There's literally no difference between this and 1080p
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
There's literally no difference between this and 1080p
There's literally no difference between this and 1080p
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
yes there is stop using low bit rate junk
>even 4k blu rays are just upscaled from fhd masters
yes, 4k is a meme. hdr is the real deal though.
israeli hands typed this post. i watched dolby vision media on a 4k and it looks the same as 1080p with sharpness increased.
>post typed by /misc/ hands
immediately discarded
rent free
jews live rent-free in /misc/cels heads, yes
still better than /misc/
Yes Anon, only /misc/ is aware of the trickery and deceit. Wake up dude.
>with sharpness increased.
well yeah. That's what the higher resolution does.
can confirm tested it on my 16 year old 1024x768 samsung plasma 0 difference total meme
Plasma owners are chads, tho. Most people on this board have literally never seen a film on a Plasma display.
>mfw my friend had a big ass plasma
>brought over Kubricks The Killing on DVD
>black and white movie so more of the space and bitrate can be used on the visual clarity of the film
>looked like an HD bluray
>he dropped the TV when moving one day and had to toss it
>16 year old 1024x768 samsung plasma
That's some top of the line equipment.
Only in the modern garbage coming off the Disney cg production line with HD digital intermediates.
Only movies scanned natively in 4K from 35mm masters look fantastic. There's a few movies scanned from even larger film formats like 2001 that look incredible.
There are few instances of modern movies shot and edited on 4K properly but these are rare.
Is this why the prequels look so shit in 4k? George Lucas is a hack. Digital is cringe.
Aotc and rots were actually the first 2 big cinematic releases shot on digital cameras but the cameras were only hd so there's actually no chance of even redoing the CGI in 4K and re-editing it with 4K quality shots because even the actors were only filmed in hd. The best you could hope for is some sort of AI upscale.
Digital isn't intrinsically bad. Modern movies can look fantastic if the entire production pipeline is native 4K but this is expensive and rare.
Lucy is an example of a modern movie that was filmed and edited in native digital 4K because there's little to no effects so it was cheap to do so and the 4K disc looks fricking razer sharp. Unfortunately the movie is shit so who cares.
>Aotc and rots were actually the first 2 big cinematic releases shot on digital cameras but the cameras were only hd so there's actually no chance of even redoing the CGI in 4K and re-editing it with 4K quality shots because even the actors were only filmed in hd.
Lucas really is a hack if he did this knowing it would be fricked in the future. Disney+ is probably the best 4k you can get from the prequels and excluding TPM they look like digital shit.
>There are few instances of modern movies shot and edited on 4K properly but these are rare.
Not anymore, no. It's not 2016 anymore. Most films nowadays have 4K intermediates. Hell, some streaming services, like Netflix for example, even demand it from all of their original content.
Pro tip:
4k is a meme
HDR is a meme
Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision is a meme
Anything above 2.1 sound is a meme
4k is not for games
Buying a new player, cable, and disc is a meme
However:
>Movies before 1999 were 99% shot on film, usually 35mm film so its digital conversion could be up to 16k or something, which won't exist for another 1,000 years or so
>if you go on IMDB you can check the Technical Specs of a film and it'll say if it has a 4k Digital or 35mm Master
>these are the films you want on 4k disc
>only buy the movies you LOVE on 4k disc
>don't pay above $15 for a 4K UHD disc unless money is no problem to you or you dont own the movie on VHS, DVD, or Bluray already
>55" is perfect for 1080p
>1440p is 2.5k, not 2K (1080p) and is mostly used to trick homosexuals on PC
>4k for games is a fricking waste and pathetic, very few games were designed for 4K (last video game generation could barely handle 1080p at 30fps)
>If you're gonna go above 60" with a TV just get a projector
>t. 4k projector owner who just got "Giant" on UHD disc
So far the only movie I've watched in 4k that actually looked "wow" was Mulholland Drive from the Criterion 4K release.
is 2.5k, not 2K (1080p) and is mostly used to trick homosexuals on PC
explain
1920x1080 resolution is known as 1080p
2048x1080 resolution is the theatrical resolution size, aka 2K.
3840x2160 resolution is known as 2160p or 4K
2560x1440 is known as 1440p and is 2.5K (2,560 pixels wide), but manufacturers call it "2K" because it sounds like "4K". Its sold on "gaming" monitors so people on PC can get a higher visual resolution while also being accessible to immense homosexuals tricked into using 144hz refresh rates. Most computers cannot run a 2160p or higher resolution and above 60hz without an expensive beefy card so lowering the res to 1440p saves on processing power and electricity. Shit would probably be different today if all the crypto miners didnt frick up the graphics card scene for the last 7 years or so.
99% of TVs ran at 720p 60hz, 1080p 60hz, and 2160p 60hz. 120hz is actually useful for a 1080p res for watching 3D content since it halfs each eye to 60hz. Also "pro" gamers are all memed into "higher hz = more skill or the better you'll do" in shitty microtransaction games on PC.
if you can't tell the huge difference between 60fps and 144fps in vidya you might actually be disabled
I grew with games that were running at 15fps. Yeah I can see a smoothness when I set my projector to 240hz but it doesnt mean shit if the game isn't fun or it doesnt add anything to the game (higher refresh rates dont add anything to the game), so I keep everything at 60hz for games and when I use my bluray player I watch movies at native 24fps. Simple as.
>(higher refresh rates dont add anything to the game)
If all you're playing is slow story games with a controller, then sure.
I played shitty online games for a while too when I had a toaster and would hit first place with a 48hz LCD. Hardware doesnt mean shit if the game isnt fun and you're not having a fun time.
Right, so you admit that you've not played any competitive games at any level beyond wood tier in the last 10 years. Even beyond that, try to justify your choice of 60fps over 30fps in a way that doesn't apply to 60fps to 100+ fps.
>competitive games
There we go, the greentext meme response with no substance. I bet the last type your lard ass was part of any competitive activity is getting picked last in a high school football game. Go play doom 2016 with a mkb on a high difficulty at 30fps and 144fps and tell me again how refresh rate doesn't affect your enjoyment of the game.
>getting picked last in a high school football game
The sheer projection. A portion of my friends were jocks in high school.
And have you applied yourself competitively to anything since then?
Like I said, I realized online "competitive" games were a waste of time. Apex, Fortnite, Call of Duty, Rocket League, etc. I played all this shit but its so pathetic and boring because its all loot box/microtransaction "games as a service" trash aimed specifically at children and teenagers, and not in a good way. All part of the esports bullshit. I felt like I was just wasting time winning the majority of matches. I'm not playing to have fun but to "rank up" a game where I dont even have control over my save file. Once the servers are down my game doesnt exist, my unlocks dont exist, if I purchase something most likely I wont get a refund when its shut down. Had the same feeling with GTA Online, where I have everything I want but most people online are either hackers or have no motivation to play together.
If I want to play an online "competitive" game I'll do Splatoon 3 with some randos. LMAO.
Obviously if you don't enjoy it then its a waste of time. But you must realize that others might have a different experience with those types of games, right? So 144fps might a meme to you, but I don't see the need for the delusion that its a marketing trick and everyone else is blind.
Its not that people are blind, its that its a fricking meme and I dont need it.
>t. 240hz perfect UFO buddy
>Like I said, I realized online "competitive" games were a waste of time.
Agreed. Video Games are the one thing that don't give you tangible skill you can use if you fail or retire frol playing .
If you train to become a Firefighter, but fail to get the job, then At least your body is in great physical shape and you expanded your knowledge on firefighting and medical skills. This also applies to almost any other job you train for.
Video games and especially "Competitive" Video Games leave you with nothing if you fail to achieve your goals and being at the top.
lmao I played the highest difficulty of Doom 2016 on Switch with the joycons and gyro motion (no auto aim). Great game.
Good for you, if you can't see how playing that game on at 1440p 144fps wouldn't be more enjoyable than a switch then nothing will change your mind.
1v1 me on fortnite homosexual.
I used to play Dota 2 and CSGO at high ranks until I realized what a waste of time they are. I even buy PC games on Switch. I'm going to order a Steam Deck. I dont give a shit about "le power house graphics and sytem" if there's no games to take advantage of hardware. There hasn't been anything recently (lmao maybe besides Control) that has even taken advantage of processing power WHILE being a good game.
Don't see how your taste in games has anything to do with the argument that framerates are a meme and don't affect your experience of a game.
They only seem to affect YOUR experience, lmao. If a game is 1000hz or 10hz, it won't matter if the game is not fun. Like I said, I came from a time when games were like 15 fps and 48hz monitors were normal. My projector does 4k 240hz. Doesnt mean shit. Its nice seeing old games on a big ass projector screen, tho. Something like American Fugitive really benefits from a huge fricking screen.
Sure man, go enjoy your games at 10fps. Or do you instead preffer playing them at 60fps? I wonder why.
I enjoy games at whatever FPS the dev sets them in if they are good games. LMAO GOTEM.
HDR is artificial, its not like a real projector because projectors actually work with low lumens in pitch black rooms. Modern projectors for home use actually have way higher lumens than theatre projectors because projector companies know people are gonna wanna watch in the day time too. HDR ONLY exists on 4k UHD releases or an equivalent "digital stream". Its an extra set of data to express colors, contrast, and brightness that is NOT there. It displays in a wider range that didn't even exist for professional use in the past.
again, not even commercial theatres use HDR because its a digital technology specifically developed to work BEST on OLED displays which broadcast a wider range of color that doesnt not actually exist in the master video. It might look better and more colorful and more brighter, but thats because of the display technology simulating it to an extent. Some non OLED TVs and projectors will display they can do HDR but it is a sort of emulation or "approximate" recreation of the tech.
>I enjoy games at whatever FPS the dev sets them in
lel
Imagine confidently posting all of that and being wrong. Lol.
>Imagine confidently posting all of that and being wrong. Lol.
How is he wrong? As far as I can tell, HDR has limited impact outside of bright OLED screens.
Lmfao.
Batman returns and basic instinct are two of the best looking 4k blurays, ghost in a shell and bladerunner also look very good.
I heard Blade Runner looks crazy, still have it on DVD with that big suit case box. I reaaally want the Burton Batmans in 4k but they're still expensive. I'm gonna wait for a double pack like they had the 4 movie pack on bluray.
Its been a while since I watched it but to me it made more sense. The whole jungle river trip just seemed more brutal.
Can confirm 4K Blade Runner looks great. It's absolutely worth it
>ghost in a shell also looks very good.
is this true? I thought they rereleased that movie and fricked with the color grading and added shit cgi
The live action was shot at 6k. It looks very good. Is it a good film? Its grown on me and its not bad for a hollywood adaption of manga/anime but its not as good as the source. I havent seen the 4k of the anime film. Im talking about the best looking/best quality films on 4k, not the best films.
>Is it a good film? Its grown on me and its not bad for a hollywood adaption of manga/anime
Black person shut up, it's a shit israelited up version with terrible dialog .
It would never have the polictical espionage heavy dialogue as its a american popcorn version. For what it is its pretty good considering.
I mean an american version will always be dumbed down and messed with no matter who does it, so when you take that into consideration, what we got isnt that bad. In a way its good as it doesnt get rid of a reason to watch the anime, which like you said has superior dialogue and story and no forced diversity characters etc , im going to watch it today now but ive only got it on bluray.
Isn't it a 2k DI? I have it on 4k and it does look good anyway. The best 4k discs I have are the Kubricks.
Ive seen conflicting information as ive seen it said it was shot at 4k with 2k di and also shot at 6k with 4k di, so im not sure but its one of the cleanest looking films ive got. I need to get kubricks on 4k.
The movie was shot with the Arri Alexa 65, which captures a 4.5K image. You can see the camera in the pic here on the left. So no, it wasn't shot at 6K.
I read it was shot on 4k and 6k cameras. But you are most likely right.
According to IMDB, they also used an Arri Alexa Mini, but that's not a 6K camera either. Seems like they only cameras by Arri (makes sense, since sticking to one brand gives you a consistent image), and Arri doesn't even make any cameras capable of more than 4.5K.
So the info it being shot at 4k with a 2k di seems like the right info then.
Many special effects studios still create a lot of their special effects for movies natively at 2K. It's more cost effective, many people can't tell the difference, and many Movie theaters have a majority of their theater rooms use 2K projectors.
>buy the movies
why aren't you just using 480 then
1080p unironically has more sovl and cinematic qualities. No one wants to see a pimple on someone's face or some shitty old cgi effect next to ultra high quality practical objects.
Finally someone has the balls to say it.
The human eye is unable to see the difference between 1080 and 4k unless they're sitting like a foot or two from the screen (which no one realistically does). And even then, it's only select few movies of the utmost superior quality where you can see that difference.
As for HDR, that can be indiscernibly emulated through contrast, brightness, and sharpness settings.
4k is such a stupid fricking scam made to sell more tvs. Not even physical media, seeing as how 4k sells far fewer copies that bluray or even DVDs do.
So much poorgay cope.
>cant demonstrate any meaningful difference between 1080p and 4k, even up close
>p-poorgay!
My eyes see quite a meaningful difference. Literally millions of more pixels. Do you wear bad glasses or what? It is completely nonsensical to claim there is no meaningful difference, and you have done nothing to demonstrate your own claims.
>My eyes see quite a meaningful difference
Congratulations. You have fallen for a placebo psyop.
Proof? The difference is large enough to clearly not be placebo.
anyone who uses the term psyop is a dumb /misc/tard anon
4k is different and the difference is discernible from what I’ve experienced. HDR is also noticeably different and it enhances the film.
4K and HDR together are really great.
As far as i know, your brain is the one that notices the differences.
> The human eye is unable to see the difference
Poorgays have been sticking to this cope for 50+ years. I can easily see the difference between 1080p and 1440p. The difference between 1080p and 4k is huge. Distance from the screen doesn’t make much of a difference either, size of the screen does. We’re far, far from reaching the point of diminishing returns with screen technology. You’re probably reading this on a shit 60hz screen too, even though your eyes can tell a difference up to at least 1000hz and the fastest screens on the market are only 360hz.
>You’re probably reading this on a shit 60hz screen too, even though your eyes can tell a difference up to at least 1000hz and the fastest screens on the market are only 360hz.
Sure, but this is shit that only appeals to gamers, since pretty much all movie and TV content is in 24FPS nowadays, and practically nothing is over 60FPS.
>t. still doesn't believe in this whole "home computer" thing
4k 8k meme shit is audiophile tier homosexualry it has nothing to do with it being a new and emerging tool, because it isn't. It has no utility
>It has no utility
That's a very odd (perhaps brainless) way to speak of video resolution. 1080p has no real "utility" either.
Oh yes. You mean like how the human eye can’t tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS? Fricking moron.
The last major jump where you could actually tell the difference in quality was between 720p to 1080p. Above 1080p the increase in quality is totally indistinguishable and unnecessary. Tech gays will argue and seethe but it's the truth. You can only advance a tech so far before the increases became increasingly irrelevant and miniscule and we hit that for screen resolution with 1080p, same as how video games haven't advanced graphics wise since 2011, and in a few cases since 2007.
yup
If you cant tell the difference between a 4k hdr and 1080p then I dont know what to say, a very easy one is the revanaunt, go to scenes on bluray, take pic, go to 4k take pic, you can easily see the difference in greens and there will be more detail in most scenes, not all scenes. The problem is how much effort has gone into doing the 4k disc. Films future is exciting because it will get to the point where you wont be able to tell reality from your screen, with the screen being a window into other realities. It will be very cool. I feel like film is one of the only art forms that technology advancements will enhance, for example music cant really go anywhere, its all been done aswell, where film you arent confined by scales and modes etc any idea will be possible . Even 8k as a standard would be stunning and I cant wait.
>Films future is exciting because it will get to the point where you wont be able to tell reality from your screen, with the screen being a window into other realities.
Only if we get 120FPS 3D, preferably glasses free. Otherwise it'll never feel like a window to another reality.
AR 3d would be cool at RealLife-K res. People will still moan and be like oh mah gawd RealLife-K is trash 10,000k was good enough, your eyes cant even see RealLife anyways and I still use my 10,000K AR screen, RealLife-K is a scam.
That can't be true. Because there's no difference between 720p and 1080p
>puts motion interpolation onto max settings
Is there any way to make "HDR optimized" content not look this drab, washed out and low contrast? I'm doing SDR tone mapping with madVR and it actually looks a tiny bit more vibrant than the SDR WEB-DLs but still shit. And no, I don't want a TV that blinds me with peak brightness.
HDR is a meme
How so?
How can truly appreciate cinematography at 1080p?
Get an HDR display.
>How can truly appreciate cinematography at 1080p?
We can't. 1080p isn't even enough to make film grain look like, well, actual film grain.
>Dat pic of JLH
*Ahem*
Perhaps more pics can help me agree with whatever you are saying.
Unfortunately you can't really appreciate her performance here in SDR.
You raise some really good points. I need to watch this movie for the plot and appreciate the plot more. Clearly the plot needs to be shown in more pictures.
>drab, washed out and low contrast
That's just what House of Dragons looks like. Don't watch that garbage.
I suspected as much. Not every HDR show looks this bad. Dexter New Blood was also one of the worst offenders
i can zoom in
Still need the space, 30gb hard drives are coming out next year and 60gb in 2027. Then we won't give a shit about all these half baked 4k editions.
I knew 4k was a bad idea when I downloaded my first 4k porn video and saw more detail than id care to.
>Refuse to buy OLED because of increased blacked levels
There's a difference of 6,220,800 pixels.
I still use 720p. It looks exactly like 1080p for half the price.
imagine what you could save with 120p
>he says, while only ever watching DVDs
Barely a difference between BD and DVD.
nta but this is probably due to a shit transfer to the Bluray. Several companies have literally released 480p and VHS content with Bluray just being the container to hold the data.
Like I have the early release of RAN on bluray and the streaming remaster they had a few months ago looked so much more clearer than my bluray because they rescanned the film for the new bluray/streaming release.
The problem with the new Ran is that they butchered the colors. The old Blu-ray used a DVD master with blown out colors but now everything is muted and pushed too far towards a metallic blue.
It's a shame, the people who did the scan did a great job and then it was ruined by the restoration color lab.
I like 4K porn. It looks better. I notice hairs, skin bumps and stretch marks I hadn't noticed before.
Thanks yify
4K is more for vidya and other computing tasks.
Movies that are properly made for it will look better than 1080p, sure, but you don't really get anything more out of a movie by counting the actor's pores.
FRICK NEE TECHNOLOGY! THE 2000'S DID IT THE BEST!!!
You've just gotta choose the right films. Most times they'll just look a little nicer than your regular HD, which is still good, but the best 4K/HDR stuff is real fricking good. Usually this means older movies which were shot on film and/or have notably good cinematography. Obviously if you're just watching the latest MCU release then the difference between the two formats is completely negligible, unless you're maybe watching the IMAX Enhanced version or whatever they call it. You need to read reviews of the 4K remaster before buying anything, and you just need to be more picky in general.
Best one I've seen is the recent 4K Godfather Trilogy they put out. The fricking lights and detail on that is amazing. When the characters are standing next to a window or something, the light there is actually brighter than the rest of the screen and it feels like there's real sunlight streaming out of your TV
the 4k apocalypse now is so pretty guys its worth it just for that
dont get me started on that beauty that is the professional on dolby vision holy shit was that a perfect image
I actually do have the AN box with the multiple versions. Havnt seen it yet tho, not sure which one to watch. I still have the "extended" or "directors" cut on DVD.
id watch theatrical fk the french plantation
The theatrical cut is the best. It's already a long film, and all the other cuts just mess with the pacing a bit too much. Still, they're worth watching if you just want more Apocalypse Now scenes
What did you think of The Final Cut?
There is. But the issue is the human eye cant perceive anything more than 1080p depending in the size of the screen and distance from the screen
You think real life looks like 1080p? Dude, your vision is fricked
So, does native 1080p look better or does downscaled 1080p from 4k?
Native 1080p looks great on 1080p display.
A GOOD high bitrate 1080p video or image will look great upscaled on a 4k display or projector.
A 4k image to a 1080p display will work, it might look really good depending on the content, but like someone in the Audio Video world once said "You have 4 pixels to every 1 pixel with 4k. What 3 pixels of data do you remove to display it on a 1080p display?". Not the best example (because of compression) but try to go on youtube and watch a 4k video on your 1080p display and see how it looks.
In case of web-dl, they're often bitrate-starved, so the 4K hevc ones tend to have a bit more detail. Also depends on the quality of your renderer/media player
The main thing I hate about 4K is how damn expensive they all are. They always pack in the DVD and regular Blu Ray to bump up the price, even though if you're getting a 4K film then you're likely ONLY GONNA WATCH IT IN 4K AND YOU DON'T NEED THE OTHER SHIT
i just bought a shield pro and torrrent 4k files to a hdd
i need the shield for dolby vision and sound cuz lg doesnt support that rly popular audi format
This.
I pirate all my movies on putlocker and they don't look any different with my new monitor
Any videophile anons can confirm or contribute to this?
I was finished with deathmatch high fresh rate shooters back in the Quake 1 and 2 era.
No wonder the military picks on young chads.
you get good at games the more you play them and the more you understand the rules and how they can be bent or broken. Has nothing to do with age or refresh rates.
I don't call meshing the keyboard as you are jumping around a corner to get a shot in good at anything.
If they want realism then it would set up in warehouse with the basic plan with V.R goggles and shoot lasers, so you can properly sight around corners.
The human eye can only see in 720p.
The difference is subtle but I'd always want something like Clockwork Orange or Bladerunner in 4k, vs Bluray. The more interesting question, is 4k good enough for 35mm film archival? I think it might be, since the grain is visible.
I still buy regular Blurays too and the picture quality is excellent.
In VR, it's a huge difference. But yeah no difference in TV.
Maybe the difference on televisions isn't that noticeable, dunno, I don't have a 4K TV, but the difference between a 1080p and a 4K PC monitor is gigantic.
You don't need any more than 480p. The grit and fuzz adds soul
Bluray 1080p is still a great format. I bought & returned the LOTR 4K set due to the excessive DNR, and bought a used copy of the 2011 Extended Bluray set. Bluray is so good that it's usually a waste of money to buy a 4k disc of a modern 2k DI movie.
The old Bluray effectively has a more detailed picture than the new "remastered" 4k.
>it's usually a waste of money to buy a 4k disc of a modern 2k DI movie.
Well, duh, because those aren't really 4K.
Isn't the LOTR 4K set notoriously pretty bad?
>Isn't the LOTR 4K set notoriously pretty bad?
Yes, in the Youtube reviews you can see for yourself the top of Gandalf's staff disappear, also glitching around high contrast objects. Faces look waxy. The only issue with the 2011 Bluray Extended set is the green/teal tint on Fellowship but this can be mostly remedied by using a Warm profile on your TV.
It's curious how Peter Jackson doesn't care about his legacy to check this stuff. From 2022 until the end of time (or a new remaster), all humanity will view his magnum opus in this gimped version.
Yes, because Hackson loves DNR nowadays for some reason. He did the same shit to LotR and that Beatles documentary.