Incredible huh? Higher resolutions can also make some VFX easier to pull off, because there’s more data & detail in the footage to key out a greenscreen, or track an actor’s facial expressions for example.

Seems like a no-brainer to take advantage of this if you have a camera that can shoot it.

…Right?

Well, let’s look at the downsides:

1) Massive file sizes, which leads to much higher storage costs.

Remember, you can’t have your media on a single hard drive, you have to have at least one failsafe drive to consider your media safe.

That means when it comes time to back up your media, any difference in file sizes for your footage gets instantly DOUBLED.

In most cases, it’s actually TRIPLED, because it’s considered best practice to have your media stored 3 ways.

Those extra hard drive expenses will add up fast, especially on a feature film or documentary where you’re looking at 20 to 100+ HOURS of footage.

2) More complex post workflows.

While you can create low-resolution proxies to actually cut your film, there’s no workaround like that for VFX and coloring. They need the full resolution media, and one POWERFUL system to handle 12k footage.

You may have to seek out a specialist with a computer that can handle that kind of data. How many colorists have an 8k monitor? Not many.

Even still, the render times will be insane.

I hope they’re not billing you by the hour…

3) More time spent reframing every single shot in post.

Back in the days of celluloid film, you were basically stuck with what you shot.

You’d have a little bit of wiggle room to punch into the frame if there was a C-stand on the edge of the shot, but you’d only do that if you NEEDED to, because you’d be losing resolution.

But if you can punch in and reframe ANY shot in your movie with no quality loss… you’ve now opened Pandora’s box.

No shot is safe. You’ll be pouring over every single clip and trying to find different framings and compositions after the fact.

This is going to make your post process MUCH slower (and more tedious).

But another unintended consequence is much worse than that IMO…

4) Less commitment to your framing & compositions on set.

There’s a lot to be said for committing to your vision. And that happens at each shot of your film. If you start giving yourself too many safety nets of shooting everything wider because you’re not sure exactly how you want to frame it… what are we even doing anymore?

Make a statement, make it loud, stand behind your choices – at least while you’re making them. Besides, isn’t berating your prior self in the editing room just a part of the process of filmmaking?

Part of the magic of filmmaking is taking pieces of time, captured from a specific POV, and assembling them into something greater than the sum of their parts. This is also what leads to so many happy accidents and discoveries in the editing room. It just ruins the fun when every single shot becomes Play-doh to be molded into whatever shape you later decide it should be.

But maybe that’s just me.

Here’s another example of this line of thought…

Film Vs. Digital

I only got into photography when my dad lent me his old 35mm film camera.

I’d had digital cameras sitting around for years, but digital photography had never interested me even a little. You could take the photo 1000 times, for free, reviewing it immediately after snapping, making little changes until you get one that you like. And then manipulate the hell out of the image in Lightroom. Ehh.

For it to be fun, I need consequences for a bad photo.

I’d rather use a camera like a sniper, waiting for the right moment, the right position, the right light, the right lens – thinking through my exposure. Knowing each snap of my camera will end up costing at least $1 after developing the film. Measuring twice and cutting once. But knowing you can’t wait too long. That bird or shadow or old man at the bus stop might turn and flitter away at any moment.