Second pirated UHD Bluray Disc has been released.

>>60715946
4K is still a meme.

>>60716069
if you have a 1440p or 2160p monitor you're retarded if you don't download/stream 4k if possible.

>>60715946
So it wasn't an error in the encryption like wiseasses said last time?

My NAS isn't ready for this..

File: 1493849483030.jpg (29KB, 330x250px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 330x250px

>netflix 4k videos BTFO earlier this week
>UHD blurays confirmed BTFO as well now
good, good

>>60715946
>russian text
russians always get shit done when it comes to tech and piracy shit. kek

File: 1419005457478.png (13KB, 676x615px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 676x615px

>>60716697
OP here, yeah it seems to have been posted first at UHDClub (Russian site), which I'm a member at. They are being pretty quiet about how they are doing it. Just leaving us to guess.

>>60716666
It was a nearly 90GB file.

>>60716830
So how's the file size?

>>60716069
on 40 inch "monitors" it is.

Get something smaller and don't sit several arms length away and see that 4K isn't a meme.

File: 1444459839273.jpg (83KB, 263x371px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 263x371px

>>60716867

magnet?

>>60716867
does that mean these new discs at BR XL /100GB ?


One of the reasons you needed a new BR player for the discs was because it was HEVC, since it was required to use the next generation codec to make 4K video not take up hundreds of gigs.

What is a meme is that some of the "UHD" films were not even filmed in 4K so its not possible for it to be 4K without scaling

>>60716875
90gb for the full UHD BD and 65gb for the remux

File: Untitled1.png (106KB, 870x867px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 870x867px

>>60716894
I take that back, it was nearly 82GB in total for the entire disc and then nearly 72GB for the main movie.

>>60716955
Site i'm on has the 90GB disc files, but i'm too lazy to DL.

I'll wait for the remux if at all.

File: 1495827152479.png (651KB, 755x565px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 755x565px

>mfw would rather just download a 1gb~ x265 rip because I really don't give a rat's ass about "muh mega high DEF XD" since I'm not a monster size faggot

>>60717016
Instead you're a monster size faggot for having no standards

File: 1492664845872.jpg (98KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1000x800px

>>60716949
Filming in 4K and higher has been around for more than a decade or more now. I think what you are talking about is the fact that much of the post processing is done in 2k with 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 chroma. Like even that recent Mars movie with Matt Damon went through 2k downsampling during processing. On the chroma side this does not really matter because 4k movies are still 4:2:0 but the luma quality (Black and white) takes a hit.

They do this cause they say that processing in 4k is too much of a strain.

>>60715946
This is very good news, not that I'm excited to fill up my NAS with 90GB movies but I expect you could get a decent rip in 20-30GB HEVC. That's what I'm looking forward to.

>>60716986
Yeah there is the original disc which is 82GB, and then what they claim is the first re-authored UHD Disc at 86GB. Both of the same movie.

>>60717082
take for example Fury Road
it was never in 4K at any point.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392190/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Yet you can get a "UHD" "4K" BR of this movie


it certainly doesn't help that film makers use different resolutions and aspect ratios, so one scene might be filmed in 4K, another one is 6K, another one is 3K depending on what is needed.

>>60717016
This. Will only watch movies once.

>>60717016
Do you hate yourself that much?

>>60717186
yeah looks like the camera they mostly used the Arri Alexa M (2.8K) and the ARRI ALEXA Plus (1080p). Kinda makes sense since it is Mad Max with nothing but vehicle scenes. Which needs mobile cameras and maybe the better cameras are heavier.

The Martian was shot in 6k and 4k (with a Gopro lol)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

>>60716830
How can us /g/oys get access to the file? I have a 4k monitor sounds like it would be neat

File: 1496140509973.png (526KB, 870x652px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 870x652px

>>60717016
>mfw my TV is still only 720p and shitty TVrips look fine so I have no reason to upgrade

>90gb to see Mahk Wahlburger's nose hairs swish back and forth as he breathes
you faggots are pretty fucking stupid

the entire point of 4K is to get better versions of classic nude scenes

>all these poorniggers upset because they can't enjoy full bd-rips/4k rips
lel

Meh, I don' t really care about 4K or the accompanying file sizes that go with it cause my main set is a 65" 1080p that does the job damn well and I don't ever plan to go beyond 65" cause my living room just don't need anything bigger for good viewing angle from the sitting arrangements. Now if I had a jumbo 90" or some big ass projector then I could maybe see it. All my content 480/720/1080 all looks nice and clear on the set so again no reason for change. I still use a damn DVD player for gods sake

File: RIP.png (331KB, 401x586px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 401x586px

>>60718348
>>60718348
>I still use a damn DVD player for gods sake

OP here, I have a growing VHS collection of forgotten documentaries and news programs that never made it to DVD. Makes me comfy. I've not even downloaded the movie I created this thread on, cause I don't care for the file size or the movie.

>>60716069
Ju..just download this 25 gb file.

>>60716087
4K looks much better than 1080p even on a 1080p monitor.

>>60718348
oh, my cable provider's box don't support 4K and I'm sure that they'd charge an arm and a leg for the whole 4k experience (New box + channels if they even offered it). Same applies for my WD Live player, it don't support 4K (1080p max) So let's see, new TV, new cable box, new streaming media player all be able to get 4K support for everything which oh yes, I don't really need 4K to start with cause my damn living room ain't a monster size concert hall. oh and not to mention spending more money to upgrade my server storage to accommodate all those 80GB 4k rips.

lol, it's kinda like the whole "get HD it'll look so much better on that wee little 20" crt tube tv" craze that was real popular back in the day. No it won't, 480p is all that you need for small tvs cause of the screen size. Now once you moved up in tv size that's when HD really shined.

>>60718542
come again

>>60718678

Not him but, any resolution footage higher than the resolution of the panel its displayed on is going to look more crisp. Its called super-sampling. Watching 1440p videos on my 1366x768 display looks more crisp than native resolution videos.

>>60718678
when it downscales to 1080p it has more color meta data to use for a more accurate 1080p viewing than the 1080p encode.


Bitrate matters even if you're downscaling.

32 inch tv in my bedroom is 720p and it looks fine from the viewing distance of the couch. i feel like 4k only becomes beneficial once you hit like 60 inch or something / you're sitting close to the screen

>>60718725
I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 40" TV at 6-8 feet without much difficulty. 4k is even more obvious simply because how crisp it looks (assuming you're viewing 4k source material)

>>60718488
How does it feel to not have a gigabit connection?

>>60715946
Why won't publishers release drm free 4k movies? I would buy them but I guess I have to resort to piracy to get what I want.

>>60715946
Has anyone here downloaded it?

Is the quality really there? They haven't had to circumvent the encryption by screengrabbing or something?

>>60715946
American hero worship is a fucking joke

>>60718768
>I can tell the difference

no you can't

>>60717016
this

I take my movies in the 2-8gb range. higher quality is great and all, but there's a point of diminishing returns.

>>60717016
>since I'm not a monster size faggot
why the hate? are people not allowed to enjoy some high def video?

>>60722750
Are you kidding me? 720p looks like complete garbage compared to 1080p on a big screen.

I occasionally watch Twitch on my 48 inch TV and the differences between the 2 resolutions are night and day

>>60722934
>why the hate? are people not allowed to enjoy some high def video?
It goes both ways.

>>60721269
Pretty awful, desu.

>>60718542
That's because of encoding settings. There is no reason 4k should look better than properly encoded 1080p on 1080p screen.

>>60722975
You don't appreciate film if you don't care about quality and viewing experience. A consumerist anti-art pleb of the lowest common denominator; just trash. But I suppose you'd fit right in with /consumerism general #x/ in the catalog.

This is yuge.
How should i play this? I need a new affordable setup anyway since im doing plex to my tv and ARC, the sound is fucking awful for normal blu ray rips already.

>>60722986
If the 4k transfer itself is good, then a downscale will look better than a 1080 transfer. But are any of these 4k BDs an actual 4k transfer? And even if they are, some transfers are simply bad; you see this all the time across BD releases, and so really resolution doesn't factor into. For example, the French BD of Le Samourai is actually worst in terms of detail and color authenticity than the Criterion DVD.

>>60716069
720 and 1080 is enough, more than that is just pure bloat.

>>60723061
>720
Why do people meme themselves like this?

Is HDR working?
That's literally all that matters IMHO.

>>60718467
there's a group on cinemageddon who would love to convert it for you

>>60723061
>i've never had any actual experience with a 4k screen and 4k source material to compare to 1080p of the same or similar size.

It's okay anon, but you shouldnt lie.

>>60715946
>4k ultra hd
which one it is?
Fuck these ignorants faggots

File: 2tsdDCc.jpg (81KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x379px

>>60723215
Convert what, my VHS tapes? I'm into capping VHS tapes to my computer with my higher end SVHS machine with a built in TBC. Just did not know there were trackers for that.

>>60723215
RIP
http://cinemageddon.org/

Are there trackers that carry these rips?

I'm comfy with my CRT with my snes,ps1 and ps2. Even youtube 360p videos look like HD. I also watch HD content on it because black levels and contrast are far better than any 4k tv.

>>60723520
yes

>>60723524
You either have one of the most expensive CRTs released, or you're actually retarded.

Probably just retarded since even the best CRTs would look like shit compared to an OLED 4k.

>>60723579
have fun with your 200ms post-processing input lag and ugly interpolated non 4k content.

>>60723683
>200ms post-processing input lag
wow you really have been memed too hard to actually know facts.

REAL input lag is generally 35-100ms. With better TVs being below 50ms.


Not to fucking mention, there are monitors with 4k res that can be paired with whatever GPU you want so the GPU is doing post processing.

>>60716887

4K is still a meme. You're placeboing yourself if you think otherwise.

>>60722934

No, they are self-deluding faggots that need to be removed from the gene pool.

>>60723722
t. man who's never used 4k

>>60717320
>Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)

File: lesarcs-filmfest-2013-12-22-201213-445.jpg (138KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x679px

>buy 4k TV
>1080p now look like upscale garbage and my HTPC just caught fire trying to upscale it
yaaay

If the file is 90gb.
Better I buy genuine bluray disc

>>60722917
you're just blind.
but scene rips are junk.
my the martian encoded with 8bit x264 came out at 7GB and btfo scene 10 or 14GB rips.
10 bit will probably get 10% smaller.

>>60723420
>LO as mattress
what did he mean by this?

>>60715946
Waiting for my pre-order of Your Name..

With 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray finally cracked, I can just use whatever magic they used and enjoy my 4K wallpapers when it comes out.

>>60718713
not in all cases.

>play bluray in VLC
>record fullscreen in good 4K quality

I don't get it, how was there ever any difficulty pirating a bluray?

>>60724137
screen capture is not a source encode you moron.

>>60723702
> he fell for the flat jew tv meme
my CRT has 0ms input lag and infinite contrast

>>60724157
>and infinite contrast
wew lad

>>60724137
>play bluray in VLC
How exactly again? You can only do that if the Blu-ray is unencrypted, in which case you don't even need to play it in VLC, just open your favorite transcoding application and start transcoding.

>>60724167
are you a millenial? kys

>>60724188
I'm not saying it doesn't have infinite contrast I'm more just impressed you can fool yourself into thinking that matters when you're only on 480p res.

Wew fucking lad, if you think your infinite contrast ratio somehow provides a superior viewing experience than a nice 55" 4k OLED from LG, you're a moron.

Your CRT might last longer than the OLED since OLEDs fade, but for the first 3-5 years it would be hands down far beyond any CRT.


There is a reason REAL professionals don't use CRTs anymore and it's not because they're difficult to find.

>>60724188
CRTs do not have infinite contrast you cunt.

>>60724232
I mean they technically do, but the color quality and brightness levels make it so it's not really relevant when compared to a modern OLED, Plasma, or even higher end VA panels.

>>60718118
wtf is this pic lol

Wasn't there like a viewing distance chart thing with all the resolutions on it? Anyway the biggest point to it was that to even see any benefit to higher res (480-1080p) you had to have both a pretty good viewing distance + large screen tv. So yeah if you sat real close to a big tv you'd see all the little "artifacts" in any up scaled content (plus eventually go blind) vs if you sat far away the content would look great no mater if it was 480 on a 65" or 1080 on a 65". But there is a limit though. Sit outside the limit and it all turns to shit. Now shitty encodes will look shitty no mater what size tv you use. Try to play a 320 x 320 (vcd) on a 65 and watch it all turn into a pix elated mess. Only way to play it is to use a border to fill in the rest of the image on screen but then that defeats the purpose of having a large tv doesn't it.

File: resolution_chart.jpg (111KB, 907x619px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 907x619px

>>60724262
>Wasn't there like a viewing distance chart
Yeah but the chart is bullshit.

You can test it yourself. 55" 4k at 10 feet, which according to this chart should look identical to 1080p AND 720p. But I can EASILY see the fucking difference just by changing the resolution in windows from 4k to 1080p and then 720p. Each one is pretty fucking obvious at about 10-12 feet.


tldr its bullshit

File: 4k HDR Bluray on HDR capable 1920 screen.jpg (3MB, 3840x2076px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2076px

I've tested Life of Poo in the Loo on differents screens

4K HDR movie downloaded on a private tracker

HDMI captured with HDR meta-data

check file names

1

File: 4K HDR Bluray on non capable HDR 1680x1050 screen .png (3MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1680x1050px

2

>>60724530>>60724549


When was Life of Pi cracked? I haven't seen a 4k rip that wasn't just a screen capture.

Not to mention, life of pi was shot in 2k and 2.8k So nothing in that movie is a 4k source file.

File: Normal Bluray on 1920 screen.jpg (3MB, 3840x2076px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2076px

3

So yeah 4K HDR still look better than normal bluray on a normal 1080p screen.

>>60724365
>"noticeable"
who would use subjective terminology on a graph?

>>60716087
>muh higher pee
You people are as idiotic as audiophiles tbqh. I download 720p whenever I can for my 1080p monitors and TV, the difference is visible but negligible, especially when I'm sitting on my couch.

File: 1495124754734.jpg (60KB, 525x551px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 525x551px

>>60717016

>not downloading 47GB BluRay rips and converting them to h.265 and reducing the size to 8GB

>>60724597
No step further, yify

>>60718713
>Bitrate matters even if you're downscaling.
Only if you're doing it wrong.

>>60724632
That's not how it works friendo, if you throw out data, you inherently will have a worse quality image after the fact, even if you're downscaling.

>>60716069
>4K is still a meme.

I just bought my second 27" 1440p IPS monitor for $390 (I have a tripple monitor setup, going to go 3x1440p). The choice was either 27" 4k TN or 1440p IPS at the exact same price.

If it wasn't for my preference / habit of using 3 displays I'd probably buy a 4k IPS.

Call it a "meme" all you want. By this time next year it'll be the norm.

>>60718348
..what? 65" 1080p? If it's a movie and you're sitting far away then... perhaps. Not sure about that since I don't have a TV. I personally think that anything larger than 24" needs to be more than 1080p if you're using it as a computer display.

>>60724365
As for the graphs this is the best article about 4K and stuff I've seen:
http://www.videoquality.pl/celowosc-wprowadzania-rozdzielczosci-ultra-hd/

Yes, it's in Polish, but wtf is google translate.

File: VD-wzor.png (3KB, 342x95px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 342x95px

>>60724814
A more advanced method of calculating the optimum distance from the screen comes from the aforementioned Human Visual System and reduce the perception of information through our eyes. Here is taken into account in addition the resolution of the display, and video, which is displayed on it

where:

VD: distance optimum
DS: screen size (in inches)
NHR native horizontal resolution of the screen (in pixels)
NVR native vertical resolution of the screen (in pixels) of
the CVR: horizontal resolution of the displayed video (in pixels)

File: optymalna-odleglosc-od-ekranu.png (29KB, 1291x604px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1291x604px

>>60724834
>Using the above formula calculated the optimal distance for common screen sizes and resolutions of all applicable, including planned 4K and 8K. The graph looks like this

>Let's not, of course, these guidelines too literally - I think that the derogation to ± 15% of what calculations suggest not change too much in the perception of the image. Analyzing the diagram, we see that for example. For a common diagonal of 50 inches optimum distance from the screen to the resolution of 1080p is approx. 2 m, and for a lower resolution 720p - 3 m. Looks interesting, the relationship with the 8k: screen size in inches approximately equal to the optimal distance from the screen, but in cm! So for a 50 inch screen should sit half a meter from him ... is not it a little too close? Yellow line pointed optimal distance resulting from the standard introduced by THX (i.e. the more restrictive). You can see right away that a resolution of 4 and 8K do not fit in the standard! So this is the first sign that something may be wrong here.

>>60724530
>>60724549
>>60724569
you can't see HDR on a non-HDR screen, tard. what you see there is just different color grading across releases.

>>60724597
hello yify man

>>60724223
My CRT does HD, you boyhole.

>>60727187
So do most things from 2007 and on.

DESU senpai, we are talking about 4k here, so why don't you just sit this one out. CRT simply isn't relevant to 2017

>>60723271
4k Ultra HD is a specific resolution, you ignorant faggot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television
>Ultra-high-definition television (also known as Ultra HD television, Ultra HD, UHDTV, UHD and Super Hi-Vision) today includes 4K UHD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Resolutions
>4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines

>>60723048
There is no inherent quality advantage of bigger resolution. In the most exaggerated case you can encode losslessly and you are guaranteed to have quality loss because of Nyquist theorem and 4096x2160 not being exact multiple of 1080p.

All real world examples are showing 4k advantage vecause of how it was encoded, because of what choice the content producer made ("1080p lolol we can compress that!").

>>60727201
It is. CRT Master race. Best display ever created. Keep shilling your flat jew tv.

wow yall ignorant faggots need to learn sth

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/visual_acuity.htm
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm

read all these thrice before you post again

can mpv or madvr even use the HDR metadata?

>>60722677
Especially when it emphasizes shooting people up is how you become a hero

i swear to god, fucking useless video game neckbeards talking about technology

read those tftcentral articles, im pretty sure its gonna be the most worthwhile thing youve learned this week

>>60724223
>There is a reason REAL professionals don't use CRTs anymore and it's not because they're difficult to find.
What professional doesn't use a CRT?
Most movie studios in America use the Dolby Professional Reference Monitor PRM-4220.

>>60728523
I re-read my post and to clarify I'm saying movie studio's that aren't using CRTs are using the Dolby Professional Reference Monitor PRM-4220.
I'm giving the only example of not using a CRT that i can think of.

File: B93.jpg (40KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x400px

>tfw panasonic 1080p plasma from 2007 still looks amazing

>>60727406
madVR doesn't process it but can pass it to your hdr display
use the HDR passthrough to display option

>>60728673
works but is super buggy. wel at least it is on amd.

HDR and Dolby Vision are the more interesting parts. 4K is only a slight upgrade and needs proper 4K sources to shine. Most of the UHD releases are 2K upscales.