--Twentieth Century Fox ----Wild ----The Maze Runner ----The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials ----The Martian ----Life of Pi ----Kingsman: The Secret Service ----Exodus: Gods and Kings ----Hitman: Agent 47 ----Fantastic 4 (2015) ----X-men: Days of Future Past --Warner Home Video ----Mad Max: Fury Road ----San Andreas ----The Lego Movie ----Pan ----Man Of Steet ----Pacific Rim --Sony Pictures Home Entertainment ----The Amazing Spider-Man 2 ----The Smurfs 2 ----Pineapple Express ----Salt ----Hancock ----Chappie --Shout Factory ----Journey to Space ----Humpback Whales ----Flight of the Butterflies ----Rocky Mountains Express ----Wonders of the Arctic ----The Last Reef: Cities Beneath The Sea
>>52325669 >--Twentieth Century Fox >----Wild Movie >----The Maze Runner Flick >----The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials Flick >----The Martian Movie >----Life of Pi Movie >----Kingsman: The Secret Service Flick >----Exodus: Gods and Kings Flick >----Hitman: Agent 47 Flick >----Fantastic 4 (2015) Flick >----X-men: Days of Future Past Flick >--Warner Home Video >----Mad Max: Fury Road Flick >----San Andreas Flick >----The Lego Movie Flick >----Pan Flick >----Man Of Steet Flick >----Pacific Rim Flick >--Sony Pictures Home Entertainment >----The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flick >----The Smurfs 2 Flick >----Pineapple Express Movie >----Salt Flick >----Hancock Flick >----Chappie Flick
Basically 95% of current 4k films are trivial tripe.
>>52325669 >Life of Pi >X-men: Days of Future Past >Pacific Rim >Mad Max: Fury Road At least these four are nothing but 2K upscales according to: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/multimedia/37753-ultra-hd-blu-ray-mit-erstem-flop-viele-titel-sind-zunaechst-nur-upscales.html
>>52325576 You're right about the resolution but not about the framerate, most films are shot at 24fps. Most films are shot at 4k or higher ie. 8k but films being shot at anything other than 24fps is a big deal in the film industry. The hobbit did this and caught a lot of flak from all directions.
>>52325877 The higher the frame rate the harder it is to make effects look realistic. Even sets are more noticibly lacking in detail at a higher frame rate, let alone practical effects and special effects would cost millions more
>>52325958 >Unless you have shit light. Which is actually a fucking case if you're going for natural light in a movie. Noone likes 1kW ligtbulbs sorrounding the place in a scene that's supposed to represent moonlight.
>>52325499 In all seriousness, the BD-Live activation bullshit is a problem. I didn't like always-on DRM in videogames and I don't like it in movies. Thanks to HDCP and the BDA, *all* 4K-capable Blu-Ray players must be equipped with online authentication software. They cannot force the studio to release a film with online authentication, but they can force manufacturers to include the technology that makes it an option. And really, how many studios do you think are going to *opt out* of more frustrating DRM? I love all things related to technology but we are quickly approaching an era where even your toaster will need a fucking internet connection to verify you bought your bread legally. I am not going to invest in any technology that will require me to be beholden to an online authentication server (that can go down at any moment) to watch the films I paid money for, fuck that.
>>52325977 >Digital sensors don't solve the problem. >You need large, high quality lenses >Barry Lyndon required NASA engineered lenses to film in candle light.
Like I said: shit light.
But even then, using a full frame sensor and an f/1 lens you get the same light gathering. With a more common f/1.4 lens you get half that, while needing only a tiny fraction to get the same noise levels as film.
>>52325977 >Digital sensors don't solve the problem. But they do. I own a stills camera that gives you a very usable image up to ISO12,800. Considering it has twice the horizontal resolution of 4K, sampled down and with a tiny bit of noise reduction, the image looks very nice. With the Alexa 65 you even have a film camera that can do 8.5K, so it's not just within the realm of stills cameras to have this kind of performance. >You need large, high quality lenses Cinema lenses are on a whole other level from photography glass, it's not uncommon for an f/1.4 prime to cost up to $25k. Believe me, they have the glass. >Barry Lyndon required NASA engineered lenses to film in candle light. f/0.7 was needed because color film of the time wasn't very sensitive, modern sensors allow an f1.4 lens to shoot in conditions darker than Barry Lyndon - if you look closely, those scenes had a shitton of noise and the image was very soft. Add to that the fact that most DPs usually don't want to shoot anywhere near wide-open because it becomes very difficult to pull focus and they'd rather have the background be in focus too, rather than a wash of color. f/4-5.6 is a more normal working range for s35. >Of course it doesn't matter for garbage superhero flicks filmed in brightly lit green screen studios. That I agree, although higher resolution does allow for better effects.
>>52325835 This shit drives me mad. >Want high definition picture and top audio quality >Better download the 3 hour movie in a compressed 500 mb file >"10/10 PICTURE AND SOUND, IT WAS LIKE I REALLY WAS AT THE THEATER" Fuck I hate people so much
I can't bother to read through this shit heap put I'd like to point out that old classics shot on film can from 4k. You just scan the original film to 4k and you might gain improved quality over full hd depending on the quality of the film of course. Still far better than digital up scaling.
>>52325669 --Twentieth Century Fox ----Wild ----The Maze Runner ----The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials ----The Martian ----Life of Pi ----Kingsman: The Secret Service ----Exodus: Gods and Kings ----Hitman: Agent 47 ----Fantastic 4 (2015) ----X-men: Days of Future Past
>only The Maze Runner (first one) and Fantastic 4 were filmed in 4K
>>52325499 Depends what your mean. If you think success is that it won the war over HDDVD and became the better more widely used physical disk media, then it has already won. If you define success by blu-ray staying on top for another 10 years, then no I don't think so, streaming is just better.
>>52328940 Well this is true, but again, it comes to what OP means by success, I think in the next few year we'll see high quality streaming, pre-downloading or some other hipster shit. Physical media is definitely on it's way out for the masses.
>>52328449 But actually, most cinemas use 4k projectors nowadays. Not to mention, the gamut , color reproduction , contrast and blacks are much better than film ever was with high end digital projectors.
>>52329018 that high quality streaming won't come close to matching what 4K blu-ray will give you. All that high quality won't mean anything when again, the majority of the world has shit internet speeds. Higher quality means more data transfer which means those with data caps are fucked.
Physical media has supposedly been on the way out for the past decade. Unless countries overhaul their infrastructures and break up monopolies, physical media will continue to dominate.
>>52329236 Even if data cap wasn't an issue, there are a couple others.
At best it would take at least 1/4 of a day to download such films on an above average internet connection. Assuming the film downloads steadily and has no data corruption, which will imply to download again or deal with digital artifacts/corruption. Storage of the movies would imply a massive capacity HDD judging by the current standards of devices storage.
Obviously the main consumer will never go for that shit to watch a movie once and be done with it considering that they can watch anything on a whim straight away in other means at 360/480 on their 4k tv and see no difference.
>>52332533 When people say "worldwide" that pretty much only means NA, Euro, Japan, and maybe China as that's where the majority of the money is. Nobody really cares if some mud people living in straw huts can't afford the newest tech or not.
>>52332533 >>52332576 we should start a /tv/ charity, bringing 4k blue ray players and arthouse films to african children. they haven't eaten in days but that's no excuse to watch patrician films in less than UHD quality.
As of 2014, VCDs and DVDs are the norm for home media in the Philippines. Blu-ray discs are also available but are only displayed at small separate shelves at the counter. ---- How can we save children from poor image quality /g/?
>>52332754 VCDs are often produced and sold in Asian countries and regions, such as Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I hope so. The original blu ray standard only allowed for 24p, any other frame rate was shown interlaced. That's really fucked up a lot of silent releases, because the 24 fps standard wasn't really nailed down until the dawn of the sound era, so you either get janky interlaced versions, or versions that move too fast, or ones that are software interpolated by duplicating frames every so many frames. Another example of this is seen in the release of Oklahoma, which was shot in 70 mm Todd-AO, which used 70 mm and 30 fps. The blu ray release has a 35 mm reduction print version at 1080p 24 fps, and a 1080i Todd-AO version in 30 fps. The Todd-AO version looks a lot better and more effort was put into restoring it, but it's interlaced and that sucks.
>your local theater's have a 2k projector >on every single screen There's a handful of theaters than held onto a 35mm projector or two that show classic shit. It's pretty much the only thing's I go to now. >pay 11 bucks to see movie >it looks worse than a BD remux at home Nope.
>>52333444 I don't know of any that have true 10 bit panels, but that doesn't make having the content being intrinsically 10 bit worthless, because there will be TVs in the future that have 10 bit panels, and there are monitors right now with 10 bit panels.
>>52328490 >Digital does have the advantage since the more viewings in theater the shittier the movie would look when it was done with actual film. a good way to bypass that is shoot on film, scan it in at 4k, and do all processing at 4k then you never have to fuck with it
sadly most of the time they don't do that because >muh profits
>>52325499 I think 4K is an actually useful upgrade for TVs and monitors, compared to the utterly worthless 3D shit they tried peddling just a few short years ago.
The increase in quality is noticeable with the right source material. Personally speaking though, I hate it because most of my movies and shows are 720p MKV files to save space which cannot upscale for fucking shit on a 4K screen. That just means if I ever buy a 4K TV, I'll have to probably buy a new NAS as well.
>>52333140 Are you sure it's true interlacing and not Progressive segmented frame? Because 1080p30 can be encoded at 1080i without any loss of quality. Otherwise the encoding and authoring company are a bunch of retards.
Thread replies: 103 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 383356
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.