What is the fucking point of 4K you fucking mongoloids if 99%

anime is 720p though

File: file.png (48KB, 696x545px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 696x545px

>>59574401
kys

File: bait.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>59574370
>pirate bay
>seaching for bluray instead of 4k
>99% of sources are 1080

File: 4k.png (165KB, 1460x966px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1460x966px

>>59574370
what did he mean by this ?

>>59574460
> 1 release out of 100, mainly boring blockbuster capeshit
kys

>>59574496
> 1 out 100, mainly boring blockbuster capeshit, including upscaled taxi driver from 1976
kys

because millenials will buy every shit the jew promotes with acceptable ads and promoted stuff on metro and jewdroid.

c'mon, it's 5778 now, get an applel product.

a-are you poo-poor?

>>59574370
>What is the fucking point of 4K
To sell TVs to normies like you.

>>59574370
My PC monitor isn't a TV replacement and its main purpose isn't video playback, I have an actual TV to watch that on.

>>59574370
But my YouTube 4k60 videos beg to differ

>>59574606
enjoy your reaction videos, faggot

>>59574370
This is a great leap and one we knew was coming since the CES in 2014.

>>59574497

Discerning content thief is discerning.

>>59574370
"What is the point of the internal combustion engine since we already have trains, steam boats, and horse and carriage?"

-Anon 1888

>>59574370
>Videogames are for kids
>t. Video-without-game kids

>>59574370
Porn

>>59574370

Sources don't have sizes retard. You clearly don't know how it even works.

>>59574370
4K is obsolete, buy 8K 240Hz monitor.

>>59574370
Just think of how many emacs windows you could have...

>>59576111
With hi-res bitmap fonts.

>>59574456
It's not native.

>>59576146
Actually there's quite a bit of anime drawn at 1080p (for example Railgun). And for something like Mononoke, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a remastered 1080p version.

>>59574625
>reaction videos
Weak b8 m8

File: kys.jpg (13KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 224x216px

>>59574370
Once you're no longer a child you can pay for 4k

>>59574370
PPI

>>59576146
It was shot on film, it's probably native 4K.

File: fag_buys_music.jpg (82KB, 599x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 599x600px

>>59576786

>Not being a pirate until the day you die

Most UHD discs out right now are upscaled 2K DI's.

>>59574496
>60gb per movie
who the fuck would download this shit? maybe if you're ripping it to a bluray disc.. but aint nobody gonna keep a harddrive of about 10 fucking movies

>>59577165
realorfake4k.com

>>59577273
>he only has a 600GB HDD
Anon, get with the times. There are people with terabytes of storage. 60GB is a drop in the bucket.

>>59574511
>upscaled taxi driver from 1976

35mm is equivalent to 4k. 4k Blu-rays barely came out, of course the selection is small compared to 1080p. Are you too young to remember the switch from DVD to Blu-ray?

>>59577283
Is there a site with the same information that isn't in a layout designed by a 12 year old?

>>59577338
sure, on 4chan.
oh, wait...

>>59577314
What he meant is that taxi driver wasn't released on 4k bluray, not that it wasn't filmed in 35mm. That rip is just a shitty upscale some retard did of the 1080p bluray

>>59574370
On top of that good luck noticing the difference if you sit more than six feet away.

>>59574370
>What is the fucking point of 4K you fucking mongoloids if 99% of sources are 1080p?

> few years before...
What is the fucking point of 720p you fucking mongoloids if 99% of sources are 360p?

>>59574401
That's only true for TV anime made within the last 10 years or so.If it was made before the 2000s, chances are it has a native 1080p releases, and might get native 4K releases too someday.

>>59576146
>a high-budget animated movie drawn on cels
>not being natively >4K
Anon, please, don't embarass yourself.

>>59578080
It isn't.

I recall this same thread when 1080p was becoming a thing

>What's the point of 1080p if 99% of sources are 720p?
Because adaption happens over time with increases demand

>>59577809
If that's what he meant then why would the year be relevant?

>>59578926
that it's not taxi driver 1954
stop being a faggot who grasps at straws

>>59579076
Because when people say Taxi Driver they think of some obscure Bollywood movie? Who's the one grasping at straws here? lamo

>>59579076
pajeet spotted

>>59579105
>muh 35mm
>muh 4k
it's an upscale from the 1080p bluray anyways, straw grasping faggot
you should shove a 4k tv up your ass since you're so obsessed with it ;^)

>>59577298
oh sorry having 20 movies and one t.v series
real fucking improvement...
60gb files are retarded large and will be until we have 100s if not thousands of terrabytes at our disposal.

>>59574496
None of those are taken from a 4k source, they're taken by capping a 4k source screen, which isn't going to give you a 1 to 1 copy, there will be degradation in quality.

There exists no current way to get a full remux from a 4k bluray, which is why most people just go for the 1080p source as it will be comparable quality for a lower bitrate than a screen capped 4k source.

>>59579221
Just on one of my HDDs I could store over 60 60GB movies. Like I said, it's a drop in the bucket.

>>59579212
You sound perturbed. Did someone rape your mother and filmed it in 4k?

>>59574370
I can fit more code on my screen when I USE COMPUTERS TO DO WORK.

>>59579244
>None of those are taken from a 4k source, they're taken by capping a 4k source screen, which isn't going to give you a 1 to 1 copy
pff not even that, they're just upscales except for the martian that some yify tier mongoloid did

>>59579290
Fair enough, I'm used to private trackers which you can actually find some things from a 4k screen cap, but most of the people in the private tracker scene know it's just bullshit until they can get a real Remux from a 4k source, so the majority of people still are downloading 1080p remux's or encodes based of the 1080p remuxes.

>>59579261
t. goy who's desperately trying to justify getting jewed for something with no content and on which he can't notice any difference
;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

>>59574370
>3gb rips
literally lower quality than dvd

File: coincidences.jpg (22KB, 388x149px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 388x149px

4K is the flac of resolutions

>>59579310
I'm not even that guy. I don't even have a 4k TV. I just want to know what's making 4k trigger your PTSD so hard.

Even phone camera supports 4k these days.

>>59579357
1080p triggers your inner goy really hard man, you should seek help, it's not healthy

>>59579375
Nothing wrong with 1080p bruh. Where'd you get that from? I'm not triggered by any resolution. I love it all. Some shit looks better in SD even for that nostalgic feeling.

>>59579400
>denial
you're in the first phase, you really need help with your consumerist ways and the guilt and denial they bring you
seek psychological help, seriously

>>59579425
Do you watch things on a projector by chance?

>>59579438
>changing the subject cause it embarrasses you
seriously stop trying to project your insecurities on me and seek help, you¡ll thank me in the future

>>59579462
Why are we talking about me? I asked the question first.

>>59579244
>1080p source as it will be comparable quality for a lower bitrate than a screen capped 4k source.

You can say the same about 720p for many sources though. It's the sweet spot. There's always going to be diminishing returns the higher you go. I don't care about sizes though so I'll grab the 4k if it's there.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=152897

>>59579540
Lol shut the fuck up.

A 1080p source compared to a 720p source, 1080p is better, period, fact, end of statement.

1080p source compared to a 4k source, 4k wins everytime, end of statment.

1080p source compared to a 4k screen cap, 1080p source wins every time end of statement.


If there were a 4k source, sure I'd agree, but there fucking isn't, you're getting an upscaled 1080p rip, or a screen cap of a 4k bluray at BEST, and neither of those will beat out the quality of a 1080p remux.

>>59579843
I literally just posted a comparison that says otherwise but ok whatever you say

>>59579877
You didn't do any such thing, i'd bet you $20 that screen shot comparison is using a fucking encode, NOT a remux.

IE you're taking the 1080p source, then compressing it further to encode it into a manageable file size.

The other is either a 1080p upscaled shot, or a 4k screen cap, and in either case EVEN if it is a higher bitrate than the 1080p source file, will have lower quality.


Show me a comparison from source, not an encode dumbass.

>>59579891
I have a remux of it somewhere but I'd have to find it. I can tell you now that a proper encode doesn't degrade the quality that much though. Honestly you can do this yourself though. Do you not have a PTP account?

>>59579915
Yeah, let me just go ahead and download a ~28GB remux AND a ~30-40GB 4k upscale just to prove a point.

BRB in 2 hours.

>>59579934
Well you're basically asking me to do the same. I don't care enough that your autism doesn't allow you to see proof when it's right in your face.

>>59579949
You're the one pretending 4k rips are better than 1080p despite the fact there exists currently no known way to get a full bitrate 4k remux.

>>59579955
And you're pretending it's not without any proof besides your word. I at least posted something. What's your point?

>>59579962
>I posted something that is labeled 1080p and 4k therefore it's valid

I have no idea the sources of those screenshots, why should I give a fuck?

blacked is in 4k

>>59580044
>or the rips that are really 4k
is this a joke?

There is LITERALLY no physical way to get a full bitrate 4k rip, so what the fuck are you talking about?

There are NO rips that
>are really 4k

>>59579990
I don't know why. Maybe because you're wrong and you should further investigate so you can enjoy a higher quality than Blu-ray like I've been doing? I mean, for the rips that are really 4k it doesn't exactly need a side by side comparison to see the quality difference unlike downloading a decent encode vs a remux which needs a far more discerning eye.

>>59580055
So are compressed 1080p encodes not 1080p then? It's not like it's a YIFY 4k encode here. They're at least 50 gigs for the real ones. Regardless if you want to be technical about it, it still looks better than a 1080p Remux.

>>59580055
amazon and netflix

>>59580099
lolol, considering a 1080p remux can be 30Mb/s+ this is a joke right?

The 4k from netflix and amazon is between 15-25mb/s a far cry from even a 1080p source.

>>59574370
>implying I don't have a 1080ti to run supersampled VR

you are like a little baby

see you in 2019

>>59580099
that's bitstarved trash you pleb

File: [].jpg (269KB, 2576x1080px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 2576x1080px

>anyone who stream 4k is a pleb
>anyone who pirates 4k is a pleb
>anyone who buys 4k is a cuck
does anything please you people

>>59580526
It's simply too early to bother with 4k, unless you have BRAND new everything, you basically can't even watch 4k on a computer.

UHD bluray playback requires a BRAND fucking new UHD bluray player that just released this month. It REQUIRES Windows 10, AND a 7xxx series intel CPU with the SGX instruction set. And you have to use the iGPU, or a GTX 10xx series GPU.

>>59580673
That's only for hw playback. You can software decode it fine as long as you don't have a toaster. My 3Ghz Xeon does it just fine.

>>59580740
...No, there is no physical way to playback a UHD bluray disc without that.


To stream 4k from netflix or Amazon also requires a new intel CPU for the DRM.

You can playback unprotected 4k content, but that doesn't mean shit for movies since there is no current way for pirates to get a 4k source the BEST you can get is a 4k stream from amazon or netflix which is bitstarved shit, or you can screen capture a 4k UHD bluray player playing on a 4k TV, but this isn't a lossless option and so it isn't the same as being able to get a full bitrate Remux of the bluray.

tldr, the only 4k content you can watch without Windows 10 + an intel 7xxx series CPU is unprotected content like 4k samples you find online for encoding tests and other purposes. Maybe some user generated 4k content. But no full movies or anything the majority of people would care about.

File: 1489887633436.jpg (2MB, 3840x2178px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2178px

>>59580774
I don't need a full Blu-ray to enjoy 4k

File: 1479788819170.jpg (13KB, 259x206px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x206px

>>59580812
alright then, have fun. The rest of the world will continue to wait for a more sensible way to enjoy higher definition content.

>>59574370
people said the same about 1080p in 2005 or so. but now everything is in 1080p!

>>59580837
Like what? The rest of the world is using Netflix and already enjoying it. If you mean the autismos that have to have a lossless Blu-ray to enjoy 4k then that's a minority.

>>59580882
The majority are on 720p or 1080p still and aren't even giving a fuck about 4k.

>>59580901
So a minority of a minority then i.e. (You)

>>59580858
!!

File: medium01.jpg (72KB, 940x620px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 940x620px

21" 4k monitor
currently using 21" 1080p

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/8751-tpb

>>59574370
There's loads of 4k content on YouTube.

>>59579332
It should be a meme
Srsly 16gb per 1 movie? What purpose? Only videophile retard does

Why wouldn't I store movies in full quality when I have the drive space for it? Even a Blu-ray quality FullHD remux takes more space than that.

>>59581233
for >>59581207

File: Red Velvet - Happiness (Master).mov_thumbs_[2017.03.26_01.31.54].jpg (648KB, 1024x646px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 1024x646px

>>59581207
I have music videos that are over 1 GB. The quality is so much better than what you see on TV. It's worth every bit.

>>59576102
bait.jpg

>>59574370
>What is the fucking point of 4K you fucking mongoloids if 99% of sources are 1080p?

Already, release groups push out 2160p 7.1 FLAC / ATMOS / TRUEHD movies that are really high in quality.
Additionally, even 1080p movies look really really good on the higher dpi displays.

>>59574370
Some of us didn't buy a 4k for entertainment

>>59574370
>gaming on 4K
What retard does this?

>not buying 4k blurays yourself and creating lossless rips to store on your 20TB NAS
enjoy your blocky "technically 4k" shit.

>>59574370
>public trackers
wew

File: 1490467824406.png (185KB, 1095x901px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1095x901px

>>59574370
Only one could be even remotely classified as 1080p bluray...

>>59577273
A decent 1080p movie is around 30-45GB...

>>59581207
Only 16GB?
Is it a 40 minute video you're referring to?

>>59579877
You literally blind. The "2160p" image has an obvious sharpening filter. Use a sharpening filter on 1080p and get the exact same effect.

Old movies look like shit anyway unless you drop below 720p.

>>59579891
His second picture has obviously a sharpening filter. It looks distorted + sharpened. Filters don't add details, just the delusion of them.

Because I can stuff more shit on the screen. Because of side-progressions like HDR and Oled the 4k televisions look better anyways

>>59585391
>Old movies look like shit anyway unless you drop below 720p.
You are a fucking retard. "OLD MOVIES" (fucking embryo nigger) that were filmed in 35mm, 75mm and everything in between translate amazingly too 1080 or 2160

>>59585412
>35mm, 75mm and everything in between translate amazingly too 1080 or 2160
Please kill yourself. You know nothing about photography. First of all 35mm looks like absolute shit compared to 70mm.

>>59574370
Spreadsheets, desktop publishing, coding with reference in another window.

what mm is games filmed at?

>>59585423
Fucking end yourself stupid retard, its dependent on film-fucking-stock and there are great films done with 35mm + great film stock quality = easy translate to 1080 and beyond. 35mm is asbout the bottom range required for good quality 4k transfer.

Fucking stupid faggot go back to v

File: file.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>59585423
>35mm looks like absolute shit compared to 70mm.
Truth. Kubrick started as a Photographer and it's why Space Odyssey 2001 - one of the first 70mm movies - looks like an 80s movie when it's from fucking 1968. Whoever says 35mm movies look great is an illiterate manchild.

File: file.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>59585449
You are an illiterate manchild. 35mm films look like utter crap. Kubrick started as a Photographer, filmed SO 2001 in 70mm, and it's why it looks like an 90s movie when it was made in fucking 1968.

>>59574370
>if you game your opinion doesn't matter
>desktop sales stagnating
>custom builds for gaming only thing keeping the market alive
Heh
Go back to your Chinkpad and 768p screen, cave man.

>>59585479
enjoy your 20FPS retard

File: 1kino.png (1MB, 1280x909px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x909px

>>59585472
>>59585472
>>59585452
>Kubrick embryo.
>not even refuting the point.
Why don't you start by watching more films, embryo?

>>59585501
> 1280x909
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
you can't make this shit up

>>59585509
? do you unironically think 1920x980 is some godsent video resolution

besides, watch more films imdbaby

File: file.png (675KB, 1255x571px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1255x571px

Truth is even 70mm is kinda grainy. The film-toddlers have to shut up. If it ain't digital it ain't shit.

Sure, you can "capture" even 1mm film, but it will be dirt and grainy horseshit.

File: 1479692931801.jpg (97KB, 899x419px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 899x419px

4k vid is nice af, it's just that there is zero content except for demos.

>>59574496
fuckin literally nothing.

File: file.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

70mm does have some clarity not found in the shittier 35mm films, but it's still kinda fuzzy/grainy/blurry, only the same illiterate toddlers that pretend vinyl music is relevant believe in that shit.

>>59585540
>Zero content.
lol?
http://www.blu-ray.com/4k/

and more restorations coming each day

literally who even sits down to watch films anymore anyway?
games are objectively better because you can control the outcome, and Tv and youtube are cut up into more convenient chunks to quickly watch.
Who is sitting down for a full 90 minutes or longer and not moving at all?

File: file.png (2MB, 1240x775px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1240x775px

>>59585554
>restorations
If you magnify grainy shit you get magnified grainy shit.

70mm already look like grainy shit. You would need 200.

And most of those shitty movies were HALF of 70mm.

>>59585554
thats all shit. nothing there that justifies buying a capable player. commit suicide.

>>59574370
>What is the fucking point of 4K you fucking mongoloids if 99% of sources are 1080p?

You can watch 4 movies at the same time on the same screen without loss of quality.

>>59585571
Not to mention they add more fine digital grain during post-processing.

File: goodfellas_1.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>59585571
Good thing I am not an embryo triggered by film grain then. Go back to watching capeshit. I own a 4k television and there is no issue watching restorated 35mm or above films in it if the film stock wasn't shit.

>>59585588
t. total pleb, besides you can watch non-4k material with them too.

>>59585628
You are literally mentally deficient, child. That grain means you already magnify into grainy shit instead of actual detail. It's why most ancient movies on 35mm look almost identical on 720p and 1080p, anything above 720p on them is approximately nothing.

You are literally the same level of retarded with the mongoloids that think vinyl records are better than digital music.

File: 1.png (2MB, 1899x920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1899x920px

>>59585571
the graininess gives it character you fuck.
I actually use a filter on modern movies to make them more filmic.

>>59585639
Plus, it's why The Walking Dead looks almost identical on 720p and 1080p, those fucking retards use on purpose a grainy/shitty film technique and it's impossible to get any actual detail above 720p or maybe even worse in some cases.

>>59585644
>graininess gives it character
Fuck off with the other illiterate assholes stuck into vinyl record music. Those that have an actual brain know that that grainy shit from film is not detail, it's fucking chemical process dirt.

>>59574370
99% of plebs don't give a fuck about 4k and don't even have a 4k display.

That's why there's not a lot of 4k rips on the largest lowest common denominator pleb-tier PUBLIC tracker on the planet.

If you want good shit, put in some fucking effort and get on a private tracker.

File: h8.jpg (1MB, 3840x1396px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x1396px

>>59585639
It still looks better because it's RESTORED, they've fixed deficiencies in the original release and because the upscaling of the TV panel is better too, not to talk about the player itself. I am not talking about watching the Wind from '28 in its original 480 form you dumbfuck.

>you sound vinyl music blahblah
And you are one of those 1280x800 running laptop users crying about VLC and anime probably tqbhwy

>>59585677
>RESTORED
It's already grainy shit on 720p you iliterate manchild. Do you even realize, even 1080p can't capture something more, approximately?

>>59585651
its ironic that the walking dead looked better in the first seasons then it does now. why is tv turning into such shit???

>>59585656
i somewhat agree with this. film movies can look good though. best example are meme films like saving private ryan and fight club.

>>59585692
>It's already grainy shit on 720p.
Why do you assume they fucking filmed films in the fucking 60-70s to 720p? Why are you assuming they are restoring it from VHS or DVD release?

Full frame of 35mm is nearly 20mpix/5400x3600. THEY DO NOT FUCKING RESTORE IT from their goddamn DVD disc, but from the >>>original print<<<.

God you are actually so stupid you need to hang yourself out of shame.

>>59585700
>the walking dead looked better in the first seasons
That show is known to be cucked by its producers/the money. Some of its core original people actually left. Look it up.

>>59585700
>film movies can look good
They can look not-bad entirely but even 70mm seems to be grainy already on 720p. Even 1080p seems capped.

>>59585713
You are a narcissistic illiterate manchild. Nobody is talking about restoring DVD or VHS you stupid retard. Where you are stupid is that you don't understand, shitty 35mm film is grainy chemical shit anyway, and even 70mm film already looks grainy as fuck even on 720p.

And the notion that you believe chemicals have an inherent digital resolution in them should make you kys.

>>59585748
You are talking about fucking 720p. films when I'm talking about restored original prints to 4K or FHD which work perfectly fine, granted the film stock wasn't dog's ass (as such as is the case no matter what mm film is being restored or viewed)

You just got btfo. since your first retort was a fucking ad hominem, and have no arguments.

>Nobody is.
You were when you couldn't stop blogging about 720p. Probably because you only have TN panel laptop and your first mental connection is, when you hear film "muh 720p rips in YIFY"

>shitty film is shit
No shit, that's why I said good film stock.

>Looks grainy
get triggered pleb.

And I didn't even compare the chemical process to fucking resolution. I roughly compared the megapixels to resolution which is applicable.

Watch more films and buy an actual monitor instead of your laptop pleb.

File: file.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>59585777
> I am literally blind to the grain shit of restored chemical film before even reaching 1080p, let alone 4K
fuck off, enough with your manchild bullshit

>>59585821
>pic

I see more serious problems with that restoration than just grain.

>>59577273
>2017
>only 600gb drive
>keeping your movies
>no 1gbit internet
Do you live in Timbuktu?

>>59581207
I try to go after the original versions of things. I downloaded The Terminator Regraded because it includes as an alternate track the original, unaltered, mono audio, and I thought I might as well go with the 16GB neutrally-colored version because it would be the highest quality. Also, each movie from the Star Wars Deapecialized Original Trilogy takes up about 20GB.

>>59585246
>1080p movie is around 30-45GB
what the flying fuck are you talking about
a perfect x264 release is around 7-12gb in size

>>59577273
People with standards you retarded piece of shit

File: 1449078741_6103852479_sharpened.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>59585391
>Use a sharpening filter on 1080p and get the exact same effect.

No, not even close. You can see detail in that image that wouldn't be there otherwise. Sharpening looks really fucking obvious. I guess you haven't seen many DNR upres Blu-rays but they look exactly like this trying to sharpen.


Since you're just going to complain about the sharpening job, here's the file. Go ahead and try it yourself.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/images/1449078741_6103852479.png

I heard Formula 1 is 4K now.

Still watching 420p YouTube streams om by "HD ready" TV though.

>>59582434
you know they're just ripped from the web right

>>59585713
>Full frame of 35mm is nearly 20mpix/5400x3600.

That's a PHOTOGRAPHY frame and it's closer to 8MPix
35mm MOVIE frames are about half that: around 4MPix

File: a.png (175KB, 998x691px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 998x691px

>>59574370
at least there's plenty of UHD porn

>>59581207
you're kidding, right? good 1080p sources are bigger than that

>>59579877
your comparison images are both 1920x1080, all you'd shown is that the masters are different/different filters were used

File: jon-stewart-confused-what.gif (482KB, 245x183px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 245x183px

>>59578080
>made after 2000
>not 1080p
>made before 2000
>native 1080p

>>59586894
It's just cropped in so 1080plebs won't have an issue. Here's the full image comparison in 4k.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/157203/picture:4

>>59586939
That's actually true, but for 4k not 1080p

35mm film translates very well to a 4k digital conversion.
Digital cameras, up until very recently, did not record at 4k resolution. Onky David Fincher films I can think of were 4k native. Even the Martian and Fury Road were barely higher then 2k in quality, which is like 10% more pixels than 1080p

File: a.png (648KB, 1392x882px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 1392x882px

>>59586549
left side: "1080p" example, with blurred noise added
right side: "4k" example as-is

the point is work and games
also HDR

>>59586978
It's more that the post production industry is lagging behind, not the cameras. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was one of if not the first to have a 4k digital intermediate but the Red One could do that 5 years prior. The Martian was shot in 6k but they used a 2k DI for whatever reason.

>>59574370
>What is the fucking point of 4K you fucking mongoloids if 99% of sources are 1080p?

I can have a crisper font that occupies the same physical space on the screen.

Also, the diagonal line aliasing effect is less noticeable.

Yes, I was fully aware that there was very little 4K content when I first bought the monitor.

However....

> Search TPB for "4D"
> Get 1301 hits
> Very few are porn anymore -- they're mostly legit movies now
> mfw I'm enjoying a bunch of 4K movies on my 4K monitor

So that pouty butthurt attitude in your post just doesn't ring true for me.

Font scaling

440PPI on my phone, 125 on my desktop monitor? Don't you see the issue? If you read a lot of on a monitor, you better have nice, smooth fonts.

But 2K is already good enough for that on 25 inch displays and such.

>>59587062
They have different color gradings so just cropping and calling it split isn't going to work, you do realize this right?

>>59587250
what are you on about?

>>59587276
They're different masters, the BD has a redder skin tone and is overall dimmer. That doesn't just magically disappear with a noise filter.

File: a.webm (2MB, 1620x988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1620x988px

>>59587307
no, i tweaked the hue/brightness slightly as well, the point is more about the supposed "extra detail"

my point is that this is a bad example of a 4K video (or even 1080p video, there's that little apparent detail), it's easy to mistake noise for detail, more noise doesn't always mean there's more detail

>>59587447
That's pretty well done I have to admit. I still think you're cherry picking an area with low detail to begin with and you can see a difference in areas like his beard even with your values but it is closer than what I thought. I think this just has to do with old film stock being what it is.

File: halfhalf.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>59587726
i did cherry pick
in fact, i chose the face because faces are symmetrical, i wanted to have similar content on either side to keep it fair

it's worth saying that i don't think they just added more noise and adjusted the gamma, the 4k image IS sharper, it's just buried under so much additional noise that it's hard to see

>>59574370
Good morning.

>>59587914
>>59587726
-- should say, the hair and beard do have the most notable difference, though i didn't deliberately avoid them
the original crop was literally just what i got when opening it in gimp and zooming to 100%

>>59585552
Vinyl is relevant because it's not compressed to shit like digital music is. I don't give a shit about muh warmth or muh crackiness like vinyl autists do, but most modern music production is just terrible quality and vinyl lessens the issues.

>>59588882
No it doesn't. You have to get a vinyl before the modern production trend. In which case the improved quality also implies for CDs too. The medium is not the issue but the production

File: 1490138438253.jpg (32KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x500px

>>59574370
>WHATS THE POINT EXCEPT FOR GAYMING OFC (THAT IS THE ACTUAL POINT) BUT HEY IF YOU ANSWER THAT YOU ARE STUUUUPID.

>>59588919
Vinyl music can only be compressed so much due to physical limitations, CD's don't have that limitation. A modern vinyl record will still sound better than a modern CD.

>>59582434
holy shit, do you really listen to this music?

>>59588980
>A modern vinyl record will still sound better than a modern CD

>"better"

OK, whatever you say.

>>59574700
this thbbqlgbtqtia+

the human eye cant see past 30fps and is incapable of differentiate between 1080p and 4K

stop wasting your money on Jewish tricks

>>59574370
>pirating shit like a nigger
Every recent release worth considering has 4K blu ray available. For $30. 4K TVs can be had for $300-$400. If you're not 4K ready you might as well move to fucking Kenya.

>>59589474
>4k tv can be had for 300 dollars
its not real 4k

>>59587097
True

Gone girl was shot in 5k and actually reframed in 4k so Fincher could have perfect composition in every shot

The absolute madman

>>59587118
This
I use 125% scaling on my 24" 4k monitor

It's glorious

>>59589606
which model?

>>59589633
Samsung UE590

It's a 4k pls panel with 100% sRGB and a 4ms response time with freesync

>>59589650
>>59589633
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-ue590-series-u24e590d-24-led-4k-uhd-freesync-monitor-metallic-silver-high-glossy-black/5712643.p

>>59589429
>the human eye can't see past 30fps
https://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
>incapable of differentiating between 1080p and 4k
that depends completely on the size of the screen and how far away it is

File: 30vs60.webm (566KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 960x540px

>>59589429

>>59589429
(You)

Human eye can see above 250fps that I know of. I did the HZ test on a 250hz monitor with moving images, it was 24 or 27 gaymen monitor.

>>59589981
>>59589868
>falling for an obvious bait

>>59586939
>being this dense
ayy lmao

>>59574370
>What is the fucking point of 4K you fucking mongoloids if 99% of sources are 1080p?
Remember when there was axid avis and the 1080p appeared, some anon said the same dumb thing.

>>59581207
16gb? Make it 100+.

40" 4k monitor-user reporting in. I can have a bunch of windows open at once all in view. It's efficient and convenient.

I also have a 65" 4k TV, and it's nice but admittedly not as beneficial as my monitor.

>>59585940
yes
*120gb drive

>>59581207
high quality is at least 20gb.

>>59585452
>>59585472
>it has anything to do with 70mm vs 35mm
your posts are cringe

>>59590533
can't wait to hear you complain about that sweet self-inflicted neck strain in 20 years senpai

ROGUE ONE IS OUT????????

>>59574496
>upscaled
Into the trash it goes

>>59591150
Digital edition is, disc doesn't come out till 4/4.

>>59574370
4 Windows open at the same time html CSS js and browser.

File: 1490507454755.png (424KB, 805x828px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 805x828px

>>59574370
>People are actually downloading a 1080p 2GB hour and a half movie

File: Real.Time.With.Bill.Maher.2017.03.18.Sheldon.Whitehouse-Barney.Frank-Andrew.Sullivan.720p.WEBRip.2CH.x265.HEVC-PSA.mkv.jpg (326KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1280x720px

>>59592283

x265 rips are putting out some amazing quality for small file size.

pic related: screenshot from a 56 minute, 185MB file.

>209 replies

Mods please ban everyone who replied to this thread.

File: 2017-03-27-061047_1920x1080_scrot.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>59592283
x265 is pretty amazing

pic related, a 2.7G encode i did

File: 1488026468932.png (137KB, 466x492px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 466x492px

Because 1080p would be about 5 PPI on my 32" screen.

>>59591150
Yes, too bad it's garbage.

>>59574606
What do you usually watch, anon?

File: asperger_audiophile.jpg (74KB, 698x426px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 698x426px

>>59585246