AVS Can't-Wait Special—"Mastered in 4K" Blu-Ray Releases - Page 29 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #841 of 909 Old 05-18-2014, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Lawrence of Arabia Mi4K release vs original: http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=4070&disc2=1515&hd_multiID=117#auswahl

Barely any improvement with an extra 13mbits to the video, shows how good the original encode was
eric.exe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #842 of 909 Old 05-18-2014, 08:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Barely any improvement with an extra 13mbits to the video, shows how good the original encode was
Yeah, I can't see much either.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #843 of 909 Old 05-25-2014, 06:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
helvetica bold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Monuments Men is a Mi4K BluRay! I guess all f Sonys future releases will be. Just picked it up at bestbuy.
helvetica bold is offline  
post #844 of 909 Old 05-25-2014, 08:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Lawrence of Arabia Mi4K release vs original: http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=4070&disc2=1515&hd_multiID=117#auswahl

Barely any improvement with an extra 13mbits to the video, shows how good the original encode was

It looks like the color timing is slightly different. I wonder what Robert Harris would say about it.

DavidHir is online now  
post #845 of 909 Old 05-26-2014, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,373
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I asked RAH about it over at the HTF. His reply: "Gorgeous. Looks like an original negative print".
hsinnott and Phantom Stranger like this.
Geoff D is offline  
post #846 of 909 Old 05-26-2014, 04:18 PM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyo1612 View Post The 4k remaster of Total Recall (2012) looks absolutely amazing, mind you the initial release looked pretty good except for the audio issues that ruined what should have been a great disc. But the 4k remaster does certainly look superior....

How about the sound was it better?

wse is offline  
post #847 of 909 Old 05-26-2014, 08:13 PM
Member
 
Mattyo1612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Mackay Queensland Australia
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

How about the sound was it better?

Yes the audio is as it should have been on the initial release... no drop outs now... it now sounds terrific!

Mattyo1612 is offline  
post #848 of 909 Old 06-03-2014, 02:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by helvetica bold View Post

Monuments Men is a Mi4K BluRay! I guess all f Sonys future releases will be. Just picked it up at bestbuy.
An extras with it or just the movie itself ?

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is offline  
post #849 of 909 Old 06-03-2014, 06:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Zenyatto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I have NOT watched The Monuments Men. Most of the time I research any BD DVD I intend to buy. A rival site posted The Monuments Men 4K mastered BD DVD review. The evaluator did NOT give the high marks normally expected from a 4K mastered BD DVD.

Home Theater Aficionado
Zenyatto is offline  
post #850 of 909 Old 06-05-2014, 09:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I thought it looked very good on my projection setup from 1x screen width.

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is online now  
post #851 of 909 Old 06-06-2014, 11:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
helvetica bold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenyatto View Post

I have NOT watched The Monuments Men. Most of the time I research any BD DVD I intend to buy. A rival site posted The Monuments Men 4K mastered BD DVD review. The evaluator did NOT give the high marks normally expected from a 4K mastered BD DVD.

Yeah The Monuments Men was pretty meh. I purchased Ghost Busters Mi4K and it looked great. Seeing it with x.v.Color set to on did make pop.
helvetica bold is offline  
post #852 of 909 Old 06-10-2014, 06:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 64
The new Ghostbusters I & II pack contains both films mastered in 4K - if you want GBII, that is. wink.gif
nathanddrews is online now  
post #853 of 909 Old 06-16-2014, 05:10 PM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 11
* Is there any reviews on the 4K films mentioned here?

I doubt any of these films will look better> if they're 1080p they where shrunk from the 4K source. not sure how else these films where transfered to 1080p originally.

I don't see GBI-II being any better than the latest release.

Snapshot-2014-06-16 at 08_12_41 PM-4185.jpg

Snapshot-2014-06-16 at 08_17_19 PM-13080.jpg

Snapshot-2014-06-16 at 08_18_34 PM-22245.jpg

Snapshot-2014-06-16 at 08_21_55 PM-8357.jpg

Snapshot-2014-06-16 at 08_23_08 PM-16626.jpg

Snapshot-2014-06-16 at 08_24_10 PM-10519.jpg

*Snap shots might not be the best> but generally thats what the film looks like @ 1080p> noise on black colors disapears with snapshots.

Last edited by theatredaz; 06-16-2014 at 05:29 PM.
theatredaz is offline  
post #854 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 11:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by theatredaz View Post
I don't see GBI-II being any better than the latest release.
The first Blu-ray for Ghostbusters had a terrible transfer. The "Mastered in 4k" Blu-ray is a much better transfer. The upcoming release is a reissue of the same "Mastered in 4k" transfer, but this time with different bonus features.

Ghostbusters II was not previously released on Blu-ray. The upcoming "Mastered in 4k" release will be its first appearance on Blu-ray.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #855 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 12:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 64
I doubt many people would have noticed a difference between the two Ghostbusters discs had they simply un-boosted the previous version. I'm happy it was corrected though!
nathanddrews is online now  
post #856 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 01:53 PM
Member
 
Kool-aid23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Info. please. Are the mastered in 4K Japan releases the same encodes as the US?

Thanks
Kool-aid23 is offline  
post #857 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 02:22 PM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The first Blu-ray for Ghostbusters had a terrible transfer. The "Mastered in 4k" Blu-ray is a much better transfer. The upcoming release is a reissue of the same "Mastered in 4k" transfer, but this time with different bonus features.

Ghostbusters II was not previously released on Blu-ray. The upcoming "Mastered in 4k" release will be its first appearance on Blu-ray.
* I assumed there is only one transfer on the Market, I still can't see it being noticeably better.
theatredaz is offline  
post #858 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 02:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by theatredaz View Post
* I assumed there is only one transfer on the Market, I still can't see it being noticeably better.
I assume you haven't seen the first Blu-ray release, which looked like total garbage.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #859 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 02:39 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Blu-Ray loves you all!

Every movie is mastered in two ways, Film or digital, 480, 720, 1080, 2K, 4K, Whatever is next. Having a Blu-Ray that has mastered in 4K is a marketing ploy aimed at John Q Public for your cash.

Have you not been reading the news? There is nothing "NATIVE" 4K on Blu-Ray! 1080P, tops.

If you read the small print, Mastered in 4K for HiDef 1080P playback on Blu-Ray disk players! If it was mastered in 1080P, you would still get 1080P quality on your TV.

Ghost busters? Are you kidding me? That movie was shot on film. You do not get digital from analog! What you are looking at is a scanned and severely modified Ghost busters that is far from original. Same thing that was done to Star Wars and Star Trek.

Even Dan Aykroyd said the sets didn't look that good in person!
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #860 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 02:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
fatherom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston area, MA
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Blu-Ray loves you all!

Every movie is mastered in two ways, Film or digital, 480, 720, 1080, 2K, 4K, Whatever is next. Having a Blu-Ray that has mastered in 4K is a marketing ploy aimed at John Q Public for your cash.

Have you not been reading the news? There is nothing "NATIVE" 4K on Blu-Ray! 1080P, tops.

If you read the small print, Mastered in 4K for HiDef 1080P playback on Blu-Ray disk players! If it was mastered in 1080P, you would still get 1080P quality on your TV.

Ghost busters? Are you kidding me? That movie was shot on film. You do not get digital from analog! What you are looking at is a scanned and severely modified Ghost busters that is far from original. Same thing that was done to Star Wars and Star Trek.

Even Dan Aykroyd said the sets didn't look that good in person!
UGH. You can't be serious.

First of all, no one that's been on this thread recently has any illusions that these discs are anything but 1080p. We all know this. The fact that it's mastered in 4K can matter, though.

Ghostbusters was shot on film, like 90% of the films in history.

Film, natively, has much more than 1920x1080 resolution. A new transfer of an old film in something like 4K (or 8K) can most CERTAINLY benefit from the added resolution.
Phantom Stranger likes this.


Epson 5020UB (won on AVSForum!) on Elite Sable 16:9 100", Oppo BDP-83 & 93 (ISO firmware), Dune HD Base 3.0, Darblet, Sony MDR-DS7500 Wireless Surround Headphones & Onkyo TX-SR707

Last edited by fatherom; 06-17-2014 at 02:50 PM.
fatherom is online now  
post #861 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 02:53 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatherom View Post
UGH. You can't be serious.

First of all, no one that's been on this thread recently has any illusions that these discs are anything but 1080p. We all know this. The fact that it's mastered in 4K can matter, though.

Ghostbusters was shot on film, like 90% of the films in history.

Film, natively, has much more that 1920x1080 resolution. A new transfer of an old film in something like 4K (or 8K) can most CERTAINLY benefit from the added resolution.
Your joking, right?

What difference does it matter what the master was shot on? It will still be 1080P(maybe) on your TV.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #862 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 02:57 PM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 11
*Ok so Yes...the film was just scanned and copied to Digital. (non 4k digital source)

* The question is...What resolution was the original Film? Was it 720, the detail is rather low> but better than the dvd> but still looks as though the bluray was encoded using an AVI mpeg codec or something.


I'll make a rough estimate as to why the Film looks so poor. Film costs lots of money, back then Film by the foot was probably $10-20> production wanted to keep a low budget for the film so instead they used> Discarded film sold cheaply to them to make the movie (Old film unused from other films)> Ok so they buy cheaper film reel etc> then when they start using it> the film wasn't stored properly, and had WAY too much film grain from dust accumalation where it was stored> therefore poorly stored used film is the cause of Fuzzy low resolution image.

I've assumed Film Stock being an issue because some older 80's movies like Predator have one scene where the pictures is bad, and the other camera picks the image just fine. Or it could be a light lens issue as well.
theatredaz is offline  
post #863 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 03:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
fatherom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston area, MA
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Your joking, right?

What difference does it matter what the master was shot on? It will still be 1080P(maybe) on your TV.
No, I'm not joking at all.

And I'm not talking about what the master "was shot on". I'm talking about scanning film at 4K (or 8K) levels. If you have a better scan from the original film, you have a better quality image to work with and compress back down to 1080p. Makes perfect sense to me. And later, when 4K (or 8K) are commonplace, we'll benefit even more.

Do some research on the benefits of film scanning at higher resolutions. This topic has been beaten to death for years on these forums.

Josh Z, can you lend some sanity to this?


Epson 5020UB (won on AVSForum!) on Elite Sable 16:9 100", Oppo BDP-83 & 93 (ISO firmware), Dune HD Base 3.0, Darblet, Sony MDR-DS7500 Wireless Surround Headphones & Onkyo TX-SR707

Last edited by fatherom; 06-17-2014 at 03:11 PM.
fatherom is online now  
post #864 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 03:08 PM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 11
* I've seen software that is capable of scanning a low res image> and precisley scaling it to higher resolutions.
theatredaz is offline  
post #865 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 03:16 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatherom View Post
UGH. You can't be serious.

First of all, no one that's been on this thread recently has any illusions that these discs are anything but 1080p. We all know this. The fact that it's mastered in 4K can matter, though.

Ghostbusters was shot on film, like 90% of the films in history.

Film, natively, has much more than 1920x1080 resolution. A new transfer of an old film in something like 4K (or 8K) can most CERTAINLY benefit from the added resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatherom View Post
No, I'm not joking at all.

Do some research on the benefits of film scanning at higher resolutions. This topic has been beaten to death for years on these forums.
Are you joking, again?

Scanning film to digital introduces all kinds of DPI artifacts, contrast issues, brightness issues, not to mention making x,y and z dimensions "artificial".

Here is a prime example of that.

Get a Polaroid instant camera photo, scan it how ever you like, with what ever you like and compare the scan, to the actual photo. Yes the scan looks like crud and has to be "inhanced" to even compete with the original film photo.

I got one that is easier than that. Find some National Geographic magazines from before 1995 and look at those stunning photos that were literately printed off of the film stock negatives. 8K does not even touch film.

Better yet, find a local cinema in your area that still is using 35MM(yeah rare but possible) and see the same movie in digital. You will be surprised to find digital is not what it is cracked up to be.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #866 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 03:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
fatherom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston area, MA
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Are you joking, again?

Scanning film to digital introduces all kinds of DPI artifacts, contrast issues, brightness issues, not to mention making x,y and z dimensions "artificial".

Here is a prime example of that.

Get a Polaroid instant camera photo, scan it how ever you like, with what ever you like and compare the scan, to the actual photo. Yes the scan looks like crud and has to be "inhanced" to even compete with the original film photo.

I got one that is easier than that. Find some National Geographic magazines from before 1995 and look at those stunning photos that were literately printed off of the film stock negatives. 8K does not even touch film.

Better yet, find a local cinema in your area that still is using 35MM(yeah rare but possible) and see the same movie in digital. You will be surprised to find digital is not what it is cracked up to be.
I am going to respond to this, and then let others take over who know more technical details than me. But, I'm sorry, you're wrong.

To use your "scan a photo" analogy. Scan a polaroid photo at 150dpi, and again at 600dpi. Then take those two raw scans and create same resolution JPGs. The 600dpi source will look better, I guarantee it. Same thing works with audio. The better your source, the better the compressed version will look.

Most of what you are saying is patently false and/or makes no sense.

You spelled "enhanced" wrong, by the way.
David Susilo likes this.


Epson 5020UB (won on AVSForum!) on Elite Sable 16:9 100", Oppo BDP-83 & 93 (ISO firmware), Dune HD Base 3.0, Darblet, Sony MDR-DS7500 Wireless Surround Headphones & Onkyo TX-SR707
fatherom is online now  
post #867 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
fatherom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston area, MA
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Are you joking, again?

Scanning film to digital introduces all kinds of DPI artifacts, contrast issues, brightness issues, not to mention making x,y and z dimensions "artificial".

Here is a prime example of that.

Get a Polaroid instant camera photo, scan it how ever you like, with what ever you like and compare the scan, to the actual photo. Yes the scan looks like crud and has to be "inhanced" to even compete with the original film photo.

I got one that is easier than that. Find some National Geographic magazines from before 1995 and look at those stunning photos that were literately printed off of the film stock negatives. 8K does not even touch film.

Better yet, find a local cinema in your area that still is using 35MM(yeah rare but possible) and see the same movie in digital. You will be surprised to find digital is not what it is cracked up to be.
And a major portion of your argument only proves my point. YES, film has a lot of intrinsic resolution, which is exactly why a low resolution scan "looks like crud". This is EXACTLY my point, and why scanning at a high resolution like 4K or 8K can yield benefits over 1080p transfers.
David Susilo likes this.


Epson 5020UB (won on AVSForum!) on Elite Sable 16:9 100", Oppo BDP-83 & 93 (ISO firmware), Dune HD Base 3.0, Darblet, Sony MDR-DS7500 Wireless Surround Headphones & Onkyo TX-SR707
fatherom is online now  
post #868 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 04:09 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatherom View Post
And a major portion of your argument only proves my point. YES, film has a lot of intrinsic resolution, which is exactly why a low resolution scan "looks like crud". This is EXACTLY my point, and why scanning at a high resolution like 4K or 8K can yield benefits over 1080p transfers.
Film is the exact image, as viewed thru the lens, chemically captured on film thru exposure, the same as the human eye works. Digital is DPI rendering. Can't compete. Copying or scanning film to digital never gives the best results. It's night and day. You have to have a high level of "Photoshop" or other photo enhancing tools to even compare a digital scan and photo to the film negative.

Then again it does not matter if it is 4K or 22K, what it is viewed on and thru is what the final picture will be. Any enhancement in the image quality will be loss when lowering the final resolution. What good is a 4K rendering on a 1080P screen? Nothing you have a 1080P image.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #869 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 04:12 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked: 55
To make this easy to understand. You will not be having a 4K picture on your 1080P TV. You will not be having a 4K picture from a 1080P Blu-Ray disk. No matter how you slice and dice it, you will have a 1080P picture. Even if you have a UHD or 4K TV, then you will have a UHD or 4K TV showing a 1080P picture. Nothing in the market is 4K Blu-Ray, and will not be for awhile. There is millions maybe billions of Blu-Ray players that will not support 4K nor read from the average Blu-Ray disk and they have to be replaced before commercially made "true UHD/4K" is available.

Last edited by CinemaAndy; 06-17-2014 at 04:19 PM.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #870 of 909 Old 06-17-2014, 04:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
fatherom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston area, MA
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Film is the exact image, as viewed thru the lens, chemically captured on film thru exposure, the same as the human eye works. Digital is DPI rendering. Can't compete. Copying or scanning film to digital never gives the best results. It's night and day. You have to have a high level of "Photoshop" or other photo enhancing tools to even compare a digital scan and photo to the film negative.

Then again it does not matter if it is 4K or 22K, what it is viewed on and thru is what the final picture will be. Any enhancement in the image quality will be loss when lowering the final resolution. What good is a 4K rendering on a 1080P screen? Nothing you have a 1080P image.
Good lord...I give up. Maybe others can explain it better than I can. Again, Josh Z....help!


Epson 5020UB (won on AVSForum!) on Elite Sable 16:9 100", Oppo BDP-83 & 93 (ISO firmware), Dune HD Base 3.0, Darblet, Sony MDR-DS7500 Wireless Surround Headphones & Onkyo TX-SR707
fatherom is online now  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Tags
Blu Ray Movies

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off