Interesting article on pixels from John Galt, Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging over on CreativeCOW:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-f...

My tangential thoughts...

This article ties in with some of my thoughts on the resolution race we are seeing in Fulldome display's at the moment. Not all pixels are created equal is what i've been saying regards CG pre-rendered content. It's possible to render a frame at 4k x 4k or 8k x 8k but is the one i render at 8k going to be 4 times better? Not neccesarily and more often than not it would probably look worse. It is more important to harness modern CG techniques to increase the level of realsim than chasing pixel resolution for the sake of more pixels.

This is a similiar argument that is coming from the guys experimenting with red cameras in the dome. The obvious realism that you get by capturing real footage is far more forgiving to the viewer even when captured at lower resolutions than one may aspire to. In an ideal world we would create the highest level or realism at the highest resolution possible but as their is always a compromise the pursuit of realsim does not mean more pixels but better quality pixels.

Quality of pixel not quantity is where I feel the emphasis should be placed... but if anybody has the budget for an 8k 120fps Sterescopic uber high end CG Fulldome production we are more than happy to take the challenge ;)