To 4K or not to 4K…

There’s a particular discussion that has come up again and again on our forum that we’ve now noticed cropping up in reactions to the footage we posted last week. So I decided to open it up here for a more public debate.

can_of_worms.gif CAN OF WORMS

I know that this discussion is a heated one, and there is no correct opinion. The intention of this post is to tell you about the decisions we have made when designing our camera and about how we arrived at those decisions.

To me the core functions of digital cameras are:

1. Drive the sensor in a clean way with good A/D conversion.

2. Transport and store the image data collected by the sensor in the best way possible.

3. Provide the user a good experience and a high-value proposition.

To me this means we create the electronics that run our amazing Kodak designed sensor, and then get out of the way so that filmmakers can have an image as close to sensor data as possible. Kinda like a film camera does with film. 🙂

Mitchel-16mm-threading-diagMany cameras makers believe their job is to make your life easier by giving you a few limited shooting styles and smaller file sizes through compression, again limiting your choices, this time in post. We believe our job is to make a camera that gives the maximum control and freedom to the artist, both on set and in post. This is our North Star, the guiding light behind all of our design choices. How do we get the most accurate representation of what the sensor captured to the filmmaker in the most pliable format?


Debayering is hard. When running a really nice debayer algorithm in 2K resolution, most desktops computers can only do a few frames a second at the fastest, 4K takes longer. To do this on the fly most cameras use inferior algorithms.

D16 footage is impressive. Our designers and engineers have worked really hard, researching components, tuning the sensor to perfection, designing amazing analog to digital conversion modules, optimizing data paths and write speeds, and generally doing everything we can to protect the image integrity as it travels through the camera from sensor to storage. Basically it takes a lot of work to protect a 12-bit raw file as it travels through the camera. It isn’t automatic. Cameras are either built for raw or they’re not.

In the near future, when people inevitably make their camera comparison tests comparing raw footage on the D16 to other cameras, they will be impressed, even when the other cameras are much more expensive. But if/when we add compression formats, that will change completely. The processing power in our camera won’t be good enough to run the best debayer algorithms. And when people do their camera comparison tests and compare our compressed footage to other cameras’ compressed footage, the image will be pretty much the same, except without the rolling shutter. All of our other advantages, all of the research, all of the hard work, all of our design efforts will be washed away by the tide of compression.

This is why I am hesitant to do it.

Derek_Bacon_illustration_cliffCOLOR DEPTH VS RESOLUTION

There has been a big push from a lot of companies recently for 4K. They say it is the future, and I’m sure it is. But there is another, more quiet tech revolution happening, and it is one I think may be more important in the long run. It’s the Color Revolution.

gay-pride-flagWhen you go to a movie these days, most of the time you are seeing a 2K resolution image from a DCP, which in size isn’t that different from the 1920 x 1080 resolution of a Blu-ray disc (yes there are 4K theaters, but I’m talking about your average screen in an average movie theater). However, there is no way a Blu-ray looks anywhere near as good as the 50 foot movie theater projection. Part of the reason is that theaters use amazing projectors that are DCI compliant, but another reason is that the images they are projecting have 12-bit color depth. This is a huge difference from the 8-bit color we see at home, and the 8-bit color most reasonably priced cameras shoot, including many of the new 4K cameras.

break-it-downLet’s break it down. With 8-bit color you get 256 shades of red, green, and blue, which combined gets you 16,777,216 colors. Which sounds like a lot, but it’s not, when you compare it to higher bit rates. With 10-bit color you get 1,024 shades of RGB, giving you over a billion different colors. And 12-bit is 4,096 shades of RGB and over 68 billion colors! That’s some color rendition.

Nature does 12-bitWhy does this matter? Because just like resolution is advancing, so is bit depth. There are affordable 10-bit monitors and 10-bit video cards these days. They don’t get as much radio play as 4K does, but are as every bit (and possibly more) revolutionary. So in the future when everything is Ultra HD, it will also be high bit-rate.

Bit-rate vs resolution in imaging is analogous to bit-depth vs sample rate in audio. In my opinion, it is much easier to hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings, than it is to hear the difference between 48K and 96K sample rates. It’s true that both 24-bit and 96K probably make recordings sound better, as the extra detail in 4k does, but the focus is usually pretty even on providing both simultaneously. People in audio don’t generally push 96K and 8-bit together the way that video / digital cinema companies push 4K and 8-bit together. When they do it seems a little wonky to me.

Wonky building

High bit-depth has been around for years just like 4K. And professionals and tech junkies have been preaching about it for years, just like 4K. And it is finally getting to a price point normal people can afford it, just like 4K. And just like 4K, the distribution side of the industry isn’t really ready for it yet, unless you are going theatrical in a major theater chain. There are very few computers and monitors that can handle 10-bit images right now.

I’m not suggesting anyone go out and purchase a new computer / video card / monitor in order to work in 10-bit right this minute. I’m proposing that when thinking about the future of imaging, we consider color depth at least as important as resolution.

REALITY CHECK AHEADTechnology moves fast and we need to keep up, or at least we feel that way. But it actually isn’t moving that fast. The first CDs were released in 1982, 30 years ago. It has only been in the last five years that digital music distribution has become a major player in that marketplace. Blu-rays were first released in 2006. It’s entirely possible that it will take Blu-rays as long to dominate the marketplace as it did the CD and DVD, who both took 15 years to reach a 75% market share. In today’s fast-paced high-tech YouTube world there are still almost no TV broadcasts in 1080p. Most of the big players in online media delivered to your TV, like iTunes and Netflix adopted 1080p just a little over a year ago, and most of the content on these platforms is still 720p. For television 720p is even considered a premium, for which subscribers pay extra.

The current HD standards were put into place in the mid 90’s, yet standard definition DVDs still outsell Blu-rays almost 4:1. Many analysts thought Blu-rays would be outselling DVD by 2012, but adoption has been slower than people thought. Many financial papers are still talking about the growing popularity of HD even today. HDTVs have only hit 75% of market saturation here in North America, and that was only last year!

How long will it take for all of our content delivery to be in HD of any kind? How long before it’s 1080p? How many years will it take for a majority of screens to be 4K? How many millions / billions of dollars, will it take? How much will it cost for servers to host libraries of 4k content? How long will it take to create the infrastructure / bandwidth capable of streaming 4k online in average homes? In essence, how long will it take to even show your 4k film to an audience in the format it was created in? Probably longer than we expect, considering all of the tiny moving parts that it takes to embrace new technology on a worldwide scale.

So is 4K the future? Yes it definitely is. Is it here today? Well sort of, but not really. Netflix / iTunes in 4K? Sure, in 2030. Is 4K necessary for me to make movies? Absolutely not. Is 4K right for me? That’s really the question at the heart of this debate, and only you can answer it.

I would say if you get hired to make AVATAR, by all means, use the highest K you can find. But if you’re making a gritty indie film, or most TV shows, I think 2K is more than appropriate. In the film world there were dozens of formats in the early years, and eventually the market settled down to S8, 16/S16, 35/S35, and 65. I believe the same will happen with digital. Over the next 20 years the markets will settle into a few tiers. 4K will be one of them, but so will 2K.

I’m a low budget filmmaker, and I’m proud of that. To me, a higher bit rate is more important than faster sample rates or more pixels. I think in the end what’s most important is that you can fall in love with the creative work you’re doing. I had that years ago with 16mm film, and I’m finding that again with the D16. If you fall in love everytime you see a 4K image than that’s a good choice for you. I just don’t want you to feel like if you don’t have 4K you can’t have great images, and you can’t tell stories. At the end of the day resolution is only one of many many factors, and they all should be considered evenly, at least in my opinion 🙂

This entry was posted in News by joerubinstein. Bookmark the permalink.

About joerubinstein

Joe Rubinstein is one of the founders and CEO of Digital Bolex. At Polite in Public, a photo marketing company he also co-founded, Joe was the Chief Technology Officer who worked with electronics developers and software developers to create the Polite in Public Photobooth which helped define modern photo marketing services.

110 thoughts on “To 4K or not to 4K…

  1. Pingback: To 4K or Not to 4K « No Film School

  2. As a personal opinion, I chose the black magic pocket because of the price difference , even if you camera offer more, it do not justify the price difference .( I know and understand that your company have a very different scale, but products are products …. )

    For me 4k and 2k high frame rates will make me chose your camera , I have a full set of switar and I don t plan to change format as I really like super 16 . I see 4k as a working tool not a diffusion format , the main issue with super 16 is the impossibility to shoot hand held because of the crop factor and having the possibility to stabilize without loosing quality and do post crop is really important for me , and both Bmpcc and your camera have visible AA issue , so oversampling the pixel have a positive aspect too in my opinion .
    You said in interview that you want to create a super 16 feature film ready tool , and I believe that having having a device that give you room in post is important too , not only on the color/sharpness side.

    As you say there is much more room for super 16 digital camera and I really hope that you will lead the market .

  3. felipe. you say – Monochrome CCD Sensor.
    No filters bayer, smooth transition of color in burnings. What color the you are talking then about?
    Maybe you mean monochrome 3 CCD sensor ( splitbeam, each with one of RGB filters ). Now that would be a baby. You could even color spectrum fine tune B/W in raw.

  4. I was reading the wikipedia page for YouTube and it says 1080p wasn’t adopted until 2009…but I agree that color is far more effective than resolution.

    I keep seeing stuff shot at 1080p show up on the big screen and it looks great, but having the ability to manipulate your image in post is huge. As soon as DSLRs came out with video options and people started shooting with them, the first thing was attempting to get more lattitude out of the camera, test color profiles, etc. Now there is the RAW options…A compressed 4K images is likely to have the same problems. Do we really want to be shooting 4K on HDV tapes or similar compression?

    Another thing to note for online streaming, when did you start switching your YouTube videos to 1080p to watch something? For me it wasn’t until a couple years ago because it took to long to load the video at that resolution.

  5. Good post. Been following this project occasionally, still hope it works out as I do need a RAW camera eventually – two actually for 3D. Have you guys given any thought to synchronising the sensors on two bodies for 3D? Happy to discuss in detail if you want to email me (pretty versed in stereo at this point + I’ve programmed stereo software).

    On topic, I agree with you in general (very level headed post), colour quality is hugely important. I’m into audio too so agreed there also, good comparison. Couple of things:

    – you say de-bayering is getting better. My ear isn’t to the ground on this one, but I believe if you want to project at 4:4:4 quality (another way to increase colour quality), then you probably still want to capture a bit higher than 1080p, hence BMC’s 2.5k.

    – another reason for having some resolution spare is lens distortion and CA correction, and/or post-stabilisation. The minute you warp the image in any way, you do of course loose resolution. With lens correction, some people don’t mind minor barrel distortion or actually quite like it, others want a super-clinical image that is entirely distortion free. So entirely subjective, but if you do need to correct or stabilise, you will loose detail.

    In my case I shoot 3D, where the images always need to be warped/rotated in post to some extent so they perfectly match and avoid eye-strain (and I usually lens-correct for the same reason). Right now I shoot 3D with dual hacked GH2’s and wrote my own software to align & process 3D video in Premiere.

    As my budget is pretty much non-existent, I could certainly live with future 1080p cams to get RAW and high HDR (a massive upgrade), and loosing the rolling shutter is a nice plus. But if I had more cash, I would look at 2.5k/4k RAW for the reasons above. But I agree, the datasizes can get silly at that point, if you can afford all the backend to handle that (as well as back it all up), you can probably afford a more expensive camera.

  6. The diagonal of s35 mm film is about 25mm, as we know a 25 mm lens on s35 will give you a angle of view of 45 degrees (the equivalent of the diagonal).
    We call this a standard lens (leica made a 50mm lens on full frame 8 perf a standard lens while a 43,7 lens would be standard). We call this standard because a human being will see a image (without moving the eyes, in focus, with a viewing angle of 45 degrees. The best position to be in to see a movie is when viewing it in a angle of 45 degrees (the distance is variable to what size the screen is). Because our eyes are stereo, it becomes unpleasant to view a screen at a too close distance, a pleasant experience for a 45 degrees viewing angle is a distance at least of 10 meters. The further the screen goes away the bigger it has to be to maintain the 45 degrees viewing experience. Next to that because we can judge (even the movie is in 2d or whatever), how big a subject is. A good movie experience is when the master shots (wide shots) which have people in there, reflects the same size as they appear in real life.
    But lets go over to the next chapter (sorry for my poor english), and thats 4k.
    Your referring to audio, where the bits hold up the resolution of a given sound file, and the sample rate, the amount of samples that being made. As we know a human ear can not resolve more then 55000 samples per second. 96000 samples are being made to have at least calculation distortion in the process of mastering audio (compressors, limiters, eq’s etc.), and then to end up thorugh a process of dithering with 48000 samples (a perfect amount for the human ear). The same goes for 4k, if you have more pixels, then a green screen is easier to chroma key, and rotoscoping, or advanced color grading, will have a better result. But in the end a image viewed from a distance from 10 meters, with a angle of 45 degrees (in which the picture totally fills the viewable area of our eyes, which is in focus..)we can not see more then 2.5k pixels. Iam really sorry for all the companies.. which try to invest in 4k. You benefit from the high resolution during post production but a final master is good enough at 2.5k. Next to that the eye have a broader viewing angle horizontaly then vertically, therefor i think the 2.35 cinemascope, is the best experience. I dont say, that 4k is bad (you can crop in post, etc) but lets not fool ourselfes with false information!! a couple of tests that has recently done is to draw a diagonal line (diagonal lines are hard to make based on a square pixel), at 720p 1080p 2.5 k 3k 3.5k and finally 4k. With a audience consisting of industry professionals, the diagonal line was more straight when we upscaled from 720p to 1080p, and from 1080p to 2.5 k, only the 2/3 of the audience could see the difference, and then from 2.5 to 3, there was not difference to be see. A lot of different tests where done, but this was the most simple and the most objective.. Of course when you sit on the first row at a cinema, you have to scan with your eyes to see the image in total, for people who like to sit on the front row, 4k does matter

  7. I don’t even see why 4K. It’s not like people will be watching a huge screen with their noses touching the screen, well, maybe for some interactive displays it would be nice, but for TV and movies, I think we can roll with 2K, you need a couple feet to let yout view field to cover the whole screen.

  8. First, I just wanted to say that I’ve read few articles on the state of 4K that are as level headed and well stated as this. Well done.

    I couldn’t agree more with this comment. The camera is one tool in the story telling process. Great content can and has been shot on just about everything that will capture a moving image. IMHO, if the indie film community were as passionate about the quality of their content as they are about the quality of various camreas, sensors and image formats, the world would be a better place.

    Cameras and their respective sensors are becoming the new film stock and the variety means that you can pick the platform and look that suits your project best.
    This camera, from what I’ve seen, is shaping up to be an excellent addition to the indie filmmaker aresenal. It’s another just another tool, yes, but it appears as though it will be another very capable tool that we’ll have to choose from to tell our stories with.

    I supported the original project as an investor on kickstarter and I think what you’re doing is incredible. I can’t wait to get my hands on one.

  9. I recorded a lot of sound and it’s the extra headroom you want. And you can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit. It’s clearly there. The difference between 96khz and 48khz too. 192khz is overkill but the difference is still there and at that quality you can hear a pin drop. If you can’t hear much difference you got a really bad microphone. If you use something like a Sennheiser mkh60 or a 416 these differences are quite big because those microphones are made for high fidelity recording. A Sennheiser HD 25-1 as headphone is a must.

  10. I love how heated up people get over the stupidest techy details on this site. But, when all is said and done if you have a great idea you could shoot it on a iphone and people would love it.

    Digital Bolex, all us real film maker folk (not these techy nerds who buy cameras, know all the technical mumbo jumbo but shoot nothing with them…) Where was I? All us real film maker folk want is a camera thats cheap, easy to use, looks white hot and lasts. Sweet camera man in the sky make that happen!

    Peace! (spoken in will smith’s voice in independence day)

  11. Everything else aside, the comparison to audio has a rather marked flaw: 96 kHz doesn’t really sound better than 48 kHz, and 24-bit doesn’t really sound better than 16-bit (with the notable exception that you might want to record in 24-bit to get extra headroom)—audio unfortunately has a very long-standing tradition of “hearing” things that are not really there. See for all the technical details.

    • Hi Steinar,
      Thanks for your comment. I have to respectfully disagree though. The article you linked talks specifically about “downloads” and basically music distribution. In this article I am referring to the capture side. On the capture side 24-bit and 96K definitely make a difference. When distribution takes place we are limited by the distribution platforms just like in movies. This is why the analogy is so good.

      If you shoot an indie film in 4K you will be showing it in 2K or 1080p for the next 10 years. If you record music in 24/96 you will be presenting it in 16/48 for a long time too. This is why it is not absolutely necessary to shoot in 4K or record in 24/96 🙂

  12. So many problems with the only other S16 digital cam still in production, blooming highlights, black dots in overexposed areas, unusable sound due to lack of no its and VU meters and internal noise and poor EQ curves – BUT I can order one and wait a few months for delivery – NEVERTHELESS with no idea of when you will take orders and the wait time you are driving us to an inferior product – please just take my money and tell me how long you estimate we will wait.

    • We will open pre-orders very soon I promise! But unlike other companies we don’t want to just take your money with no real delivery schedule. Yes we did that with Kickstarter, but that was a crowd funding platform, real pre-orders are a different story.

  13. The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up… (Paul Valery)

    I have been following this Digital Bolex project from the start. What I liked most about the project was the dream of creating an affordable, working camera for independent filmmakers, that would/will provide competitive quality. Over a year now I have the privilege of being able to follow step by step the efforts of the creators to make this dream become real and also communicate the creation process to their target group with great devotion to cause, in great detail and spirit. I know of nothing similar being done in this way, in the broadcast industry. Respect.

    If you look around you and back to the last at least 5 years of technical development in the field of digital cameras, you can clearly see how the industry has pratically deceived all professionals and amateurs by selling cameras that were actually NO-Cameras suitable for filmwork. Don´t get me wrong, ofcourse you can make a short with your Canon 5D and or your hacked GH2/3, with numerous workarounds and compromises in shooting. But is it really a film-camera the one that you can not make a pan with? (due to rolling shutter) Further, Is it really a cheap camera, if you need to invest 3 to 4 times the aquisition price in order to get rigs, EVFs, etc. that make it possible for you to actually work with your camera?

    The only reason (more or less) that digital cameras have become essentially cheap is that they are actually not cheap… lol. Why? Well because the industry has broken these cameras down to pieces, and has created a vast industry for accessories and addons. So in order for you to be able to work efficiently with your camera you need to spend at least as much as you have spend purchasing it on accessories. Plus ofcourse having a separate budget for the lenses you want to use.

    This being said, I believe most of the people here do not work for the majors really. Not with Cameroon, not with Spielberg and not with Copola … In this sense 2K, in RAW is completely adequate for filmmakers that have a story to tell and are aware of the limited budget their projects involve, especially in the documentary field of work. If your Digital Bolex short film becomes a success story and you then end up filming for some major Hollywood company … well believe me they will have then the budget to get you an Alexa, the best model of Red, whatever … maybe even a 100K 3D camera set up that does not yet exist today…

    Is this going to make the story you want to tell better? No. It is actually as simple as that. Was Avatar a good story? NO! Rather a Space-Cowboy-Indian Hollywood Crap-Movie. Was it an orgasmic technical state of the art project? Yes. But nothing more than that.

    What do I expect from the Digital Bolex? It is simple and not that much.1. A camera that is actually a film-camera. Letting me decide what and how i want to shoot it. A camera that i can shoot my documentaries with. 2. Competitive Image quality 3. Affordable purchase and maintainance costs.

    And guess what, the digital bolex promises me exactly all those things. So I am content.

    What I do not want though is: See the camera becoming more expensive. People that say here, oh it does not matter I would even pay $6000 to get a 4K version, seem to miss the point. No I do not want to pay 4K or 6K US dollars for it. I also would not like to see the camera being lost in the wishes of the „mob“ … 🙂 and mutating to a crappy all-arounder. Remember: When all of the wishes here are granted, many aspects of your dream will be destroyed…

    Finally the waking up process involves basically two dimensions. The dimension of timeline, meaning the digital bolex should make it and be available worldwide this year, as technology development does not stand still and there were many projects in the past that have failed because they were not able to keep up with the timeline of the market and of technology progress.
    The other dimension is also a very obvious one. The main competition that the D16 faces is atm basically the Black Magic Camera. Their 2,5K model is crap and I do not consider it a camera, if i can not pan with it … very simple and primitive point of view – but nevertheless true. But it costs 1800€ at the moment… delivering beautifull images. Their 4K Model has global shutter … so it is a camera to me (lol) … but is more expensive than the D16 wants to be. The Pocket BMC version is just a gimmick really, with an incredible price though … Now I believe some of your potential buyers will now buy the 4K BMC or did already. Not because they really need it, or it makes sense production-wise, but because it is 4K.

    Having said that, I believe that the most relevant question that the creators of the D16 will have to face upon sales-launch would be, that of the end price and not the question if the model should have been a 4K one. (By the way: Once the D16 is available and millions of independent filmmakers worldwide reward your dream with millions of dollars by purchasing your camera … well then you just start the next project of the D16 in 16K … lol – its all pure logic). I think it is more that 100% sure that upon release BMC will hit you with the very same price on their 4K Model. That is how industrial marketing works anyhow …

    So the answer to your question is actually really simple … NOT TO 4K! Just deliever us your dream as you have dreamed it, and we will show the „big boys“ how vanity is spelled …

    Keep up the good effort and good spirit, wish you all the best for the work that is left to be done.

    With best regards from the financially enslaved Greece …

  14. Pingback: To 4K or not to 4K… | | Required Reading

  15. Very sensitive issue for some out there. In my opinion 2K is more than enough when you have good cinematography and you are telling good stories. The rest is just for the tech talk. When is the D16 coming out ? I am waiting 🙂 Pleasee keep me informed !!

  16. Being honest, I don’t see resolution being a big deal down the road in terms of delivery format. I think that one day vector based video codecs are going to be the preferred options, probably within the next ten to fifteen years (ten being ridiculously optimistic).

    • Hmmmm, I do agree that vector delivery is going to be important for many things, especially web and video games (as it already is), and I saw the demo showing the vector delivery of “video” too, but this is not an easily integrated technology.

      I think we will see vector delivery in web stuff, video games, and maybe specialized event spaces in the next 10 – 15 years, but vector at home might be further away.

      Both hardware, storage sizes and computer speeds, and software, new compression codecs and tech like vector video, will improve a lot over the next 10 years.
      The question becomes does the hardware or software progress faster to make one irrelevant. The race so far has been won by hardware in a lot of ways. Example what changed computing was Steve Jobs’ teacher talking about wasting compute cycles.

      We will see though software is catching up 🙂

      • Given the amount of VFX in recent movies, where a significant portion of all image information originates in computer graphics, it might become pretty straight forward to just vectorize the remaining actors, and less hazzle then the other way around, i.e. to render all vectors as pixel based images. This will of course only apply to Hollywood mainstream stuff. Fascinating idea….

  17. Agree, S8 is not 2K and when scanning, “serious” oversampling is the basis for the best possible for 2K viewing in today’s and tomorrows world.

    The recient Nixon S8mm based production used the $180K Kinetta scanner with the inventor Jeff Kreines explaining: “It took Kreines a week and a half to capture all 35 hours of material in 4K (in the 12-bit Cineform raw codec). While 4K might seem like overkill for Super 8 material, Frye recalls, “Jeff’s thinking is that the smaller the gauge, the more important high resolution is. The perception of sharp film grain is much more important when the grain itself is so much larger in relation to the overall image than it is in 35mm film. If you capture the detail of the grain, you can really feel that, especially when you’re starting with Super 8.” The Kinetta scanner captures the full dynamic range of the most contrasty film without compromise, which Frye notes “capture[s] all the detail that’s in that Kodachrome image so we have a lot of room to fine-tune in post.”

  18. Further, in any way, regarding Digital Bolex, in order to maintain quality, that would be a completely different product anyway, a “D35”, based e.g. on well, not the the KAI-16050 sensor, since that allows only 8 fps, thus a completely different front end (CMOS), with a PL mount, a four times faster processor, a four times bigger internal SSD etc.

    I just don’t fancy that coming from Digital Bolex. Please. Has there ever been a 35 mm Bolex? No. How long has it taken to develop the D16? What amount of truly CCD specific know how has been accumulated in the team in the course? Why the heck should DB venture into a completely new area, where there are RED and Arri waiting?

    That is not a path that would make sense for DB. The only other products, aside from an improved 2k D16 (and that will only become possible if TrueSense comes up with an improved CCD), that would make sense for DB, would be the above mentioned S8 cartridge, and an insert module for 35 mm stills cameras, like the Nikon F2.

    For DB, additional revenues should come from accessories.

    • This is pretty much spot on, but we do have other ideas that fit well within our spectrum without going 4K or S35.
      It’s a secret right now, but as soon as we finish the D16 we will be testing some other really cool ideas that no one else is doing right now.
      Since there are only two digital cinema cameras in the S16 space right now, there is a lot of room to play 🙂

  19. I used to work on a consumer 8 and 16mm film making magazine back in the 1970s and 80s.

    Then the buzzwords were ‘broadcast quality’ and super 8 film makers would constantly hype that Super 8 was better quality than VHS or currently available video systems (They were right.)

    However, just looking at the figures, assuming perfect and no-loss optics etc; I can’t see that the claimed resolution above is really that high.

    Kodachrome, probably the finest resolving 8mm film resolves 106 lines per mm. The super8 frame is at most 5.79mm wide and 4.01 deep.

    That gives us 614 (rounded) lines across and 425 down, a bit better than old analogue broadcast standard , but less than HDTV.

    Of course you can scan more than this – and you’d want to, so as to preserve all the detail that would otherwise be lost in the optical processes. (My ancient and decrepit memory seems to think there’s something like a one third loss in resolution at each optical boundary) The usual scanning advise is to scan at double the resolution of what you’re trying to achieve.

    But there’s no way that super 8 is 2k.

    • Velvia has a resolution of 160 lpmm at an object contrast of 1000:1. Which would be something like 1280p in new speak.

      Which, of course, would be impossible to reach with S8 cameras and film, since the frame stability is just not there. But with a CCD sensor that is not moved across the film gate, a decent resolution should be possible with the best lenses.

  20. Maybe, it turned out to be easier to increase the resolution of consumer grade stuff (TVs, projectors) to 4K for “the next big thing”, than to increase its physical gamut or ANSI contrast, which would make much more sense, imho. In order to get people into buying this, a marketing hype has to be generated that included the “professional” side of the things as well, to give the consumer the impression that 4K is the next IT-girl.

      • I see. So it might be the same problem as with cars. The design tends to be crap right now, but a “real man” doesn’t care for a good design, right?

        In trying not to appear gay, these guys miss the beauty of life.

      • Wouldn’t agree to that, because it is not about the number of bits, but about the coordinates of the primaries, and ultimately, hence, about the number of colours perceivable. So, again a very simple number comparison. I have no values for Rec.709 vs Rec.2020, but I have numbers for ink jet printers:
        Assuming that the Human eye can perceive 2.4 million colours, the following number have been determined:
        CMYK offset print: 400000
        Epson Stylus 7900: 800000
        AdobeRGB: 1300000
        Wide Gamut LCDs with LEDs: 1500000
        Pretty straightforward, no explanation required, I’d say.

        The number of bits is more a question of banding.

  21. Hi Joe R.: I hope to receive a Blackmagic Production Camera 4K “soon” 🙂 … but I also think what you’re doing is great.

    Why? Mostly because you’re trying to do something that’s needed (an alternative to the Sony/Canon/Panasonic “machine”), and because you emphasize image & color fidelity over expensive proprietary solutions, and because your camera will feature a global shutter (did I mention I hate rolling shutter?)

    So why am I buying a BMPC-4K? Mostly so I can shoot a S35-ish “4K” (3840 x 2160) sensor and scale, crop, pan & scan it down to good-looking 1080p & 720p. In fact, at first I’ll probably mostly shoot 4K ProRes HQ 10-bit 4:2:2, not RAW, because I don’t want to buy new, faster computer hardware now (my old Mac can’t even handle RAW 1080p). Although ProRes HQ is proprietary, it’s also super cheap to work with and the quality is quite good.

    Meanwhile, for folks that want RAW goodness for not much $, there are already a few solutions shipping (BMCC & Magic Lantern), and thanks to you, more on the way.

    There’s no 1 perfect camera ideally suitable for every production or budget. The more choices the better.

    Cheers & best of luck,

    – Peter

    P.S.: I even gave you a shout-out a year ago:

    Note: Some of my best friends are hipsters. 😉

    • Hi Peter,
      I hear you. As I said in my post, if 4K really speaks to you, then by all means you should go for it.
      When you scale 4K down to 1080p it seems like you should get an image that is 400% sharper, or at least 200% sharper than a 1080p native image, but in reality you’re getting something that is more like 15% sharper.
      So that’s one of the hang ups for me, the data size for the same format files is 4x bigger, but the resolution difference only creates maybe a 15% visual difference. And that number keeps going down as debayer algorithms get better.

      It does make sense though if you do a lot of reframing, or zooming on your footage, or you shoot for a museum or something like that where the projects span decades. But if you’re shooting your average indie film I’m not sure it’s worth it.

      Again, totally up to your personal tastes though 🙂

      • Just be aware that uncompressed DNG raw @ 2-2.5k will probably be sharper than compressed DNG (4:1 or more) @ 4k and will certainly have better color latitude and probably more dynamic range.
        4k Prores 422/444 is definitely be softer and will have even worse color characteristics.

        People hear 4k and automatically think it’s optically superior to a lower resolution format. It all depends on what ‘flavor’ of 4k we are taking about.

        All you have to do is compare something like ArriRAW to Arri LOG C Prores 444 and you will immediately see the difference.


    I am coming form painting and so you watch all a bit
    longer and on the other side is this show of tecnicabuybuycyloidiotica
    that piles a huge hill of always new cameras in last 24 months.

    Simple – if i work in my rebellian independend ( i do not want to use
    filmmaker-because it is too….y-tubed) butget- i look on every piece
    and so the bolex is head to head in Kineraw mini- and my stoneold
    lenses ( some < 1948..)(not this 1948…)(our 2013)- the new Zeiss
    and the pipline to all other parts.
    And yes, the big global-players ….how many generations should i buck
    for my brave pessetas, $, euros, ore maybe 2 kilos of gold, till it fits.

    soory for my english..i come from where also wild-west-doctors come
    and musculare-meat-roboters…. we think so differend..taht it jokes out
    there..the singularity of lineae nonsens..
    so go go on and make it.

    I WANT TO FILM- NOT paradoxxal in y-toube-loops out

  23. Rate means over time. You get half the number of full images in i than p over the same amount of time, therefore half the rate – assuming two halves make a whole.

  24. that went off without reading and pressed the button without really wanting to submit… any way… film making is an art, or a profession… but is the love and aesthetics build into it that really makes the whole circle be self-contained!!! 🙂 I’m loving this project… hope to see it in great hands as soon as it gets!!!

  25. Like!!! when everyone has 4K at their reach, only story, storytelling, managing and specialties will count, so yeah 4k for all… but great equlibrium and budget filming (digital capture) can be a great resource and look pretty good but it’s the power of making films and great power re

  26. Personally I prefer 2k/2.5k over 4k for aesthetic reasons. Having worked with 4k footage that was shot on high end cameras with the best glass out there, I can safely say that there is such a thing as too much resolution.

    First and foremost it is very unattractive to be able to see every wrinkle and imperfection on the skin of your actors. Make up doesn’t always solve the problem, since in a closeup you will literally be able to see the actual powder make up, eve liner and everything else. Sets start to look fake and that mysterious thing we like to call ‘movie magic’ disappears.

    The great irony of course is that many people shoot older, ‘low resolution’ glass on these cameras or soften the image in post, which kind of defeats the purpose of shooting at 4k in the first place. So, you end up with a 4k worth of data that looks no better and sometimes worse than 2 – 2.5k.

    Personally I would rather have a nice fat 2-2.5k RAW file with a ton of exposure range and color depth.

      • The reaction from Arri in regards to being ‘forced’ to go 4k with the Alexa II has been interesting. They are also in the same camp that believes that there is such a thing as too much resolution, unless you are shooting something like Lawrence of Arabia with actors the size of two pixels. But what they really seem to be worried about is potentially having to sacrifice dynamic range for resolution. To many others and myself dynamic range and color depth are far more important than resolution.

        If Arri is forced to go 4k they should have a 2k mode where they pixel bin the sensor in addition to their dual gain readout. If that is technically feasible the dynamic range would theoretically be off the charts.

        • Yeah! I was very interested in what Arri was saying about 4K and it being too soon.

          The problem with pixel binning or line skipping is they both create a whole new set of image problems like moire.

          My humble opinion is that you should shoot 1:1 for the format you are intending to project / display in and of course keep it raw 😉

    • That is really cool, but their sample images are clearly far above the resolving power of the film. You are seeing individual grains and cell structures. Yes you can scan any physical object at any level down to the atom, but I don’t think that accurately represents the resolving power of S8 film.

  27. Hello,

    English is not my native language … sorry in advance for the language errors …

    I am a director, I make short films, documentaries, TV spot and music videos ..

    I am also a teacher at a film school and a big fan of your “Digital Bolex” project.

    For me the big problem of the D16 is its lack of flexibility in the recording formats …

    For documentaries, interviews, recordings of concert … it is essential to be able to save them in a compressed format.
    (For reasons of recording time, data storage and post-production time)

    I read somewhere on this forum, it was thought that the D16 could replace (at least partially) the old 16mm cameras in film schools … I think this great idea …
    But recording “on raw” is enviseageable for some big excercises.
    For daily work, you will need lightweight files directly usable without post-production. (we will not always have time to transcode the RAW files in quicktime … or disk space …)

    The D16 recorded in “Raw 2K” it’s great! … But if it provides only that file type will limit much use of this camera.

    I think we should leave the choice to the user to choose what is best for the project and not just impose the best quality.

    The needs of a director are not those of another and the needs of a shoot are multiple.

    I wish the best for your project because I like this camera!

    • Hello M,

      I did try to address this a bit.

      We will probably one day have to incorporate some kind of compressed file into the D16 as you suggest. This will come through a free firmware update. But this will be a bit of a sad day for me because so much hard work has gone into preserving all the precious bits that will be wiped out by compression.

      • The choice of format will not change the quality of the camera … but it will make the D16 more useful and more attractive.

        P-s: I think you made ​​a great job!

          • Hello,

            I read on the forum that some people were violently against the idea of ​​giving the choice of recording format …

            A bug seems to prevent me to write in the forum, so I did not intervene …but “Hieber” and “rlora” very well sum up my thoughts in their last posts.

            And I do not think having to run more than one hour per day for a documentary make you a bad director … I did some interviews that lasted more than that …

            Another contributor wrote “In the mean time, Those Who need an overpriced webcam to record a week-long interview with Captain Boring can buy an HDMI recorder for $ 200.” The right price is a bit higher …

            but if a “HyperDeck Shuttle” can save “ProRes 4” and “DNxHD” for under $ 400 why the D16 can not do?

            I know obviously that record into “Raw” allows for exceptional images …

            but the management of the storage space (shooting, backups, files for editing) the time to make these copies and exports before starting post-production … make that work in RAW is not as simple as “ProRes” or “DNxHD” … The “Raw” is good, but still need to have the means to post-production …

            “Evolution in technology is fast, communication is fast: the whole “movie world “ is addicted to internet an forums. Impatience, expectations are high. But finances don’t follow the same ascending curve. One film industry is not another and what is good or mandatory for extremely developed “movie nations “ is maybe not indispensable immediately for films produced or made in Belgium. . “This is what Louis-Philippe Capelle wrote about filming” Raw ”

            The D16 seems not to me to be a “specialist in camera” but a camera with an affordable price for independent filmmakers, film schools etc … well.. for a wide range of presonnes with means sometimes reduced … but maybe I’m mistaken …

          • The HyperDeck is built specifically for that. If we had to build a HyperDeck into our camera it would add to the cost considerably.
            We will be creating an accessory we are calling the HD-SDI unit that will allow for high quality compressed footage.
            The D16 is meant to be a long term high quality 16mm film camera replacement. So if that makes it specialist or minimalist that’s ok with me.

      • I don’t see the need for you to pander to this kind of spurious request to make the D16 an “all things to all people” machine.

        This is a specialist camera. It’s designed with a specific purpose in mind. And, while adding a compressed option isn’t going to remove it’s ability to be an S16mm digital replacement, it does seem to be counter to the point of the camera.

        If a person wants a camera that fires out H.264 in 1080P, there are a hundred options out there for that. I use a Canon 600D in those cases. But, when I have to shoot something important, that requires real finesse, that is when I will use my D16.

  28. In my humble opinion this discussion is completely mute. You are not making a 4K camera. You are making a 2K camera. That is the tool you are making. If it’s not the right tool for someone then they shouldn’t don’t buy it. I was just watching this talk and found a bit of information very interesting. He talks mostly about ergonomics here but at the 7:30 mark or so he says that while super 35mm film is equal to about 4K, when projected it only ever delivered about 1.3K to the screen. Then he goes on to say that 4K cameras make the best video cameras. So what’s the answer? I don’t know. Is someone gonna tell me that seeing a 35mm print projected looks bad in terms of resolution? I would much rather have a color depth closer to film than 4K. No matter what the screen size is. I bought a 2K camera from you guys and I plan on using it for a very long time. Hopefully starting soon. Keep up the good work!

    • True, the reason I brought this discussion up is I see a lot of 4K is coming next year talk (or sometimes sooner) because certain camera companies and TV companies are trying to drive the market there, but the reality of the situation is it takes years for this to happen.

      I just don’t want people to feel like they HAVE to purchase 4K cameras / TVs today. It’s a long ways off for most people.

      And when it does finally get to 75% market saturation it will probably be 10 or 12 bit too.

    • Super35 is a genuinely awful format, despite what the masses at home think. It has to go through a lot of optical and/or digital processes that increase grain and reduce clarity. The Super35 as we know it was created to get the super wide-screen 2.4:1 aspect ratio in a cheap way and was actually used in very few productions until recently. Ordinary flat 35mm is much cleaner.

  29. Because digital sensors have to use a “bayer” pattern to capture what we see (as opposed to tubes, or our eyes) we’ve adapted how pixels are counted, which breeds confusion.

    For instance, when Sigma came out with heir SD1: a 15 MP camera- the likened it to a 45 MP camera because their sensor captures RG & B for _each_ pixel pace. There is no debayering because there is no patter to work around to recreate an image.
    The same could be said for three tube video cameras, and organic film. Each color covered the whole frame of the film, not tiny little pockets of it.

    So 2K should rightly refer the same information for RG&B, not 1/4 R, 1/4 B and 1/2 G- something nearly all imagers (save for Fovion) do.

    I also think they ought to come out with a specific nomenclature for displays, pixels versus dots, because different manufacturers use them differently. But that’s a whole other story.

    • Yeah I think there is an older way of thinking about pixels for cameras, which is you need 3 pixels of capture for every one pixel of presentation, but I think since debayering algorithms have progressed so much and color science that isn’t completely necessary anymore. And as Razz above points out, this is actually more similar to how human eyes work.
      I think that since both exist we should just count all the pixels, no matter what they do. So if you have X number of pixels in your sensor then that’s the resolution of your camera. That’s how I think of it anyways.

  30. This would be true if the 35mm you see in the theater were first generation from the camera negative, but its not. Most film prints are 4 or 5 generations away from the original. A study was done about 4 years ago that found that the average 35mm film print, in your average multi plex was actually projecting the equivalent of about 720p. This was taking into account optics and print quality, gate weave etc.

    I remember the first time I saw 1080p projected, I expected it to be somewhat soft by comparison to film, but just the reverse was true. It was amazingly sharp.

    Now of course some of the best theaters in LA and New York are going to get the best of the best of the print run, and have the best optics, however the rest of us are seeing an image at home that is better than what we see in a theater, at least before digital projection took over.


  31. It depends on what you mean by data rate. I means that it is interlaced. Each picture comes in two parts. When the two parts are combined together, the data rate is roughly the same.


  32. I think people underrate the potential of Bayer pattern sensors. Fact is they are the closest mechanical mimic to the way the human eye sees both resolution and color. As the processing algorithms get more and more sophisticated, the practical differences between Bayer and other sensor technologies become moot. Still photographers don’t seem to have any issues working with them and they are virtually universal in that market.
    Only when the raw Bayer processing is unsophisticated or compromised for speed over quality do color quality and artifacts like aliasing or color moire become significant issues.
    Poor to mediocre quality raw processing is currently a universal problem with Bayer video cameras like the Sony F-series and Canon C-series since they have to do it real time at 30fps or higher. But they only have to be as good as the image quality limits of their highly compressed codecs.
    Some of my recent Bayer processing has taken as much as 15 seconds per frame to transcode to full 16 bit uncompressed image sequences on a computer that is significantly more powerful than anything in an under $10k video camera.

  33. I agree with this post 100%. I have worked at a movie theatre for 5 years (all projectors converted to 4K digital three years ago) and we have never shown a 4K resolution film. All of the studios are acquiring in 4K+ and mastering in 2K. Shane Hurlbut has said that color actually resolves differently when you downscale to 2K, which is one of the prime reasons he chose the C500 for Need For Speed. The downscaling gave them exactly the look they wanted.

  34. One thing I want to share is that I went to Boston for a filmmaker “Pub night” to see “Spy VS Guy” shot on Canon 5d Mark III, the people from RED GIANT made this short film. I watched it on a 2k Movie screen and I was amazed by the quality of this 1080p compressed image. I was wondering how amazing it would be if it was shot on a 2k RAW. RAW is the future.

  35. Cinema is art, and all have thought for a moment, that our art may be appreciated 100 years from now. I guess that explains the logic behind the have “ready for the future.”

    I’ve been searching assiduously about cinema since the cinematograph digital gained world. Digital cinema strikes, expanding access to budgets really small. I think I’m lucky to be experiencing this revolution.

    In my conception of the film quality is beautiful, hard working, expensive … but beautiful. But fime was not always pretty, and it took generations working to bring light to the problems, and then seek solutions. The cinema matured in these 100 years, where everything was recorded on film. Now digital is the way, and our generation has a duty to seek evolution to digital cinema, while we benefit from its qualities. We must work to bring light to their first artistic limitations, which show a spectator for 100 years, our technology was scarce, but we were not frivolous with the quality.

    Some technical defects unacceptable Bolex Digital solved. Compression, rolling shutter, and pixel-fill. There was only a great discomfort, bayer pattern sensor, which applies in images a sludge in the colors and in resolution. I mean discomfort that science and industry have not yet resolved this question then it can not be a deterrent for you to produce his art. 4K is the future, and will be with sensor 3-layer Foveon-like.

    The color quality is a very complex problem, and it is not so simple as to blame it on the sensor. In art portion, set a palette attractive elements to bring the scene to not break the dream. I saw the Kodak Vision 3 tests done without whim and seemed video. On the other hand I see luxurious productions made in digital failure on the final quality of color, for example HUGO by Scorcese, far from bad, it is actually quite good, but the film would do better, like Oliver Twist by Polanski. The quality of light totally changes the color quality, LED is very nice, very cold, sustainability, save the planet … but tungsten is still the most beautiful artificial light.

    Dynamic range is enough, but the way the digital sensor is the burnings are ugly. This sensitivity of the sensor is linear, and generally one of the colors out of the area first spike, distorting the colors around. This also is common for all digital cameras, and believe that only when the dynamic range is 20 stops, can simulate a beautiful response curve as film, keeping saved 14 stops, holding a contrast.

    Having said all that I would describe my ideal camera with current technology:
    Monochrome CCD Sensor.
    No filters bayer, smooth transition of color in burnings. No preference for light quality. Besides being gorgeous and a personal artistic language.

    Sensor 24 x 13,5 mm – 2K resolution
    Digital does not exist in relation to more resolution and sensor size, in fact the bigger the better pixel, lower noise and higher dynamic range. The texture of 16mm from the digital much the lenses that have different characteristics of 35mm. I’ve been getting some lenses gradually all 35mm cine, usually old, like a Cooke Speed ​​Panchro 18mm. A beautiful lens, I am anxious to use it properly in the ratio 2.66:1

    Take this opportunity to make two criticisms of Bolex Digital camera: I’m still not convinced that CF cards are the best for the job, I would have the option to download the footage directly from the camera via USB3, taking advantage of the internal HD. I believe this is the camera for long-term and maybe in five years we can replace the internal SSD by another with 10TB capacity in the future… The other, smaller, is a doubt whether the articulated screen is not a point getting dirt and breakage. Live well without the inclination of 15 ° for stronger controls.

    Thanks, sorry for the long comment in bad english. Felipe

    • Hi Felipe,

      Thanks for your comment, and I have good news for you!
      There is a USB 3.0 port on the back of the camera and you can download footage directly from the camera via USB3!
      This is one of the many many upgrades we have done since beginning to talk to people on the forum.
      And yes you will be able to send your camera in to have the SSD changed out in the future.
      As far as the screen, I believe it is in a good place, but maybe we should consider making a screen cover to protect it during car chases and things like that 🙂

      Thanks again for your comment, Joe

  36. Hey guys,
    very interesting post. I think it is important to remember that before Red came along 4K used to be regarded as 4K in the Red, Green and Blue channels separately. So no compression – true RGB 4:4:4.

    “Historically, 2K and 4K referred to the output of a line array scanner scanning film, so that for each frame scanned at 4K, you wind up with four thousand red pixels, four thousand green and four thousand blue.” – John Galt – [Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging] – he basically invented together with Sony the Panavision Genesis . He alongside Larry Thorpe from Canon held a 2 hour presentation called “Demystifying Digital Cinema Camera Specifications” back in 2008. You can watch it here if you are interested: [Part 1/7]

    And here is a Creative Cow interview with J. Galt which gives an overview and in a way sums up his presentation:

    Last but not least not to forget that the Alexa [probably the most used digital motion picture camera on high budget productions] up until now “only” captures up to 2880×2160. And most motion pictures shot with the Alexa were captured at 1080p in combination with the Codex Raw Recorder anyways. Imo this whole 4K, 5K, 6K business is totally overrated – especially by independent filmmakers.

    • Hi Yves,

      I have seen that video and ready just about everything I could find on the subject that John Galt has written online.
      I agree that the technical meaning behind 4K and resolutions has changed quite a bit.
      I do think that the more modern definition of 4K is probably a little more accurate. If you’re saying you have 4K of three colors that sounds more like 12K to me in a certain way, technically speaking.
      Basically I think a pixel is still a pixel wether it is part of a mosaic pattern or not. So just for clarity, because both exist, giving each pixel credit makes sense to me.
      What do you think?

  37. To me, 4K is a parallel to 35mm. 2K, 16mm. The parallels hold true for cost, throughout the pipeline.

    In my film days, I got to use all of the gauges. But 16mm was what I most often used. Why? I was an indie filmmaker. On my budget, 16mm was what I could afford.

    If we are fortunate enough to command big budgets, then sure. We might opt for 4K, and all the necessary upgrades throughout the process to handle the larger files. But on my level, 2K is where it’s at.

    Here’s how I see it:

    10K and up = for projecting movies on the Moon
    6K-8K = 70mm
    4K = 35mm
    2K = S16mm
    SD = S8mm

    A more important question: How do we archive our films?

    • 720p = S8mm 🙂 There is even a Truesense sensor for that. I wonder if it would be possible to accomodate a shrinked version of the D16 electronics (CF instead of SSD, and magnetic sensor for sound recording from the camera’s internal soundsystem instead of XLR) into a S8 cartridge.

      • I actually met a guy who wanted to do this at SXSW when we launched this project. He was looking for an electronics company to help him. He was also planning on using kickstarter, he had the page, the designs, everything. I don’t know why that project never went up. I know I would have supported it 🙂

  38. Actually about 90% of prime-time broadcast are 1080i. 1080i because 1080p is not a broadcast standard. Something like 75% of all other broadcast and cable direct TV is 1080. Fox was the only network to hold out broadcasting 720p, and even they switched over to 1080 recently.

    Netflix started streaming 1080p over 3 years ago starting on the playstation 3. Of course not all the content is 1080. Youtube has had 1080p as a standard for over 8 years, and implemented 4k about 2 years ago.

    Having said that, I honestly don’t see 4k becoming a standard for the home, and even in theaters, I really only see it being used in prestige theaters with screens over 40 feet wide.

    I must agree that color depth will probably do more to improve the image than going from 1080 (basically 2k) to 4k. At home you won’t be able to tell the difference, and a theater screen would have to be pretty large, and you would have to sit VERY close. If you sit more than a screen length and a half from the screen, you won’t see the difference between 2k and 4k. However you WILL see banding from 8 bit color.


      • There’s some confusion over the i/p standards. Broadcasts from the networks are 1080i60, but generally only during prime time & football. They don’t always get to people’s homes that way either and in fact are often converted to 720p60 or 480i60. The 1080p you get from Netflix & the like are 1080p24, which is less bandwidth and processing power than 1080i60. Netflix often does this erroneously, converting stuff produced at i60 to p24 using the poorest of algorithms, full of artifacts.

        On a side note, Avatar wasn’t even 2K. In fact, DCPs can currently support 4K or 3D but not both at the same time. Some projectors can even do 48fps, but not at the same time as 4K or 3D.

  39. The thing with DVD vs Blu-ray has also to do with the fact that back in the days of DVD it was really the sole attractive option for consumers. Now with so many streaming options, torrents, etc. I guess the market is more dispersed.

    Glad Blu-Ray is here though. I can finally see the emulsion of my favorite films 😉

    • Very true, but I guess my goal in pointing out the DVD vs Bluray sales is that if people were really clawing for higher resolution / higher quality images then that stat my be different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *