Is 4K media a scam if you don't have a 70 inch TV. I honestly don't see much difference between 1080p and 4k
Is 4K media a scam if you don't have a 70 inch TV. I honestly don't see much difference between 1080p and 4k
Is 4K media a scam if you don't have a 70 inch TV. I honestly don't see much difference between 1080p and 4k
Imagine needing anything more than 720p
720p is poor people shit anon
Industry plant
There's another kind in current year music and entertainment?
>African mother
>non israeli white father
Color me officially surprised
All the hot black girls are mutts of some kind
CANTERBURY MENTIONED
Canterbury Tales. Chaucer. Shakespeare.
Paying £20 just to enter the cathedral. The Archbishop owning most commercial property in the town and hiking the rents to the point the town is dead. No signal because NIMBYs don't want the towers ruining the view.
Bashing the bishop!
I remember when I first played gta 4 on my 360 and my 16 inch plasma tv. My anterior pelvic thrusted into air like a rocket shot at a palestinian child.
your eyes can't even see beyond 1080p 60fps
I can definitely see a difference between 60fps and 100fps.
It depends, there are pretty drastic differences in 4K releases in terms of quality. Let's assume they did a good job with a 4K movie, the picture should at least be sharper and details more nuanced compared to 1080p, even on a smaller TV. Regardless, you still choose 4K media because you get a new TV eventually and then it'll pay off in the long run.
she looks like she has a penis
It's generally a scam. 4k has occasionally better bitrates which means the picture MIGHT look slightly better, but many 4k releases have been destroyed by shit like upscaling and DNR artifacts that makes them far worse than the 1080p versions.
Realistically, anything shot on 35mm will not be improved by 4k. A few films shot on 70mm will look a little better on fine details.
Now, all of this is assuming an observable size. If you've got average eyesight and you sit 6 feet away from your screen, you'll see no real difference until your TV is 80 inches. And even then, it's subtle. I would say that the best 4k modern digital film looks about 10% better than a 1080p equivalent. It's not the jump 720p was from 480i, or even the jump that 1080p is from 720p.
>Realistically, anything shot on 35mm will not be improved by 4k. A few films shot on 70mm will look a little better on fine details.
This is so wrong that I wouldnt be surprised you are "just pretending to be moronic". A 16mm film could easily be transfered into 4K and it would improve the visual quality, not to mention 35 or 70mm.
Always fun to watch the morons crawl out of the woodwork to insist that seeing GRAIN PATTERNS in higher detail is somehow a visual improvement.
Don't get me wrong, 4k remasters often mean new, higher quality scans of films, which can look better than older ones. But that doesn't mean the quality is due to "4k", it just means they used a better process this time. You could downscale it to 1080p and you wouldn't notice a difference.
maybe for someone with a tiny tv, If you own a large tv its absolutely apparent.
I dont think you understand what they are saying. The point is that with 35mm film you can blow it up to high level of detail unlike digital. What you get with digital is what you are stuck with. A single frame shot on film has the potential for higher resolution than a single frame shot on digital
i wont pretend to know much so all i can give is my anecdotal experience, but when i used film cameras a lot, I'd see people spending well over 1-2000 pounds on Leicas, but then getting their photos developed to a CD at a pharmacy. the scans they gave were complete shit and their photos looked good, but never amazing. Using a lesser camera but having the photos developed professionally where they will give you a high resolution scan would often look better
this seems vaguely similar in that sense
I don't think you understand the visual detail limit of silver halide crystals. All that is being blown up here when you scan at a higher resolution is the shape of the crystal. You aren't recieving anymore visual data.
Look, imagine I had a pixellated 100x100 image. I could blow that up to 1000x1000, 10x the size, I could apply fancy algos to smooth out the gaps between the pixels, but the base detail is limited by the size of the pixel. It's the same with film, you don't get infinite detail just because you scanned it bigger.
Anon you need to go to a little more research on film if you think 35mm doesn’t look better in 4k over Blu-ray
>there are anons who don't have 70inch or bigger TVs
I love her bros
this b***h is setting music back 20 years
That's the appeal bro
Who is she. She's perfect
Pinkpantheress
Sunshyne Monroe
Color dye clouds in color films have resolvable detail on the 10-25um range.
A 4k image at 35mm would have a PPI of 3200, assuming perfect detail. With a maximum detail of 10-25um, that's a PPI equivalent of 1000-2500 PPI. 1080p would have a PPI of 1600.
It is CONCIEVABLE that some scenes in some movies might lightly exceed 1600 PPI. In most cases, poor quality prints, low quality film, and poor storage mean that the true PPI of 35mm film is likely on par with, or far below 1080p quality in the majority of cases. No 35mm film in color comes close to hitting the 4k limit.
In summary, 4k is a fricking gimmick for morons when it comes to film.
4k Dolby Vision mogs 1080p on my LG OLED.
>Is 4K media a scam
Yes.
if you're jerking off to that you've proven you're blind, 320p would be a mercy.