how is Alien 4k?
Fucking fantastic.
And for those on the fence Terminator 2: Judgement Day 4K Ultra HD is down to $16.59 at Amazon for pre-order
(The Revenent is also down to $15 and change)
how is Alien 4k?
Has anyone watched the 4K Harry Potter UHDs yet?
I am guessing they are not the extended versions.
Has anyone watched the 4K Harry Potter UHDs yet?
I am guessing they are not the extended versions.
Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets are not out yet, so no one knows.
Only 5, 6, 7, 8 are released so far.
Does everyone here keep/use the digital copies included with discs?
Outside of the Disney/kids movies so I can drop them on my kids' iPads, I don't see the point of streaming an inferior quality product when I have the disc right there in the closet.
Should I be selling them?
Does everyone here keep/use the digital copies included with discs?
Does everyone here keep/use the digital copies included with discs?
Outside of the Disney/kids movies so I can drop them on my kids' iPads, I don't see the point of streaming an inferior quality product when I have the disc right there in the closet.
Should I be selling them?
Does everyone here keep/use the digital copies included with discs?
Outside of the Disney/kids movies so I can drop them on my kids' iPads, I don't see the point of streaming an inferior quality product when I have the disc right there in the closet.
Should I be selling them?
Subbed to this thread, didn't realize it existed!
I really hope disney release star wars TFA and RO 4K before TLJ comes out but I'm not holding my breath..
Anyone try Prometheus 4k?
I think that was an exceptionally beautiful disc. It doesn't hurt that the movie is so nice looking to begin with but the uptick in detail was immediately apparent and seemed pretty significant to me. I was marveling at it all the way through. It's like you're getting a huge sharpness amplification with zero edge sharpening or eyesore.
The increased color range contributes to fine detail and how pleasant, deep and nuanced the image is in general... one part that really made me admire the color range was the post surgery skin tones. In a quick shot you could see the flush and stressed fatigue of her skin, how it variates from torso to face, as well as the messy iodine-esque staining and trauma.
The highest compliment I can give the video quality of this is I almost felt like I was watching it for the first time...........Reference quality for me.
To give an idea what I consider reference,in no particular order.....The Revenant,Sicario,The Martian.
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me. I didn't watch the whole thing but from the 25 minutes or so that I did watch, the uptick in detail was substantial.
Just picked up Alien Covenant 4K today. I actually liked it in theaters, and I expect the UHD will be superb!
I can't pre-order the 4K+3D+Blu from Best Buy... I guess I'll have to get there right when it opens with the rest of the mouth breathers.
i understand people want to educate others but there's no need to be flippant about it.
All else being equal i would prefer a 4k transfer than a 2k uprez AND beautiful HDR. Studios have been putting out lazy transfers since the start of blu-ray format. I dont think we should just say well 4k isnt that great so studios can get away with not offering the best.
I'm not just some idiot, i shoot photography. I have used 12mpx 4/3rds cameras, to 6x17 large format film cameras that i hand scanned myself, to 80mpx medium format digital. I understand resolution is logarithmic not linear. That said, I can see clear differences in my 80mpx files than my nikon d800 36mpx files. All else being equal I would take my 80mpx camera back in a heartbeat.
Reviews for GotG vol 2 UHD are hitting:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...2-guardians-galaxy-vol-2-ultra-hd-review.html (94 Video, 94 Audio)
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-uhd-bd (A+ Video, A+ Audio)
I can't pre-order the 4K+3D+Blu from Best Buy... I guess I'll have to get there right when it opens with the rest of the mouth breathers.
Wait, why can't you preorder it? Amazon doesn't seem to have it either.
I think you could have a week ago on Best Buy. Might be something about inventory management. I don't think it was ever available on Amazon. I've heard it has something to do with a dispute between Disney Home Video and Amazon.
The steelbook ieith the 3d is exclusive to bestbuy I believe. It was available for shipping, currently it's only available for Store pickup and those are going fast. You can get the regular 4k version anywhere, but it doesn't include the 3d copy.
You can't simply correlate still and motion photography.
With a still image your aim is, usually, to achieve an image where the subject is in as sharp focus as practicably possible. You have, depending on light and ISO, quite a large degree of latitude with regard to aperture and shutter speed to achieve this. As I have no doubt you are more than aware, the shorter the time the shutter remains open the sharper the resulting image will be. So if you are taking pictures of moving objects you want to keep the shutter open as short a time as possible. If you don't the subject will be blurred. Of course if that is the effect you want you adjust accordingly.
When I was taught the fundamentals of photography I was told, as a rule of thumb, an unstabilised camera should never have a shutter speed longer than 1/60sec. Longer than that will cause unacceptable levels of blur.
For motion picture photography things are slightly different. Focus is still very important but sacrifices need to be made due to how our visual systems process information. To achieve persistence of vision, and blend the individual frames into smooth motion, there needs to be a minimum frame rate. For historic reasons the frame rate is standardised at 24fps, despite the occasional attempt to change this (notably Todd AO, Showscan and more recently Peter Jackson and Ang Lee's experiments with HFR).
The problem is if each individual frame is too sharp the motion will strobe: it will have a slightly staccato feel. Think of how unnatural stop-motion animation can feel. The larger the screen the more evident this becomes.To smooth things out a certain amount of blur is required so the individual frames gel seamlessly. Which is why go-motion was developed to add motion blur to stop-motion animation. If you are intentionally adding blur you are throwing out spatial resolution to achieve smooth motion.
So for a 24fps film there is a standard shutter time of 1/48sec. Each frame will be less than perfectly sharp unless there is very little motion in the shot. But this is fine because we are not looking at each frame in isolation. We see a stream of images and build up our perception from that. Therefore with motion pictures we don't only have spatial resolution to think about: we have temporal resolution too.
When we watch a film we see each image for a fraction of a second and we accrue information from not only the image we see at any given instant but from those around it. The image we perceive is an illusion made up from the stream of images we are presented with. We get more information than we would from any individual image. This is what is meant by temporal resolution. In theory the more images you are shown per second the more information you will perceive.
When we look at a still photograph we do something different. We can look at them for a prolonged period. The very best images almost demand we do so. We might stand back to take in the whole, or lean in for a closer look and examine a small area in greater detail. A still image can be surprisingly interactive in that respect: with a film we are guided by the editing and can only linger on any detail for as long as we are allowed. All the information is present in that one image. As there is no temporal resolution, spatial resolution is massively important. Thus even a phone camera can have more photosites on its sensor than a professional motion picture camera. Whether the phone's lens will resolve them adequately is a discussion for elsewhere.
At higher frame rates we can also have a faster shutter: For the Hobbit which was shot at 48fps they used a shutter speed of 1/96sec, mitigating the amount of blur as less is needed to achieve smooth motion. While the resulting image was less than universally loved, it was undeniably more highly resolved, all other things being equal, than standard 24fps. If it wasn't for the altered motion characteristics that came with it, which I didn't like (something, admittedly, down to nostalgia), I'd argue increases in temporal resolution provide greater dividends than increases in spatial resolution. That 48fps at 2K is more objectively impressive than 24fps at 4K. I did not see Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, which was shot at 120fps at 4K.
The UHD Blu-ray is 60fps at native 4K so it should be interesting.
Just got a shipping notice for GOTGv2 4K+3D from Best Buy. Pre-ordered on day one.
Yep, mine will be here tomorrow!!
You guys suck. I just preorder GotG2 earlier today. No way I'm getting that shit early.
Amazon says the 4k is unavailable. Is it a Best Buy exclusive or something?
So I have a question. I've been trying to justify a Xbox one s for myself to primarily view UHD blu rays. My 4K set doesn't have real HDR but I like it a lot. Won't realistically be changing it until I move and can justify a new set. Is it worth going to UHD for my movies given I'll be missing out on all the hdr goodness to be had? I hear so many great things about HDR that I've more or less backed myself in a corner than 4K blu rays aren't worth it without it.
I started buying 4K discs the minute I made the decision to ultimately upgrade, because for an extra $5 per film, give or take, I've future proofed and I'm still getting the Blu-ray I can watch today.
Some of these 4K discs are expensive though. Like the GotG2 set is $35 where as I'm used to paying around $20 for a normal Blu ray and usually a few bucks on top of that for the upgrade.
Disney Tax. Get used to it.
Some of these 4K discs are expensive though. Like the GotG2 set is $35 where as I'm used to paying around $20 for a normal Blu ray and usually a few bucks on top of that for the upgrade.
yes you can.You can't simply correlate still and motion photography.
With a still image your aim is, usually, to achieve an image where the subject is in as sharp focus as practicably possible. You have, depending on light and ISO, quite a large degree of latitude with regard to aperture and shutter speed to achieve this. As I have no doubt you are more than aware, the shorter the time the shutter remains open the sharper the resulting image will be. So if you are taking pictures of moving objects you want to keep the shutter open as short a time as possible. If you don't the subject will be blurred. Of course if that is the effect you want you adjust accordingly.
When I was taught the fundamentals of photography I was told, as a rule of thumb, an unstabilised camera should never have a shutter speed longer than 1/60sec. Longer than that will cause unacceptable levels of blur.
For motion picture photography things are slightly different. Focus is still very important but sacrifices need to be made due to how our visual systems process information. To achieve persistence of vision, and blend the individual frames into smooth motion, there needs to be a minimum frame rate. For historic reasons the frame rate is standardised at 24fps, despite the occasional attempt to change this (notably Todd AO, Showscan and more recently Peter Jackson and Ang Lee's experiments with HFR).
The problem is if each individual frame is too sharp the motion will strobe: it will have a slightly staccato feel. Think of how unnatural stop-motion animation can feel. The larger the screen the more evident this becomes.To smooth things out a certain amount of blur is required so the individual frames gel seamlessly. Which is why go-motion was developed to add motion blur to stop-motion animation. If you are intentionally adding blur you are throwing out spatial resolution to achieve smooth motion.
So for a 24fps film there is a standard shutter time of 1/48sec. Each frame will be less than perfectly sharp unless there is very little motion in the shot. But this is fine because we are not looking at each frame in isolation. We see a stream of images and build up our perception from that. Therefore with motion pictures we don't only have spatial resolution to think about: we have temporal resolution too.
When we watch a film we see each image for a fraction of a second and we accrue information from not only the image we see at any given instant but from those around it. The image we perceive is an illusion made up from the stream of images we are presented with. We get more information than we would from any individual image. This is what is meant by temporal resolution. In theory the more images you are shown per second the more information you will perceive.
When we look at a still photograph we do something different. We can look at them for a prolonged period. The very best images almost demand we do so. We might stand back to take in the whole, or lean in for a closer look and examine a small area in greater detail. A still image can be surprisingly interactive in that respect: with a film we are guided by the editing and can only linger on any detail for as long as we are allowed. All the information is present in that one image. As there is no temporal resolution, spatial resolution is massively important. Thus even a phone camera can have more photosites on its sensor than a professional motion picture camera. Whether the phone's lens will resolve them adequately is a discussion for elsewhere.
At higher frame rates we can also have a faster shutter: For the Hobbit which was shot at 48fps they used a shutter speed of 1/96sec, mitigating the amount of blur as less is needed to achieve smooth motion. While the resulting image was less than universally loved, it was undeniably more highly resolved, all other things being equal, than standard 24fps. If it wasn't for the altered motion characteristics that came with it, which I didn't like (something, admittedly, down to nostalgia), I'd argue increases in temporal resolution provide greater dividends than increases in spatial resolution. That 48fps at 2K is more objectively impressive than 24fps at 4K. I did not see Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, which was shot at 120fps at 4K.
The UHD Blu-ray is 60fps at native 4K so it should be interesting.
me too.I love this thread
I think it's more like the Best Buy exclusive tax =)
Actually, you might be right about that. King Kong: Skull Island had a similar exclusive 4k/3D combo steelbook and that was $40. My silly ass thought I'd wait for a price drop but you can't find it anywhere now. People are hungry for these exclusive steelbooks.
Man, Bowfinger blu is a best buy in store exclusive for now and I'm pissed. Ordered a copy Tuesday and my store sold out in the middle of the transaction. They cancelled the order just now. I guess demand was high.
I wish I could get Bowfinger bluray in Canada... Hopefully once it loses the "exclusive" status, since both my wife and I love that movie.
yes you can.
This isn't an either or situation. Its not like shooting at 4k or 6k or 70mm takes away from a film. Its how the director want's to shoot it.
Again, I feel, we should demand the most for our money, especially since they are charging us more for these discs.
Shooting at 4k or 6k or 70mm and then mastering in 2k and releasing in 2k or uprezzing 2k to 4k is like taking my 80mpx files and before sending them off to print a 20x30 inch print, downsizing it to 100ppi and then hitting print or taking that 100ppi file and trying to uprez it back to 20x30 and then hitting print. OR like taking a ferrari and putting a governor on it so it only goes 45mph.
As i've stated multiple times, all else being equal I will always prefer a 4k or greater capture, 4k or greater master, and a 4k release, along with HDR and lossless audio.
.