Small correction: as few attentive viewers pointed out, the "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" film was shot on a Sony CineAlta HDW-F900, not on a Panasonic Genesis camera. Also, kilo comes from greek. I've made a mistake, sorry! – Jakub

I live in Zurich, Switzerland, and I happen to know, thst 90% of all local cinema screens have 1080p projection. There are only around 10 screens all over town, that have 4k projection. And guess what, nobody notices.

I prefer dynamic range over resolution

Yes, FHD/1080p is sufficient for most purposes.

But it's also true that most consumer/prosumer-grade cameras won't achieve actual 1080p resolution in their 1080p recording modes, due to debayering resolution loss (20–30%) and the smudging of high-frequency detail through internal denoising and H.264/H.265 compression. Recording 1080p in-camera will typically result in a real resolution of 720p, especially on cameras without 4K support.

The best way to achieve clean 1080p is to record in 4K/UHD (= a real-world resolution of about 2.8K) and then downscale in post-production, which leaves enough headroom for cropping up to 20% into the footage for stabilisation or composition improvement.

As a broadcast tv filmmaker..1080 or HD is perfect. Most TV is beautifuly shot on pro HD cameras with pro lenses…it’s the content that makes a good film.

Hell yeah, brother. One of my favorite films, BLUE RUIN (2013), launched the career of one of my fav filmmakers at Cannes. Shot in 1080p on a Canon C300 with L-series primes. Looks like gold, even today. Forget resolution! Focus on lighting, dynamic range, lenses, and composition! 😎

I've gone back to 1080p and I can edit on my phone. I don't need RAW because I know how to use my camera. 10 bit is greatly preferred but 4:2:0 is good enough. The hardest thing is finding a camera that takes 1080p seriously and provides a good 1080p image. I've found the 1080p proxies that the FX2 makes are the best I've seen yet, virtually indistinguishable from 4k. Now I just throw away the 4k files and keep those proxies.

:) Love seeing the C100 get a shoutout. Still one of my favorite cameras and I shoot with it regularly.

The other day I was watching a 720p YouTube video on a 55” TV and the picture was fine. I think it all depends on the screen size and how far away you are from it. However, it’s a good idea to record in 4k for a 1080p video as it gives you the option to reframe without losing quality. FYI, YouTube is playing this video right now at 1440p (rubbish internet) and it looks great!

You guys really made this a fun video from start to finish, proper entertainment here!! I am entertained and i fully agree: i just bought a Nikon D850 - shot some 4k footage and thought it looked great in Davinci Resolve. A week later i realized that the timeline resolution was the default 1080p and i didn't even notice the drop in quality. Moving everything to a 4k timeline did show MORE DETAIL, but it wasn't life changing or anything. Still the same image quality and gorgeous tones.

Nicely explained. Great video!

This discussion reminds me of the battle for Mega Pixels in still cameras. Manufacturers started at about 5-6 MP and have now progressed to 100 MP. I shoot with Nikon cameras. My present camera is the D810 with 36 MP resolution. I have back up cameras from 12 MP to 25 MP. The biggest difference is the ability to crop more with the D810. I get gorgeous portraits with a Fuji X100 shooting at 12 MP. These photos are often printed and look great.  A great photo is created by the photographer not by equipment.  Worry less about your cameras and lenses, and more about the subject, the story line, the background etc.

Most users never get more than 720p from Youtube…and 4k is not even an option. I agree, great video…😊

1080p from a good camera can look fine, BUT you still definitely need to upscale to 4K before posting to YouTube, if you don’t want your footage to look like poop, due to YT’s extreme 1080p compression… this is the most important information about this topic, and you completely left it out…

Ultra HD is a consumer electronics standard and is 3840 x 2160. DCI 4K is the cinema standard and is 4096 x 2160.

Bravo!

I use 1080p to make training videos for local sports clubs. After 3 years, no one has ever complained, and I enjoy the benefits in storage space and required processing power. I can shoot at 8k uncropped, but I have never seen the need.

I'm all for calling out the marketing BS, and I agree FHD can be enough, especially if that's what you have, it's better to make it work than waste money on new gear. But on the other hand, there aren't many affordable or practical cameras for most people that shoot professional 10bit FHD. I can't think of any hybrid cameras that do. So if you want hybrid 10bit, it will be UHD, and some cameras offer amazing value. Lumix G9 / GH5, Lumix S series. If you also want decent AF, even Sony's lower-end APS-C cameras offer great value. It's worth noting that some 4K cameras shoot poor FHD due to line skipping.

I have been filming in 1080p and it has been just fine for all the things that I am doing with the videos right now.  I am just getting started and the footage is good enough my computer will not handle the 4k footage so 1080p is good enough for me.  Great video

I have a small collection of older 1080p cinema cameras and a handful of 4K mirrorless. I love using the older 1080p cameras because I get an awesome image without using a ton of data!