8k will be Hyper HD
No 4k 3d support............ FUCK
The Hobbit Trilogy 4k HFR in my veins!
![]()
8k will be Hyper HD
Yeah, 60fps minimum everywhere. Thank you very much.I'll jump on this for the shift to HFR alone. Hopefully it becomes the standard sooner rather than later.
To those afraid of having to upgrade their collection. I really think the visual upgrade for movies shots in 35mm (meaning 99% of movie in history!) won't be super noticeable, or at least way less than the one from dvd obviously.
I can be wrong but i'm really curious to see some comparison between a 2k bluray of a 35mm movie upscaled to 4k (on a tv or projector) and a real 4k master of the same 35mm movie.
To those afraid of having to upgrade their collection. I really think the visual upgrade for movies shots in 35mm (meaning 99% of movie in history!) won't be super noticeable, or at least way less than the one from dvd obviously.
I can be wrong but i'm really curious to see some comparison between a 2k bluray of a 35mm movie upscaled to 4k (on a tv or projector) and a real 4k master of the same 35mm movie.
there's really a lot more factors than that.35mm can be mastered at ~5k+.
An HD bd of T2 on a 60" tv will look worse than an UHD remaster of it on the same size.
35mm can be mastered at ~5k+.
An HD bd of T2 on a 60" tv will look worse than an UHD remaster of it on the same size.
35mm can be mastered at ~5k+.
An HD bd of T2 on a 60" tv will look worse than an UHD remaster of it on the same size.
Finally! Blu Ray looks like crap!
I'm not being serious
DTS:X and Dolby Atmos.
Are they here to stay and will I need to buy a new receiver? What kind of speaker configurations will I need to take advantage of these?
8k will be Hyper HD
there's really a lot more factors than that.
I have the dollars trilogy and all but one of the dirty harry movies, and at 1080p on 106" screen, there is blur from depth of field or focus issues. For some movies it simply doesn't matter how well it was restored, you can't fix issues like that.
So in my opinion older movies are going to be really hit or miss in 4k. Some, that don't have those types of issues are going to look stunning, others are just going to have super magnified flaws.
Obviously it will look worse, but the question was how much worse. I'd be interested in that comparison also.
Yeah i always hear that but that doesn't mean anything. You can scan an analog source at infinity if you want .. Some will say the grain structure etc..
The real question is, are there details, on a 35mm film, and i mean visual details, like "i can now read that little thing in the background" that are missed on a 2k bluray ? I think not. I can be wrong.
Sure the pixel density will be better but it will be the same if the 2k source is upscaled nicely.
I feel like there will be significant diminishing returns with most movies. This may be better for much newer stuff though.
Well, infinity doesn't mean anything, that's why I said ~5k+, that's the point where you kinda reach "max" resolution.
And yes there are details, 35mm is a pretty great format.
Oh, no. Not again.
This will be years out, as despite being filmed in 5K, the final master was in 2K, with the special effects rendered in that res too.
I believe LOTR can only ever go up to 2.8K because of the way it was filmed.
The reason i don't believe it, but maybe you can find an example to prove me wrong: I can't find a 35mm movie, in bluray, that has an image as sharp as a digitally shot movie in the same format. (i'm not talking 70mm obviously).
So for me that means something simple. 35mm film doesn't "max out" a 2k resolution in term of actual visual details. Now, maybe 35mm scanned at 4k or more can be sharper, i know there are some of them.
Shouldn't Ultra HD really be called 2k, seeing as full HD is defined by its vertical resolution i.e 1920x1080.
4k standard is 3840x2160 so surely it makes more sense for it to be called 2k??
Actually, the use of horizontal resolution as the number for the scanning resolution existed long before it was used as a marketing tool.4K is a bigger number.
Bigger = better for marketing purposes.
I didn'tsay as sharp, since that would be weird, but it's definitely of a higher grade an HD scan of the print.
The reason i don't believe it, but maybe you can find an example to prove me wrong: I can't find a 35mm movie, in bluray, that has an image as sharp as a digitally shot movie in the same format. (i'm not talking 70mm obviously).
So for me that means something simple. 35mm film doesn't "max out" a 2k resolution in term of actual visual details. Now, maybe 35mm scanned at 4k or more can be sharper, i know there are some of them.
Shouldn't Ultra HD really be called 2k, seeing as full HD is defined by its vertical resolution i.e 1920x1080.
4k standard is 3840x2160 so surely it makes more sense for it to be called 2k??
Ah, of course!4K is a bigger number.
Bigger = better for marketing purposes.
SDTV has always been referred to by its vertical resolution i thought? 576iActually, the use of horizontal resolution as the number for the scanning resolution existed long before it was used as a marketing tool.
Not in the post production side of the film industry (or in recent times, during production with the advent of digital cameras).Ah, of course!
HDTV has always been referred to by its vertical resolution i thought? 576i