Is 4k blu ray the final format we'll ever need? I mean most

>>56995185
>HDR
I thought HDR was a color thing.......

>>56995185
> "the" final format

this meme again

>>56995237
you rather watch upscaled crap?

>>56995185
Yes, you can, but buy only those films mastered at 4k, because after that it will only be a "scale" thing. At some point streaming will allow higher definitions.

I saw some commentary once that it would have been better if it was 6k, as that would max out quality on most films. We may see 8k in the future as a future medium, some tech is being developed there, if they don't stop at 4k

>>56995185
>Can I finally start my definitive collection of films?
You can't rip them so unless you want to drop a lot of money on it then no.

>I mean most films are mastered at 4k. I don't think there's a point in going into a higher resolution.

sure there is, the larger the screen the more need for a higher resolution, especially these days as more and more shit is digital (in the film business)

*maybe* for the home screen things will stop at 4K, because you cannot appreciate the difference between say 4K and 8K unless you have a super huge screen (60+ inches) and/or you sit really close to the tv.

>>56995185
>HDR is a meme.

I honestly thought this thread would be serious. HDR is a bigger improvement than 1080p > 2160p.

>>56995185
It has the potential to be good, but current 4K Blu-rays discs are mostly all 66GB, which is not much of an improvement over the current discs. So they're cramming a higher resolution into a slightly larger capacity disc. 4K has four times the resolution that 1080 has, therefor it would also need roughly four times the storage capacity.

Of course you get the marginal 20-30% file size reduction for using H.265 over H.265. Still, 66GB is not enough for 4K.

>>56997442
>4K has four times the resolution that 1080 has
>4k is 4 times 1920
you fucked nig

>>56997538
2160p is 4x the resolution of 1080p

>>56997588
no it's not mong, it's twice
stop spreading memes
3840x2160p
1920x1080p

>>56997616
3840x2160 = 8294400 pixels
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

File: I CANNOT MAKE THIS EASIER FOR YOU.png (79KB, 4096x2160px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 4096x2160px

>>56997538
I know you're trolling, but:

2x1920=3840
2x1080=2160
3840x2160=4K

MP of 1920x1080=~2M
MP of 3840x2160=~8M

Did you skip preschool you god damn degenerate.

I have attached a picture for you in case the above is too complicated. Hint: the green 1080p rectangle fits inside the red rectangle 4 times.

>>56997442
The reason I still get all my films on Blu Ray is because the quality is noticeably higher than digital mediums.

iTunes has pretty decent 1080p quality at around 4-8GB per film, but I can stand online streaming.
Netflix 4K is what Netflix 1080p should be.

I haven't gotten any 4K blu rays yet, but I would bet a huge amount of money there is a HUGE difference between Blu Ray 4K and Streaming/downloaded 4K

>>56997616
>memes

>>56995185
>stupidbillgatesmemoryquote

Reminder that 8K is already a standard

>>56999270
8K is too much for 35mm film and commonly used digital cameras are not up to 8K yet. Heck, most new movies don't even get a 4K DCI.

>>56999360
As long as the customers buy a new TV to replace their old 4K, it doesn't matter

>>56999360
>8K is too much for 35mm film

Film has near infinite resolution.

>>56997716
I still get a lot of blu rays on blu ray too because grainy films look awful when they're compressed too much. When I download a grainy film the file size is usually between 20-25gb.

>>56999485
kek

File: 1463185404689.jpg (27KB, 353x353px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 353x353px

>>56997616

>>56999485
Sure, but the detail it is able to capture isn't. There's a cutoff point at around 4-6K where scanning the 35mm to a higher resolution adds no more detail.

If only good films were available on 4k right now