Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by peterraes

Think your missing something special by not having a HDR set?

I'm not missing much. There is not a lot of media available in any case, and what is around is not high-quality film in any case. I will wait.

Originally Posted by peterraes

Do some research about HDR video and try to get a viewing on a calibrated display,then come back here and give me your honest opinion...dont be fooled by the "buzz" right now about HDR ,just view it yourself before making judgement!

HDR wasn't even being discussed when I got my 4K set. I bought too early, but it seems I didn't miss very much. I will get an HDR set, eventually, but it isn't a rush.


There is a very good reason that I also have a Pioneer Kuro 151, so calibration means less than a quality set out of the box.

Originally Posted by peterraes

They WILL slap you around with brighter whites and deeper blacks but only in the portion of the picture where it is "normal",seriously....they take us for fools the industry?

Yes, they do.

Originally Posted by peterraes

Been collecting movies since betamax,laserdisc,dvd..and i always watch on calibrated displays,NEVER otherwise.

That's nice. I suppose it's really required if you don't know how to adjust your equipment yourself, or have a unit of lousy quality in the first place. Calibration is a fad that pre-supposes that the gear you paid good money for was crap when you bought it, and only someone else can make it tolerable. While it can improve the picture, there are a lot of factors that go into it.

Originally Posted by peterraes

I had the chance to see it at the professionals and i went home verry dissapointed ,not because of the 4K..WCG and 10Bit...the HDR is the real "filmlook" killer.
I'm still on hold for a top 4K projektor as i'm not sure what to do really ,HDR really puts me off ,i'm a purist and (slightly) obsessed about how i view my movies.

Film itself is a series of compromises in lighting, type and brand of camera, aspect ratio stock, various visual effects, variables in the venue in which it is displayed, and photographic competence. The variables are just too great. But I am wondering how badly it is skewed for HDR...

Originally Posted by peterraes

That does not mean it has to be for others here ,if you dont mind HDR and dont give a damn about artistic ...then your oke i guess and can enjoy it.

Too much of the discussion of HDR is about being dazzled, and I take these comments with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by peterraes

PS:sorry for spelling errors etc...my native language is flemish.

No worries. I'm from Compton, California myself, and though I have taught myself perfect Business English without a detectable accent, I still occasionally slip into colloquialisms that only natives can really understand.

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Biggest barrier for me is intrusive DRM capability combined with diminishing returns over BD

So far that intrusive DRM, has been a non starter there has been no online authentication, as for diminishing returns that one is still subjective, I have always argued that it's more about the WCG and HDR than resolution, even on a small screen it's noticeable, they could have very easily incorporated this into 1080p, and improved that experience, 4k itself only adds a modest improvement on the most popular screen sizes of 50" to 55".

[fathergll]

I think the biggest hurdle is still based on the fact it's physical media which is going against the trend towards of internet streaming and Cable On Demand. Historically speaking the number 1 factor that lead to mass adoption for both audio and video has been form factor and convenience of that tech.

Compact Cassettes became huge because they were convenient and portable way of listening to music(Walkman came out in '79). CDs overtook cassettes primarily because they were more convenient(track skipping is such a huge benefit in music). iPods killed off CDs because of convenience despite have worse sound quality and streaming is killing off iPods because of convenience. Consumer audio music is at it's lowest quality since 20 years ago.

Laserdisc primary failed because the form factor was way too big and DVDs solved that issue much like how CDs replaces Cassettes.

The biggest hurdle going for UHD BD is that it's simply doesn't solve the convenience equation....it's still a disc. At best you can hope that UHD BD kind of limps in like BD did and slowly filly a niche for people who want physical media which I think it can and really thats what it has to do. It's just going to continue to get more difficult as time goes on especially as traditional movies lose ground to networks putting out shows that are top notch(Game of Thrones, Narcos..etc) and rental options for physical media dropping over the years.

[4K fanatic]

Ill tell you what, Sense 8 via netflix running 30mbps looks stellar. Breaking Bad as well. If, as said, Breaking Bad was just an upgraded scan cuz it wasnt shot in 4K, ill take any full frame 4K/ upscaled movie vs watching one with OAR and black bars tyst dont allow me to see the upgrade on my 65'' LG 4K tv. The black bars essentially mitigate the 65'' set and pit this into play:

https://www.google.com/search?q=seat...eGx3MGdfvuM%3A

I believe this is a good portion as to why the Avatar Blu-ray did so well at launch- selling a million copies- because people could see the entire picture on their tv- no black bars. Obviously the movie being a blockbuster was a bigger factor but the fact you can enjoy it on a smaller tv 55-60'' was an massive factor too. 4K Direct tv for sports will be a hit. Movies with the aspect ratios stated will be a smaller one. Maybe i dont have my couches close enough to my tv ( about 15' away) but i, nor most people, will cram their couches close to the tv and make their family room look like a joke just to enjoy 4K on the aspect ratios i continue to mention.

[cole2kb]

Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. You're saying that the aspect ratio of a movie has an effect on quality? So, does that mean that you just kept buying full-frame DVDs and never made the jump to Blu-ray either?

[larrs]

Originally Posted by cole2kb

Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. You're saying that the aspect ratio of a movie has an effect on quality? So, does that mean that you just kept buying full-frame DVDs and never made the jump to Blu-ray either?

I don't think you really read his argument. He is basically saying that the aspect ratio shrinks the "effective" size of the TV, which means the seating distance at which the benefit of 4K resolution becomes readily apparent is reduced as well. For example, with a 60" set, according to most calculators, you will not see a difference between 1080 and 4K unless your seating is 8 ft. or closer. When watching a 2:35 movie, you effectively reduce the size of your 60" set to 50" (or so), which means you would need to sit even closer (just over 6 ft. or so) to see the benefit.

Not saying I agree, but it was easy to see that is what the point was. And, this probably doesn't apply to a proper scope projector setup.

I will agree that it can certainly change the "awe" factor. Avatar was particularly pleasing as a 1.85 movie, possibly because it filled the screen.

[42041]

Originally Posted by larrs

I don't think you really read his argument. He is basically saying that the aspect ratio shrinks the "effective" size of the TV, which means the seating distance at which the benefit of 4K resolution becomes readily apparent is reduced as well. For example, with a 60" set, according to most calculators, you will not see a difference between 1080 and 4K unless your seating is 8 ft. or closer. When watching a 2:35 movie, you effectively reduce the size of your 60" set to 50" (or so), which means you would need to sit even closer (just over 6 ft. or so) to see the benefit.

No it doesn't... the panel is the same size, the pixels are the same size, the required distance to resolve them remains the same.

[larrs]

Originally Posted by 42041

No it doesn't... the panel is the same size, the pixels are the same size, the required distance to resolve them remains the same.

I agree and never said I didn't. The density of the pixels is the same. However, as I said, it was easy to see that was his argument (not mine).

[RealorFake4K]

Originally Posted by 4K fanatic

If, as said, Breaking Bad was just an upgraded scan cuz it wasnt shot in 4K

It was shot on 35mm film. Sony rescanned the negatives. It's Real 4K.

Originally Posted by Sony Film Ex - Grover Crisp

For film-originated content such as Funny Girl and Breaking Bad, the process involves scanning the original camera negative in 4K and doing all of the work including image clean up (for restoration projects) and color grading in 4K resolution.

Eh, since the average joe can access thousands of movies and TV shows with a tiny magic box through their cable provider, along with other just as easy on-demand options, it's hard to fathom any new rendition of physical media catching on.

Most consumers never really cared about quality alone. DVD was a big jump in PQ/AQ over VHS, but it offered many other benefits. BD and UHD are viewed more as "accessories" to DVD to the mainstream, still just "movies on CD" competing with the ease of clicking through a few menus on your TV to watch something. Then they look over at their stacks of discs and see a big waste of space and how many they only watched once or twice. Thinking how stupid it seems now that they have a box to do it all. That's unfortunately the growing perspective of the average consumer. So ultimately, UHD will serve a niche like LaserDisc, and that's just fine and not necessarily a bad thing.

[Pontte91]

Been reading lots about this 4K. I'm not gonna get one. I want to experience a 4K UHD tv with a uhd 4k blu ray player and a 4k uhd movie. The thing is i'm afraid that it can flop because we are gonna get 8K at some point too. Gonna stick to the blu rays. Blu rays were the highlight of my generation as a teen in 2006. 1080P HD suits me well.

Would get really expensive too to buy a whole 4K set. Thou ofc if i'm really impressed and love it, i will buy it. Gonna be real pissed people who collect and buy lots of 4K stuff and then suddenly 2 years after 8K comes and blows the crap out of everyone's mind. Think im gonna stick with 1080P for now, but who knows maybe 4K and 8K will blow my mind. At least gonna wait for prices to drop.

Read something dumb online the other day. Somewhere it read that 4K may irritate and damage your eyesight. Can't be right? Maybe if your face is glued to the screen :P

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

'Killed the CD' what a slow death! 20 odd years and still counting. They are bloody everywhere.

Agreed. Actually, the first CD & CD players came out in 1982 (at least in the U.S.). So, they've been around for 34 years - and they are still being produced. Granted, they are not being produced nearly as much as they used to be, but there are still new ones coming out frequently.

And, even some established, older musical groups/artists come out with CD re-releases/boxed sets on a regular basis, i.e. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. In fact, I don't think any of the Beatles catalog has ever been OOP for any long period of time - since they're always getting re-released.

[KRW1]

I think when people say one format has 'killed' another these days, they mean 'X format has killed X format in my house'.

In my house, CD (and vinyl) still rules the roost and bluray is winning the war against streaming by a healthy margin. Surprisingly VHS has outsold DVD this year. Your house might differ.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Agreed. Actually, the first CD & CD players came out in 1982 (at least in the U.S.). So, they've been around for 34 years - and they are still being produced. Granted, they are not being produced nearly as much as they used to be, but there are still new ones coming out frequently.

And, even some established, older musical groups/artists come out with CD re-releases/boxed sets on a regular basis, i.e. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. In fact, I don't think any of the Beatles catalog has ever been OOP for any long period of time - since they're always getting re-released.

Yeah, don't know what I was thinking. It's way longer than 20 years.

On the subject of films, I don't care if the whole world turns to smartphones and shitty SD streams, if I can't enjoy my entertainment on the big screen at some point in the far future, I think it would be my turn to get off the ride!

[4K fanatic]

Originally Posted by larrs

I don't think you really read his argument. He is basically saying that the aspect ratio shrinks the "effective" size of the TV, which means the seating distance at which the benefit of 4K resolution becomes readily apparent is reduced as well. For example, with a 60" set, according to most calculators, you will not see a difference between 1080 and 4K unless your seating is 8 ft. or closer. When watching a 2:35 movie, you effectively reduce the size of your 60" set to 50" (or so), which means you would need to sit even closer (just over 6 ft. or so) to see the benefit.

Not saying I agree, but it was easy to see that is what the point was. And, this probably doesn't apply to a proper scope projector setup.

I will agree that it can certainly change the "awe" factor. Avatar was particularly pleasing as a 1.85 movie, possibly because it filled the screen.

Exactly on my point.

[4K fanatic]

Originally Posted by RealorFake4K

It was shot on 35mm film. Sony rescanned the negatives. It's Real 4K.

Someone posted earlier to my post about how good Breaking Bad looked in 4K vs cable/1080i and I was told it was just upscaled.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by 4K fanatic

Someone posted earlier to my post about how good Breaking Bad looked in 4K vs cable/1080i and I was told it was just upscaled.

It's not

[4K fanatic]

Wish there was some way to update the classics to a 1.78:1 ratio with a 4K screen resolution. Watched Gilda via TCM on demand from Direct Tv. Don't think I've seen a more beautiful women than her in that or the cute girl next door look of Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

[wonderer99]

I will take physical over digital anyday. However, I do not see any physical media, 4K or otherwise filling people's homes again. Not until studios pull the plug on DVD. DVD killed VHS and unfortunately, due to its explosive popularity it is also preventing any future physical media from taking the baton. They should have killed DVD 5 years ago.

[Wiidesire]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

I will take physical over digital anyday. However, I do not see any physical media, 4K or otherwise filling people's homes again. Not until studios pull the plug on DVD. DVD killed VHS and unfortunately, due to its explosive popularity it is also preventing any future physical media from taking the baton. They should have killed DVD 5 years ago.

I agree, but not with the time frame.

Now is the perfect time to kill DVD. We've got Blu-ray as the baseline for the mainstream + it's now really cheap to produce the 50 GB Dual Layer Blu-ray discs and we've also got the new premium 4k Ultra HD Blu-ray for the enthusiasts.