|
|
Post by johnspartan on Aug 11, 2017 21:31:46 GMT
1080p, Blu ray, 4k, 8k...the next thing, the thing after that. Will it ever be enough? Music stopped at HD CD and digital. Do you want the HD video quest to go on forever?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Aug 11, 2017 21:50:10 GMT
It's getting silly, but I ain't complaining.
I sometimes have beautiful fantasies about lovely aliens whose viewing screens are as large as a wall. Of course, such a set would require a large living room to be viewed comfortably.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 11, 2017 21:50:20 GMT
4K is fine. I think you can definitely see a difference between it and Blu-Ray.
After that, I'm not sure anything above 4K will even be noticeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 12, 2017 3:34:54 GMT
i voted for... "It's getting to be ridiculous". either way, eventually i think there has to be a limit to where it won't really be all that noticeable outside of general lighting/color tweaks which i think probably comes down a personal preference after a point (unless they can somehow make TV (or other viewing device) mimic how we see reality/the world around us) and i feel we are pretty much there or close to it already. but with that said... while i think there will always be some advancement in image quality for the foreseeable future (but more from general TV tech advancement (maybe color/lighting tweaks etc(?)) more than higher resolutions) i think all of the big leaps are mostly over at this point, at least what we can tell for the foreseeable future. because i just can't see them making another leap forward like they did with SD to HD for the foreseeable future. like even a quality 50" TV from say 2005 or so (which back then would have been arm and a leg, pretty much) would still be solid enough today and that's 12 years ago, which is a lot of time in tech terms. sure, i am sure there has been some improvements in TV tech etc since then but nothing i would say is a must have sorta thing, especially if costs are not reasonable (i.e. around $1k or less). someone i knew had a 50" Samsung 1080p TV i think around 2005 and i remember being pretty impressed by it when he played some movies on bluray. but it should have impressed me because i think he said he paid $3500 for it (i am pretty sure it was at least $2500). even my cousin said (who i trust on these things)... while he can see a difference from HD to 4k he said it was not much (like he said there was a larger difference between SD to HD than from HD to 4k(which is what i figured even before he said that to me not all that long ago)) and if it had a decent $ premium for it, it would not be worth it. i think he said he had Netflix with the 4k stuff. he also said he's got a 65" TV which also might be a factor there as i imagine smaller TV's (which i would guesstimate most people probably don't have TV larger than 50inch or so) will be harder to notice(?). with all of that said... ill be happy with typical HD for the foreseeable future as i don't really see a need to upgrade my current 43" LG 1080p TV (mfg date Jan 2016) (if i do, it would be mostly for a size increase (like if i do upgrade ill have to get at least a 50"+, if not 60" or so for me to even consider it) as i got my PC connected to that through it's HDMI port and play my movies in SD/HD that way. that was a BIG leap over my previous 25" old style TV from the early 2000's. i won't get that kind of leap from my current setup for quite some time i suspect as even with those TV's that costs thousands of $$$ right now won't be anything significant over my current TV even though i would expect to notice some difference. but lately (probably for years now) you don't really need to spend more than about $1k on a TV (especially if your not getting some monster sized TV) as much over that the prices basically shoot up for little gains pretty much (these are just ball park estimates but i am sure my estimates here are close enough). hell, even with typical HD scene released movies they look basically the same on my 43" TV with 720p or 1080p (which is why i basically stick to 720p for hard drive space savings) but i can notice a little difference when viewing the same movie on an actual bluray disc, but even then it's not all that much. if i had to speculate i would guess that's probably something in the neighborhood of bluray to 4k, like a little bit (and noticeable) but nothing big enough to make me say, 'i have to have this', especially for the vast majority of movies. hell, another thing... strictly looking at the size of a TV you will have limits here to simply because of space in a persons house will limit how far one can go as in this regard i can't really see TV's going much larger than what we currently have as i have seen 60" TV's and those are more than good enough for me and i would assume most people. so 'maybe' 80" or so is probably the limit, give or take, unless your house is really big?. just some thoughts  sdrew13163 but it's not all that much right? like there is more of a difference between SD to HD than bluray to 4k, right? like i guess my point is... 4k is more expendable(like if you can get it, fine. if not, it's not a big deal) vs basic HD. (hell, in my personal opinion... unless a movie is more visual/atmosphere oriented i can even get by with SD no problem) but given you said, "After that, I'm not sure anything above 4K will even be noticeable." ; i have a feeling you basically agree with me (or at least mostly). |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 12, 2017 3:51:48 GMT
sdrew13163 but it's not all that much right? like there is more of a difference between SD to HD than bluray to 4k, right? like i guess my point is... 4k is more expendable(like if you can get it, fine. if not, it's not a big deal) vs basic HD. (hell, in my personal opinion... unless a movie is more visual/atmosphere oriented i can even get by with SD no problem) but given you said, "After that, I'm not sure anything above 4K will even be noticeable." ; i have a feeling you basically agree with me (or at least mostly). I voted for "It's getting a bit ridiculous" as well. I agree, I don't think 4K is absolutely a necessity, but it is nice. It's not something I would buy myself, but it looks good on other people's TV's. Nothing above 4K will probably even be noticeable to the human eye lol. They should probably stop here. |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Aug 12, 2017 3:55:41 GMT
Hell I still use VHS.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 12, 2017 4:20:21 GMT
sdrew13163 While i basically agree with you here, at least with the way we currently view our movies/tv shows at the moment, which is on a TV, i don't see things getting all that much better for the foreseeable future. but if it's possible... maybe they will eventually make a device that looks pretty much how we see the actual world with our eyes as i think that would be the TRUE limit even though on a TV device i don't see TV's advancing in the next 20 years (2017 to 2037) like how they have over the last 20 years (1997 vs 2017) as i would expect to see a larger gap in image quality from 1997 to 2017 than we will see from 2017 to 2037 (hopefully i am wrong but i don't think i will be(hell, even if i am wrong ill be 58 years old then and i probably won't care all that much because i would assume my eyes won't be as good as they are now ). but i suspect this (like a viewing device that mimics how we see the world (like with clarity/sharpness and down to the exact colors etc)) won't happen in our lifetimes, and that's assuming it does happen as that might not even be possible(?). so outside of that... with the way we currently view our movies etc i basically agree with you as i think in terms of resolutions it's pretty much over after 4k as i think 4k is probably squeezing HD to it's limits. hell, even the film itself (that a movie is shot on) has a limit. also, i suspect things might focus on making TV's more compact/reliable. Yeah. but don't get me wrong... assuming you can see a difference (and it appears that way from what my cousin and you and others have said) 4k would be better than basic HD. but if you got to pay a premium for it (or upgrade expensive hardware) it's not worth it. plus, in my particular situation... ill be avoiding 4k for sure as the hard drive space that crap takes up is quite a bit higher than 1080p and even that is already bad enough. that's why i stick to 720p stuff with my movies in general. but i am curious... i would like to see a 720p vs 1080p scene release (of the same exact movie) on my cousins 65" 4k TV (and the like) as i figure if you can't notice the difference on there, you just won't be able to notice the difference between 720p/1080p. but like i was saying i can notice some difference between those two and the same movie on an actual bluray disc. but even that is not much. but it's weird with that 720p/1080p thing i described above because there is a difference on video games from 720p to 1080p on my PC's 24" 1080p monitor but that same thing with movies with 720p/1080p is no difference (or very little at best). but speaking of video games... my best guess is i would not see much of a boost visually from 1080p to a 4k on a video game though.but 'maybe' if you got a 4k monitor running at 1080p vs 4k on that same monitor i would not be surprised if there is a decent difference there but i am speculating here on these 4k comments about the video games. but being i can notice 720p to 1080p on my current 1080p monitor i think it's more likely there will be a bigger difference there than with a movie. FridayOnElmStreet Really? I doubt i could go back to that not only because of the image quality loss but because the lack of proper display aspect ratio on movies as it seems most VHS crop the image so it fills the entire screen instead of the widescreen aspect with the black bars which would be proper. or to translate that back into english... you don't see all of the image that you should be seeing in a movie because of that. with that said... i do have some old VHS tapes (Speed (1994)/Mortal Kombat (1995)/Twister (1996) etc) but i never use them as, like i mentioned above, not only is it basically a crappy SD version it's that the movies are not displayed properly which makes it a showstopper for me especially given we have access to all of the current tech that we do and at a cheap enough price so it makes no sense to use VHS anymore unless it's some nostalgia thing for you. but with VHS in general at this point... the aspect thing would bother me more than the lower SD quality of VHS. but then again i should get around to playing a VHS tape on my modern TV just to see how it looks as it might actually look worse than i think it does from memory(as it's been quite a while since i last seen a VHS tape played). but if that happens, then you got crap image and cropped image which would kill some movies that rely more on visuals to sell the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 12, 2017 6:13:19 GMT
mslo79It's interesting that you bring up an image quality that compares to what we can see with our own naked eye. I've always thought that an image like that could be a cool experiment. I feel like the human eye sees the world somewhere in between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. Sometimes a Blu-Ray movie looks TOO good. I think, maybe, the closest we've ever come to a realistic "Human Eye" view is with The Revenant, due to it being shot in natural light.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 12, 2017 6:20:13 GMT
It's funny, I actually still watch VHS tapes as well. It's still probably the most pure way to watch a movie to me (besides in a theater). |
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Aug 12, 2017 12:27:01 GMT
4K is about as good as it gets for home media. You need a minimum of 65 inches for a TV to take advantage of 4K anyways.
Any resolution higher than that (8K, 16K) would require a large screen the size of a movie theatre, or a projector of some kind.
Most people don't have the money or room space to take advantage of that kind of tech.
I think it's safe to say 4K is it as far as home consumer tech goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 12, 2017 13:17:00 GMT
sdrew13163 Maybe, but what i am talking about is basically getting something whether it be a TV or other viewing device that can mimic exactly how we see colors/images etc in person. like when you look around the room or outside etc you can tell that looks better(well at least sharper) than anything a TV can output as it's the way things naturally look. but then again, come to think of it... i kinda like the way movies look at you can change the color/lighting etc for more dramatic effect which if we mimic real life exactly that part will be lost. so with this said... the more i think about it, i would not want to mimic that whole 'real life' thing. but maybe they can find some sorta balance of real life/that movie like effect to amp things up. either way, they will continue to make advancements in technology so we all win at the end of the day seriously? just the lack of proper display of the movie (since when a movie is full screen(which seems most VHS are this way) it's pretty much not displayed properly) is enough to say that's worse than anything from DVD to date regardless of the actual image quality of it. i can't fault the theater claim but i definitely can fault the VHS claim. maybe VHS is mostly a nostalgia thing for you? or here is a site that makes my point crystal clear on why VHS sucks... www.denofgeek.com/movies/widescreen/39431/widescreen-pan-and-scan-and-the-slow-rise-of-letterboxing ; you can read the article if you want but the main thing you need to see is that "Blade Runner: Pan & Scan vs Widescreen" video (you can skip forward to about the 30second mark if you want and watch from there. video is less than 5 min long.) as that makes it very easy to understand what i am saying as what's shown in the red square is what you see on VHS where as the whole image is what you should be seeing but do not. so as you can see that's why i say going back to VHS would be a bit of a show stopper for many movies especially when we got plenty of great technology nowadays, VHS are simply obsolete outside of some nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 12, 2017 23:28:26 GMT
I think it is getting a bit ridiculous at this stage tbh. I'm still using DVDs and haven't even bothered upgrading to Blu-Ray. 4K means nothing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Aug 13, 2017 2:19:11 GMT
ridiculous? How do higher def videos bother you?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Aug 13, 2017 3:06:33 GMT
ridiculous? How do higher def videos bother you? Mostly the douches who only care about the next higher format and are always saying "what's a DVD? Blu ray isn't as good as 4k, I could never go back! Why isn't that movie in 4k yet? I can't possibly suffer through a Blu ray!" |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Aug 13, 2017 3:42:53 GMT
Really? I doubt i could go back to that not only because of the image quality loss but because the lack of proper display aspect ratio on movies as it seems most VHS crop the image so it fills the entire screen instead of the widescreen aspect with the black bars which would be proper. or to translate that back into english... you don't see all of the image that you should be seeing in a movie because of that. Yes. I really dont care about that stuff. I just enjoy the film. Plus I collect rare VHS. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 13, 2017 10:11:49 GMT
FridayOnElmStreet I don't see how someone would not care about that stuff as it's pretty obvious it's messing with the movie quite a bit in terms of what you actually see vs what your supposed to see. it's not like it's barely any difference. did you actually see that example in the website link in my above post? ; it's a pretty clear difference as it's not some minor thing as i think it's safe for me to claim the vast majority of users around here would care about that. with that said... i realize it's not some massive showstopper but it's definitely a issue especially given we can easily avoid that with modern technology. so i figure why bother with VHS anymore as it's definitely not worth watching movies on VHS tape anymore. as far as the collecting thing... fair enough here.
|
|
