Yesterday, Muvi, a SaaS Platform dedicated to providing high-quality streaming experiences for users around the world, published “2K vs 4K: A Neat Comparison of 2K and 4K Resolution.“ (Link)
Though targeted at streaming services, there were some key assumptions that have a direct impact on media creators. Here are the highlights.
“As the video streaming industry continues to expand at an unprecedented rate, one of the most pressing questions for streaming service providers is whether to prioritize 2K or 4K resolution. Both offer unique advantages, but the choice depends on several factors, including your audience’s preferences, content type, and platform’s technical capabilities.”
Larry: This next statement is what caught my eye.
“Before comparing 2K vs 4K resolutions, it’s essential to understand the basics of video resolution:
“2K resolution, or Quad HD (QHD), refers to a display resolution of approximately 2560 x 1440 pixels. 2K resolution is also defined by the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) as 2048 x 1080 pixels.
“4K resolution, also known as Ultra HD (UHD), measures 3840×2160 pixels.”
Larry: Both of these definitions require that media creators acquire, edit, and master resolutions greater than 1080p. It also means that most legacy productions at 1080p will not be favored in a streaming future.
Muvi, whose heart leans clearly toward 4K, lists the Pros and Cons of 2K vs. 4K:
2K Pros
2K Cons
4K Pros
4K Cons
Larry: While Muvi states that only 4K offers HDR, in fact, HDR (in terms of dynamic range) can be applied to any frame size, even SD. Also, the statement that 2K storage is “more affordable,” is also not accurate. The cost of storage per terabyte is essentially the same. 4K just requires more storage for the same duration content.
Muvi goes on to state that, “In regions with fast, affordable internet, 4K adoption is growing rapidly… The difference between 2K and 4K is negligible on smaller screens…[while] viewers of cinematic films and sports events tend to prefer 4K for its immersive experience.”
Larry: However, this preference for 4K could easily be a reaction to current TV marketing. Research today tends to show that most consumers can’t tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on TV sets smaller than 80″.
Finally, thinking about production, one of their concluding points is especially relevant:
“Professionals and consumers should be ready as we head toward a time of greater resolutions, and future-proofing your technology purchases can help you accomplish this.”
Larry: Clearly, we are still on a path toward higher resolutions in production. Perhaps because all those extra pixels are necessary or, more likely, because camera and TV manufacturers have new gear to sell.
“The difference between 2K and 4K is negligible on smaller screens. If your audience primarily streams on mobile devices, 2K might suffice. However, on larger screens like Smart TVs and Projectors, 4K’s higher resolution provides optimal streaming experience, making it the preferred choice for living room entertainment.”
The entire report takes about five minutes to read and provides food for thought.
2,000 Video Training Titles
Edit smarter with Larry Jordan. Available in our store.
Access over 2,000 on-demand video editing courses. Become a member of our Video Training Library today!
Subscribe to Larry's FREE weekly newsletter and
save 10%
on your first purchase.
4 Responses to Future-Proofing: How Does Video Streaming Affect Video Production?
I’ve never seen that definition of 2K before. I always thought it was half of 4K which on my projector can be either 3840×2160 or 4096×2160 so 2K would be 1920×1080 or 2048×1080.
I think part of the confusion for me is due to defining HD by the original specs for broadcast TV having two different resolutions 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080. Both were considered high definition, but the 720 version seemed to be considerably less popular, probably due to “bigger is better” for marketing and such.
And I’m really glad I figured out the difference between the 3840 and 4096 widths because if I had set the distance from my screen to my projector at the 4096 width, I wouldn’t have been able to fill my screen widthwise without unmounting and moving the projector – a major undertaking!
Lew:
The BIG difference between 720 and 1080, originally, was that 720 was progressive and great for sports. 1080 was – and in the case of CBS, NBC and PBS, still is – interlaced. Why? Bandwidth restrictions in the broadcast signal change. This is was ATSC 3 is so important to broadcasters. It allows them to move 1080 to progressive.
As a note, since most of the big networks programming originated on film, converting a progressive film image to interlaced video did not add interlace artifacts to the image. Recording a live signal as interlaced would.
Even today Fox is broadcasting sports at 720 progressive because those fast moving images are much clearer.
And, like you, I’ve never seen 2K defined as 2560 x 1440. That was news to me.
Larry
The term 2K doesn’t make sense though it exists as a format on many YouTube videos. It primarily describes a pixel size option for computer displays but no TV monitors AFAIK. Does anyone releases in 2K or just an option YouTube transcodes in?
I shoot on BMCC4K’s 2.6K setting (2688 x 1512) that matches image coverage of Super-16 lenses which I often shoot with. 2.6K means something.
Almost no one seems to really need 4K except future-proofing. What projects will even have a life a few years from now? Like client who insists on RED camera for their annual report.
Howard:
I agree – I think they used 2K as a straw-man argument. For any media production, the choices are 1080p or 4K. Anything else is a transcode. 4K has its uses but, generally, not for any media project with the life span of a fruit fly.
Larry