Top is native 4K UHD
Bottom is DVD upscaled to 4K
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Top is native 4K UHD. Bottom is DVD upscaled to 4K
Top is native 4K UHD
Bottom is DVD upscaled to 4K
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>original 4K version looks better
ok so how is this an interesting thread?
You have to zoom in for it to look better
Maybe if you're blind.
Stop watching movies on your Samsung galaxy 6 edge plus
you watch movies on your tiny computer monitor and/or phone
Literally, a zoomer
Are you using a 1080p monitor by any chance?
I do and even I can see a clear difference
Masterful bait
I don't think your pic is proving the point you want it to OP. gay.
Is this that Pumpkinhead?
It's Pumpkinhead's grandmother
Cute
I don't mind upscaling for stuff that was shot on video. But if the film is available, it always looks better that way.
Better question that moron OP bait, why do companies do shit like mess with the color grading etc and only release that one version? Some of these 4k Blu-rays can be expensive as hell, they should include every version there ever was for these prices.
Because half the work is being done by glorified interns, if not actual interns. No one actually checks the work, let alone against an original. And that's assuming the company doing the work even has access to it.
even if that was true, which I doubt in most cases with big studio movies, why not have more than one version available? it all seems like a con to me
You can doubt all you like. Raj the coffee boy is doing the editing. He's also the reason you can't hear dialogue in stereo, you need at least a third channel.
The big companies don't do that because they want to be able to keep reselling the movie in new additions down the line. Independent distributors usually include as many cuts as they can.
>No one actually checks the work, let alone against an original.
You mean the original camera negatives? How do you know they're not doing that?
>And that's assuming the company doing the work even has access to it.
Of course they have the negatives, you moron. That's what they're scanning to make the Blu-Ray or 4K master in the first place.
Not just different colors, they sometimes also have different aspect ratios. You have no idea what you're getting when you buy physical media.
they hire people that don't know what they're doing. i'm sure it's nepotism.
who wanted a remaster of this POS lmao
It's the best Delpy's breasts ever looked. Otherwise, who knows.
The bluray of Attack of the Clones is terrible like this, it's way too dark
HEAD LIKE A FRICKING ORANGE
Sometimes it's because the directors themselves force the changes like some of those Criterion releases. Most of them are Asian directors
Who else besides Wong Kar-wai?
Bong Joon Ho. Also the Godzilla collection was fricked by Toho because they gave Criterion bad masters of the films instead of their new remasters and forbade them from making any changes
>neckfocus
classic
i prefer bottom colors
4K is obviously a bit of a meme, but if you're anal enough to have bought into it, you're going to be anal enough to care about the difference. So the comparison doesn't really matter at the end of the day. The average person isn't going to care, and the 4K folks are going to want native 4K regardless.
they want to keep reselling you the movie. that's why director cuts, remasters, extended version, etc. exist.
Sure, but that has always been a thing. The problem is that the average person doesn't really give a frick about any of it. Other than the few genuine format evolutions (eg. VHS to DVD), the average person is just happy with whatever copy of "the movie". The director cuts, remasters, extended versions, etc, were always targeted at enthusiasts, not the average consumer.
This is the problem with the current state of the resolution wars - the average consumer still thinks 720 blown up on a huge TV looks fine. Partly because they're not using the TV right (bullshit color/contrast settings, motion smoothing, whatever), partly because most boomers are still comparing against the shitty quality of free-to-air TV, and partly because it *does* still look "fine" when not being directly compared to higher resolution versions of the same thing ... especially when watching in a room with shit lighting, where the TV is on a weird angle in a corner, blah, blah. 4K is just a marketing sticker, not a noticeably "real thing" as far as the vast majority of consumers are concerned. Put a HD movie on and tell everyone it's 4K, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would even realize the ruse.
>motion smoothing
This is the easiest shit test for anyone's visual awareness. The amount of people who don't notice it being on or off is staggering.
my brother and parents have their tvs set to 480p. i changed it to see if they would notice and they both didn't like it and told me to change it back.
What's the point? No one sane is going to bother upscaling their DVD collection, especially when you can just pirate 4K releases if they exist.
Meant to reply to OP
The TV/player are supposed to automatically upscale it when you put it in. It's not some kind of conversion process you have to do.
Real-time upscaling always looks like dogshit in comparison to a proper post-conversion.
i want to add that all dvd/bd don't have the same extras and commentary
i recently downloaded scarface in 4k. the picture is darker than the 1080p bluray. it doesn't look like sunny florida.
4k pictures tend to be darker due to HDR
i downloaded bram stoker's dracula in 4k too. it's surprising brighter than 1080p bluray.
4k pictures tend to be brighter due to HDR
It's actually due to your eyes naturally squinting because the overload of pixels on screen. The human eye only naturally sees in 1080p 24 fps with a peak PSNR of 30db
That's why I wear 4K filter glasses when I watch 4K video
"1080p ought to be enough for anyone" -YIFY
The irony is that even that is overkill for the vast majority of people.
Sure looks like it. All the grain is compressed to a mush on the DVD.
>blu-ray looks so much better than streaming! it's worth investing $10,000!!!
>blu-ray doesn't turn everything blue for no fricking reason
Blu-Ray wins here, easily.
Bluray is the best color-wise, CC is the best value and sharpness wise
Criterion is best all around, blu ray has nasty red push.
>blu ray has nasty red push.
Calibrate your monitor.
Don't need to. The clouds are clearly red tinged in the blu-ray, whereas in CC they're appropriately white.
Ever seen the sun set?
Yeah, the native 4k is better, but both are pretty watchable.
The ultimate resolutionpill: there is no need for anything beyond 1080p HD.
The poorgay cope.
You don't "need" any resolution over 480p, but they sure are nice to have.
I don't really want to buy an upscaled version of a product's media. I'd rather have some video filter that just performed upscaling to anything that needed it in real-time.