|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best 4K Blu-ray Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $82.99 5 hrs ago
| ![]() $74.99 | ![]() $124.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $99.99 | ![]() $39.02 3 hrs ago
| ![]() $29.95 | ![]() $24.96 | ![]() $70.00 | ![]() $35.99 | ![]() $23.79 15 hrs ago
| ![]() $33.49 | ![]() $33.49 |
![]() |
#381 |
Blu-ray Count
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
|
![]()
who knows, even with HD OTA did it before cable and sat. NHK in Japan has already started testing 8k, let alone 4k.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#382 |
Blu-ray Duke
|
![]()
Japan is a bit different based off the fact the government owns all the lines. Here in the States lines are owned by individual companies. Keep in mind Japans pays 50 a month for Gigabit internet to housing. No matter the provider its 50 a month price set by the government according to what my friend who lives there tells me.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#383 | ||
Blu-ray Count
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
|
![]() Quote:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/17/30...rial-broadcast Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#384 | ||
Blu-ray Champion
|
![]() Quote:
EDIT- Quote:
Last edited by saprano; 11-21-2012 at 06:07 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#387 |
Senior Member
|
![]()
Somebody buying these 84" TVs could certainly afford it!
![]() But in the long run Redray has nothing to do with mass-market. It is certainly important that people are shooting 4k stuff, and that they are able to easily show it at exhibitions and film festivals etc. But if Joe Average has a 4k-capable player under his TV in 5 years it will not be anything RED. |
![]() |
![]() |
#388 | |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]() Quote:
what about movies that are not shot in 4k how will they look ? Then again we have Lawrence of Arabia restored in 4k |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#389 | |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]() Quote:
In short, 4k scans of existing films will benefit them immensely unless they have undergone the digital intermediate (DI) process where they have been scanned into a computer and had all of the CG, color correction, etc done at 2k. Here's an example. Dr. No was made in 1962. It was shot on 35mm film and all work was done photochemically. It recently underwent a 4k scan for the BD release (I'm not sure if all work was done at 4k, but the raw negative was scanned at 4k). Casino Royale was made in 2006. It was also shot on 35mm film but the final movie is locked in at 2k. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#390 | |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]() Quote:
![]() I guess I should post a short F/U note about that as I was unfairly maligned several months ago and never had the opportunity, nor interest in responding. WRT that, nothing was ever posted out-of-context and I couldn’t care less about interfering with the relationship between two individuals who have been buddies for years, heck more power to them. The point was that in the past a blogger with a photochemical background had been (and, for all I know, still is?) subtly dismissive of the value of 4K scanning (as opposed to 2K scanning) of 35mm film source with regards to Blu-ray movie production and exhibition, of which I disagree(d), because I, on the other hand, find some value in the higher harvest, and thusly, quoted collaborative references as described above, which, as an aside, is a normal procedure in writing scientific papers, along with including a Bibliography. In short, if one embraces 8K scanning of original 65mm film source as to being worthwhile for Blu-ray production and home exhibition (in 1080p), then one should also embrace 4K scanning of 35mm film source. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#391 |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]()
No, the point is that these marketing fellas
![]() ![]() Reminds me of the dueling camera events from Canon and RED (within hours of each other) in November 2011… http://www.verticalonline.com/red-scarlet-x-canon-c300/ Some would argue that even though Canon had Martin Scorsese as a celebrity guest, that RED ruled the day ![]() Last edited by Penton-Man; 11-21-2012 at 04:45 PM. Reason: added a phrase |
![]() |
![]() |
#392 | |||
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]() Quote:
Consider Sat vs. cable. ![]() http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/d...ber=2087270942 R3PO – in terms of your Signature. ![]() Quote:
![]() In short, Cleveland, despite your short-term pro football void (what, 3 years as opposed to 12 years for the football fans of Baltimore), you retained your team history. Mine left in Mayflower moving vans in the middle of the night with snow on the ground. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#393 |
Special Member
|
![]()
It's been a while since school, but there is something known as Nyquist's sampling theory. Basically, if you've got a signal with 2 KHz information, you need to sample at 4 KHz to avoid aliasing (getting things that don't exist in the signal being sampled).
Does this apply to film scanning? A negative with 2K resolution should be sampled (scanned) at 4K? Last edited by joie; 11-21-2012 at 05:48 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#394 |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]()
^ In short, Yes.
In long, see the pdf linked here… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ng#post5262638 P.S. Eh, I see that pdf link to the paper is no longer active, so, here you go, try the download here…http://archiv.arri.de/4kplus-systems/index.htm What is the significance or credibility of the assertions presented in this paper, one might ask? Well, he/it only won the 2009 SMPTE Journal Award - https://www.smpte.org/about/awards-p...ournal-winners Last edited by Penton-Man; 11-21-2012 at 07:44 PM. Reason: added a P.S. |
![]() |
![]() |
#395 |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]()
Everyone have a wonderful Thanksgiving and many blessings to you and your families (human as well as animal
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#397 | |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]() Quote:
it really makes me wonder how it seems that so many people have so much more disposable income than I do at the moment. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#398 | |
Power Member
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#399 | |
Active Member
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|