Do you think 4k bluray will succeed?
Yes. 4k too large and most peoples internet is shitty easier to use 4k blu-rays.
Aren't 90% of the lined up titles shot with digital at 1080p or have all their CGI effects mastered at 1080p, meaning the 4k Blurays will be upscales?
>>52325524
Well I can confirm the hobbit films were shot at 4k 60fps, so I can only assume that'll be standard about now
I guess it'd be nice.
At least I'm pretty sure I'll get a 4K TV when I move later this year.
48 or 60 FPS is a much more needed improvement
I'm so sick of 24 FPS
Will 60 FPS be a standard together with 4k, or is there only capacity for either?
>>52325524
Actually movies are shot in the highest resolution possible, so it's often 60 fps 4K. If 4k was upscaled 1080p, you'd start bleeding through your eyes immediately, it's bearable to watch
>>52325528
Thank god, I saw the Hobbit at 48 FPS and it was way better than standard 24 FPS
>>52325528
>Well I can confirm the hobbit films were shot at 4k 60fps
No, they were shot at 48 FPS
>>52325585
my bad
>>52325578
>48 FPS and it was way better than standard 24 FPS
No need to state the obvious
--Twentieth Century Fox
----Wild
----The Maze Runner
----The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
----The Martian
----Life of Pi
----Kingsman: The Secret Service
----Exodus: Gods and Kings
----Hitman: Agent 47
----Fantastic 4 (2015)
----X-men: Days of Future Past
--Warner Home Video
----Mad Max: Fury Road
----San Andreas
----The Lego Movie
----Pan
----Man Of Steet
----Pacific Rim
--Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
----The Amazing Spider-Man 2
----The Smurfs 2
----Pineapple Express
----Salt
----Hancock
----Chappie
--Shout Factory
----Journey to Space
----Humpback Whales
----Flight of the Butterflies
----Rocky Mountains Express
----Wonders of the Arctic
----The Last Reef: Cities Beneath The Sea
>>52325669
>--Twentieth Century Fox
>----Wild
Movie
>----The Maze Runner
Flick
>----The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Flick
>----The Martian
Movie
>----Life of Pi
Movie
>----Kingsman: The Secret Service
Flick
>----Exodus: Gods and Kings
Flick
>----Hitman: Agent 47
Flick
>----Fantastic 4 (2015)
Flick
>----X-men: Days of Future Past
Flick
>--Warner Home Video
>----Mad Max: Fury Road
Flick
>----San Andreas
Flick
>----The Lego Movie
Flick
>----Pan
Flick
>----Man Of Steet
Flick
>----Pacific Rim
Flick
>--Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
>----The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Flick
>----The Smurfs 2
Flick
>----Pineapple Express
Movie
>----Salt
Flick
>----Hancock
Flick
>----Chappie
Flick
Basically 95% of current 4k films are trivial tripe.
>>52325690
epic meme brother, i am an expert memer and I give your memeing a 9/10.
>>52325690
Pls don't turn this thread into a mini /tv/ fuckfest
>>52325715
Actually quite serious.
Please don't tell me you're watching the likes of "San Andreas" or "Fantastic 4" unironically.
>>52325730
You're quite right I watch all flicks Hollywood puts out ironically, haha.
>>52325730
>he cherry-picked the worst two so no one could argue against him
Kill yourself you pretentious /tv/ garbage.
Wild and Pineapple Express are not even any good.
>>52325669
>Life of Pi
>X-men: Days of Future Past
>Pacific Rim
>Mad Max: Fury Road
At least these four are nothing but 2K upscales according to:
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/multimedia/37753-ultra-hd-blu-ray-mit-erstem-flop-viele-titel-sind-zunaechst-nur-upscales.html
>>52325499
yes please
>>52325690
I would sacrifice my firstborn for 4k interstellar though.
>>52325778
>Wild and Pineapple Express are not even any good.
Yeah they're 3/10 movies and 0/10 cinema.
There's not a single Cinema on the list.
Will ps4 be able to do 4k blu ray reading with a software update?
>>52325795
Maybe the space shots etc, the rest was tripe
No.
People will just download 700MB versions of 4K rips.
You can't tell the difference anyways.
>>52325576
You're right about the resolution but not about the framerate, most films are shot at 24fps. Most films are shot at 4k or higher ie. 8k but films being shot at anything other than 24fps is a big deal in the film industry. The hobbit did this and caught a lot of flak from all directions.
>>52325830
Clearly this is a thread about visuals, jackass.
I'd rather have high framerate than higher resolution still at 24fps. Surely you guys don't think that you'll get more framerate, 50GB are not enough for films of 140mins or up at 60fps.
>>52325817
Sure /v/ now go away
Why they dont make movies at 120 and 144fps?
>>52325877
Diminishing returns and problems in low light conditions. Most cameras will produce noise at 120 FPS in low light.
>>52325869
>I'd rather have high framerate than higher resolution
Same here.
The faster shutter speeds let you see more details.
With 4K at 24fps you mainly get higher resolution blur.
>>52325877
The higher the frame rate the harder it is to make effects look realistic. Even sets are more noticibly lacking in detail at a higher frame rate, let alone practical effects and special effects would cost millions more
>>52325830
Just cut out the beginning and end
>>52325890
Modern digital cameras make that pretty much a non-issue.
Unless you have shit light.
>>52325958
Digital sensors don't solve the problem.
You need large, high quality lenses
Barry Lyndon required NASA engineered lenses to film in candle light.
Of course it doesn't matter for garbage superhero flicks filmed in brightly lit green screen studios.
>>52325958
>Unless you have shit light.
Which is actually a fucking case if you're going for natural light in a movie.
Noone likes 1kW ligtbulbs sorrounding the place in a scene that's supposed to represent moonlight.
>>52325499
In all seriousness, the BD-Live activation bullshit is a problem. I didn't like always-on DRM in videogames and I don't like it in movies. Thanks to HDCP and the BDA, *all* 4K-capable Blu-Ray players must be equipped with online authentication software. They cannot force the studio to release a film with online authentication, but they can force manufacturers to include the technology that makes it an option. And really, how many studios do you think are going to *opt out* of more frustrating DRM? I love all things related to technology but we are quickly approaching an era where even your toaster will need a fucking internet connection to verify you bought your bread legally. I am not going to invest in any technology that will require me to be beholden to an online authentication server (that can go down at any moment) to watch the films I paid money for, fuck that.
>>52325977
>Digital sensors don't solve the problem.
>You need large, high quality lenses
>Barry Lyndon required NASA engineered lenses to film in candle light.
Like I said: shit light.
But even then, using a full frame sensor and an f/1 lens you get the same light gathering.
With a more common f/1.4 lens you get half that, while needing only a tiny fraction to get the same noise levels as film.
>>52326025
If you could shoot with film at 24fps you can shoot with digital at 1000 fps easily.
>>52326025
>Noone likes 1kW ligtbulbs sorrounding the place in a scene that's supposed to represent moonlight.
Moonlight looks just like daylight.
https://vimeo.com/105690274
So just shoot a little underexposed during the day and mix in some nighttime shots of the moon to complete the illusion.
>>52325977
>Digital sensors don't solve the problem.
But they do. I own a stills camera that gives you a very usable image up to ISO12,800. Considering it has twice the horizontal resolution of 4K, sampled down and with a tiny bit of noise reduction, the image looks very nice. With the Alexa 65 you even have a film camera that can do 8.5K, so it's not just within the realm of stills cameras to have this kind of performance.
>You need large, high quality lenses
Cinema lenses are on a whole other level from photography glass, it's not uncommon for an f/1.4 prime to cost up to $25k. Believe me, they have the glass.
>Barry Lyndon required NASA engineered lenses to film in candle light.
f/0.7 was needed because color film of the time wasn't very sensitive, modern sensors allow an f1.4 lens to shoot in conditions darker than Barry Lyndon - if you look closely, those scenes had a shitton of noise and the image was very soft. Add to that the fact that most DPs usually don't want to shoot anywhere near wide-open because it becomes very difficult to pull focus and they'd rather have the background be in focus too, rather than a wash of color. f/4-5.6 is a more normal working range for s35.
>Of course it doesn't matter for garbage superhero flicks filmed in brightly lit green screen studios.
That I agree, although higher resolution does allow for better effects.
>>52325835
This shit drives me mad.
>Want high definition picture and top audio quality
>Better download the 3 hour movie in a compressed 500 mb file
>"10/10 PICTURE AND SOUND, IT WAS LIKE I REALLY WAS AT THE THEATER"
Fuck I hate people so much
>>52325778
- Wild was a piece of histrionic shit.
- San Andreas was 8/10 fun and would probably look great in a 4k home theatre.
- Mad Maxipad:Furious Dyke was about as ugly and cringy a movie as there ever was and doesn't need 4k unless you want viewers to vomit at the shitty make up from a drag ball.
>>52326047
Are there devices that can forge the HDCP signature? It's not as strong as a TLS cert is it?
I can't bother to read through this shit heap put I'd like to point out that old classics shot on film can from 4k. You just scan the original film to 4k and you might gain improved quality over full hd depending on the quality of the film of course. Still far better than digital up scaling.
>>52327076
>can from 4k
can benefit
>>52325669
--Twentieth Century Fox
----Wild
----The Maze Runner
----The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
----The Martian
----Life of Pi
----Kingsman: The Secret Service
----Exodus: Gods and Kings
----Hitman: Agent 47
----Fantastic 4 (2015)
----X-men: Days of Future Past
>only The Maze Runner (first one) and Fantastic 4 were filmed in 4K
the rest were between 2k and 3k
I'll stick with 1080p for now
why not
it will take time, because it's nothing that special
but at some point in time, it will be affordable and lower will look cheap
>>52326047
hopefully the technical illiteracy of people will make them abandon the internet requirement
Do live films even benefit from 4K? I can barely see the difference in current Blu-rays due to all the blur and grain. CGI or bust.
>>52325585
They where shot at 120FPS
>>52325524
I seriously doubt that since actual movie theaters have higher resolution projectors than that, so the original film would surely match that at least.
>>52325499
I don't even have 1080p bluray... I still just have a DVD collection.
>>52325578
>>52325629
I just wish TV's would figure out interpolation properly. I hate soap opera interpolation, but mpv's interpolation actually gets rid of alot of judder.
I have a 144hz monitor so there's no problem with pulldown, but I can see the 24 hz stutter all over the place.
>>52325835
How are they going to download 4K rips if 4K blu-ray doesn't succeed? It has to succeed or else there won't be any rips except super compressed web & stream rips.
>>52326516
YIFY fucked up all public trackers. Now they're gone and you have a dozen more knockoff groups doing the same shit.
>>52325524
35mm was the standard for films, which is "6K" resolution
Then 70mm came along, which is "12K" resolution
And then the industry take a giant step backwards, ditched the film and went digital.
Now most digital cinema is displayed in 2K resolution.
So essentially cinemas downgraded from 6-12K to 2K resolution because digital is cheaper.
It should be possible that old 35mm movies get re-mastered in 4K.
>>52328449
Digital does have the advantage since the more viewings in theater the shittier the movie would look when it was done with actual film.
Shooting on digital kind of fucked everybody over as now movies are locked at a very specific resolution and anything higher is upscaled. Hell, just look 28 Days Later.
>>52325795
you don't value your son too much, do you?
>>52326516
if you just want to watch the damn movie 720p@3mbps is enough, don't be autistic, YIFY brought something good, actually watchable movies downloaded in less than half a hour
>>52328567
>720p@3mbps
yeah, it isn't even remotely close to that. It's more around 800kb/s
>>52328775
Soon we will have 400kb/s FULL FUCKING HD h265 encodes.
>>52325499
Depends what your mean.
If you think success is that it won the war over HDDVD and became the better more widely used physical disk media, then it has already won.
If you define success by blu-ray staying on top for another 10 years, then no I don't think so, streaming is just better.
>>52328449
Film has a potential for such a high resolution, but in reality most optics used in cinema projection reduced that. Some cheaper cinemas would be pushing 2K equivelent from their 35mm.
This ignores the fact that many films towards the 'demise' of film were scanned and reprinted from digital for colour processing and effects anyway.
>>52328881
>streaming is just better
Not at A/V quality. Not when most people have shitty internet and or data caps.
>>52328940
Well this is true, but again, it comes to what OP means by success, I think in the next few year we'll see high quality streaming, pre-downloading or some other hipster shit. Physical media is definitely on it's way out for the masses.
>>52328449
But actually, most cinemas use 4k projectors nowadays.
Not to mention, the gamut , color reproduction , contrast and blacks are much better than film ever was with high end digital projectors.
>>52329018
that high quality streaming won't come close to matching what 4K blu-ray will give you. All that high quality won't mean anything when again, the majority of the world has shit internet speeds. Higher quality means more data transfer which means those with data caps are fucked.
Physical media has supposedly been on the way out for the past decade. Unless countries overhaul their infrastructures and break up monopolies, physical media will continue to dominate.
How long until you can get one for less than 100USD like you can with a standard bluray player?
>>52329236
Even if data cap wasn't an issue, there are a couple others.
At best it would take at least 1/4 of a day to download such films on an above average internet connection. Assuming the film downloads steadily and has no data corruption, which will imply to download again or deal with digital artifacts/corruption.
Storage of the movies would imply a massive capacity HDD judging by the current standards of devices storage.
Obviously the main consumer will never go for that shit to watch a movie once and be done with it considering that they can watch anything on a whim straight away in other means at 360/480 on their 4k tv and see no difference.
shudder_intensifies.jiff
>>52325499
No because people still haven't adopted regular bluray and FullHD TVs let alone this.
Nope. The majority of the world doesn't uses USD or EURO. This is very expensive. In my country digital TV, HD video games and TV, and blu-rays in general aren't popular. People uses DVD, as always.
>>52325499
I really don't think so except on specialized markets where bitrate matters. For everything else, Netflix will suffice and pretty much will dictate when the mainstream will move to 4k.
>>52330288
>How long until you can get one for less than 100USD like you can with a standard bluray player?
By Christmas 2016. I guarantee retailers will be pushing 4k TV and Blu-Ray, hard.
>>52331285
Nobody cares about whatever 3rd world shithole you live in.
>>52325499
>4k
Are you living in the past? Anything below 8k is pleb
>>52332369
To suceed is to be used worldwide... Third world is part of the world, so it's included in "worldwide".
when will web design catch up with those new resolutions?
should I start saving 4k reaction faces?
>>52332533
When people say "worldwide" that pretty much only means NA, Euro, Japan, and maybe China as that's where the majority of the money is. Nobody really cares if some mud people living in straw huts can't afford the newest tech or not.
>>52332533
>>52332576
we should start a /tv/ charity, bringing 4k blue ray players and arthouse films to african children. they haven't eaten in days but that's no excuse to watch patrician films in less than UHD quality.
As of 2014, VCDs and DVDs are the norm for home media in the Philippines. Blu-ray discs are also available but are only displayed at small separate shelves at the counter.
----
How can we save children from poor image quality /g/?
>>52332576
>Nobody
They care. Who is nobody, you?
>>52325499
If netfix's 4k implementation is shit, then yes.
also if people's internet is too slow, then yes.
>>52332754
VCDs are often produced and sold in Asian countries and regions, such as Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
We have to act right now, before it is too late.
>>52332756
You aren't a body to a company unless you have money
>>52332799
>nobody cares
>companies don't care
>so: companies are nobody
>>52332369
This is why Americans are looked down upon globally, thanks burgerclap.
I hope so. The original blu ray standard only allowed for 24p, any other frame rate was shown interlaced. That's really fucked up a lot of silent releases, because the 24 fps standard wasn't really nailed down until the dawn of the sound era, so you either get janky interlaced versions, or versions that move too fast, or ones that are software interpolated by duplicating frames every so many frames. Another example of this is seen in the release of Oklahoma, which was shot in 70 mm Todd-AO, which used 70 mm and 30 fps. The blu ray release has a 35 mm reduction print version at 1080p 24 fps, and a 1080i Todd-AO version in 30 fps. The Todd-AO version looks a lot better and more effort was put into restoring it, but it's interlaced and that sucks.
10 bit color will also be nice.
>>52328449
This would be satisfying.
And tarantino tried using 70mm recently.
>>52333140
name a TV that has 10bit panel.
>>52326047
That's already the case.
Look at keurig. DRM coffee.
>your local theater's have a 2k projector
>on every single screen
There's a handful of theaters than held onto a 35mm projector or two that show classic shit. It's pretty much the only thing's I go to now.
>pay 11 bucks to see movie
>it looks worse than a BD remux at home
Nope.
>>52333444
I don't know of any that have true 10 bit panels, but that doesn't make having the content being intrinsically 10 bit worthless, because there will be TVs in the future that have 10 bit panels, and there are monitors right now with 10 bit panels.
>>52333444
That isn't the point of 10 bit. The point of 10 bit is to enable more efficient compression.
I hope so.
Fuck streaming and low bitrates.
>>52333697
sure if you say so.
>>52333656
call me when they do.
>>52334453
The 10bit fags were right you know? 4k BD is using HVEC 10 bit, because they were right.
I have a 4K LG TV, I wonder how will Fury Road will look on it.
But I don't have a TV, do you think I can stream it from my Computer?
>>52328490
>Digital does have the advantage since the more viewings in theater the shittier the movie would look when it was done with actual film.
a good way to bypass that is shoot on film, scan it in at 4k, and do all processing at 4k
then you never have to fuck with it
sadly most of the time they don't do that because >muh profits
>>52328259
>I can see the 24 hz stutter all over the place.
That's your displays problem. My TV handles film (24 hz) just fine.
>>52325499
I think 4K is an actually useful upgrade for TVs and monitors, compared to the utterly worthless 3D shit they tried peddling just a few short years ago.
The increase in quality is noticeable with the right source material. Personally speaking though, I hate it because most of my movies and shows are 720p MKV files to save space which cannot upscale for fucking shit on a 4K screen. That just means if I ever buy a 4K TV, I'll have to probably buy a new NAS as well.
>>52325690
Life of Pi is garbage desu
>>52333140
Are you sure it's true interlacing and not Progressive segmented frame?
Because 1080p30 can be encoded at 1080i without any loss of quality. Otherwise the encoding and authoring company are a bunch of retards.
