Why call it "2K" and "4K"?

[Alex G. Cohn]

Doesn't it seem a little bit of a misnomer to call it "2K" or "4K," when the industry standard has been to use the vertical resolution (480, 720, 1080) in the name?

Does anybody know who created the terms "2K" and "4K"? Was it a marketing thing, or did they just not know any better, or care?

 

[Noah Kadner]

Could be because 2,000 and 4,000 sound less cool than 2K and 4K.

Noah

 

[Christian Edwards]

K is short for kilo the Latin term for thousand , vertical is for video horizontal is the comparable to film. We reside somewhere in Purgatory Red is our loophole through Dogma.

 

[Ben Brainerd]

The standard for TV/Video has been to use vertical resolution. The standard for film scans/DIs has always been to use horizontal resolution, such as 2K and 4K.

RED didn't create the terms, either. They were in use (Again in the film world) before RED came along.

 

[Cail Young]

K is short for kilo the Latin term for thousand

Don't let the Greeks hear you say that.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Doesn't it seem a little bit of a misnomer to call it "2K" or "4K," when the industry standard has been to use the vertical resolution (480, 720, 1080) in the name?

Does anybody know who created the terms "2K" and "4K"? Was it a marketing thing, or did they just not know any better, or care?

TV has nonsquare pixels. So 720x480 and 640x480 were both "480". This worked fine with NTSC. Similarly you have 1440x1080, 1920x1080 etc.

TV standards are based on fields so it was logical to count fields in the resolution.

Film comes in an extremely wide variety of aspect ratios: 1.85,2.39, 2.35, 1.77, 1.33 etc.

If I told you a film scan was "1080" but didn't give you an aspect ratio to go along with it then we might be talking about 1436x1080 or we might be talking about 2581x1080. Those are two very different resolutions.

However if I say that my film is in 4k then you know the dominant aspect is 4096 (4x1024) which is far more informative.

 

[Christian Edwards]

Don't let the Greeks hear you say that.

Ha you're right! got my wires crossed it seems

I guess its like going for a 4kilometer run or even a 28k marathon... now thats ALOT of discernible resolution

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Soundtrack

Soundtrack

However if I say that my film is in 4k then you know the dominant aspect is 4096 (4x1024) which is far more informative.

But when you subtract for the sound track 4K becomes 3656 it seems,

http://www.celco.com/FormatResolutionTableKodakCineon.asp

Some at least some of the time the print you see is not 2K as well but 1828, hence the people telling me you cannot see the difference between 2K and 1920x1080 on a "2K filmout" well if both are down-res to 1828x1026 I guess it would be hard to tell them apart!

 

[Stephen Williams]

But when you subtract for the sound track 4K becomes 3656 it seems,
!

Many people shoot S35 so the soundtrack area is utilized in the original cinematography.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Doesn't it seem a little bit of a misnomer to call it "2K" or "4K," when the industry standard has been to use the vertical resolution (480, 720, 1080) in the name?

Does anybody know who created the terms "2K" and "4K"? Was it a marketing thing, or did they just not know any better, or care?

Succeeding what Ben and Gavin said on their inputs...we have the DCI Specification [ see Digital Initiatives ] @ 3×12 bits per pixel, XYZ color space:

2K = 2048x1080 @ 24 fps or 48 fps
4K = 4096x2160 @ 24 fps
and so on...

And several aspect ratios.

TV has migrated from 4:3 to 16:9 since there was an improvement on better technology available on the distribution side (I mean in this context, at home). But based in the same aspect ratio whatever the current or past standard offer, simply 'cause the aspect ratios are cinema territoire not so much relevant on small screens (director's first lesson once there should be any difference between so distinct media anyway, apart the convergence age we live.

That's why framing for big screen means something, a wholly different world comparing with products of (an)other kind. It is basically the substance of what distinguishes Cinema and TV.

For example (as you can see following that link posted above) @ 2K:
2.39:1 = 2048x858 pixels
1.85:1 = 1998x1080 pixels

 

[Cristina S]

Succeeding what Ben and Gavin said on their inputs...we have the DCI Specification [ see Digital Initiatives ] @ 3×12 bits per pixel, XYZ color space:

2K = 2048x1080 @ 24 fps or 48 fps
4K = 4096x2160 @ 24 fps
and so on...

And several aspect ratios.

TV has migrated from 4:3 to 16:9 since there was an improvement on better technology available on the distribution side (I mean in this context, at home). But based in the same aspect ratio whatever the current or past standard offer, simply 'cause the aspect ratios are cinema territoire not so much relevant on small screens (director's first lesson once there should be any difference between so distinct media anyway, apart the convergence age we live.

That's why framing for big screen means something, a wholly different world comparing with products of (an)other kind. It is basically the substance of what distinguishes Cinema and TV.

For example (as you can see following that link posted above) @ 2K:
2.39:1 = 2048x858 pixels
1.85:1 = 1998x1080 pixels

Learning... Thank you.

 

[Emanuel A.]

TV has migrated from 4:3 to 16:9 since there was an improvement on better technology available on the distribution side (I mean in this context, at home).

That's one of the big problems the theatrical exhibition shall have to face nowadays. The development and spread of non-expensive technology (properly called now domestic on our homes such as HD displays, broadband, new distribution routes allowed by internet) will inevitably push new technologies (hello stereo?) including higher resolutions to the big screen.

Never the less, we are yet to know which will arrive first: new goodies in large size outside (sociability space) or on our own individual angle? In a world in visible change, as well, related to the technology. There's the risk for losing on different levels such as content, language and aesthetics where the TV standards can submerge the long film tradition of thinking wide vs. on vertical fields (typical from the vertical frequency 50Hz PAL 60Hz NTSC) instead. BTW, 3D was brought by DOF (typical 35mm, not 16mm or less than a 1"), not stereo. It will mean a new beginning on so many unexplored territories too. And lack of something in-between. It has happened in a certain way with the VFX as box-office core business. This is topic for another thread, though. ;-)

 

[Shawn Bannon]

I know 2k and 4k film scans have been going on for a long time. At least 20 years old, anyone know how long?

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I know 2k and 4k film scans have been going on for a long time. At least 20 years old, anyone know how long?

As far as I can figure based on what i've read is that the Kodak Cineon was the first commercial film scanner, and it was released onto the market in 1993. Snow White was scanned using the system, with the digital intermediary being the basis for the Restoration and eventualy re-released.

So thus, Kodak was the first, and Snow White was the first feature film to be completely DI'd, Restored and CC'd digitally, then filmout'd again.

Before then, like with NLE systems like EditDroid, the Lucas team IIRC had a professional video system rigged up that would tape the entire film, the tape would then be transferred to Laserdiscs that would be loaded in the back of the machine. So before Kodak's commercial Cineon system, it was a difficult process.