|
Liar Lyre posted:I remember thinking the same thing when Blu-Ray first came out, but now I have to have it on BR or not at all. Eventually 4k will be the standard. In terms of resolution, here's the digital and film equivalents... UHD = 35mm at worst, standard 70mm at best Blu-Ray = 16mm at worst, standard 35mm at best DVD = 8mm at worst, 16mm at best Laserdisc = 8mm at best VHS = lol Even if TV material is shot in 35mm, there's a point where it may be too sharp. I have the Blu-Ray of The Prisoner. It's obvious they opted to soften the image a little because there's a lot of problems visible that literally no one would have been able to see upon the original broadcast. Wires, patchy makeup, scuffs on sets. They knew it wouldn't show up on a TV set, but didn't anticipate that we'd be watching the show with the quality of a first-run movie.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Liar Lyre posted:I remember thinking the same thing when Blu-Ray first came out, but now I have to have it on BR or not at all. Eventually 4k will be the standard. Thing is, hasn't the uptake of BR still been quite a bit lower than that of DVD? Part of that is everyone going all-digital, death of physical media, etc., but do the companies have any plan to avoid the market narrowing even further? Like, the timing is fine- DVD had a solid decade of dominance, it's been a little over 10 years since the HD formats came in, so this isn't sudden, but... well, not a lot of people bought Blu-Rays, what makes Sony or Universal think they can sell a ton of UHD?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
If 4K becomes king eventually, its throne won't be on physical media.
Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Thing is, hasn't the uptake of BR still been quite a bit lower than that of DVD? Part of that is everyone going all-digital, death of physical media, etc., but do the companies have any plan to avoid the market narrowing even further? I don't know, but I'm sure as gently caress not buying a 4k player if they remain around $300.00. Blu-Rays look more than good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:I don't know, but I'm sure as gently caress not buying a 4k player if they remain around $300.00. Blu-Rays look more than good enough for me. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
I have a 4K setup and I can see a small difference, but I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade (at least not yet). To be fair though, everything I have in 4K is from the last 2 years, maybe an older film without cg would look better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
Also it's just a natural progression. Today you can't almost buy a brand new TV over 40 inches that isn't 4k. And 4k disc's have been pretty cheap if you just wait for a sale. I got John wick 2 uhd for like 15 bucks. The player is the only expensive part but I wanted an Xbox one and that filled it with the 4k player one s model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
The problem is that, from what I understand, it's a waste to buy a 4K television if it doesn't have HDR, and lo and behold all of those great deals for <$500 don't have it. I'm not really in a position to spend 700 or 800 on a new t.v. that's only going to be a small upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The problem is that, from what I understand, it's a waste to buy a 4K television if it doesn't have HDR, and lo and behold all of those great deals for <$500 don't have it. I'm not really in a position to spend 700 or 800 on a new t.v. that's only going to be a small upgrade. The only reason to buy a 4K non-HDR TV is your 1080p set died and that's all you can afford at the size you want. That's how I ended up with mine. I just pretend it's a 1080p set.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The only reason to buy a 4K non-HDR TV is your 1080p set died and that's all you can afford at the size you want. Exactly, and my set is still ok right now. If it craps out, sure I'd spring for something with HDR 4K, but that's not my situation right now. I'd be buying it just for the upgrade and no other reason, which I can't justify until it comes down into the $300-$500 range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Grabbed the Labyrinth 4K UHD set from Prime Day for $14.99. It sold out within 10 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The problem is that, from what I understand, it's a waste to buy a 4K television if it doesn't have HDR, and lo and behold all of those great deals for <$500 don't have it. I'm not really in a position to spend 700 or 800 on a new t.v. that's only going to be a small upgrade. Cheapest one I saw that can do HDR is this Roku TV for $600 http://www.bestbuy.com/site/tcl-55-...p?skuId=5878705
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Speaking of 4K, Nolan confirmed he's started remastering the Dark Knight Trilogy. No release date, but that should be a must have set.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Liar Lyre posted:Speaking of 4K, Nolan confirmed he's started remastering the Dark Knight Trilogy. No release date, but that should be a must have set. Batman Begins will have to be re-done from scratch, but the 35mm portions of The Dark Knight and Rises were scanned in 6K for the original DCPs, with the IMAX portions in 11K. If they still have the scans, the UHDs ought to be great. Rises looks amazing on Blu-Ray, but The Dark Knight has some really ugly processing on the 35mm bulk of the film that originated from the 2K DCP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Isn't the difference between a blu-ray and a UHD something that's only relevant if your screen is measured in feet and not inches?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Isn't the difference between a blu-ray and a UHD something that's only relevant if your screen is measured in feet and not inches? Or if you like sitting 2-3 feet from your tv like me
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Isn't the difference between a blu-ray and a UHD something that's only relevant if your screen is measured in feet and not inches? Pretty much the only advantage is a wider color gamut and HDR. You're simply not going to see any difference from a normal distance on a monitor. And if the master is newer/improved over the existing Blu-Rays. The upcoming first four Harry Potter movies will be a definite improvement because the existing Blu-Rays all come from mid-2000s masters with VC1 compression and BD-25s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
I saw a whole stack of HD-DVD films at the fleamarket last week. It felt really weird. Like accidentally stepping on an overgrown grave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I saw a whole stack of HD-DVD films at the fleamarket last week. It felt really weird. Like accidentally stepping on an overgrown grave. Did you buy them? I bet you could have gotten them all for pocket change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Liar Lyre posted:Speaking of 4K, Nolan confirmed he's started remastering the Dark Knight Trilogy. No release date, but that should be a must have set. I could use an hd version of ambien
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Pretty much the only advantage is a wider color gamut and HDR. You're simply not going to see any difference from a normal distance on a monitor. Yeah this will be especially nice. That's the main reason I sold off my ultimate blu-ray discs, and will just pick up the UHDs in a new set. Plus, the ultimates really took up too much space. I'm done with oversized collections (still keeping my lawrence of ariba)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
My main concern with 4k TV is gaming so unless they invent a set with negative input lag I'm fairly good I think. Maybe when Micomsoft comes out with a rad 4k-capable XRGB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
4K monitors excite me more than 4K TVs because sitting close to a monitor and looking at graphics and text is a situation that more clearly benefits from the increased sharpness. Of course, if I happen to watch a video as well, it's nice if it's in 4K. So it's good that they're mastering stuff in 4K now, because why not --but I'm not going to throw out my TV for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The only reason to buy a 4K non-HDR TV is your 1080p set died and that's all you can afford at the size you want. Would you, or anyone really, mind explaining what all that means to me like I am dumb, because I am dumb? tia
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Happy Hippo posted:Would you, or anyone really, mind explaining what all that means to me like I am dumb, because I am dumb? tia 4K = about 4,000 pixels wide (also known as 2160p) 1080p = 1920px wide (because changing the naming structure of things is fun for people who don't keep up with this stuff apparently). It's close enough to 2K, and 4K is essentially double resolution in each direction. HDR = High Dynamic Range, which is the ability to use a wider range of colors, and have brighter scenes while preserving detail in darker areas. You need to be sitting pretty close to very big screen to get extra benefit of just 4K on it's own, as 1080p is already really good for the home and in most situations you won't be seeing the pixels. HDR is the selling point of the new tech, as it has the ability to make the picture look a lot different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Just as an example of a film that would probably benefit from HDR, I watched The Lost City of Z last night. It's full of these jungle scenes with the lush greens everywhere, but there's also some very significant night scenes that are only lit by torches, and HDR would make both really pop in a way that would be tough to accomplish otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Sayin 4k and hdr are a gimmick is laughable. Once you go 4k you can't go back it's like blu ray to DVD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:Sayin 4k and hdr are a gimmick is laughable. Once you go 4k you can't go back it's like blu ray to DVD. Not that they are a gimmick when used properly, but that 4k is a gimmick when not also paired with HDR. From what I've read, without HDR you'd have to have like a 60 inch screen only a few feet away from your face to see much of a difference between 4k and 1080p. HDR is really where 4k shines and it's pointless without it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Are all these features meant to give more accurate presentations of the media or is it just "Hey look! We sharpened the image." truthfully I don't know enough about the technology to judge it, but to me it just sounds like the kind of "This doesn't look HD enough!" bullshit that ruined a lot of blu-ray releases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Streaming 4K atm is a gimmick because the bitrate is worse than your run of the mill retail BDs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Are all these features meant to give more accurate presentations of the media or is it just "Hey look! We sharpened the image." truthfully I don't know enough about the technology to judge it, but to me it just sounds like the kind of "This doesn't look HD enough!" bullshit that ruined a lot of blu-ray releases. Which blu-ray releases do you say or have been notable for being ruined?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Universal had a terrible track record for a while because they kept going back to early 2000s transfers instead of new scans and masters. They've since changed in the last few years. At least for the last three years, their standard procedure is to scan at 6K and master at 4K regardless of the film. By the way, Cohen released a trailer for their upcoming release of The Old Dark House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YglykBEXHO0 New 4K restoration from the original negative and fine-grains. Should be coming in October.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Which blu-ray releases do you say or have been notable for being ruined?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Which blu-ray releases do you say or have been notable for being ruined? The Blu-rays of the first six Star Trek movies are absolutely loving terrible. Wrath of Khan at least got a 4K remaster last year so it doesn't have the hideous blue sheen that the original Blu-ray did, but the other five movies are just hideous. Edit: Oh, and the original 2009 Blu-ray of Ghostbusters is a goddamn crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Oh snap. Are you talking about that white box set that was going for cheap around the time Into Darkness came out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Oh snap. Are you talking about that white box set that was going for cheap around the time Into Darkness came out? Yep. The masters were all done back in 2009 and Paramount just did a cheap, slapdash job on them to get them out the door alongside the 2009 reboot Blu-ray. They're DNRed to hell and the color timing in Khan, Search for Spock and Undiscovered Country looks like it was done by a monkey tripping balls. The Motion Picture survived relatively unscathed but it still has excessive DNR, which is hilarious because half the movie was shot with soft focus in the first place so it already looks like it has Vaseline on the lens. Timby fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Warner Archive has another 4 for $44 sale going on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:'Predator' is a common answer, they messed that blu ray up by using too much DNR. I have no idea what you're talking abo...   
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
I enjoyed that video tour through Madam Tussund's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
The worst major studio release I've seen, though, is The Sword in the Stone: It's bad enough someone thought this would be acceptable even for DVD, but that Disney never corrected it. Despite having a fresh 4K transfer from which the Amazon rental/download version is from!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:50
|
|