it has lots of bit depth and color resolution (4:4:4).

But that's a bogus comparison. One shouldn't compare a delivery format with a capture format.

1920 is so close to 2048 that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with real-world shots with the naked eye - especially since no theater shows the different formats side by side or back to back.

The real key is that you want reasonably high resolution with high capture quality and good photographic techniques. The 7% resolution increase of 2K wide over 1920 wide isn't significant.

On the other hand, shooting at 3K, 4K, or 5K can allow you to shoot wide and crop, composite with fine accuracy, and then downsample to 2K or 1080p with full quality. This isn't a big deal for a documentary, but can be a lifesaver for highly processed special effects films.

LOL! Sorry, the multi-quote thing got me!

I was talking hypothetically, not about your specific example. What percentage of footage shot on DSLR's is destined to end up projected on a large screen? 0.00000001%? Are Canon going to implent 2k just to satistfy that tiny minority who's footage might end up being displayed on a big screen - espescially when that tiny percentage would still buy the camera anyway because their primary concern is budget, otherwise they'd be shooting on RED or film?

Even if you have 2k at 16x9, you're going to be throwing away the extra pixels somewhere along the line anyway - if your NLE can even drop the files on the timeline in the first place, that is. So much extra effort for so little reward. Yes, you'll get sharper, cleaner images if you shoot at higher resolutions and downconvert later, but remember, we are only talking about a 6.6% difference - not the 400% difference between HD and SD.

That's because people shooting 35mm film use a completely different workflow - 4k scans, offline/online editing, proxies, etc. Plus they are doing it on hardware far more powerful than what the average Digital Video editor - let alone consumer/hobbyist - is using.

And my argument was never that 2k has too many pixels, rather that the extra work involved outweighs the benefits - both in terms of R&D versus sales for the company, and extra work/processing versus final product for the film-maker.

"I was talking hypothetically"

Ah, I get you John. I agree, no point in having 2k in a DSLR when there are better alternatives right around the corner.

"Even if you have 2k at 16x9, you're going to be throwing away the extra pixels somewhere along the line anyway"

Yes, but cropping is part of many workflows - it's no big deal. When I was a film editor, every frame was finessed in TK.

If you happen to decide to wait...
 

Hi Patrick,

I agree, if you wait you never start shooting. That is true, but if you decide to wait... read this article I recently wrote:

WANNABEn Filmmaker: 3K43K... 3k for 3k? RED Scarlet...

Just a thought...

Have a great week you all!!

Thanks, Ben. I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the Panny GH2 now. It seems Canon may not release an update to the 7D or 5Dmkii for a while.

BTW, in case you have discovered it, the GH2 has a 1:1 mode called ETC Mode.

This bypasses the filtering and scaling that happens when the whole chip is used. It results in another 2.8x magnification without loss of light and according to tests, is as noise free as the equivalent optical zoom using the whole sensor. Here's more:
Panasonic GH2 1:1 Mode Revealed