So I'm noticing 4k bluray movies are being uploaded on certain sites...

So I'm noticing 4k bluray movies are being uploaded on certain sites. Do you think watching the 4k rips would make a difference on my 1440p monitor?

Other urls found in this thread:

steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198052846274
youtube.com/watch?v=kIf9h2Gkm_U
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no, and that pic is bullshit

No, retard.

Only if their yify rips

A:10
v:10

are there any actual comparison images, ones that go from 4k to 1080 to sd all in the same resolution size?

Got one for a game, no 720p though.

fixed

...

...

...

still pictures don't matter. your eyes will not be able to tell the 4k difference with moving pictures unless you are quite young.

Yes, because you have more than 1080 vertical pixels. But it would be a marginal difference.

I have a 4K UHD screen and a 4K BluRay drive with two 4K movies.

It's a complete fucking scam. I can't tell the difference from 4 feet away.

Don't waste your money.

PS: Comparing screenshots instead of comparing video is fucking bullshit too.

Ah, the "human eyes cannot see past 30 FPS" argument is getting rebundled into something new.

What movies?

Half are just upscaled from 2k sources, not real 4k.

Also, what TV? Shitty chinese 4k wouldn't shock me, if you have a nice ass OLED HDR 4k or some shit, then i'd call you a whore liar.

It's not new. They've been spouting this garbage since 4k became semi available to the average consumer.

Why do people hate it when others experience something nice? I sometimes read the same in 144Hz screen threads.

these pictures are pointless

yes, new thing has more pixels than old thing

but these picture are close ups viewed by whoever on whatever, side by side comparisons only make sense when you have two displays physically side by side, showing the same image at two different resolutions

Speaking of helping others experience something nice:

First person to post their Steam URL as a reply to this post gets gifted Bioshock. ALL THE BIOSHOCKS: 1, 2, Infinite. Apparently there are even remasters for the first two.

oh no...it's retarded

steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198052846274

Thank you please

Most movies are shot in 2K and then upscaled to 4k, would be a slight difference if anything

Yes, yes you are.

Friend request sent.

Thank you my man!

Is that true? Criterion brags about scanning old film at 8k before resizing. Many modern films are still shot on Kodak. But I don't know anything about high budget digital filming.

Things shot in digital from ~2000-2014 are generally 1080p-2k.

Most things from now on are 4k+ if shot digitally, and further, many directors are insisting on using real film stock again, which can be scanned to ~8k resolution for 35mm and ~16k for 65-70mm film.

>wheres my yify rip
>not that bullshit 720p but 1080p 900MB good stuff

sub hd, the image isn't even 1280x720

Looking more for movies, as I honestly see no reason to go 4k for games at all, even at 1080p textures still aren't 1 pixel is one pixel of the texture seen.

while
are nice, they are also heavily zoomed in the reason I want 4k with 1080 overlayed is because its easier to be the judge if the extra detail is worth it when you see the full image instead of, the cod one that is what, is that 9 times zoomed in, bit hard to tell, maybe 16... or am I thinking 3 and 4 times...

got the good ones and have no desire to play infinite, hope the person who gets it likes em.

actual movies were never filmed in sub 4k, they opted for film in that case because better resolution can be achieved.

>actual movies were never filmed in sub 4k
lol no.

The Sony hdw-f900 was used to shoot Starwars Ep. 2. And many other feature films in the early 2000s.

Max resolution of 1920x1080.

>actual movies were never filmed in sub 4k

ARRIRAW 2.8K is still popular to this day.

>sub hd, the image isn't even 1280x720
So what? I can crop a screenshot of a 4k movie but it's still 4k quality.

Are you Falcon from gameranx? I always wondered but forget to ask.

These comments trigger my autism

Why? Pretty accurate rating system.

Because everyone gives movies high ratings even when the quality is poor. Seen many cases where videos have incorrect frame-rate or have the wrong aspect ratio etc and people comment a:10 v:10. Most of these comments seem to come from the same sort of people that watch cam rips.

If it's a cam rip, people usually say
>for a cam it's
>A:
>V:
etc

Read my comment again, it's not about camrips. The people who rate the audio/video quality are generally retarded. I have seen countless people give good ratings for horrible encodes.

And that's a bullshot. Just look at the pixels in the eye.

he has a point

you're those pics look badly made

but the image should be cropped up, nothing wrong with a close up in-game, as long as you didnt resample after printscreen,

a good comparisson would be the higher-res crop with 1:1 pixels representation, and the lower-res crop 2x scaled, if one Res isnt a 2x upscale of the other the compared object will have different sizes on the final picture ofc.

but given as the 1080 arent perfect integer upscale in
these examples, saince it looks like that faggot resample the images, it is indeed useless

Yes, they will. 4k downscaled to 1440p will look a lot better than 1080p scaled up.

Do you think watching 4k would make a difference on a CGA monitor?

CGA?

Like 320x240 resolution? Sure, 4k can still have better color.

You can see benefits to viewing 4k blu rays all the way down to watching on a standard definition television. In fact it's rather amazing how much quality can be squeezed out of a good quality SD CRT when you use a super clean source with rich color and contrast. People will mistake it for HD when it isn't.

...

...

>Thinking chroma subsampling is any of the reason for HDR

Should have known the tech board would be the least knowledge one for tech.

>27"
>Outside your peripheral vision

What the fucking hell are you on about? Do you sit 3 inches from your screen?

My 30" WFP3001 is well, WELL within my vision on my desk, I can see almost twice my monitor's width beyond the bezel in every direction in my peripheral vision

take the bait outta your mouth kids.

4:2:2 is being pushed as part of the 10-bit marketing

It assumes a viewing distance of around ~60cm/23 inches

Note it says semi-decent peripheral vision. Most of your peripheral vision is garbage that can only can only sense movement and not much else (i.e. hardly any color or detail, if at all)

Just buy them, tyrone

That's too sharp, though. Stand, with perfect vision, a meter away from someone else. You won't see every fucking pore and ingrown hair on their skin.

Btw, for anybody who thinks they can actually see adequate detail in their peripheral vision, try out this image

There's a bit of truth in this though, as soon as something on the screen moves it starts to produce motion blur, even high refresh rates still get some motion blur, it's essential to making moving pictures seem smooth so whatever the resolution motion is gonna make it blurry and you'll not be able to tell the difference in the resolution. Having said that 4k is noticably clearer to look at in most situations, especially for still or slow moving images.

CS:GO is a bad example because a lot of pros play at 800x600 stretched, some even play at 640x460.

I think the jump from SD to 1080 was something you could notice. The jump from 1080 to 4k isn't really noticeable. I still find DVD's watchable and even SD broadcasts. I also didn't buy a cheap shartmart TV from chinksung that upscales standard digital and dvd's well enough too.

>Sunglass
>Nigger
>Some propaganda

>a lot of pros
what the fuck does being pro have to do with it?
most players that were playing Counter Strike when you were in your dad's balls are simply used to those resolutions

>256 colors

wow it's factually retarded

The image is 256 colors

yes. chroma subsampling. 4k looks better even on 1080p screens.

so what? before that, movies were shot with potentially infinite resolution.

Nice sharpening filter.

I already covered that you retarded faggot

>further, many directors are insisting on using real film stock again, which can be scanned to ~8k resolution for 35mm and ~16k for 65-70mm film.

Just because you can't see the details doesn't mean you can't see the changes in light and movement that's happening in your peripheral vision. This shit is the new "your can't see more than 30 fps" bullshit.

This.
Why Does 4K Look Better on 1080p Monitors: youtube.com/watch?v=kIf9h2Gkm_U

>Just because you can't see the details doesn't mean you can't see the changes in light and movement that's happening in your peripheral vision.

If you can't tell what color a man's face is, or read what the text is, then I'd argue you shouldn't get a larger screen, which would put even even more detail out of sight

When you watch a film, *everything* is in the frame for a reason. You're meant to see all of the detail in the scene, not a small fraction of it.

When you play a game, you don't just want to be able to detect movement in your field of view, but also detail, whether it's for a practical reason such as 'is that a red or blue team player?' or an aesthetic reason such as encapsulating a landscape in one glance - think how we typically look upon an artwork, we stand back about 2-3m so the artwork does not extend beyond our central vision, so we can view it as a whole

So IMAX movies with 5 story screens are a meme?

Going from the standard 4:2:0 chroma subsampling to 4:4:4 does nothing for image quality. See for a comparison.

The reason is you don't notice such minute variations in color. It's important to note that we're only talking about chroma (color) data here, and not the luma data (which is much more noticeable).

4:2:0 does noticeably affect legibility of text, but text is rarely something that comes up in video. Outside of video, all monitors do full 4:4:4 chroma subsampling.

Even if you compress 4k video to 4:4:4 1080p video, it likely won't be 4:4:4 at all. Unless your 1080p video is 50GB+ and your source is pixel-perfect 4k, then the encoder will have used compression techniques to smudge that chroma data into more efficient compositions.

Real-time downscaling of video introduces the possibility of artifacts, which means viewing video encoded at native resolution is better

>See for a comparison.

Yeah that just reinforces me wanting 4:4:4 as looking at her skin tone its SUPER obvious which is which. If you want nice granular color shifts in your videos, use 4:4:4 because it looks WAY fucking better.

All of these look like shit

yeah, the 1080p really does look shit when normalized against 4k.

The 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 comparison is in Trump's image, not Natalie Dormer's

Natalie Dormer's image is a comparison of a 256-color image to an 8-bit image. It's to demonstrate the minimal difference one would see between 8-bit (16.7 million colors) and 10-bit (1 billion colors). I would have liked to do a 6-bit to 8-bit comparison which would have been more accurate, but it's difficult to create.

Probably, even though you sit back a fair way in an Imax theater. They want to make money, not necessarily create the greatest viewing experience. I've been to Imax a few times, and I've always found the experience underwhelming, not just because of the large screen but because of the low quality of the display that was being used.

Lookup THX's recommendations, I think they recommend 36 degrees viewing angle, which is narrower than if you were to view a 23" screen from 60cm away from memory.

>but because of the low quality of the display that was being used.
lol, go to a REAL imax theater with a 70mm projector, or the newer dual 4k laser projector IMAX theaters.

The 4k w/ laser projectors also support HDR (~3000:1+ contrast ratio) if you're looking for good contrast from a movie, I would HIGHLY recommend finding an IMAX with laser theater (though there are only ~10 in the country)

>people squabbling everywhere.
I'm on a 1080p screen at the moment, I see a small improvement between 1080p and 4k video.
Just go to YouTube and judge for yourself.
With that said, the improvement is just minute enough that it "can be noticed" and isn't enough to bother switching it to a default setting.
I'd guess that if you're running 1440 it might be a bit better, but that's up for you to decide, the SIZE of the screen will probably impact the results.

horrible bait

That could all be true, but it doesn't impact on my claim that narrow viewing angles are superior

IMAX is motivated primarily by profit, and whilst I don't know know the reasoning behind their use of big screens, I suspect it is driven solely by consumer demand

>Just go to YouTube and judge for yourself.

The difference is due to bitrate difference, not resolution difference

4k is literally just packing in more pixels, it doesn't necessarily mean you're getting more information about what's meant to be in those pixels

>IMAX is motivated primarily by profit, and whilst I don't know know the reasoning behind their use of big screens, I suspect it is driven solely by consumer demand


The entire point is to provide a fully engrossing movie experience. It does this with a massive (generally curved) screen.

My local IMAX theater (about 25-35 minute drive), is 86 feet tall and 63 feet wide. It has a 12 discreet channel sound system with sub-bass. And dual 4k laser projectors which provide fantastic contrast ratio, and very high resolution with the right movies.

Starwars 7 and Rogue One were both AMAZING on this screen, and I saw both of these films on "normal" 2k projector theaters the average person would see it on so I could compare.

These weren't even full IMAX frame movies as they had black bars on the top and bottom for this large screen size.

an upcoming movie Dunkirk was shot in 65mm and the previews I saw on the IMAX screen were full frame shots, they look fucking amazing, seeing WWII era planes flying around on an 86x63foot screen was jaw dropping.

Maybe it's just that most people aren't impressed by small screens

If you tell a normie "this screen can display 12-bit color at 2000:1 DCR" that's gibberish to him, but if you put a screen that's twice the size in front of him, he'll be impressed

Movement in the peripheral vision has it's place, but it's not what we want in a monitor, or even a TV for that matter - at least not in their current form. Directors make sure that everything in what they produce is in there for a reason; there's nothing in a film that can be safely outside the viewer's central vision unless it's been made by a bad director.

Now what I say can be verified, because I posted an image in this thread () which demonstrates how can't see big important details outside of your central vision. My argument rests on the claim that seeing more detail makes for a more pleasing and more productive viewing experience. Now we have to make some compromises, but that ideal compromise is one where the boundaries of the screen are at least within your better peripheral vision. The 27"+ monitor meme has to stop.

>The 27"+ monitor meme has to stop.
I'm using 25" 1440p.

I'd not move larger unless it was to a 40" 4k, as it would offer similar pixel density.