Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 0:06:02 GMT
Is it worth the expense of new equipment and discs? How much difference is there between blu ray and this? I heard it's only noticeable if you sit very close to the screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 24, 2018 0:25:23 GMT
4k by itself is not.
It depends on other bells and whistles such as HDR
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 24, 2018 0:29:07 GMT
If you had a super big screen, maybe.
I see no value in it-especially for older movies. I have some standard dvds that look really sharp, and I cant notice the difference to a blu ray size image.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 24, 2018 1:03:09 GMT
You need at least a 55 inch screen to see the benefits of it. The smaller you go, the less the benefits appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 24, 2018 1:24:41 GMT
As noted by Primemovermithrax Pejorative , a lot of older media doesn't look good in 4K... TV Shows that were "filmed" on video tape, don't even look good up-converted by professional companies on to Blu-Ray. For the Blu-Ray release of Star Trek TNG's episode of "The Best Of Both Worlds", Three seconds of Standard Definition Video (DVD Quality?) had to be used, and you could easily see the difference... |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 24, 2018 1:35:48 GMT
For the Blu-Ray release of Star Trek TNG's episode of "The Best Of Both Worlds", Three seconds of Standard Definition Video (DVD Quality?) had to be used, and you could easily see the difference... I heard they redid (or re-processed) the FX for a number of the episodes that were released on blu-ray (turns out, the opening scene of the Enterprise-D ship fly by in the credits-the 1987 NG FX people put little people in the windows of the bridge deck-something impossible to see before high definition tv. Do you know why SD had to be used for that episode? The OS didnt have such problems having been shot on film--but the fx shots were mostly redone anyway (I havent watched many episodes of that but I think they did a good job updating them without making it too noticeable---eye blinks for the Gorn etc). |
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Mar 24, 2018 1:39:48 GMT
only if you got a big screen of at least 65 inches
of course a lot of content right now is just 2k upconverts, not really worth it unless true 4k, but you are getting better sound as well
and if you are still buying discs they come with blu-rays also so you will be future proof
another benefit of 4k discs are they are region free unlike blu-rays
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 24, 2018 1:46:10 GMT
For the Blu-Ray release of Star Trek TNG's episode of "The Best Of Both Worlds", Three seconds of Standard Definition Video (DVD Quality?) had to be used, and you could easily see the difference... I heard they redid (or re-processed) the FX for a number of the episodes that were released on blu-ray (turns out, the opening scene of the Enterprise-D ship fly by in the credits-the 1987 NG FX people put little people in the windows of the bridge deck-something impossible to see before high definition tv. Do you know why SD had to be used for that episode? The OS didnt have such problems having been shot on film--but the fx shots were mostly redone anyway (I havent watched many episodes of that but I think they did a good job updating them without making it too noticeable---eye blinks for the Gorn etc). The three seconds I mentioned did not involve any FX... It was a shot of "Captain" Riker and a helmsman on the Battle Bridge talking to Locutus on the Borg Cube. As I understand, the original film elements were missing of the actors for those three seconds, and so they couldn't scan it at a higher resolution. That's why they had to use other source material... The Blu-Ray release I am referring to, was the stand alone release of the Episode, which was edited into Movie format... Other than those three seconds, the Episode looked beautiful on Blu-Ray. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 24, 2018 1:52:34 GMT
The three seconds I mentioned did not involve any FX... It was a shot of "Captain" Riker and a helmsman on the Battle Bridge talking to Locutus on the Borg Cube. As I understand, the original film elements were missing of the actors for those three seconds, and so they couldn't scan it at a higher resolution. That's why they had to use other source material... That is weird. I wonder how they could lose something like that? lol That episode was quite lively--Brian Dennehy's daughter--not sure what else she did. I liked the first part better than the second though. Somewhere I have the VHS tv taping of the two episodes when they were first combined into one. Ads for Jurassic Park were among the commercials. They did a good job making the Borg scary (until they ruined it with the Hugh episode-then improved it again with the First Contact movie). I liked Species 8472 -- an alien race from another dimension that could easily destroy the Borg, but they also screwed that up by having Chakotay in a relationship with one. The Vidians were another interesting alien Borg copy, vicious but intellectual, I seem to recall Q cured them of their disease and that was that. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 24, 2018 2:01:39 GMT
I talked to someone who worked in digital film IMAX stuff and he said that most films are not gaining anything beyond 2-3k.
Especially older films shot on cheaper 35mm film.
The grain would just be amplified.
I already posted in another thread some stuff about how film measures up compared to digital and the experts who did a comparison said that
"The only real good test was performed in 2003, prior to our modern Vision 3 stocks, which are absolutely better in every way. It was done in both the US and in Paris, with different groups of researchers.
The test showed that a standard 4 perf 35mm frame in the Academy format contained 2400x2400 lines of visible resolution. This would mean 4 perf 35mm original negative contains 5.76 megapixel worth of information.
For every successive print though, the resolution dropped. So for IP it was 2100x2100. For IN it was 1700x1700. For release prints it was 1500x1500.
If you translate this math, which is as close to "accurate" as one can get without re-running the tests, you start to get a picture that looks like this:
15/70 = 70.41 mm × 52.63 = 7600x5700 (43 Megapixel) 70 MM
5/70 = 52.63 by 23.01 mm = 5700x2500 (14 Megapixel)
4/35 = 22 by 16 mm = 2400x1750 = (4.2 Megapixel) 35MM
2/35 = 22 by 9.47 mm = 2400x1030 (2.47 Megapixel)
1/16 = 12.52 by 7.41 mm = 1360x800 (1.09 Megapixel) 16MM
1/8 = 5.79 by 4.01 mm = 631x430 (271 Kilopixel)
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 24, 2018 2:24:14 GMT
Only with HDR
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 24, 2018 4:50:54 GMT
I heard '4k HDR' is solid. but personally I am in no rush to switch from general HD to 4k as I think it's simply not worth the costs to 'upgrade' for what I suspect will be minimal.
overall I would be surprised if there is a difference we have seen from SD to HD from HD to 4k. I won't be dumping my 1080p TV (mfg date Jan 2016) which I has since May 2016 anytime soon.
basically the general industry just keeps coming up with 'better stuff' just so people will have to buy more TV's and other tech so they get more $$$.
also, my cousin has a 55" TV and he told me that he can notice 4k over regular HD but it's not that much to the point he don't really care about it all that much.
bottom line.... is 4k worth it? ; I would say overall no unless you get it cheaply etc.
p.s. I generally stick to 720p as that's the best overall in terms of image quality vs file size as 720p/1080p (proper bit rate movies) look the same on my 43" 1080p TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Mar 24, 2018 5:08:42 GMT
I don't have a 4K tv, BUT I do have a 4K camera...which UNFORTUNATELY makes videos tinged with blue. I NEED to find-out or figure-out IF there's a way to make it record WITHOUT the blue tinge so things look normal. Panasonic Lumix Model No. DC- FZ80.    |
|
