[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / bb / dempart / general / hkpol / monarchy / vichan ]

/tv/ - Television and Movies

Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

/bane/ /film/ /strek/ /sw/ /wooo/ Combined Rules

File: 854de4076f6615b⋯.jpeg (61.37 KB, 793x537, 793:537, serveimage.jpeg)


Aside from having the colors jump out at you like a story time tranny's makeup, I simply don't see the point in watching movies in UHD when I'm 10 FT away from the screen.


The problem with UHD is that it's advent coincided with the rising popularity of video streaming. The choice for many consumers was quality vs convenience, and with convenience winning out we got these upgraded TVs with higher resolutions and frame rates that are used to stream basically 1080p quality. Even if you have the bandwidth to stream 4k videos, the bitrate is still going to be sub optimal and look inferior to the original blu-ray encode.



Which movie did you watch?

that you got hurt by the colors also 3 meters away from the TV? I'm like 2 meters away and enjoy the colorful experience.



That's why I waited until I could watch a 4K movie on disc instead of streaming something before passing judgement.


Ready Player One. The colors didn't hurt me. They just stand out moreso than what I'm use to with a Full HD display. Great, but HDR is not enough to get me to upgrade from 1080p.


There's a huge difference I will never watch DVD or VHS again



Yeah, people who fall for memes like that are suckers. In reality, there isn't much difference, but the UHD remasters always crank up the saturation and gamma to make the colors look more vibrant and trick you into thinking that it's noticeably more realistic.



From 480i/p to 4K, I agree. 1080p to 4K? Nah. I need more than HDR to warrant the upgrade.



I have heard that it is one of those headache inducing movies only because it feels like you need sunglasses where neon shit gets wild and other stuff.

I would recommend to watch Blade Runner 2049 since it has the wide spectrum of comfortable colors.

Also 2001 A Space Odyssey is amazing to just look at in awe.




Sometimes less is more. DVD is bland but VHS on an analog tube screen is an experience nobody should miss out on.


And they often destroy the image in the process with DNR.


1080p is comparable to Super 16, it can be projected and still look acceptable (higher resolution are still desirable for projection, but 1080p is workable).

What we are seeing are marketing ploys to strip fools of their money.


I agree.



>1080p to 4K? Nah.

4K has 4 times the resolution displayed and 4 times the maximum bitrate. It's way better than 1080p color wise and presentation wise. Even the audio is better.


Says the uber pleb with no eye for anything

Jurassic Park and The Matrix in UHD make their bluray and dvd counterparts obsolete



zach why did you get your mom to waste money on a 4k tv?



Hey Zach.

You have to tell yourself it's worth it because you spent all of your NEETbux on it, I get it. But for home viewing it offers no relevant advantage and most of the time it's worse unless you're willing to throw an entire collection away every few years when something new comes out. Watching 1080p films in a 4K TV looks worse than watching them on a 1080p TV, and most 4K versions are poorly done (with a more limited catalog too). Streaming 4K is even worse. But streaming is how most films are going to be consumed.



4Ks can be downloaded




This. iTunes' 4K movie files started leaking awhile ago.



Are they in weird formats or mp4s? lol




Do you consider mkv a weird format?



I remember when 3D TVs were coming out and I was working in a copy shop, some guy came in getting photocopies of all his dvd's for his collection or whatever and I tried starting up a conversation about movies since I was into film as well.

Apparently this guy was a film teacher at some college and "knew his shit" since he was using the copies for is dvd collection booklet or whatever and was making room for all the new 3D media he will buy. I was kinda sheepish, I knew 3D TV wouldn't last and was just a novelty but this guy was 100% sure it was the wave of the future for film/tv.

People can be fucking retards.


File: d7c882a90734391⋯.jpg (119.24 KB, 605x804, 605:804, hipster.jpg)


>VHS on an analog tube screen is an experience nobody should miss out on.



>VHS on an analog tube screen is an experience nobody should miss out on.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but there's definitely an appeal to it.



But a new 4K tv is not really any waste.

You do have fake 4K where the film is just up-scaled from 2K and there are allot of these movies floating around in the market since most directors just edits with 2K but you do have movies that are real 4k like; Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Shining and Waterworld.

Even Alien the first Ridley Scott movie is real 4K while Prometheus and Alien Covenant is fake 4K.

It's some of the same problem that movies studios had with the 3d gimmick or phase where they just put the 3d in post production and did not film in 3d, or whatever that gay James Cameron technique was.

I can see 4K and HDR10+ coming allot further since vidya is probably going to try it's hardest to be in 4k next gen.


4K still doesn't have true blacks and dark colors. lol. If anything, FPS of what is being played matters more than 4k. 4k is only good for live streaming sporting events.



That's streaming tier bitrate



that depends on the 4K TV, some are awful with dark colors or blacks while other 4K TV creates them really well.



Blade Runner 2049 was shot in 3.4K and while the original was shot on film analogue doesn't have a resolution. You mostly just get more detailed film grains in the 4K version of it.



well, more detailed film grains is still amazing but did not know that Blade Runner 2049 was a fake 4K.

Oh well, I still enjoyed 2001 A Space Odyssey on UHD Blu Ray, it gave me feels.

So is there any film that is in 4K?

Or is it all just shot in 4K or higher and edited the movie in 2K.



Analogue has a resolution, or more accurately "resolving power". It depends on the emulsion.


If you're in the market for a new TV I guess it makes sense to buy the latest one but I'd personally favor a higher end FHD model over a "cheap" 4K one.


It's about the smoothness, CRT doesn't get jagged when the screen size goes up, just softer.



What about streaming locally such as with your own Plex server?



FHD? do you mean Full HD or something?



Yep, maybe I should have just said 1080p to avoid confusion.


File: 7e6000ec49efd87⋯.jpg (20.98 KB, 408x352, 51:44, 7e6.jpg)

Standard bluray is most practical for kino physical media. 4K is a clusterfuck right now, mainly thanks to this protracted war between HDR10 and Dolby Vision. 1080p Bluray is decent enough as it still has a higher bitrate over even 4K streaming video. Worse yet, most 4K blurays are upscaled from 2K DI and/or have less extra features compared to prior releases. See the Blade Runner 4K disc and the 2007 five disc bluray.



Kys vhs hipster cuck. VHS is objectively shit. It's only purpose to preserve shit that'sonly recorded on it, and when found it should digitized anyway. And if you are a real hipster faggot who watches on dead analog consumer formats, then you'd have LDs.

Tapes are shit.



Is it blue!? HAHAHAHAH get it? BEcause it's BLU - ray XD XD Hahahaha! Is everything Blue?!???



Everybvody hates… RAY… mond… hahahah Get IT!? Because he's on BLUE - ray! hahahaha



>4K has 4 times the resolution displayed

>Even the audio is better

either this is bait or you're clinically retarded. It's only double resolution you double nigger.


File: bdf691e5cdc68a8⋯.png (78.46 KB, 4096x2160, 256:135, Digital_video_resolutions_….png)


Try learning how resolution scales, nigger brain.


I mean, color grading isn't 4Ks fault..

Studios are seriously fucking up films with that shit though.


File: 705ea4f46da77d5⋯.gif (514.31 KB, 480x270, 16:9, 1419816128017.gif)


>formats I don't like are objectively bad


File: f799898b0aef327⋯.jpg (190.18 KB, 1252x1252, 1:1, hipster faggot.jpg)


>It's about the smoothness, CRT doesn't get jagged when the screen size goes up, just softer.

No, it's bullshit hipsterism. I grew up with tube tvs (my parents still had a B&W when I was a little kid) and they're objectively shit compared to modern day flat-screens.

And don't even try to compare video tape to digital.



Color grading is an artform and you wouldn't realize all the shit the color graders actually do like even brighten the whites in actors eyes if they wanted to. They can isolate the face or isolate everything but the face and change the image's color. There's nothing wrong with this and there are many films that have been color graded extremely well, The Matrix, LOTR, King Kong etc

These have more color grading than you would think, it isn't just making the entire frame one color, there's more thought put into it.



The area is four times bigger, but the amount of scan lines only increases two times.



Stay autistic Nic, it amuses me.



Not really. Even the big hitters that are supposedly filmed in 4K only do some of the footage in 4K. I don't think anyone has filmed a film entirely in 4K.



Swans is legitimately good


Most of what I watch was made during or before the 80s, does 4k even do anything for such pictures?



Only if it was filmed in 35mm with high quality stock that is well preserved



But muh hipsters.


I've even heard that the 4K version of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is worse than the Blu-ray one, and that's probably due to only being shot on 16mm. The grungy look works for it as a movie, but it's probably not worth shelling out money for an upgrade from the Blu-ray.



There are no scanlines involved with pixel resolutions you quadruple nigger. It's four times as big because you need to multiply the orginal image four times to cover the same aspect ratio. Learn how to multiply before smoking your nigger crack.



Scanlines, vertical resolution, you get what I meant. You multiply the original image four times, 2 vertically and 2 horizontally. The change isn't that big.



That makes sense, because the pixels are smaller than the grain.


File: 8f3daa239d5c4b6⋯.jpg (7.35 KB, 207x207, 1:1, fedora.jpg)

>most of what I watch is from before the 1980s

>shit like Texas Chainsaw Massacre yeah you can call me a patrician



Hey Zach



Your life



I can say I haven't been catfished so far


File: 83f122de9f53aa9⋯.jpg (122.3 KB, 804x787, 804:787, 1322885424563.jpg)


>thinking being popular means a movie is bad

Also, we're two different people. I'm more liberal in that I'd move the date up to about 2000. :^)


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


See embed related, fag.

Might as well be two different films altogether.

They missed a golden opportunity to use the Elvis version of the song here.

I grew up with tube TVs too, you're not alone in that regard. CRTs were cool.


Color grading after production has finished, specially years later on a release, done with no intent to restore something to its former glory but to make it look "more modern" is the film equivalent of spraying graffiti on La Gioconda.


Stay a fag, faggot vol.


That's not enough. It needs to be super 35 at the very least. If it's techniscope (like many gialli were) it's a waste of resolution.


Hey Zach





Hello Refn


File: c62bc704b172715⋯.png (167.76 KB, 352x327, 352:327, are they gone yet.png)


I'm not Refn, for fuck's sake



Just because a film was shot in open matte and was used for the initial home video release (even though it was already cropped for theaters) doesn't mean VHS is inherently better. VHS still has objectively dogshit resolution.


>NTSC VHS is roughly equivalent to 333×480 pixels luma and 40×480 chroma resolutions (333×480 pixels=159,840 pixels or 0.16MP (1/6 of a MegaPixel))., while PAL VHS offers the equivalent of about 335×576 pixels luma and 40×240 chroma (the vertical chroma resolution of PAL is limited by the PAL color delay line mechanism).


Thanks for basically admitting I was correct, nigger mod.

>The change isn't that big.

Why do we have a mod who knows fuck all about basic image scaling?



> there are many films that have been color graded extremely well, The Matrix

Bait in its extreme form


File: f25d59bec6547cd⋯.png (977.64 KB, 686x570, 343:285, 1352868325335.png)


>objectively dogshit



>what is OLED



>moving the goalposts

I was talking CRT, not VHS in that post. CRT is 4:3, and I'm not saying it's better but different and worth experiencing.

Of course when a 4:3 negative intended to be seen exclusively as a 2.39:1 is fully shown the results are hilariously bad, as it can be seen in Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space, Some of the things that make it bad weren't Wood's fault but whoever was in charge of showing it on television. That's why you see boom mics and shit like that in the 4:3 version, it wasn't out of Wood's incompetence.

And again, more resolution isn't always better. Romero's mustache wasn't as much of a problem when playing the Joker because it was 60s TV. Now it's impossible to not notice it.

More resolution is better if the material was intended to be that way (which to be fair is usually the case, but that's another question).



>Jurassic Park and The Matrix in UHD make their bluray and dvd counterparts

[citation needed]



You're a fucking faggot dude.



Can you speak english, please?



The colors have nothing to do with the resolution but with HDR. Unless the screen is larger than 65" there is fuck all reason to get a 4k TV. Most people sit at least 10 feet from a TV, which means anything higher than 1080 is a waste.



It is, take it you're the cassette cuck from the blu-ray thread.


There's certainly an argument to made about stuff originally broadcast in standard def not being suited well for HD. I remember reading an article by David (((Simon))) about the HD remaster for The Wire, like how when scaled up you can see actors still twitching on the ground long after their character would get shot. I think if a show has film or native high def materials, it should be in at least 1080p. 4K would definitely for most shows prior to the last decade.


File: a940cc775ac5eb7⋯.jpg (210.25 KB, 420x660, 7:11, a940cc775ac5eb7d0c79847ebe….jpg)


>being that much of an arrogant brainlet that you think your personal opinions are objective facts

VHS has an objectively lower resolution than formats like DVD or Blu-ray, but value judgments come down to personal taste.



>value judgments come down to personal taste.

<muh relativity

VHS is outdated shit. There is literally no use for it aside from transferring VHS exclusive content to more reliable mediums.



>what is transferring to VHS several times to get a particular look



Appreciate the feedback




A VHS in good condition has better sound quality than any digital format.


File: ee65744563e01c7⋯.jpg (20.22 KB, 638x547, 638:547, 69840275.jpg)

A Hollycuck movie in 4K is like a wormy shit with a ribbon.



The wire was a decent HD remaster, they actually put care into.

The Buffy HD remaster on Hulu is trash. You're better off with the DVDs




yes I miss the cracks and pops all VHS tapes have…



<muh relativity

Putting "muh" in front of something isn't an argument, champ.

>VHS is outdated shit.

You could make the same argument for any technology that isn't popular or convenient anymore.

>There is literally no use for it aside from transferring VHS exclusive content to more reliable mediums.

Except to the people who enjoy it for what it is.


How so?



I literally live for vhs im attached them to my body with glue



>VHS in good condition has better sound quality than any digital format.

No, it doesn't. A track encoded in DTS-MA sounds way greater than any Hi-Fi track on a VHS tape, which dissipates after prolonged playback. The only digital format a Hi-Fi track can compare to is DVD standard Dolby Digital AC3 audio at 192kbps.


>Except to the people who enjoy it for what it is.

No problem in enjoying the format, but it's a shit medium with zero fidelity comparable to what we have now. A fresh new scan of a film in high definition is objectively better looking than a tape with limited chroma resolution and longevity.


File: 0f9883759514d0a⋯.png (969.88 KB, 628x594, 314:297, 1324902624033.png)


>it's a shit medium with zero fidelity comparable to what we have now.

>fidelity is everything

>objectively better looking

Here we go again.



what is that demon bird?



>objectively better looking

lmao kill yourself


File: 909f76530ed0724⋯.png (796.1 KB, 921x619, 921:619, actual-header.png)


They're called bearded vultures or lammergeiers. They're neat birbs that eat bones and dye their feathers by rubbing dirt on themselves.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / bb / dempart / general / hkpol / monarchy / vichan ]