IS 4K ACTUALLY A MEME RESOLUTION OR ARE POOR PEOPLE JUST COPING? Posted on May 25, 2023 by Anonymous Is 8K the true successor to 1080p? Is 4K to be ignored?
It’s a meme if something is expensive
Stop being a poor fag
Im not poor i have a coke habit fuck you
The kino choice is Pepsi you pleb
>Virgin Cola could have been our fizzy pop overlords.
anything beyond 4k is well into diminishing returns, most people literally cannot tell the difference.
you might not notice yet but you will when new releases in 24k look like shit on your 8k tv because they will do it on purpose
even the difference between 1080p and 4k is rather subtle. You have to watch something on a giant screen to really notice it.
standard blu-ray resolution is enough for 99% of people
except it's not you blind retard.
go to best buy and see the difference. 4k has way more detail.
>muh youtube videos look the same.
Of course. Those were shot on 10 year old cameras in 720p native resolution.
Your meme insult is outdated and your understanding of technology is old. Most 1080p releases these days are downgraded samples of 4K scans. They aren't upgraded re-scans like they were doing in the early days of Blu ray releases. That's why the difference is subtle now.
i dont get ppl saying this do u have myopia or something?
4k and 8k are both a meme for video.
We BARELY have cards that can run 4k at 120fps.
8k is unnecessary for at least another 8 years I'm guessing.
For big screens and projectors yes definitely
4K and even 2160p look noticeably better I had no idea because I had a 1080p tv up until this year it’s not a meme at all and I don’t even care that much about picture quality these modern tvs have come a long way in the last few years
No doubt it looks better, but I think op is asking if it'll end up like 2k, a forgotten resolution that was quickly replaced by 4k. 720p would be another example of a meme resolution because 1080p became the standard so fast.
2K (the film/TV standard) *is* 1080.
sssh let them keep embarrassing themselves
It's like watching Cinemaphile attempt to describe sex
2K resolution is slightly larger than 1080p. You are mistaken.
1K is 720p?
>4K and even 2160p
that's the same thing
>look noticeably better
I own two 4k OLED TVs, a 55 inch and a 42 inch.
On both, the improvement over 1080p is very subtle.
Maybe it would be more noticeable on a really large screen, but who the fuck stand so close to the screen when watching a movie to fully appreciate the higher resolution? crystal clear 1080p is already great.
Anon is probably comparing modern 4K releases to ancient 1080p Blurays that came out years ago when the Bluray tech was still new. So the difference will be substantial.
However snon doesn't relealize that times have changed. 1080p VS 4K usually looks very similar now. At least when it comes to movies.
I'm not touching video game debates on 1080p vs 4K
Poor people are always coping.
T. used to be a poorfag
It's mostly a meme. There's no real reason to ignore it, though, since 4K TVs and even monitors are getting affordable. 8K is an even bigger meme than 4K, and for the same reasons.
It's a meme, there's no discernible difference between 4k and bku ray, except that 4k gives people orange skin, fluro-colored clothing and every scene is 10x darker
>except that 4k gives people orange skin, fluro-colored clothing and every scene is 10x darker
I think that's your shitty HDR being turned on by your shitty tv
>except that 4k gives people orange skin, fluro-colored clothing and every scene is 10x darker
4K is a resolution. It doesn't change picture quality. That's probably your TV's HDR.
No it's the media.
If they do a 4K release then it's always color """corrected""" into something horrible, ie The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
>"IT TAKES PLACE IN MEXICO SO IT MUST LOOK LIKE PISS!"
The biggest meaningful difference is in bitrates.
Regular Blu-ray can sometimes be compressed and shitty looking, depending on how they formatted it, and how much other stuff they were trying to squeeze onto the disc. Maybe they only gave the movie 10GB of space when it could have been 15GB. In which case, the uncompressed 4k UHD version will always look a lot better.
In other cases where the regular Blu-ray has just the movie taking up most of the disc, and it's allowed to be the biggest file size and highest bitrate possible (special features are on a separate disc or something), then you might not see much difference with the 4k one.
>uncompressed 4k UHD
Just wanted to make sure you realize 4K BluRays are definitely compressed. Uncompressed video is HUGE, and is impractical as a delivery medium.
True. "Uncompressed" in a relative sense, a lot less compressed than with a regular Blu-ray where the movie was only given half the disc space or less
i downloaded 720p films for like 15 years, i am not done with 1080p
human eye cant see more than 720p. don't waste your money, don't waste your storage space
It that's true, then why do 1080p movie rips look better to me than 720p rips?
An indication that you, my fren, is not human
Yes it's a meme. Check out caps-a-holic if you want proof. for instance, do you see any significant difference between the 4K and Bluray of Citizen Kane?
How about a comparison of something that isn't a prehistoric grainy footage with no color? Compare Avatar 2.
OK Here's Top Gun. Even less difference.
The difference is obvious, and it's all pretty noticeable if you have a giant screen and sit close to it. I guess if you watch kinos on a monitor or ten meters away from your tv, there's not much difference.
>4K is mem-
>nooo it's just old blu-ray with bad scan!!1
Anon, are you retarded?
You posted two discs with the exact same source. And even so, the difference in detail is abysmal.
Man, a 4k release of Fear and Loathing would be sweet.
I just realized that that's from a new remaster and not just an upscaled frame. I'm a retard.
I disagree with you here
where the 1080p Citizen Kane looks better (I'll admit the possibility that what I'm seeing in the 4k png isn't representative like
says, but I'm skeptical), the 4k Top Gun is noticeably better
the difference isn't large but it is detectable
are you trying to argue that an 4k and 1080p image looks the same on a 1080 monitor?
amusingly enough, in certain respects the non-UHD Bluray is absolutely better
note the text here; the 4K has had the contrast brought up too high and it makes some words illegible that are discernible in 1080p
>note the text here; the 4K has had the contrast brought up too high
4K has Dolby Vision master which can't be displayed and compared through png file to SDR on blu-ray.
Citizen Kane is kind of a shitty example, because the original negative is lost. All they can do now is scan lower-quality theatrical prints that have survived.
This dumbass is probably viewing these comparison images on a 1080p monitor and wondering why the images look the same.
No, majority of people in the US have slow internet so the majority of people aren't even watching 4K content that includes people that actually have 4K screens they shelled out for. Investing is 8K is fools errand from content creator's preceptive No service wants to deal with bandwidth and file sizes of 8K video. We are rapidly reaching diminishing returns and 8K isn't that much more impressive 4K.
I seriously hope 4k isn't a meme because I just ordered one, 50"4k to upgrade from 32"1080.
It's just that returns are very diminished. I thought the jump from 480p to 1080p was much more remarkable than the jump from 1080 to 4K.
People have latched onto 4K in part because it's the resolution in which the gains of scanning 35mm hit a peak, but keep in mind 2K was the theatrical standard until very recently. A lot of that was the limitations of projectors (and digital cameras to a degree) but it also just reflects that 4K isn't that big a deal. Just enjoy your TV and relax.
Good luck finding a telly under 4K in the store these days.
Rather surprised this is a movie board. I have a 7 room surround sound system and multiple types of TV for watching kinos. Admittedly mt library is mostly digital other than VCRRs for the CRT
Most people here are poor as fuck or live with their parents.
I can assure you anti-4k fags that it is not a meme. I have a 55 inch LG C1 and it ruined me, I can immediately see the difference between 4k and 1080. It's not a joke.
Is there a point me doing it for gaming if I only have a ps4 and series s?
I don't know I don't pay attention to colours etc when gaming but I assume that it will look good compared to a generic tv.
Not for those consoles. You need a ps5 to really get anything out of it and if you only have a base ps4 and not pro completely forget about it
A series s is better than a ps4 pro so yea it would benefit. Modern games won't run 4k but a lot of last gen and such titles will. Its a good upgrade especially if you're gonna eventually get a ps5
Regular Blu-ray movies do look great on 4K. Always check for 4K copies that includes the regular Blu-ray with even if you have no 4K pkayer.
It's a meme. oled vs led matters far more than 1080p vs 4k. Which isn't to say there isn't a visible difference, but there are much bigger factors in picture quality at play once you go beyond 1080p.
At that point aren't you just arguing over how autistic you want to be?
It's a meme.
-The difference between 1080 and 4k is barely noticeable.
-Modern panels (including OLED) are riddled with motion blur so any extra details is lost immediately when things move anyway
-Streaming services lower their bitrates to an absurd degree reducing detail in the image significantly. Apple is the best, topping out at almost half the bitrate of a bluray, but shit like netflix/amazon is about 1/5th the bitrate of a bluray
>doesn't know tvs have settings menus
Blu ray does have much better audio quality tho
Going above SD was a mistake. The magic is gone from cinema and tv now. Everything looks as corny as theatre but without the craft and acting prowess to back it up, and without any concession made to that form of art, without that direct connection to the audience or that knowing wink that says yes its not real but lets make believe together in this room. In TV and cinema you can see every seam where the scenery if there even is any meets with the set, every coffee cup left on a table out of focus, every poorly made costume piece, every wrinkle, every botox injection, every poorly modelled or rendered CGI asset, every liquid ounce of fake blood that looks to thick or too thin or the wrong colour. Its all there to see and cannot be ignored.
Unlike in videogames where higher resolutions and increased graphical fidelity can be argued as contributors to immersion through photorealistic graphics (I disagree on that, I prefer to be immersed through art and not failed attempts to imitate life) the opposite is true of cinema, higher resolution just shows how fake and cheap everything looks. The magic is dead now.
Terminator 2 looked incredible for about 25 years after its release and you could have watched 100 times on VHS after it came out and still have been awestruck by it. Even now it still looks amazing viewed on the right hardware. Compare that to blockbusters of today that look immediately dated and are lambasted nonstop from the moment they come out for looking cheap.
HD was a huge mistake. Probably the biggest in the history of cinema. Yes, 4k is a meme resolution. Unless you're watching sports there is no reason to go above 720p 24fps
>Going above SD was a mistake. The magic is gone from cinema and tv now.
Lo-res = magic? I think not.
Approximate resolution of 35mm film is 6K. Old movies were always high res it’s just home media formats couldn’t match cinema remotely until now.
I was going to the cinema in the 80s and 90s. Stop bullshitting
Lads we have to go back to 480p
I guess ED was a really poor choice of nomenclature
You can't blame resolution for bad CGI and years of shitty digital masters. Films that aren't ancient look great in 4K.
I hate when you can see the makeup on the actor's faces. It looks fucking terrible. Return to SD, or return to soft focus filters and lots of diffused lighting like old films. There are a lot of old movies that still look great in HD because it was filmed with those techniques.
>Return to SD,
Fuck no. Film was always high quality and was meant to be seen that way.
>soft focus filters and lots of diffused lighting like old films
90% of modern shit is just done with diffused LED-lighting. Fair point on the soft-focus filters.
As someone who recently upgraded to a 4k tv with hdr I can definitely say it isnt a meme and the difference is colossal even on regular blu rays.
I find 4k too detailed compared to actual real life sight
It's the focus. It's something I'm not sure they'll ever nail with digital that analog does by nature. People get all bent out of shape over lighting and other things in digital, but that's the real "problem". Everything is in focus now, and fake blurring looks bad.
I think so it, it's like looking at things in a very bright room from a very close distance, and looks nothing like what you see with your own eyes
So yes, it looks "detailed" but not realistic, or even pleasant
Precisely. Most film lenses are shaped at a similar ovalur bent to the eye, so lines tend to blur or sharpen like they would for every day reality. Maybe they'll figure it out, but for now it's distracting to some people. Might be different for people who didn't grow up with a lot of the old way.
Exact opposite experience for me. Older films are more in focus, the new trend is to have a high DOF on everything.
>Everything is in focus now, and fake blurring looks bad.
Shallow depth of field, and creative use of focus is a key feature of movies. Doesn't matter whether the image from the lens is hitting a digital sensor or a frame of 35mm film. The results for focus are precisely the same. And no one is using fake blurring. It's all about wide aperture choices for the lens. Modern movies use shallow depth of field just as older movies did.
>Most film lenses are shaped at a similar ovalur bent to the eye, so lines tend to blur or sharpen like they would for every day reality.
I don't even know what to say about that statement. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Modern lenses work precisely the same way older lenses did, they are just sharper, as technology has moved along. (And the out of focus performance, called "bokeh", is often smoother and more pleasing than with older lenses.)
And for what it's worth, older lenses that were designed during the film age, such a Cooke brand vintage lenses, for example, are often used in digital production. They are used for their "look", or "character", as they are not as optically precise as newer lenses.
>they work the same
>They're used for their look
k thanks for agreeing you're wrong
Incorrect. The optical principles are PRECISELY the same. Physics or light hasn't changed one iota. The older lenses are just sloppier.
Old movies were in focus also, you retard.
Mostly a meme, unless you buy a $10,000 OLED. The biggest difference is in the HDR, not the resolution. I have regular blu rays that look gorgeous and absolutely mog some of my 4Ks
Hdr was the first meme. Making your colours look bing bing wahoo that you could do with saturation was a great con
OK hdr fags
I'm gonna turn my saturation up
I'm gonna do it
HDR can be very, very good. The problem is you almost don't even notice it when it's done well because when done well, it just seems natural. They have to make it oversaturated bullshit so plebs feel like they're getting their money's worth. People would be mad if they spent $1000 on an HDR TV and didn't notice a difference.
4K is not a meme, but it's approaching meme level.
HDR is explicitly not a meme.
HFR is a meme.
8K will not be a meme. Anything after 8K is a meme unless televisions are replaced with home cinemas.
Forgot to mention, OLED and similar innovations are not a meme.
>unless televisions are replaced with home cinemas.
The resolution difference is not noticeable until screen size is dramatically larger than it is now. 8K is basically a meme but technically still has observable detail increase. 16K will not.
Companies should focus on less compression and better HDR/panel technology.
Higher quality streaming compression is coming eventually with H.266/VVC and AV1.
But realistically there won't be huge jumps in quality because of how many people still have dogshit internet speeds.
Television and Film are absolute memes.
why do 1080p looks pixelated now? is this some mandela effect shit? try watching a video on youtube at 1080 and find out, please tell me I'm not just me
I dont see it, post some videos
could be youtube compression
YouTube has been garden gnomeing their 1080p bitrate so they can sell users "Premium 1080p". It's not mandala effect. Same deal for streaming services. A 1080p bluray will look better than a lot of 4K streaming.
Isn't just you, they're intentionally making 1080 worse fo push you forward, many such cases throughout history
1080p content looks worse on a 4K TV
>why do 1080p looks pixelated now? is this some mandela effect shit? try watching a video on youtube at 1080 and find out, please tell me I'm not just me
they have been known to garden gnome you on the bitrate so they can monetize premium 1080p
YouTube is stingy with bitrate, period. Pretty damn sure they aren't encoding 2 different bitrate versions of 1080p.
>YouTube is stingy with bitrate, period. Pretty damn sure they aren't encoding 2 different bitrate versions of 1080p.
You can already download premium 1080p with yt-dlp
I stand corrected. I should have searched before posting. I see Premium 1080p is indeed a thing.
Because it's a low resolution that looks pixelated on any large screen.
bitrate. For actual HD 8kbps is the minimum I'd accept. 12kbps is what you should be look for.
I think HDR is more impressive than 4k or 8k or whatever.
I'll take 1080p hdr over higher resolution usually.
I only play games in 1920x1080. Why should I get a 4k monitor?
even 1440p is a huge difference
we're not talking about games though
You can get the same effect with using upscaling.
Natural 4k isn't all that much different.
I dont care when it comes to films. The charm and feel of watching them is how they were released, only zoomers and elitists want it pitch perfect
Is dolby vision hdr good?
>Is dolby vision hdr good?
only if you have a tv with good HDR performance. meaning it has to be somewhat expensive and not a budget model.
So a 500 dollar is good?
>So a 500 dollar is good?
more like 1k
Fuck you retards. I'm not falling for some.dumbass meme to see a few pixels better
Actually Fuck this
Guys just get a good TV that says hdr ready and 4k ready
These snake oil dealers will ruin your wallet for a kek
>Guys just get a good TV that says hdr ready and 4k ready
A good TV is at least $900
For what? So I can see another follicle of sweat on the actors head?
Do not listen to people in this thread that suggest anything expensive. They are bots and shills i promise you.
900 dollars for a TV is not expensive unless it's like 32 inches or less.
>Do not listen to people in this thread that suggest anything expensive.
$900 is not expensive
>$900 is not expensive
It's also the exact price of the cheapest good tv you can currently buy aka pic related.
Absolutely mad that burgers think 900 dollars to have a good TV is cheap
For a 65inch 4K HDR TV, 900 dollars is an absolutely insanely low price. Those things used to be ten fucking grand not that long ago.
I got a 4k 50 inch hdr TV for £300. You Americans pay taxes you don't even realise because they're part of the price
>Absolutely mad that burgers think 900 dollars to have a good TV is cheap
This is proof that bongs are even poorer than we think they are. Holy shit. So poor! How do bongs even live?
Until people start realising that 60fps is the future of movies shot on digital there's literally no point on 4k let alone 8k. If you watch the Blu-ray of Gemini Man you know what I'm talking about.
60fps film looks awful and soulless. The hobbit trilogy was nauseating
You luddites are so fucking boring. Avatar Way of Water looked incredible in hfr
zoom zoom zoom
8K will never be a home video format. There aren't even any movies shot in 8K unless you count 70mm IMAX film. And there aren't any 8K film scanners. No one has a TV large enough to benefit from it.
I know a lot of people who never even upgraded from DVD. Because DVDs were cheap, and they played on everything, they refused to buy into HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
I have a lot of Blu-rays, a few 4Ks. But I don't think I'm going to upgrade anything else that isn't a massive improvement over the Blu.
If you seriously only watch things on Blu I feel I need to report you for investigation you nonce
I have a few DVDs left of stuff that never got upgraded to Blu-ray (like some odd and end director's/extended cuts), most of my collection is Blu-ray, and I have a few things I have upgraded to 4K Blu-ray. But for the most part, Blu-ray is good enough for me for movies. Outside of that I use PlutoTV and Roku Live TV and that's about it. I don't pay for gnomish streaming.
>8K will never be a home video format. There aren't even any movies shot in 8K unless you count 70mm IMAX film. And there aren't any 8K film scanners. No one has a TV large enough to benefit from it.
Yes it will and your marvel movies are already being filmed in it.
>On January 6, 2016, director James Gunn stated that the 2017 film Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 would be the first feature film to be shot in 8K, using the Red Weapon 8K VV
It will be a long time before 8K gets upgraded to anything higher because 8K is already very tough to process right now so it will be around as long if not longer than 1080p. 8K will start replacing 4K in 2025. Screenshot this.
>8K will start replacing 4K in 2025.
More like Fall 2026. That's when they project 2 million+ 8K HDTVs to be sold to consumers for the first time in history and when you get to the 2 million mark, that's when 4K started to replace 1080p.
It will probably happen, if only to push more TVs. It might not ever be worth upgrading, but it will happen nevertheless.
It's a partial meme. Some films look worse.
I'm a 32k man myself
Even bluray ruined half of the old movies I watch, I put on a Jet Li movie and immediately you can see that the female assasins are stuntmen in drag and wires are plainly visible
4K content varies considerably in quality. I find most movies shot on actual film look fantastic, but many modern movies shot digitally look very soft and there's barely a discernible difference between 4K and 1080p
That's because many were shot in 2K/1080p and are only being upscaled to 4K
Yeah most modern movies are just upscaled. Blade Runner 1982 is scanned from a true 35mm film in 4K, Blade Runner 2049 is done from 3.4K.
So the movie from 1982 has better quality then the one from 2017, Hollywood hasn't just become shit regarding the writing and political agenda.
Indeed, until the last few years, a lot of movies were captured at less than 4K. Fortunately, that's pretty much a thing of the past now, though. The new Alexa 35 camera is 4.6K, for example.
Digital movies have been captured in 4K for years and years now. The problem was 2K digital intermediates, which have now mostly been phased out in favor of 4K intermediates.
Thanks for the info
It has to do with rendering effects. Plenty of movies shot on film in recent years were still mastered digitally at 2K, which was the projector standard. This kind of thing makes it difficult.
Star Trek TNG was shot on film but transfered to video for editing and the effects work, which is why the HD remaster was such an expensive hassle to produce and why none of the shows after it have had HD releases.
Farscape remaster never ever
Honestly the biggest advantage of having older TV shows in 1080 or 4K is that they don't look overly pixelated on a 4K screen. The shows themselves looked better in standard definition. Even a show that made good use of its budget and has excellent cinematography like The X-Files has more than a few dodgy shots in HD.
If you are watching 4k on a 1080p screen, you won't notice the difference. If you watch 1080p on a 4k screen it will look like shit. There is a difference. Also, if you are streaming or downloading shitty files, you won't notice much regardless of MAX 4k UHD or Netflix 4k UHD. Also, if your TV is shit it will look like shit regardless if it's a 4k tv. High quality physical media with a decent TV and you will notice the difference. Although I mainly got mine for live sports and it's like night and fucking day.
>If you watch 1080p on a 4k screen it will look like shit.
This is pretty important, if true. So if you don't plan on having much 4k media eg disks or huge sized torrents, then a 1080p set is best. Is that correct?
YouTube 1080 looks atrocious on my 4K but amazing on my phone
Depends. Decent 1080 looks fine. Depends on the bit rate and the encode, as well as the size of the TV. I watch 1080 stuff on my 50 inch 4K all the time. There is a noticeable difference, but it doesn't look particularly bad. Trying to watch 480p DVD rips is fucking rough, though.
If you don't buy the cheapest shit TV you're fine, at least if it's not much larger than 55'.
If you're not a fucking tech brainlet you can just use madVR or similar upscalers even if you've bought the blurays, need a PC and a glorious HDMI cable for that.
Won't really work without a half-decent GPU, something like a GTX 1060.
A good rip on a 4k OLED will look amazing. If you can't into OLED it's a meme
>A good rip on a 4k OLED will look amazing. If you can't into OLED it's a meme
OLED will be replaced by MicroLED in a matter of years.
Can't fucking wait. Fuck OLED, fuck MiniLED.
LOL you are looking at a decade min anon. The 110inch microled is £150,000. The 89inch micoled is £80,000 .... if you think its going to be affordable in a matter of years lmao youre retarded.
It's going to be at the very least 5 years before you can buy one that's even remotely affordable and actually worth buying, i.e. not plagued by early-adopter problems. In my opinion plenty of time to get your money's worth with an OLED (which to be honest you should have gotten years ago if you were interested at all, because both the tech and prices have been more or less stagnant for about 4-5 years already.)
the human eye cant see higher than 1080p
what was God thinking?
One problem I can think of is that the h265 standard wasn't as ground-breaking and advanced as h264 was for its time, so 4k still needs a bitrate of >50mbps to make an impact, which is ridiculously large
>he still watches movies on a tv
I own both a projector and 2 oled tv (the 42 is my monitor. 65 is my home tv).
Oled is better than projector, more versatile, perfect colors and blacks.
Projectors are not worth it unless you need to see things with other 20 people
8k chad here, 8k is just better 4k, or high end 4k. They put all the best tech and features in there 8k panels. You can get 110inch 16k tv now anyways.
If you use 8k I seriously hope you only watch movies for entertainment & don't game, lmao don't brag otherwise that is weak
Well yeah I watch bluray and 4k blurays on the 8k. Im not really a gamer just have a series x but the games all look good considering upscaled and the ones that are 120hz feel smooth.
Seems pointless when there's no 8K content.
Even if there were you'd need a fuck-huge screen to even hypothetically get anything out of it.
Axtually theres maybe 4 films that have been shot at 8k. Maybe 1 or 2 with an 8k DI....that I havent seen but doesnt matter, I enjoy bluray and 4k.
RED has been making 8K cinema cameras since 2016. And the Sony Venice 2 is also an 8K camera. Fuckloads of movies have been captured in 8K. The issue is with special effects work forcing lower res intermediates.
For me it's Tiny4K
Anal4K for me but I also like Exotic4K and Tiny4K. Passion-HD probably gets the hottest girls from their network of sites but the scenes can be kinda boring.
>the scenes can be kinda boring
That's just any produced porn now. They're all too scared to be daring since GDP went down
Best 4k discs as in looks wise that ive seen so far and own are:
Ghost in the shell
Crimes of the future
Touch of Evil
Ghost in the shell anime
They all look really good. Blurays do still look really good so whatever. Sin City 1 and 2 look amazing. I wish I had 4k of those.
Interstellar was definitely worth buying again on 4k.
I was pretty impressed with the 4k disc for 2001 A Space Odyssey. Had no idea a movie that old could be restored to look that good, just as sharp and vibrant as anything made today
>Had no idea a movie that old could be restored to look that good, just as sharp and vibrant as anything made today
If the original negative exists there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't. 2001 was shot on Panavision 70mm, in terms of HD resolution that would be roughly equivalent to 18K.
>2001 was shot on Panavision 70mm, in terms of HD resolution that would be roughly equivalent to 18K.
Sure, in theory, but there are no cinema lenses sharp enough to resolve detail equivalent to 18K. A lot of lenses aren't even sharp enough for 8K. Especially not back in the 60s.
What the fuck are you talking about?
What's so hard to understand? Not all lenses are equally sharp. Each lens can't resolve additional detail past a certain resolution. So something like 18K is essentially pointless when no cinema lens is sharp enough for it. Modern lenses are typically a lot sharper than older ones.
Lenses have no bearing on the quality of the film stock retard
>film stock perfect
>lens can't get image onto film stock
>this has no effect
It's like anon, trying to force a big idea into your retarded brain. It's pointless, it won't fit.
Gigabrainlet. You can have the best film stock in the world, but if you use a soft lens, you still get a soft image with less detail.
>So something like 18K is essentially pointless when no cinema lens is sharp enough for it.
No. IMAX cameras exist.
Also you don't get it. Lenses are not universal. You use different lenses based on the film format being used. Larger format cameras need bigger lenses.
>No. IMAX cameras exist.
Yeah, that's great for the few hours total of IMAX feature film footage released throughout history. Even 65mm, which keeps being brought up whenever you talk of Ks, only has a handful of really notable movies, and most of them are from the '50s and '60s at that. For example 2001: A Space Odyssey does not look particularly impressive at all in 4K, despite being scanned in 8K from the 65mm negative, and any random anamorphic 35mm movie from the late '90s will generally best it in terms of sharpness and detail.
What tv model and size and what 4k br player did you watch it with?
I have a 55" LG OLED, Oppo 4K player. Disregarding the VFX shots since those will always look worse, I'm not sure if the lenses or the film stock were the bottleneck, perhaps both. More recent movies like The Mummy or The Mask of Zorro look more impressive in 4K to me, despite the significantly smaller film gauge.
What model tv, how old and what oppo player. Is your player reference grade? I havent seen 2001 on 4k but ive heard good things. I would never bother seeing the mummy or mask of zorro on 4k bluray so dont know about them.
You aren't getting it. The point is that you can scan some film at 18K. The scanning method depends on the size of the film.
-8mm and 16mm is scanned at 2K
- 35mm is scanned at 4K
- Super 35mm can be scanned at 4K to 5K
- Anything Above 35mm can be scanned at 5K to 8K
- IMAX can be scanned at 18K
You choose the scanning method appropriate to the size the film. Whether the film focus looks soft is irrelevant. That's what you are supposed to do when scanning.
That's not even considering the fact that back in the 50s and 60s, studios would intentionally use softer focus and softer lighting to make their actors appear younger and make them more appealing.
I'm aware, but I'm saying that when 99.9999% of movies shot on film are on 35mm or below, 8K for consumer media will be effectively pure hype as far the back catalog of cinema is concerned.
Congratulations. This is one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen on Cinemaphile.
Feel free to elaborate.
Panavision 70mm supposedly being equivalent to 18K is meaningless when the lenses used aren't even sharp enough to capture that much detail.
The sharpness of the lens has bearing on how much detail can be captured, retard.
>He bought the same movie multiple times on different types of soon-to-be-obsolete plastic
>He thinks it was worth it
>He definitely doesn't have buyers remorse
I gifted the old regular Blu-ray to a family member who likes Interstellar but who will probably never get a 4k setup. Yes, it was worth it.
Ive got afew old films on 4k and they look amazing. Touch of Evil looks very good. Pyscho vertigo, the problem with harry, double indemnity, shadow of a doubt and saboteur all look very good for films spanning from 1942 to late 50s early 60s.
Also how did I forget Blade Runner jesus christ it looks amazing for such an old film. Hasnt dated at all.
Can you see more of Sharon Stone’s piss flaps?
no, although in general the colors are different fro m the old BD.
There are literally thousands of people buying 4K HDR Smart TVs and they don't even have center channel speakers. They watch a movie, they have to turn the volume up to hear the dialogue and down for the loud parts, and they think they're having a kino experience. Many of them use this board, some posting in this thread. I bet (You) are one of them.
I grew up a poorfag so everything was mono sound. Blew my skull off when I found out there were supposed to be anything more than rattling tin as bass, or the existence of track mixing going to different channels. Even now, 5.1 can do a lot to improve most people's viewing experience.
>Friend tells me about his new HD TV
>It's playing SD DVD over composite
>Friend tells me about his 4K TV
>It's playing a 1080p BD
Normies don't know what's going on 90% of the time. They just like getting good boy points.
>4k hdr disk
>4k hdr player
>4k hdr receiver
>4k hdr tv
>all throttled by the HDCP cable rating
95% of people with 4K TVs aren't using properly rated cables. It makes sense that no one can tell the difference when the cables are struggling to support the bandwidth at all.
I take no small amusement in the idea that home AV finally getting down to one connection standard has actually made it more difficult for the average user to figure out what might be going on.
>95% of people with 4K TVs aren't using properly rated cables. It makes sense that no one can tell the difference when the cables are struggling to support the bandwidth at all.
Not really. Properly rated cables are cheap. It's just people who use bottom of the barrel cables. Like beyond cheap.
480p on my phone
I upgraded from 27" 1440p (109dpi) to 32" 4k (138 dpi) and I can barely tell the difference.
It would be nice, in the far future of, say 2 decades from now, to have 8K high refresh rate gaming, but by them my eyes will also be shit just from ageing. (reminder, you're all going to be long sighted by 60, and likely by 40/50 too).
4K is basically end game for everyone. Maybe, maybe, 2K8K could be end game for simautists.
I have a 10 foot theater screen with a 4k HDR capable projector. I only watch remuxes for the maximum bitrate. Sometimes 1080p remux, sometimes 4k remuxes. Over time I've learned I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. When I do notice the difference it's almost always because the 4k looks like shit due to HDR making the colors look fucked up. They also fuck up the contrast and the film grain all the time in 4k releases. I can tell the difference between a shitty compressed low bitrate 1080p movie and a 4k remux, obviously, but a 1080p remux is very difficult to tell apart from 4k. There's very few movies where there's a noticeable difference.
No projector is capable of HDR, there's your fucking problem. Sure they can play the files, but they can't show it correctly.
Congratulations. You're no longer banned?
I might be soon.
My totally legit and on topic thread just got deleted
I'm scared anon lol
Saw this in the comment section of a torrent.
something about view distance and not being able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k has me believing it's a meme too.
I think if you're more than 10 feet away with a 65" you can't tell.
But everyone knows compression and encoding are much more important for fidelity anyway.
This. If you need a fucking diagram to teach you how to "properly" enjoy 4K, you know it's a meme. You certainly didn't need stupid diagrams like that to see the difference between 480 and 1080p
You don't "need" anything. Just look at the goddamn screen.
And not notice a single difference. Cool, that was money well spent
Maybe you should see an optometrist
Maybe you should suck my enormous juicy cock ya fuckin homo
true, but the diagram could be FUD from poorfags too, right?
4k is better than 1080p
8K won't happen any time soon. There's no incentive for studios to produce content in 8K. Just an unnecessary jump in the cost and storage needed.
Sports will probably go first. No small amount of development is done from experimenting with those xboxhueg stadium screens.
I doubt it. Barely any sports are in true 4K to begin with.
Literally the least likely thing to go 8K
>stadium tvs are at home
Cool thread guys
Stadium screens are low res, brainlet.
There is zero reason for stadium screens to be even 4K due to viewing distance. Most of them are even 1080p.
*aren't even 1080p
Yep. Just like billboards are typically 30dpi at most. Anything more is a waste.
There's some good comparisons on Youtube, this one seems to get mixed opinions. Set the quality to max, don't read the comments and reply with your take.
and If you don't have a 4K monitor 1440p is obviously fine.
Here's another one
Here's some more:
And a recent release - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gin5hPhinP8
My conclusion is that if the blu-ray was already done properly to begin with the only difference is 4K has better fine detail and colour grading.
I don't care much about modern, clean, digital movies, but I love watching old, grainy movies from fresh 4K scans in HDR. It's fantastic when done right, of course I sit rather close to my 55" OLED so the difference is very noticeable.
Something I'll never understand is people who act like old movies shot on film have an infinite amount of detail or "resolution" on the original film negative, like what
When past a certain point, no, all you're going to get from pushing the scan quality and the resolution higher is more film grain. You're not going to get any more added detail an any *thing* in the frame, other than grain artifacts, when you keep pushing it up to 8k and 16k and so on
I think it's just because analog by definition is not easily quantifiable. In the most perfect laboratory conditions you could probably do some ridiculous scan like 16K and show that in some tiny part of the picture where the image detail and grain was aligned just right you might get some extremely minute benefit, but yeah, I don't see 8K for 35mm bringing much to the table.
Also technically you're not getting "more" film grain, just better resolved grain, or in other words more detail to the grain itself. I think it would be pretty neat to see some kind of interactive, extreme microscope scan of a piece of film where you could zoom in all the way from the complete image down to the individual particles.
just wait for 32K TVs, once nanoled manufacturing is fully realized it won't be long before that's what's in best buy
>another poorfag cope thread
Itt:brainlets and retards
past 1080p detail doesn't matter since you don't stand 2 inches from the screen counting hair folicules even if you could see each one of them individual
the most important thing in a new tv is COLORS too bad plasma panels died they were the shit compared to led gayness even crts have better colors
this post : retard and brainlet might also be a poorfag
we need to go back when DVD was the absolute best
Even if you're happy with a standard 480i or 480p CRT and you don't care about numbers of pixels or anything, DVD would still be fucking shit in comparison because it didn't have the scratch protection that Blu-rays have.
I've never had any issues with a Blu-ray disc being unreadable or stopping and hitching because it's damaged, even though I rent Blu-rays pretty frequently. It happened all the fucking time with DVD rentals
that's user retardation, I own cd's and dvd's from the 90's that are spotless
Same, I'm careful with all the discs I own and have never had issues with them, but it would be an issue if I wanted to rent newer ones from Redbox and standard DVD was my only option
2K is a cinema resolution with a width of 2048, so only marginally larger than the 1920 of the consumer HD standard. The same goes for 4K which is technically a cinema resolution with a width of 4096, but for whatever reason the name UHD, the correct term for the equivalent consumer standard with a width of 3840, did not really stick, so now all of it gets referred to as "4K".
my conspiracy theory is that 4k was pushed by nvidia so normies don't notice how bad TAA looks (and also to push their most expensive cards)
Oh shit I thought this was Cinemaphile my b. I'll still keep the post up.
The push is more from the TV manufacturers. Resolution is an easily marketed sales point. In the PC display space you see much more advanced features being marketed such as response times, the width, brightness, color accuracy and so on. Lots of people just settled on 1080p and 1440p because that's high res enough for them and lets them crank out a large amount of FPS which is what they actually care about.
That's a fair point. Still TAA does not look great without 4k res
I own a 4k Tv. Have watched 4k bluray and the difference is slightly better colors because of the jump from 8-bit to 10 bit. Resolution wise I can't tell the difference. 1080p and 4k look the same. Also Netflix's and Youtube's 4k look worse than a 1080p bluray. 4k on streaming services is fake 4k. Too much compression.
Surprised you'd notice the slight gradation improvement from 8 to 10-bit but not the much bigger difference that HDR makes. Unless your TV is one of those low-end "HDR" ones with like 300 nits.
When are they going to drop the standard encoding process that reduces 4pixels to 1? Because 4k is just 'true' 1080p atm
I assume you mean chroma subsampling. Probably never. The gains are too good to give up and they would rather push higher and higher resolutions, which is a much easier number and concept to convince consumers with, than improved compression or bitrate.
The next technological leaps will be AI reconstruction. Sending a heavily compressed stream and using AI client-side to reconstruct the missing resolution, reconstruct what was lost in the compression, reconstruct the film grain and so on.
>watching soulless remasters
I notice a difference with 4k, specifically in regardless to compression. The film grain of older films and older bokeh look really shitty in 1080p (or very often 720p) you get from torrents/streaming. A good blu-ray set up in 4K doesn't have any of that.
I'm not sure if 8k makes much sense, as I can still enjoy 1080p (though prefer the improvement of 4k), but the jump from 4k to 8k doesn't really improve much for me. Real diminishing returns. Of course, we thought the same shit in 2007 with 720p and 1080p, who's to say in 10 years 8k won't look justifiable.
At a certain distance from the display 480p/720/1080,etc all look the same. People miss the point of a large tv; namely sitting back from it in a properly sized room getting the "theater" feel. Yeah course if you've got a 65" display in a small ass room your gonna notice the quality difference. Just cause the tv is large and weighs next to nothing don't mean you gotta have it stuffed in your small ass apt room where your touching the screen from the couch. For media server uses the quality of the rip maters more than the resolution does.
You guys don't use projectors?
My OLED has better colors. Projectors only win out on potential image size.
What do companies do past 8k? Will video quality just be a solved thing? Will the prices on 8k products ever go down if there is no (needed) superior option?
No, our industry will need something else to shill our tvs. Next will be GBH technology that only works with our 8ks
I can't stand watching HD programming. Everyone looks so aged and too detailed. I have intense paranoia of looking at people to begin with, seeing the lines and wrinkles on people staring at me is not what I want
my friend has this super deluxe hd mega nerd tv. its image is sharper than real life
it is an unwholesome thing
hopefully with motion smoothing
God I hate this so much. My dad just got an 80" tv, in a small room. It's fucking horrible
poor people are coping
35mm looks good and everyone will tell you to go watch a real 35mm movie at a theater because of the high resolution
and 4k tvs cost like fucking 200 bucks
>and 4k tvs cost like fucking 200 bucks
According to this thread I need to pay 1500 bucks?