Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Buub wrote:What a ridiculous survey. Of all the movies I would absolutely want to capture in 4K detail, not a single one of them was on that list.
Buub wrote:What a ridiculous survey. Of all the movies I would absolutely want to capture in 4K detail, not a single one of them was on that list.
defaultluser wrote:4k is pointless in older movies. Most of the time, unless you filmed on 70mm (or 35mm in stark daylight) there's a lot of noise to deal with in your captured image. You're lucky if you can even get real 1080p of resolution out of the mess (after noise reduction).
And then there's HDR - you're not adding that to an existing print without completely redoing post, unless you fake it.
1080p Bluray was a lot easier sales pitch for you back-catalog.
just brew it! wrote:Well, I still don't own a Blu Ray player... so I'm gonna vote gouda!
just brew it! wrote:Buub wrote:What a ridiculous survey. Of all the movies I would absolutely want to capture in 4K detail, not a single one of them was on that list.
Wait, what? You DON'T want Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in glorious 4K HD?
bthylafh wrote:TV's still a 720p plasma and no plans to replace it in the foreseeable, nor do I have anything else capable of 4K.
Optimized Tone Remapping for SDR-TV
Unique optimized tone re-mapping technology for Ultra HD Biu-ray to SDR conversion which maximises the features of 4K content and detivers a better experience than Blu-ray on a SDR TV.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:defaultluser wrote:4k is pointless in older movies. Most of the time, unless you filmed on 70mm (or 35mm in stark daylight) there's a lot of noise to deal with in your captured image. You're lucky if you can even get real 1080p of resolution out of the mess (after noise reduction).
And then there's HDR - you're not adding that to an existing print without completely redoing post, unless you fake it.
1080p Bluray was a lot easier sales pitch for you back-catalog.
I will vehemently disagree with you on that. A good 35mm master will have plenty of detail that beyond what 1080p can resolve. 2160p can have a noticeable impact. Even "HDR"; the film captures more dynamic range than is part of Rec.709.
Igor_Kavinski wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:defaultluser wrote:4k is pointless in older movies. Most of the time, unless you filmed on 70mm (or 35mm in stark daylight) there's a lot of noise to deal with in your captured image. You're lucky if you can even get real 1080p of resolution out of the mess (after noise reduction).
And then there's HDR - you're not adding that to an existing print without completely redoing post, unless you fake it.
1080p Bluray was a lot easier sales pitch for you back-catalog.
I will vehemently disagree with you on that. A good 35mm master will have plenty of detail that beyond what 1080p can resolve. 2160p can have a noticeable impact. Even "HDR"; the film captures more dynamic range than is part of Rec.709.
Properly captured 4K HDR footage replayed on an OLED at times feels like you are looking through a window. The best remaster may not approach that but it is still necessary for the archival of classics for future generations. Imagine your kids or grand kids having to watch Citizen Kane in 720p on a 16K Uber HD TV. Now THAT would be an upscaled mess.
just brew it! wrote:It is difficult to compare effective resolution between 35 mm film and 4K digital because the nature of the noise as you approach the technical limits of the media are different, and film does not introduce digital compression artifacts. However, there's a comparable amount of information present, and IMO the whole drive to 4K has been about making digital subjectively "as good as film".
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Maybe because something that looks natural isn't as much of a "spectacle", to use your words. Dunkirk for example, was shot on 65mm Panavision & IMAX film.
Don't get me wrong, Digital is the way forward in 99% of the cases, but that has more to do with workflow and flexibility of shooting conditions that film doesn't allow for (in my opinion); it's not as cut and dry as a direct quality improvement.
Igor_Kavinski wrote:By the way, I am "partial" to stunning night scenes. For example, the night scenes in "Shape of water", though few, gave me "mental hard-ons" Maybe digital cameras capture them better?
Captain Ned wrote:Igor_Kavinski wrote:By the way, I am "partial" to stunning night scenes. For example, the night scenes in "Shape of water", though few, gave me "mental hard-ons" Maybe digital cameras capture them better?
Go get "Interstellar".
Igor_Kavinski wrote:Something about it was just depressing
Igor_Kavinski wrote:Why, why isn't there a live version of Titan A.E. yet??? Damn, that would SO work as a superb movie.