So I'm getting a new monitor either today or Friday and I've been looking for something nice to download for my inaugural viewing.
Looking on torrent sites I see a ton of 4k rips of television shows that are almost an hour long but the file size is less than 2 gigabytes. This doesn't seem possible to me.
What is up with this? Have they made massive compromises in bitrate and audio quality? If so, what is the point?
>What is up with this?
Retards.
>Have they made massive compromises in bitrate and audio quality?
Yes. Or even better, it's just upscaled.
>If so, what is the point?
Appealing to retards.
I've discovered if you take 1080p video and expand it to full screen the file size is actually smaller than upscaling 1080p and saving to 4k.
>4k television shows
There is no such thing. TV channels broadcast at 720p or 1080i. Look it up.
Also, another question.
My new monitor will have a resolution of 1920x1200. I figured I would download a 4k video so I could crop it to 16:10 without losing any detail.
This will downscale from 2160p to 1200p, instead of upscaling 1080p to 1200p. This ought to result in a better video quality, but sometimes I've noticed a strange shimmering/fringing effect when downscaling video.
What do you guys think about this idea?
>>51524731
There are some streaming services that offer 4k/UHD video. Amazon and Netflix both have it.
>>51524772
If you have a 1080p monitor. 1080p will look the best, period
>>51524784
No.
>>51524795
But it's not a 1080p monitor. I said so right in the post.
>>51524772
>but sometimes I've noticed a strange shimmering/fringing effect when downscaling video.
Use a player that doesn't suck ass and somehow allows you to choose the downscaling algorithm.
>>51524941
I do. I regularly downscale from 1080 to 768 without issue. But we'll see how the 4k to 1200p turns out.
>>51524639
The purpose of a high resolution is rather defeated if the bitrate it too low to fill it with sharp details, don't you think?
>>51524639
>4k torrents under 2gb
>yes yiffy deserves to die
>and i hope they burn in hueelll
>4k torrents under 2gb
>>51525031
Why would you need to downscale? Just fucking download 1080p, the horizontal resolution matches your monitor.
>>51527411
>>yes yiffy deserves to die
I've got news for you bud, they already died
>>51524784
But was it recorded in 4k?
The answer is no.
>>51529014
I find it hard to believe that every YouTuber and his cat has a4k camera but Netflix doesn't. You have any articles that support this?
watch some 4k porn for your inaugural viewing
>>51527805
But the vertical does not.
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels
1920x1200 = 2304000 pixels
2073600/2304000 = .9
So I would be wasting 10% of my monitors available resolution by sticking to 1080p. I would rather do a slight cropping of the image that will be pretty much harmless than settle for less than maximum detail.
>>51529014
uhhh...the answer is yes, anon. 4k cameras have been a thing for a while now and most major shows are future-proofing.
>>51530224
You're an idiot, why would you crop the picture just to get a tiny bit more vertical detail?
>>51530506
I don't think 10% is a tiny bit of detail. The amount of cropping I'm doing is within the safe zone for artistic integrity of the image.
>>51530825
Whatever, you want to cut actual video off for a tiny bit of sharpness go ahead and be a retard, your loss.
>>51530861
You'd do the exact same thing and you know it.
>>51529570
>Netflix records shows
holy fuck these pro-4k people are retarded
have fun watching distorted films while paying 3x as much for something that won't be relevant for 5 years lol
>>51531037
You can watch plenty of 4k content for free, brah
>>51531037
>have fun watching distorted films
what?
>>51530976
No I wouldn't, not even for a 50-100% increase in resolution beyond 1080p.
>>51530976
But that's not what the director intended. Your like one of those people that stretches 4x3 to 16x9.
>>51531144
*you're
>>51531144
>trying to enjoy dragonball z
>STUPID WORTHLESS CUNTBAG SACKS OF SHIT CUTOFF THE TOP AND BOTTOM JUST TO DISTORT TEH VIDEO AND MAKE IT WIDESCREEN
holy fuck this angers me. if you want your videos to be in widescreen, the fucking shit is easy as fuck to achieve with any fucking media player. tehre's absolutely no fucking reason to crop it then upload it.
fuck i hate people
>>51524772
>crop it to 16:10
You're an idiot.
Just deal with the black bars.
Buy a proper 16:9 screen next time.
>>51531144
Overscan. Very little over important is going to be found within that boundary. 10% is pushing it a bit, but eh.
>Your like one of those people that stretches 4x3 to 16x9.
Not really. This is nowhere near as bad. Keep in mind this is just for watching television. Are you really that worried about the artistic integrity of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.?
>>51531205
Or even better: 21:9
>>51531205
16:9 sucks for everything other than video/games
>>51524639
Newflash, only like 4 series from netflix and shit are 4K anon, everything else is just 720p on television and maybe some true 1080p.
You wouldn't buy a 4K Display for just TV right? RIGHT?
I hope you have a pretty good gpu so you can enjoy 4K vidya because that's the only medium who fully take advantage of it today.
>>51531144
I used to regularly crop 16:9 tv shows like House to 4:3 when I viewed them on my old CRT monitor. The show was made in the era when tons of people still had SDTVs so the camera never put anything important on the edges of the screen. No regrets.
>>51524880
but 1920x 1200 is not 4k. most cinematographers are smart enough to film things is such a way that only unimportant crap is lost when cropping to 4:3.
>>51531260
I actually would if I had the money. Being an early adopter is pretty fun. I saw some guys a several years ago who were fooling around with joining images from projectors together to get "UHD", always wanted to get into that at the time.
>>51531248
Only if your screen is small.
For big screens you want width, not height.
And for laptops 16:9 is easier to fit in a bag.
>>51531299
The idea is when you downscale 4k to 1920x1200 you get all all detail possible out of the resolution, as opposed to upscaling 1920x1080 you won't get any more detail out of the extra pixels.
Related note: when films were shown in cinemas in 35mm and 70mm it was very common for the 70mm version of the movie to be cropped to a different aspect ratio.
For instance, the 70mm version of Empire Strikes back is cropped compared to 35mm.
>>51531356
>>51531337
>>51531260
das pretty
>>51531343
yeah but you don't gain anything from not just using an 1920 x1080 source except either a wierd stretching or cropping just to fill 120 extra pixels.
>>51531360
Then what did they film it on?
>>51531396
er 120 lines of resolution rather
ITT: 16:10 buyer's remorse.
>>51531410
One or the other. The film strips themselves are different shapes, so you'd need a lens to perform an anamorphic stretch if you want them to have the same aspect ratio. They didn't always do that.
All the original Star Wars were filmed in 35mm, and but were also shown as 70mm "blow up" editions. The 70mm version cuts off some of the bottom of the screen.
Various DVD and Blu-ray releases of films usually have differing amounts of cropping (for the same film).
When it comes to old films the AR isn't very well set in stone.
>>51531260
Pretty much this sadly. Unless you want to watch some 4k documentaries on earth or some nice 4k pictures
>>51531418
You possibly gain a 10% increase in detail for the image.
>>51530995
>living under a rock
Keep on being edgy
>>51531503
how?
>>51531356
>>51531337
>no longer need anti aliasing
mmmm
>>51531499
>Unless you want to watch some 4k documentaries on earth
Sounds good to me.
>>51531503
At the expense of 10 percent of the picture fucking gone. Unless you're sitting 6 inches from the fucking screen you aren't going to notice 10% more resolution.
>>51531484
>70mm "blow up"
That's just as retarded as scaling 1080p to 4k.
>>51531534
yeah but to achieve the extra pixels they would have to be stretched or distorted in some way unless you just crop a larger version witch may end up looking a little weird too depending on how it's done
Plus the even stupider thing about cropping is when you get films shot in even wider aspect ratios than 16:9 you'll be losing a much larger fraction of the picture, letterboxing is always preferable to that.
>>51531570
Keep in mind this is video, not an old pixel-perfect video game. 1:1 mapping isn't so important.
If you crop and downscale a 4k video 1920x1200 there shouldn't be any issues with video quality. It's all about the argument of detail vs artists vision in this thread.
>>51531606
Nobody is going to crop 2:35:1 to 16:10. That's simply foolishness.
>>51531536
I don't really know enough about the matter to say.
>>51531665
maybe but it's not worth re-encoding from 4k if you just get the same effect that you get from hitting fullscreen mode in your videoplayer
>>51531707
Who said anything about re-encoding? But anyway I don't think you'd get the same effect.
Even with 1080p in some cases you might actually end up with a better version of what you want to watch by re-encoding your own 1080p video from a 4k source, as compared to ripping a blu-ray or 1080p broadcast. Theoretically, of course.
I used to be argumentative with people who claimed a DVD and a Blu ray would look identical in SD, which is simply not true at all.
>>51531759
eh i guess if you have enough hardrive space then just download 4k and just let your videoplayer downscale it, if that's how you feel about it, it's kinda like those douchebags who claim they can tell a difference between high bitrate mp3 and flac.
>>51531606
Remember letterboxing makes the image slightly smaller and you will have a perceived loss of detail.
>>51531883
A minor one at high definition, and instead you get the whole picture. I don't know why you keep going in circles about this.
>>51531958
it makes him feel better about paying twice as much for a monitor with only 10% more resolution.
>>51531958
There's more than 2 people posting in this thread, anon.
>>51532111
I refuse to believe multiple people could be stupid enough to think that 10 percent extra vertical resolution (at 1920x1080 no less) is better than cropping 10% off the fucking sides of the picture
>>51532273
with a 1920x1200 monitor it's not even a matter of cropping, but of whether or not you want to distort the image 10% by stretching it to fill the screen.
>>51532352
That's even fucking worse
>>51532273
Believe it. Tons of people have 16:10 monitors.
>>51532352
>distort the image 10% by stretching it to fill the screen.
Don't do that. Crop it or don't, but stretching is abysmal. Missing a lampshade on the side of the screen can be forgiven, tall skinny people cannot.
>>51532373
>Tons of people have 16:10 monitors.
And tons of people just watch regular 1080p movies on them and don't think about reencoding 4k to crop the video for a measly 160 extra lines
>>51532359
right but those are the only options either use a higher resolution and crop it or use a lower resolution and stretch it. neither is really all that great.
>>51532421
No, or you could watch a 1920x1080 movie on your 1920x1200 monitor and just leave it the fuck alone
>>51532273
I sure will miss those cups of coffee and faces of people sitting in booths.
>>51532438
well that's the best and most obvious option, but alot of people feel compelled to see the entire screen completely filled for some reason.
>>51531142
You'd be an idiot in that case.
>>51532479
Back in the old days when people watched 2:35:1 on 4:3 tv's it looked terrible because you were pretty much watching in 720x240
![mpv - (Live)[T-ara] Number 9 (LG Demo 4K60fps).mp4 - 00h.00m.10s [2015.11.25-22h32m27s1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LpG4or3.jpg "mpv - (Live)[T-ara] Number 9 (LG Demo 4K60fps).mp4 - 00h.00m.10s [2015.11.25-22h32m27s1].jpg")
I doubt you're interested, but there are a few kpop stuff in 4k, filmed and broadcasted of course.
>>51532484
Why is that? Because the difference at regular viewing distance is almost insgnificant, compar the difference between 720 and 1080. nearly a 100% increase in pixel density. However it isn't a huge increase in visual fidelity, and the visible difference only shrinks at yet higher resolutions. I don't think the difference between 1080 and say 1440 is worth cropping or distorting my picture to get it, much less an order of magnitude smaller change.
>>51524731
>>51529014
If the show was recorded with 35mm film like breaking bad it's possible to releasae it in 4k.
But I don't think it's possible to appreciate 4k with a low bitrate.
>>51531185
Actually the latest blu rays of DBZ released by funimation are cropped (and DNR'd to hell) to make it widescreen. I'm happy I still have my level 1.1 blu ray so I know what could of been ;_;
>>51532548
>Because the difference at regular viewing distance is almost insgnificant
What viewing distance?, how do you know what size my TV is? Televisions over 50" are extremely common these days.
>compar the difference between 720 and 1080. nearly a 100% increase in pixel density. However it isn't a huge increase in visual fidelity,
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Get a bigger monitor. poorfag.
>>51532578
They're also censored to all shit.
Fucking retarded when the best way to watch a show is shitty, old-ass 45mb fucking real player TV rips.
I just want decent quality, 4:3 copies with the least amount of censorship possible. Why is that so goddamn difficult?
>>51532578
Just get the Jap ones, they're in 4:3 as they ought to be.
>>51532637
>Watching DBZ
>Having goku scream like a 12 year old girl
Yeah, fuck no.
![post-16281-0-68908000-1316406557[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4YRe8UT.jpg "post-16281-0-68908000-1316406557[1].jpg")
>>51532629
You could get a big 4:3 HDTV like Sony XBR800 and watch the Japanese Blu-rays in 1440x1080. I've always wanted to have one of these to watch stuff like DBZ and TNG.
>>51532613
this the thing driving higher resolutions isn't monitors,which are typically around 24 inches, but large format t.v.s. the larger the viewing are the more important the pixel density. i remember those old ass big tube t.v.s where it looked like a bunch of blocks.
>>51532666
Ironic post in a thread obsessing over preserving the director's intent.
![3140[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iydeJQK.jpg "3140[1].jpg")
>>51532670
I used to have a Mitsubishi Megaview 37" that supported 640x480p. I used to watch Hokuto No Ken on it and it looked amazing. I really, really miss it.
>>51532637
You mean the dragonbox ones or Kai?
>>51532629
Your option is to either get the discontinued level 1.1 and 1.2 blu rays or find the dragonbox sets.
Look how beautiful this could have looked on blu-ray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23yEzf3Czdk
