>mfw people buy blu-rays of old movies that were filmed before

>>85271637
I hope this is bait

File: 1464623217045.gif (1001KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 640x480px

>>85271637
>buying physical media

>>85271637
This has to be bait. Nobody is this stupid. Not even the underage b&s.

File: 1492002904988.gif (2MB, 380x241px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 380x241px

>>85271772
>buying

>>85271772
>>>/v/

>>85271772
Based YIFYposter

Twilight Zone in blu ray looks better than most of the shit I've watched in theatres recently.

File: 1500046818761.gif (277KB, 240x287px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 240x287px

>>85271826
Haha nice gif, mind if I save it?

>>85271637
>when your dad comes home from a suicide bombing

>>85271637
bad bait

>>85271637
movies are natively in a higher definition format than std def or HD televisions.

>>85271637
TV shows have film that can be remastered.

How much detail is in a well exposed and preserved 35mm film (Kodak daytime ISO 50) still?

I heard about 8K, but some say 4~6K.

>>85271637
>how dumb can you be

well good lord

reminder that the legendary 'hanging munchkin' in The Wizard of Oz, a film from 1939, and an urban legend that lasted decades, was only disproved because they remastered the footage and released it on blu-ray, showing that the 'hanging munchkin' was actually an animatronic bird.

old film is so hi-fidelity we're only finding details like this in this decade.

>>85271939

What was Twilight Zone shot on? 35mm?

>>85271637
HAHA MUSLIM GIRL IS DOING A MEME
THEY ARE JUST LIKE US

>>85273055

In terms of detail, it's probably 6-8k, but I don't know if the visual effect of film grain can be replicated digitally.

>>85273443

That's if we're talking about 35mm, also.

>>85273443
>tfw we will need 16K (4 times the resolution of 8K and 16 times the resolution of 4K) camera to even come close to replicating IMAX 70mm level of detail

>>85272997
Mastering never really goes beyond 2K, cause only assholes sitting in the front 3 rows of most screen can tell the difference between IMAX, 70mm, and 35mm

File: smug lean.jpg (13KB, 248x315px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 248x315px

>>85273504

File: doubt.png (86KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 300x300px

>>85273572

Explain why Lawrence of Arabia looks so much better in 70mm than 35mm then. Seen both.

>>85273324
>showing that the 'hanging munchkin' was actually an animatronic bird.

It was edited because you cant release a movie with a dead midget hanging in clear view, especially with how well known it is

>>85273324
How many animatronics did the Wizard of Oz have to waste one in the shadows? In 1939.

>>85273324
Some of the higher quality VHS transfers actually have the bird clearly visible too.

>>85273055
I know that the documentary Baraka (worth a watch if you haven't seen it) was shot on 70mm (not IMAX I believe) and was scanned in and is sold as an 8k blu. I don't know if they could get more info, they probably would have if they could, right?

>>85273386
i lov memz

>>85273602
You wouldnt be able to tell in theatres

>>85273386
Shes so BASED kek