4k is a scam

>>83911179
>4k
you mean 2160p?

>>83911217
Same thing, my retarded friend.

>>83911179
More news at 11.

>>83911179
tom hanks looks fake

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

>>83911179
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

>>83911179
It was probably shot with a 1080p camera and is now stuck like that forever.

>>83911856
>UHD

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

>>83911179
Seeing every pore on an actor's face is disgusting
HD was a mistake

File: Capture.jpg (56KB, 686x704px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 686x704px

>>83911944
SD 440p porn is the true patricians choice. HD anything was a mistake

>>83911179
>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


>>83911866
>big budget hollywood shit
>shot with a 1080p camera

>>83911994
>lucy alexandra

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

File: waw04-lucy1.mp4_snapshot_02.35_[2015.11.25_23.02.49].jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

>>83912121
a fellow lucy fan. she does good watersports stuff. kinda weird face close up

>>83912080
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.

>>83912080
Its a crop

>>83912352
Its easier to show how it's 4x the resolution of HD by calling it 4k

>>83911712
I think you might be onto something.

>>83911933
there are no 60" Oled's

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

>>83911800
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

>>83912097
It happens. Star Wars Episode 2 is stuck in 1080p forever because of George Lucas's stupidity.

>>83912263
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

File: 005SNT_Summer_Glau_032.jpg (29KB, 395x365px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 395x365px

>>83911179
Look at the technical information:
http://www.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.

>>83912759
Shut the fuck up you fucking moron.

>>83913041
>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.

>>83913075
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.

File: 1380182990449.jpg (39KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x600px

>>83911856
>55"

File: 1489430489046.jpg (128KB, 761x757px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 761x757px

>>83912352
lmao this
wtf were they thinking??

>>83913153
git gud

>>83913310
they wanted people to think 4k is 4 times the resolution of 1080p.

>>83912946
yeah I've noticed too. Always a bit odd when they go overboard with the pleasure sounds when clearly its not happening

>>83911866
>>83912097
>stuck in 1080p
explain this?

>>83913357
It is tho.

>>83913041
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).

>>83913421
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.

>>83913476
Gonna bite em' in the ass in a few years.

>>83911800
This is not /v/, fuck off.

>>83913362
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

>>83913357
How dare they!

>>83913518
so most movies are shot at a higher resolution than they're presented?

I figured most movies were using 1080p Digital.

>>83913518
>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.

>>83912799
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.

File: lucya-001-04a.jpg (791KB, 1216x1824px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1216x1824px

>>83913623
joi is british dominated?

>>83913518
>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.

>>83913774
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

>>83913816
>>83913896
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.

>>83913518
>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.

>>83911179
You only realize this now? Oh my how naive you are

File: 1496592285198.jpg (20KB, 530x368px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 530x368px

>>83911179
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).

>>83912352
>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

>>83911179
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

>>83914005
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

>>83911800
>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

>>83918962
>4K obsolete in a few years
>4K isn't even standard today

>>83919220
>4K
>not standard
nigga you high

>>83919260
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.

>>83919439
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.

File: low quality bait.jpg (15KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x600px

>>83918962
>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.

>>83919715
Digital hasnt surpassed it yet

>>83919715
If by "detail" you mean film grain that doesn't carry any useful information, then yes, it is almost infinite in detail.

>>83919715
35mm can be scanned at any resolution you want because of this >>83919818

thing is grain is visually pleasing. pixels are not.

>>83919715
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.

>>83911179
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

>>83911179
4k is just a fad, it will go away as fast as 3D TV's and HD-DVD did

>>83920189
People don't need running water to survive either, that doesn't mean it isn't pleasant as fuck.

>>83913741
>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.

>>83920246
>it will go away
Yeah, just like 1080p went away, right retard?

>>83920251
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

>>83917617
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.

>>83912759
So how does 48+ make people uncomfortable?

>>83920464
It looks odd in motion, that's all.

>>83920513
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?

>>83920590
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.

>>83920246
There's no way the TV industry is going to go back to 1080p panels.

>>83920590
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.

>>83920680
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.

>>83920744
>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.

>>83920736
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?

>>83920800
>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.

>>83920853
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.

>>83920915
>The Hobbit itself was a fun book.
If you say so...

>>83920800
Why doesn't anyone seem to mind all the 60fps videos on youtube if higher frame-rates are so bad?

>>83913741
>1080p was the standard for shooting most movies up until recently
Underage get out

>>83920966
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.
>>83920946
I met a man who had different opinions than me once. Once ...

>>83920680
>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.

>>83921061
>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.

>>83920189
>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

>>83911179
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.

https://files.catbox.moe/0462hd.png

>>83913651
>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).

>>83920189
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.

>>83913741
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

>>83911179
Inferno could have been great, but it was complete and utter horse shit

>>83913816
Who said we were only talking about 35mm, nigga?

>>83915337
Yeah, you can flip back and forth between 1080p and 4k on a 24" screen sitting just a couple of feet away and the difference is very subtle. If you have less than a 40" TV I'd say it's a meme.

However, 4k videos themselves are not. They downscale to 1080p very well and get the maximum performance out of your display even if you don't have a UHD device.

>>83919744
It very much has. Especially when you consider the ability to stitch together photographs.

>>83920189
faggot that hasn't seen a good tv in action

Sorry OP for this Off topic comment.
The hobbit at 48 FPS was like going to a fking stage play with green screen chromas everywhere. Also it was so new that you couldn't focus on one thing at a time.

>>83915929
This reply was too good to be ignored any longer.

>>83920590
Honestly it sounds like a cheap-out but my anecdotal evidence is higher fps in movies seems odd to me, like weirdly sped up but not really. Even in webms on this website it makes me feel uncomfortable

>>83913896
isn't the digital equivalent of 35mm estimated to be closer to 8k? and 70mm is like 16k or some ridiculous shit

Either way you can make a movie shot on film that looks like shit (The Phantom Menace or even Return of the Jedi) with a shitty cinematographer, and you can make a movie shot digitally look amazing (Deakins' work from Skyfall onwards, Fincher's filmography from Zodiac onwards) with a talented one.

But shit like 28 Days Later that's forever 480p Standard Definition (never mind the shaky cam) or Attack of the Clones (not sure about RotS) shot in 1080p are the best they'll ever look. You won't get stuff like the Lawrence of Arabia 50th Anniversary restoration where it's a genuine work of art on screen and you have retards in the comments asking how it can be 50 years old and be HD if they didn't have digital cameras back then

>>83920590
have you ever seen a soap opera? or noticed how TV's on sale in places like Best Buy can sometimes look weird with how fluid the motion of the display demo movie is? Kinda like the opposite of how old timey movies feel like someone pressed fast forward?

>>83920590

Some people say it gives them motion sickness but I imagine you'd get used to it after a while.

Although I have noticed that with a higher frame rate it "gives the game away" on a lot of hollywood tricks, e.g. you can see the walls of sets wobbling because they're just wood standing in for a concrete wall, you can see in fight scenes all the punches are pulled very obviously, you can see that people are not really running at top speed through a set but sort of jogging a bit to try and make it look like they are, most guns now adays are not firing real blanks and just have muzzle flash added in in post and the slide is not moving at all and the actors are pretending there's recoil poorly, even reveals some actors are actually shit ect ect.

>>83912946
>>83912263
She seems cute. Has she been BLACKED?

>>83913816
Film projects onto a huge screen better though, with no screen door effect from the projector Pixels.

>>83924382
The magic of movies is really in 24fps. There's something so slightly off about it compared to real life, it helps suspend disbelief. Trying to make the motion more real conversely makes it all look more fake

>>83919672
video games look like fake shit.

>>83911800
Because movies are not fucking documentaries. The goal of a movie is not to capture the set as accurately as possible. 48fps looks like shit unless it's a nature documentary, deal with it.

>>83911179
>4k is a scam

No it's not.

>>83918962
unironically this. any director not shooting on film is a pleb

>>83924382
>>83924663
this>>83924783

>>83921744
How do you know so much about this? Where can I read about it?

Is there something higher than 35mm? Why not 60mm?

File: 1495838032866.jpg (149KB, 570x698px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 570x698px

>>83918676
you probably won't see this but i know what you mean
>>83924502
never ever fag

>>83925035
Hateful eight and older movies like lawrence of arabia or 2001 space odyssey were shot in 70mm

>>83920513
I know exactly what you're talking about. I think the dudes arguing wth you agree poor and never seen anything at 60fps and are talking shit just to talk shit.

It is very uncomfortable and seems unnatural watching movies like that.

File: file.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>83912759
>>83924783
>>83920464
>>83920513
>>83925159
>>83920590
It depends on the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cz8JEPTMEI

>>83911179
I watch most of my movies in 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray if they are available in that format, I watch them on my LG G6 OLED 4K TV.
I watch most of my movies either on my Sony D32E1WU BVM CRT or on my LG G6 OLED 4K TV.

Anyways, how do I watch my Chink bootleg 10-in-1 DVDs (I bought some of them while I was in Shanghai) which are 240p, and output them in 240p without interpolation to 480i (240p upscaled to 480i looks pretty crappy)?
This has to be real deal 240p, complete with scanlines when played on a CRT, just like my retro video games.
Also, these Chink 10-in-1 bootleg DVDs aren't the only 240p videos I will watch, I also have some VCDs from long ago which were imported from Hong Kong, Malaysia and the Philippines, among other countries, VCDs are 240p.
I also have some personal recordings of my own playthroughs of some of my retro games, which are 240p DVDs.
Does anyone know of any way to watch DVDs in 240p on a CRT? Preferably with a Component (YPbPr) or RGB via SCART output.

File: Balus.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

>>83916578
This.
I even bought a short-lived Panasonic Blu-ray player for that Master Grade Video Coding thing (which is kind of like a poor man's HDR) which some Japanese Blu-rays have.
I know all of the Japanese Studio Ghibli Blu-rays have MGVC starting with My Neighbor Totoro and Grave of the Fireflies, as well as a double feature box set featuring those two movies.
And they all looked amazing.
Especially when some of the earlier releases without MGVC were updated for The Collected Works of Hayao Miyazaki box set and The Collected Works of Isao Takahata box set.

Which is why I eagerly wait for Studio Ghibli films to come out in 4K, preferably with Dolby Vision HDR, but HDR10 would probably be great, as well.

Take note, MGVC is only in the Japanese Studio Ghibli Blu-rays, most other releases don't have them.
And some of the earlier Studio Ghibli Blu-rays don't have MGVC, the following are:
Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
Laputa: Castle in the Sky
My Neighbors the Yamadas
Arrietty
Whisper of the Heart
Howl's Moving Castle
Tales from Earthsea
From Up on Poppy Hill

But some of them were updated with MGVC for some of the box sets, those are:
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (even has a newer transfer with corrected colors)
Laputa: Castle in the Sky
Howl's Moving Castle
Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea
My Neighbors the Yamadas

>>83925988
fuck you are worthless.

>>83926321
I've seen the MGVC tag on some uploads at ADC, is this MGVC something you'd need a special BD player for and I can't just get with mpv playing the M2TS?

>>83911179
If it's recorded digitally and not in 4k then it will never be in 4k. Only film are you able to properly upscale

>>83926473
You need a special Panasonic Blu-ray player for MGVC, which are only available in Japan.
But they're treated like regular Blu-rays when you play them on any other Blu-ray player.

>>83911800
This isn't sports, you dummy.

>>83915929
Not just Netflix, even showtime and hbo on cable TV have shit bitrates and it's so obvious in the shadows where a bunch of colors look pixelated.

>>83912759
he is right guys
>>83920464
its true though, just look at Friends. whenever they put something on tv ironically watching joey's soap opera, or that one time with the reality show
it looked really off
(I still dont see what does the FPS has to do with resolution)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZmQqzQV0gg
this is a poor example because of the shitty quiality but maybe you guys can find a better one

>>83915929

This. Industry person opinion incoming.

I'm really annoyed by this whole "resolution wars" that have been happening with cameras and home media for years now that continues. Because the end result is consumers going to streaming services right now and watching compressed to hell downloads.

It pains me that we're headed to lower quality end results because I absolutely love physical media like blu rays (and formerly lots of DVD) which still give fantastic picture and sound, not to mention special features which have been in danger for a long time of being outright killed off.

I can't even blame the consumers, since it's 10 bucks a month for a whole library on Netflix vs. 20 bucks on average for a single new movie on blu ray. Most of the pleb content is what people want anyway so there's less reason to cater to the niche market who value better quality.

I've shot short films on 6k RED cameras and the end delivery is usually 2k or 1080p, due to rendering time, hardware constraints, effects etc. But especially distribution which is the ultimate deciding factor.

1080 is more than enough for me.

i'll leave higher resolutions for the cinema or other huge screens that i don't have a particular need for at home.

and for audio as well, 24 bit/44 khz is plenty when human hearing only goes up to 20 khz, not to mention that due to natural hearing loss, once we're in our 20s we're all hearing at 16-17 khz max. i'll leave the 192 khz 32 bit audio, again, for the cinema and other special presentations, but for home/casual use and regular music engineering, 24 bit/44 khz is plenty.

>>83925032
Go to movies, not film school

when will we get 60fps?

>>83913357
It's literally the same resolution of having 4 1080p TVs ya goober

>>83911179
it's clearly nearest neighbour not bicubic you fucking retard

>>83912759
>>83925589
I cannot stand 48fps or 60fps when it comes to watching movies.

It looks like a home made movie.

>>83911360
no it isn't

>>83929049
You want to watch something look amateurish? Why? I remember at my cousins house someone changed the tv to have double the frame rate and it was so awful

I saw the Hobbit in cinemas in 3D 48fps and it was as if it was moving twice the speed like something was wrong with the film

>>83924054
It depends on if we're talking about detail or grain.
If you want to perfectly capture the grain on a 35mm you'll need something like 8K. But 4K is enough to get hairs, fabric, skin pores etc.
The bump in resolution on 4K isn't so noticeable and I watch on a 65" OLED. You can tell that 70mm IMAX film is more detailed that 35mm just from watching a 1080p Blu-Ray, and until recently most IMAX theaters were projecting at 2K. The Shallows is an upscaled 2Kto4K UHD and it looks as clear as downscaled 6Kto4K UHD of Allied.
Most UHDs are upscales because the real benefit of the format is the wide color gamut and high dynamic range. The level of shadow detail, brightness of highlights, and entire shades of color are whats really new about the tech.
So even though Speed Racer was shot in 1080p, I will probably buy the 4K version because the WCG and HDR would look amazing on drugs.

>>83925093
Autistically shot on 65mm. Projected in 70mm because the extra 5mm width was space for the soundtrack.

IMAX stock is even bigger tho

>>83929049
Billy Lynn is 60fps on 4K.
It was 120fps 3D in theaters.

>>83929661
that's not how it works lol

extra frames per second doesn't make the movie speed up

are you sure you're not talking about interpolation?

8k is the real shit.

>>83929860
True. Shot on 70mm film.