|
I don't doubt that 4K might become the standard someday, but that day is going to come veeeerrrrryyyy slooooowwwllllyyy
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Again, it's still worth mentioning that people are still dragging their feet on blu-ray. And really the only reason HD took off is because they stopped making CRT televisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
4K is probably awesome for rich people with literal home theaters. As far as the regular consumer goes it'll probably never be worth it or practical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Kevar posted:4K is probably awesome for rich people with literal home theaters. Yeah, but it's a totally new thing so we'll probably all have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
I got my first Disney Movie Club stuff in today, but I noticed on the website that it only listing me as having one "commitment" so far, even through I got two extra movies. Is this a fluke or I have to get a third movie ultimately?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Nobody talks about all the technology that never took off, like SACD, AM Stereo, the Segway. Even 3D really is a relative failure when you realize that isn't disruptive at all, it's just sort of becoming a standard feature that TVs can do rather than a big selling point. Let's compare the why those failed to 4K. Is it loving stupid like the Segway? I'd argue no. Is there some sort of technological limitation holding it back like AM? No. Is there a format war that will water down the already non-existent demand for higher quality like SACD? No, Sony basically has 4K locked up. So why is 4K destine to fail when it will have the content (studios have already started to scan movies in at 4/8K) and the entire industry pushing it (which means the prices will reach a price where normal people can buy in)? Cemetry Gator posted:It's too early to talk about 4K. Does 4K have its uses? Yes. For 3D, full 1080p 3D... and that's about it for your average user. That's about it. Right now. Where it's too early to talk about it. Think ten years from now. Massive TVs with 4K native resolution are around $1,000-1,500 - 4K projectors are within the realm of being affordable - there's a new format (be it hard drive + cloud based or a new disc system) with actual 4K content available. Cemetry Gator posted:Your argument is only considering one variable: cost. Yes, cost is going down. But there were other factors that were keeping the sizes of TVs smaller. Factors such as weight and overall size of the unit. You're right, to an extent. Size did matter back then. I don't think we are reaching the point where people are maxing out what they can have in the their living room. Unless you have a fireplace or something of that nature, the limitation is basically the entire wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Rirse posted:I got my first Disney Movie Club stuff in today, but I noticed on the website that it only listing me as having one "commitment" so far, even through I got two extra movies. Is this a fluke or I have to get a third movie ultimately? Were the two extra the $12 one and the $9? The $12 is the only one that counted as a commitment title. From here out you need to pick up either 1 bluray at normal $30 or more list price or accept the deal of the month to get another commitment counted. Some of the gift sets may count as two, if they are $60 or more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Is there some sort of technological limitation holding it back like AM? No. There's no fundamental wall that they can't break through, but it sure as hell isn't ready right now or in the near future. If you told every relevant party that in one year all content had to be provided in 4k, they'd laugh at you. Probably not in five years for that matter. quote:So why is 4K destine to fail when it will have the content (studios have already started to scan movies in at 4/8K) and the entire industry pushing it (which means the prices will reach a price where normal people can buy in)? Normal people are still buying DVDs despite having HDTVs, BR players being dirt cheap, and plenty of inexpensive content. My collection is miniscule compared to most here, but I've got about 80 BRs and I don't think I've spent more than $10 on more than a handful. Like less than 10. So then you are going to try to convince people who don't think there's a big enough difference between DVD and BR, despite the difference being visible to anyone who isn't blind, to upgrade their equipment again for a tech that all of the media and word of mouth will be telling them won't be an improvement unless they get a TV that fits best on their garage door. quote:Think ten years from now. Massive TVs with 4K native resolution are around $1,000-1,500 - With most of the population unable to put one in their home. And many not even wanting to for that matter. quote:I don't think we are reaching the point where people are maxing out what they can have in the their living room. Unless you have a fireplace or something of that nature, the limitation is basically the entire wall. I think we are reaching that limit, but neither of us can cite any objective data for that. Anecdote alert: I know a lot of people that could afford the massive TVs available today. None of them have one and several have told me they wouldn't want one any bigger than what they have. Don't get me wrong. If we moved into a bigger house and had the perfect room for it, I'd loving love to have a gigantic 4k TV or projector. I just don't think it's happening anytime soon, even by tech standards, and even longer before it goes mainstream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Is there some sort of technological limitation holding it back like AM? No. The physical size of people's rooms? I mean, I literally have a blank wall in my room and I'm struggling to see both how I'm going to fit an 85" TV there and how I'm going to enjoy it when my room is about 18 feet away from it at max.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
I'm going to get ahead of this screen size curve and start building a geodesic dome for an Omnimax theater in my back yard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Anyone got some hard numbers on how many households have actually adopted bluray players? When I first started bringing this up, the idea was, sure, the idea of 4K is really nice, but I also pointed out how many people would ACTUALLY notice it unless they got the insanely massive tv (keeping in mind, most people still wouldn't buy one of those massive tvs due to space. At least Bluray is pretty noticeable on 20 inch TVs as long as they're HD LCDs/LEDs. Bluray still looks pretty nice on 70-80 inch TVs. I don't care about how many people would buy/use 4k. I'm sure one day 4K will be sort of a standard, even if someone is watching it on a 42 incher. I'm just curious how much of the market would notice/care enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Let's compare the why those failed to 4K. It's completely impractical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
It's worth noting that with every digital format, there's an a film format that's similar in resolution. 480p/DVD - 8mm 1080p/Blu - 16mm 2K/4K - 35mm 8K - 70mm or IMAX Now, it's worth noting that your usual screens for 8mm and 16mm projection were small. Larger than your usual TVs, but not even wall size. 35mm and 70mm mean huge screens. 4K can look great, but it depends on what was captured. 4K of something shot in 1080p means nothing. 4K with tons of DVNR (like Pathe's idiotic "restoration" of Children of Paradise) means nothing. Sony's 4K workflow will benefit the most since they keep top quality from start to finish. But it's still meant for projection on big screens. The same reason why I think it's kind of dumb how Blu-Ray is used as an excuse to unload old DVNR-blasted transfers of 1080p origin when Blu-Ray requires nothing less than 2K as a starting point. 4K is quickly becoming the gold standard for film transfer. I was surprised to read that the new Blu of Following, Christopher Nolan's first feature, originated from a 4K scan of the 16mm camera negative. Milestone Films is restoring Shirley Clarke's A Portrait of Jason in 4K from a 16mm print. 2K would be enough to capture the resolution, but it's not the standard anymore. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that Sony's 2013 4k offerings will become a new format that people will adopt on a curve akin to DVD or Blu-ray. This is still at the technology dick-waving stage - Sony has been investing in 4k scanning/restorations for classic films and 4k DIs for current films, and they're putting out a clearly enthusiast-only package because they can. I don't expect anything other than novelty releases here-and-there for the near future. But 4k as a general concept over the next decade or so? Unless you honestly think that 1080p is the end-all-be-all of video and no one will ever be interested in higher fidelity, 4k or beyond seems obvious. Again, not the specific product Sony is launching now, but something with that resolution or higher. Theaters are moving that way, and increases in tech and reductions in price will make it a no-brainer. Even if most people can't tell the difference in a blind study, there'll be no reason not to offer it (in both media, and display hardware) once it's economic. Even if it's just a situation where people slowly adopt it due to all TVs eventually supporting it, I just can't imagine a future where mainstream TVs never pass 1080p. And I don't buy the "You need an 85-inch TV to see the difference." Sure there will be people who don't see the difference - but those people exist for Blu-ray as well, and existed for DVD when compared to VHS, and so on. There are already benefits from using 4k or 8k sources downscaled to 2k - 'super-sampling' is the name for the phenomena where 4k scans of the same film elements downsampled to 2k look better than just 2k scans of the film elements. And in the PC monitor world, >2k resolution monitors are common. Hell, doesn't the new iPad's retina display have a resolution greater than 1080p? Admittedly those are devices where your face is much closer to the screen, but movie viewing on such devices is on the rise...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:There's no fundamental wall that they can't break through, but it sure as hell isn't ready right now or in the near future. If you told every relevant party that in one year all content had to be provided in 4k, they'd laugh at you. Probably not in five years for that matter. 4K isn't an all or nothing situation. It took TV forever to get on board with HD and it will probably take them even longer to get on board with 4K. That doesn't stop the movie studios from scanning in films at 4/8K or manufacturers from coming up with digital cameras that can film at 4K or 4K equipment from being released to the public. Mr. Funny Pants posted:Normal people are still buying DVDs despite having HDTVs, BR players being dirt cheap, and plenty of inexpensive content. My collection is miniscule compared to most here, but I've got about 80 BRs and I don't think I've spent more than $10 on more than a handful. Like less than 10. I think this hurdle is much easier to get over than people realize. 4K is the same resolution they show at movie theaters. Push that fact and people will get on board even if they don't know the proper distance to sit away from it (honestly, no normal person knows about that) or have the biggest screen to take advantage of it. It's the ultimate marketing angle. Mr. Funny Pants posted:With most of the population unable to put one in their home. And many not even wanting to for that matter. Most people could. How many would is up for debate. Mr. Funny Pants posted:Don't get me wrong. If we moved into a bigger house and had the perfect room for it, I'd loving love to have a gigantic 4k TV or projector. I just don't think it's happening anytime soon, even by tech standards, and even longer before it goes mainstream. I agree. That's why I keep saying ten years, at a minimum, before it even starts to hit the mainstream. But I do get a kick out of reading about Sony trying to push it now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:Anyone got some hard numbers on how many households have actually adopted bluray players? As of last year 15% of households have "used a Blu-ray player in the past six months", which was up from 9% in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Why are we even arguing about this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
parasyte posted:Were the two extra the $12 one and the $9? The $12 is the only one that counted as a commitment title. From here out you need to pick up either 1 bluray at normal $30 or more list price or accept the deal of the month to get another commitment counted. That shouldn't be right, as I remember seeing on the site that those two bonus movies both count toward the four movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Well to be honest, I think you should only say "you can't see the difference" when it comes to 4K until you've actually seen a 4K TV. Personally, I plan on getting a 4K monitor when/if they ever become affordable (under $400 bucks.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Why are we even arguing about this? Because we are loving nerds
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Why are we even arguing about this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
I'm intrigued as to the target market for that $25k screen, the preloaded films with it are for the most part utter dross. Stupid people with lots of money, presumably?BobTheSpy posted:Well to be honest, I think you should only say "you can't see the difference" when it comes to 4K until you've actually seen a 4K TV. Personally, I plan on getting a 4K monitor when/if they ever become affordable (under $400 bucks.) Funnily enough, I read a report on the BBCs massive 8K screen they had set up for the Olympics. People were blown away by the picture, saying it felt like they were looking through a window, but it opened up an interesting side effect - due to the size and clarity, it was confusing some peoples brains due to the fixed focus nature of the camera. Their eyes would try to focus on something out of focus, thinking it was 'real', and couldn't. Not heard of that phenomena before, but it makes sense. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Its the exact problem some people have with 3D
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Ah yeah, I definitely know what you mean... takes me about 10 minutes or so to get 'settled'. I wonder if similarly, the issue went away with people looking at that screen. Would have loved to have seen it, it sounds pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Ok so I see this Dark Knight trilogy is out today. Is there anything special on it that you don't get just buying Dark Knight Rises? If there is I was just going to sell DKR and Begins and pick this up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Ok so I see this Dark Knight trilogy is out today. Is there anything special on it that you don't get just buying Dark Knight Rises? If there is I was just going to sell DKR and Begins and pick this up. Same discs. That said, there's an Ultimate Trilogy set which is supposed to be coming next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
The pHo posted:Ah yeah, I definitely know what you mean... takes me about 10 minutes or so to get 'settled'. I wonder if similarly, the issue went away with people looking at that screen. Would have loved to have seen it, it sounds pretty impressive. Here's an Engadget article on it, which is interesting. The pertinent quote: engadget posted:However, these feelings never lasted long, because the shot would switch to another camera position which had worse contrast, or greater lens distortion, or shallower depth of field, and the illusion would be broken. In particular, there were occasions when what we wanted to focus on jarred with what the cameraman actually focused on -- because the vista was often so wide and detailed that it seemed we could choose any subject we wanted, and there was no need for cutaways. Wide shots worked best, when everything was visible and in focus. That said, many of these issues can be overcome, even if it means directors and cameramen have to work differently when broadcasting in 8K. It'a almost like suddenly now they have to undo a century of cinematographic flourishes and go back to "point camera at scene from appropriate angle".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
OGB posted:Same discs. That said, there's an Ultimate Trilogy set which is supposed to be coming next year. My brother just said it was 5 discs. What's on the other 2?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:My brother just said it was 5 discs. What's on the other 2? Taken from Amazon: Disc 1: Batman Begins Feature Film Disc 2: The Dark Knight Feature Film Disc 3: The Dark Knight Special Features Disc 4: The Dark Knight Rises Feature Film Disc 5: The Dark Knight Rises Special Features
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Taken from Amazon: I was just about to edit my post as I just found that same page. Doh! Ok so basically it makes zero sense to rebuy at this time and I'll just get DKR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Here's an Engadget article on it, which is interesting. It's like what Dale Gribble said: TV's are getting smaller and smaller and bigger and bigger. Soon, the medium sized TV will be a thing of the past.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:My brother just said it was 5 discs. What's on the other 2? The trilogy released today is 5 discs - 1 Batman Begins BD, 2 Dark Knight BDs, and 2 Dark Knight Rises BDs. That's the same content as the stand-alone Batman Begins / TDK / TDKR Blu-ray sets, minus any DVD or digital copy discs that may have been included in different SKUs. The "Ultimate Collector's Edition" trilogy tentatively announced for next year has no confirmed specs of any kind yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
BobTheSpy posted:Well to be honest, I think you should only say "you can't see the difference" when it comes to 4K until you've actually seen a 4K TV. Personally, I plan on getting a 4K monitor when/if they ever become affordable (under $400 bucks.) Personally, I'd love 4k to take off just in hopes that it would push computer monitor resolutions higher - we've been stuck at 1080p for too long there. But it's a hard thing to sell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Here's an Engadget article on it, which is interesting. The pertinent quote: That reads almost exactly what I read, so I either read the same piece or the same source. Maybe we'll have to say 'screw art!' and just have everything in focus, all the time!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It'a almost like suddenly now they have to undo a century of cinematographic flourishes and go back to "point camera at scene from appropriate angle". I'm kind of stupid so take this for what it's worth, but this strikes me as being poor usage of a technology rather than a flaw with the tech. CG movies have figured out how to create "analog" looking flourishes so that the traditional visual language of film isn't abandoned. Brad Bird creates a very shallow depth of field in his Pixar movies. And in Wall-E, they used artificially imperfect "camera" work like the camera overshooting its target on a pan and then cutting back to it, to give a sense of scale, drama, and realism (interestingly the first time I remember seeing that technique used was in Attack of the Clones; they did it a bunch in the final battle of the film and it was really effective). Whether they have to figure out ways of getting traditional effects with the new equipment (in camera or in post production) or come up with a whole new visual language, the problem isn't with the technology. I'm actually surprised that Jackson may not have accounted for the new look. I don't think he's considered a poor technician.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:I'm actually surprised that Jackson may not have accounted for the new look. I don't think he's considered a poor technician. I think he is. I've not heard anything positive about his on-set handling of technology and camera's any way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I think he is. I've not heard anything positive about his on-set handling of technology and camera's any way. Thanks, I stand corrected. It would be fun to see what Kubrick might have done with this stuff, dude was a freak about photographic technique and the tools of the trade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
The trailer for the Star Trek: The Next Generation Season Three Blu-ray set is out; the expected release is April 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKzJf1fAojQ&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
The next round of Olive Films/Republic releases includes the 1970 Julius Caesar (with Charlton Heston, Jason Robards, and John Gielgud) and The Monster Squad. Also, Image is releasing the 1924 The Thief of Bagdad on Feb. 19. New 2K restoration with an orchestral score by Carl Davis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:the 1970 Julius Caesar (with Charlton Heston, Jason Robards, and John Gielgud) Oh, God, I hate this version so much. Robards is drunk and unemotive the entire film, the sets and costumes look cheap, Heston is fine but doesn't fit in at all. Just a terrible movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:55
|
|
