32K video editing is now a thing... but what on earth does that mean in reality?

When I read that DaVinci Resolve now supports 32K video editing, I genuinely wondered if I'd fallen and landed on my head. 

Because let's get real: we're talking about a picture that's 32,000 pixels across. Over half a billion pixels per frame. This, in an industry still wrestling with 4K delivery, where 8K remains a curiosity reserved for tech demos and the occasional wildlife documentary.

Despite all that, though, Blackmagic Design has unlocked 32K editing in the free version of DaVinci Resolve 20.3 for anyone with an M5-powered Mac. That's 30,720 × 17,280 pixels. Sixteen times the resolution of 8K. Two hundred and fifty-six times the resolution of 4K. 

So I'm still rubbing my temple and checking whether there's a lump there. These numbers are absurd. The question is whether they're usefully absurd.

Reality check

After all, we're living in a world where 4K is only just becoming standard. Most streaming services still default to 1080p unless you've got the bandwidth and the subscription tier to prove otherwise. Netflix is still optimizing how to get 4K HDR into homes without constant buffering. 

Meanwhile, 8K adoption has been glacial. Less than 3% of televisions support it. Content is sparse. The entire industry spent years being told 8K was the future, and the future hasn't bothered to show up.

So who needs 32K? Is this genuinely useful, or is it just Blackmagic flexing? The answer, I'd argue, is somewhere in between.

Niche uses

LED volumes are the obvious use case – those massive wraparound screens used on shows like The Mandalorian aren't constrained by broadcast standards. They're custom installations where resolution directly impacts how believable the virtual environment looks to the camera. The same goes for projection domes, large-format digital signage, and certain high-end VFX workflows.

If you're shooting on something like the Blackmagic URSA Cine 17K camera, you need software that can actually handle that footage without choking. Editing in 32K will presumably give you the headroom to work comfortably.

Then there's Apple's immersive video format for Vision Pro, which shoots in 180-degree 8K 3D at 90fps. As spatial computing develops (assuming it actually does) these resolution demands will start to make more sense. Though we're still talking about extremely niche territory.

To my mind, then, the strongest case for working in 32K isn't about what you're delivering today; it's about what you might need tomorrow.

Film studios have been scanning 35mm prints at 8K; not because anyone's watching in 8K now, but because they're future-proofing their archives. When you finish a project at 32K, you create a master that can be downscaled to 8K, 4K or 1080p with exceptional quality. In 10 years, if 8K becomes standard, you won't need to return to the original camera files. The work is done.

Verdict

Overall then, I think the very fact that Blackmagic has made 32K editing available to anyone with an M5 MacBook matters. Not because everyone's going to suddenly start shooting 32K; that would be madness. But because when specific workflows demand it – a museum installation, a high-end retail display, volumetric capture prep, key archiving – the tools will be there.

For the majority of working photographers and filmmakers, 32K capability is irrelevant right now. Your clients aren't asking for it. The infrastructure isn't there. And most strikingly, the storage requirements are punishing. A single minute of uncompressed 32K footage at 24fps would eat roughly 270GB. 

Right now, figures like that sound totally insane. Remember, though, that five years ago, 8K editing would have seemed ridiculous. Now it's a legitimate acquisition format, even if delivery remains predominantly 4K. 

So I guess the real question isn't whether you need 32K today. It's how long it'll be before we stop asking the question altogether?