4k is a scam

So, you guys probably have heard of it, but yet another UHD blu-ray got released pretty recently, Inferno. So, I was pretty excited to see what it looks like, but as it turns out it's 100% bullshit. Pic related, a comparison between the supposed 4k version and the 1080p upscale. They are virtually indiscernible, which suggests that it really is just a literal upscale. Not even a particularly sophisticated one, it's just a bicubic blow-up, which is fucking embarrassing.

So, apparently, film makers these days are incapable of delivering true 4k content, so why bother it at all?

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt3062096/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
files.catbox.moe/0462hd.png
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>4k
you mean 2160p?

Same thing, my retarded friend.

More news at 11.

tom hanks looks fake

Problem is Hollywood can no longer adapt to new technology. Years on and they still refuse to move beyond 24fps

4K is only good for capeshit, scif-fi etc.

Yeah but on my 55" £2k UHD tv it'll look better no on some shitty 4k monitors

It was probably shot with a 1080p camera and is now stuck like that forever.

>UHD

At that price you should just buy a 60" OLED for 2k more.

Seeing every pore on an actor's face is disgusting
HD was a mistake

SD 440p porn is the true patricians choice. HD anything was a mistake

>expecting people to notice a difference when most don't have a screen higher than 1080 and a lot of fags are on their phone

Post a higher resolution image, retard.

UHD blu ray is a meme


>big budget hollywood shit
>shot with a 1080p camera

>lucy alexandra

you have great taste user, we would get along well i think

a fellow lucy fan. she does good watersports stuff. kinda weird face close up

It's already as high as it should be.

>measuring pixels vertically
>240p
>360p
>720p
>1080p
C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
we gonna measure horizontally now xD cause it's a bigger number and people are dumb
>4K

Fuck this fucking stupid shit

Don't forget the forced HDR that completely messes up the color saturation.

Its a crop

Its easier to show how it's 4x the resolution of HD by calling it 4k

I think you might be onto something.

there are no 60" Oled's

The problem is people call 4k things that aren't really 4k, like shitty upscales.

that's because of the soap opera effect and how visually uncomfortable 48fps or higher makes the viewer. Any DP or cinematographer worth their salt would walk off the set if the director wanted to shoot at 60fps

It happens. Star Wars Episode 2 is stuck in 1080p forever because of George Lucas's stupidity.

i like her joi myself but yeah

she also seems really nervous about anything involving her girl parts which is weird to me considering her profession, she did one video fucking herself with an average sized vibrator and stayed dryer than the sahara the entire time, was kinda funny when compared to the reactions she was faking

i don't think i've ever seen a video of her legit getting off or even appearing to

Look at the technical information:
imdb.com/title/tt3062096/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

>Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (3.4K) (source format)
>Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
>Dolby Vision
>Redcode RAW (6K) (source format)

It was edited as a digital intermediate in 2K aka 2048×1080. So it will be stuck at that resolution forever unless someone goes back and re-encodes it from the source files. Even then it will never be more than the 3.4k quality used for some scenes shot in the ARRIRAW format.

Why it was not encoded to a higher quality in the first place is beyond me. Maybe there was some faggot that wanted to save render time because they think people can't tell the difference.

Shut the fuck up you fucking moron.

>Maybe there was some faggot that wanted to save render time because they think people can't tell the difference.

As someone who has worked in film production before I can pretty much guarantee this was the case.

Prove me wrong faggot, you can't pull focus at any fps that high and focus is one of the most important things in film-making.

>55"

lmao this
wtf were they thinking??

git gud

they wanted people to think 4k is 4 times the resolution of 1080p.

yeah I've noticed too. Always a bit odd when they go overboard with the pleasure sounds when clearly its not happening

>stuck in 1080p
explain this?

It is tho.

Many movies are rendered in 2K these days, including most Marvel movies, because rendering CGI in 2K is exponentially cheaper (and a movie like Inferno probably features many CGI shots too).

If a movie is shot in 1080p that's all the detail that it can ever have. It's not like film where you can scan it with higher resolution cameras as technology improves.

Once you shoot something with a digital camera the quality is baked in. That's all it will ever be unless you start using things like Super Resolution algorithms to add in "fake" detail.

Film is a physical thing that can be scanned in higher and higher quality. Of course, eventually the point of diminishing returns is hit and you aren't actually getting any better amount of details in the image. At a certain point you're just putting the film under a microscope and looking at the grain pattern.

Gonna bite em' in the ass in a few years.

This is not Sup Forums, fuck off.

seems a trend with british sloots desu, i see it more often than i care to but it's my own fault for being into a genre they pretty much dominate

How dare they!

so most movies are shot at a higher resolution than they're presented?

I figured most movies were using 1080p Digital.

>That's all it will ever be unless you start using things like Super Resolution algorithms to add in "fake" detail.
It's a shame that those things aren't used more frequently. There's a shitload of algorithms available, but they don't even try. Fuck it, just use whatever is default in vegas, nobody will notice anyway.

You don't know what you're talking about. 1080p (and later 2K which is basically the same thing) was the standard for shooting most movies up until recently (including digital masterpieces like Zodiac, Collateral, Miami Vice, Apocalypto, Speed Racer, you name it).

And then, even movies shot in higher resolution, like Antichrist, up until Avengers Age of Ultron and Captain America Civil War, were mastered in 2K, including rendering all of the CGI, which probably means they will NEVER be redone in 4K since remaking all the special effects would cost a lot of money, and be pretty much a whole new creative venture.

joi is british dominated?

>Film is a physical thing that can be scanned in higher and higher quality.
It is believed that 35 mm film translates to 3,5K AT ITS VERY BEST. Only 2K in many cases (this depends on the physical quality of the film used and the ISO).

Its not even really true that regular 35mm movies have 4k resolution... the sharpest, finest grain color film available today can under perfect conditions (most sets aren't perfect conditions) resolve maybe 2.5 k across the frame. However, to capture what detail there is on the film without the grain causing aliasing (jaggies), you do have to scan it at 4k+ pixels.

for me, most definitely

i'm not into all that dom, mommy, incest shit so they've got all the vanilla stuff pretty much secured, and as actual networks go, yeah if only because you can find good content outside of c4s which is usually a bitch to find if you see something you want

i wish it wasn't honestly but everyone else goes way overboard with the fetish shit

>inb4 some mommyposter starts in on me about tara or some other dusty skank

You can't really translate it like that. Comparing the resolution of analog media to digital media is nonsensical. Sure, at some point you are mainly resolving film grain, which may not contain crucial information, but is not exactly the end of the line either. Personally, looking at microscopic pictures of film grain is more pleasant to look at than digital interpolation artifacts.

>Of course, eventually the point of diminishing returns
And I am pretty sure 4K is that point. Once it becomes more affordable/common, that's probably as high as I'll ever care to go.

You only realize this now? Oh my how naive you are

Same with 60fps. Only like 2 movies are coming out in 60fps and not even remotely in the near future. Everything is interpolated and upscaled.

Milking technology for sales takes a long long time. We will have 4k 60fps movies that were native filmed in 4k and 60fps sooner or later (later).

>we gonna measure horizontally now xD cause it's a bigger number and people are dumb

That's pretty much every fucking torrent listing ever now. It is kind of aggravating really.

you guys arent even talking about the fact that most content nowadays is streamed anyway, so the resolutions tv makers try to push are made even less relevant by the pathetic bitrate of netflix

Don't buy UHDs for resolution, get it for the HDR. The contrast and color range in Planet Earth II make me cum

Op downloaded some low bitrate 4k movie torrents cucked him self with disappointment

Interesting. I'm not into joi but i can tell you watersports stuff is mostly european and some british dominated, and the american stuff is usually pretty awful

>try to adapt to new technology
>new digital camera comes out every year or two
>DOPs have barely learned to handle one camera when it's already obsolete
>movies shot in 2k are already more technically obsolete than a 1930's technicolor movie
>movies shot in 4k will be obsolete in a few years when 6 or 8k becomes standard
meanwhile, you can shoot on 35mm with a 30 year old camera, scan it at 4k, in a few years scan it again in 8k, in 16k in however many k you want to
and the image will still look better than anything shot in digital because film looks gorgeous, and film is standard operating procedure for most DOPs

>DUDE ADAPT TO NEW TECHNOLOGY LMAO

>4K obsolete in a few years
>4K isn't even standard today

>4K
>not standard
nigga you high

I think he meant it hasn't penetrated the market effectively yet. It's like when DVD first came out, VHS hung around for a long time because people didn't give a shit about upgrading until dvd players got cheaper.

yah, most theatres still project in 2k, but that doesn't mean 4k isn't industry standard. some movies are already shooting in resolutions above 4k, 4k televisions are already available, and better cinemas have 4k projection.

btw this whole resolution bullshit might just end up killing movie theatres for good. They have such a hard time staying up to date with a new format every 5-10 years, when in the past it was the same 35mm projectors for almost a century, the only thing that changed was cinemascope lenses, and sound systems (which were also just an add-on to the projectors).

4k is for video games. Film can never hope to achieve the level of quality that a video game can produce.

>35mm film records an infinite amount of detail and will never be surpassed by any digital resolution

Pretty sure that's not how it works.

Digital hasnt surpassed it yet

If by "detail" you mean film grain that doesn't carry any useful information, then yes, it is almost infinite in detail.

35mm can be scanned at any resolution you want because of this thing is grain is visually pleasing. pixels are not.

35mm is equivalent to about 32-64k. Or at least that's how high you have to go with scanning to get absolutely all the information out of it. You can't compare number of grains per frame to number of pixels, because the different arrangement of grains in each frame is different which creates a visual effect of way higher resolution than there is number of grains. To actually photograph the "grains" you first need to have a much higher resolution than one pixel per grain.

I don't understand why people care this much about having the latest biggest TV using the top technology, it's like they're brain washed as fuck.

As consumers we have no need to pay for overpriced technology in a medium that clearly doesn't need it.

Think about it for a second. When I was a kid I watched movies and shows in a 14" CRT TV using cable that was noisy and sometimes it would randomly switch between black and white, washed out colors and shit. And I enjoyed the FUCK out of them.

You don't need a book to be well constructed to be good. You don't need super technology and seeing Tom Hanks pores to enjoy kino.

please kill yourselves

4k is just a fad, it will go away as fast as 3D TV's and HD-DVD did

People don't need running water to survive either, that doesn't mean it isn't pleasant as fuck.

>masterpiece (speed racer)
Why do you faggots do this to yourselves? You don't have to like a bad kids movie just because it's not popular.

>it will go away
Yeah, just like 1080p went away, right retard?

When you care more about the technology behind instead of just watching the fucking movie that's when the problem begins.

My mom just watches how crystal clear everything looks in HD. I don't think she cares about whats going on

Seriously, an acceptable size for a good film file is 30-50 gigabytes which is the size of a bluray. We won't see good 4K films being uploaded until our internet infrastructure is improved or you niggers are going to have to start buying physical media again if you want to really notice the quality.

So how does 48+ make people uncomfortable?

It looks odd in motion, that's all.

What does that mean though? It's the first time I'm hearing about it as someone who usually doesn't pay much attention to tv or film and I'm actually curious as to why that would be the case.

Wouldn't higher frames be better, if all other things were held equal?

Why don't you watch some high framerate stuff and find out yourself? There should be a 48fps version of The Hobbit floating around if you want to make a side by side comparison to the conventional framerate version.

There's no way the TV industry is going to go back to 1080p panels.

It looks like videogames. Which is great for Cgi, really weird for how people move around and talk. It looks sped up, you get used to it, but I think the problem is our eyes aren't supposed to interpret so much things so quickly. I had a similar problem watching Avatar, because the background was in focus so much that it was irritating to see everything so clearly and not have a focal point.

What's the conventional frame rate version? Just so I know that I'm getting the same one.

Also how did they get two different frame rates out of the same movie? Because that might be important.

>What's the conventional frame rate version?
24fps
>how did they get two different frame rates out of the same movie?
They filmed it at both framerates. It was a big deal at the time, they had some theaters hype up the higher framerate version and audiences hated it. Hell, if you want an easier attainable version of high framerate video, watch any low budget soap opera.

Ok, well maybe that's why I don't get it, since I'm used to games and animation where everything is in focus.

Does that just mean I'm going to be forever spoiled and have trouble with "convetional" stuff because normal people can't into higher frame rates?

>Hell, if you want an easier attainable version of high framerate video, watch any low budget soap opera.
Honestly, watching through a tolkien film twice would be enough of a challenge. Both the books and the movies always put me to sleep, not even kidding.

The Hobbit itself was a fun book. It's only with Lord of the Rings that his head got lodged up his own ass.

But yeah, the hobbit films were train wrecks. The first one is tolerable though.

>The Hobbit itself was a fun book.
If you say so...

Why doesn't anyone seem to mind all the 60fps videos on youtube if higher frame-rates are so bad?

>1080p was the standard for shooting most movies up until recently
Underage get out

Cinema has a much different expectation. It's the same reason shitty soap operas have been at higher framerate since forever, no one cares so much about it.
I met a man who had different opinions than me once. Once ...

>There should be a 48fps version of The Hobbit floating around
It's not, as it's never been released on home video in HFR.

The only movie that's been shot in HFR and released on home video in HFR is "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" which is a masterpiece that uses the technology in a perfect way.

>It's not, as it's never been released on home video in HFR.
Well shit, that's too bad. I would have though they would have released it for home video considering they hyped it up[ so damn much for the theater.
>Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk
Damn straight, great movie.

>50 years from now

we have 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64K capable screens widely adopted by the masses now as well as the majority of films being shot as such

>no, 1080p is fine, let's just stop on a dime and not progress and push technology to the limits for the best possible viewing experience

Inferno definitely looks bad but it doesn't mean all of them are upscaled, take a look at Smurfs 2, looks pretty good to me.

files.catbox.moe/0462hd.png

>so most movies are shot at a higher resolution than they're presented?

In the past there was an expected loss in quality when you went from the o-negative to the interpositive to the internegative to the print. And as films get screened they start to look worse over time because of scratches, fading, etc. The negatives can be used to issue new releases that look better.

Some shows were shooting in HD before HDTV was available in most places. Sometimes they are released on Blu-ray in their full resolution (but not full quality since blu-ray is still rather low bitrate and uses 4:2:2 subsampling).

I agree with this, if you have a good 1080p TV that you're happy with then there's no reason to upgrade to 4K. However if you need a new TV anyway, then 4K is the obvious choice.

I know exactly what I'm talking about and it was stupid anytime anyone did it. Anyone could see 1080 was just a stop-gap.

The Avengers and such will have their effects redone in 4k and rereleased as "Special Editions" kek