Hey /g/
Will any of you be buying 4k players and disks? What do you think about the tech?
Right now I have absolutely zero desire to a) upgrade my 1080p tv b) shell out additional hundreds of dollars for a player c) shell out double or triple prices for 4k movies I already own in bluray
Nevermind the fact I bet allot of movies will look just as shit in 4k as they did in fucking dvd
>buying physical media
>2015
I'm just going to download the ISOs with my fiber connection familia
>allot
As I understand it, 4k BR is more important for the updated color space than resolution. Currently, it's just really expensive to remaster content in 4k, especially if we're talking older films. Criterion already masters some stuff in 2k cause they don't have the time for 4k. I suspect the new encoding and space will be more useful for compilation BRs (i.e., TDK trilogy on 1 disc) than for real improvements on 1 movie discs.
>>52023113
It would only be worth it if I could also afford a fuckhuge TV (or projector setup). And surprisingly few films can actually make much use of it (a lot of movies in the past 15 years were done in 2K DI).
Having said that if I suddenly acquire a vast sum of money I will totally go for it.
>>52023444
This is kind of what I suspected, that movies were filmed using sub 4k tech so a 4k version of said movie would be pointless.
Anyone know the resolution of old reel films?
>>52023171
i buy movies i like because pirated movies are always shit quality with stereo sound, or they have artifacting out the ass
pirates have some fucking lowstandards for video
>>52023631
better than 2k certainly, with a good master. 35mm is anywhere from 4-8k, 70mm is probably something absurd like 16k
that said, those formats were made for projecting on 60ft screens. that kind of resolution forced into consumer size gets you diminishing returns, literally.
>>52023655
>because pirated movies are always shit quality with stereo sound, or they have artifacting out the ass
top kek m8 maybe on pleb public trackers
I download full Blu-ray ISOs before they even break street date. Going to watch The Walk in 3D on my 150" projector screen tonight.
>>52024026
What kind of projector do you have?
>>52023655
You can always find untouched video in the form of m2ts,bd.iso,or remux's of the blu ray.
>>52024148
Benq w1070
>>52024424
>w1070
>3d
>trying to brag
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
>>52024472
Is there a problem? It's the best bang for your buck you can get. It outperforms many projectors twice the price and even people with $5k LCoS projectors have one because it has superior 3D than those due to the poor motion.
I have the money for something better but I'm not going to buy now right before 4k standards are in the middle of being finalized.
>>52024604
>Benq w1070
The dude laughing wasn'tme, but how does a projector compare to a TV? I've recently been considering one, any guides?
>>52023444
35mm film can scan it at over 2k, 70mm can be fucking huge, although that much detail isn't quite needed outside of anime.
>>52024662
I have a S60 which is a Plasma that's comparably priced and I'll pick the projector any day. The Plasma may have better picture quality in many areas but having 100+ inch screen trumps any difference. You of course need to have a light controlled room for it to be any good though.
> any guides?
Depends on your budget, personally I wouldn't get anything less than the w1070 which is a great deal. There's also a new Vivitek projectors that are supposed to be even better but I haven't looked enough into it personally. AVSForums is a good place to do research.
>>52024604
>3d
>superior
keep trying to impress, its not going to work
>>52025005
I honestly wasn't trying to impress since I post it all the time and it's literally what I'm going to do in a half hour. I find it funny you think I am though which shows how inadequate you must be feeling.
>>52023655
well if yo download YIFY or something sure, faggot.
If you download BDRemuxes that are like 30-50GB per movie then no, you're gonna get better quality, and most likely more audio options if you're into that i guess.
>>52023194
this right here.
the elephant in the room with nearly all 4K discussions: GAMUT. so far, no 4K-resolution screens of any kind can show even a healthy fraction of the new color space.
the biggest difference between film and digital is still color gamut. due to lens quality and imprecise human focusing, most stuff shot on film won't gain much from the increased resolution, even though film's theoretical resolution can be higher.
the colors, though: dear fuck. depending on stock, film can capture all of Pointer's Gamut, aka all the reflective colors the physical world can produce.
4K won't be a real consideration until dual-green RGgV pixel panels and 6-laser projectors come out.
