"""""""""""4K""""""""""" Blu-ray

>"""""""""""4K""""""""""" Blu-ray
>90% of the movies that were released in this format were mastered in 2k and look like shit
Why is this allowed?

Attached: 1525502510119.png (631x234, 67K)

Other urls found in this thread:

realorfake4k.com/list/
researchgate.net/figure/Visualization-of-the-artifacts-created-by-chroma-downsampling-a-Raw-image-original_fig1_282477746
amazon.com/gp/product/B01G640T0Y/ref=s9_acsd_top_hd_bw_bNrsbT_c_x_3_w/147-7232526-5492135?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-3&pf_rd_r=V8C6WRX75K1PYA6YZE20&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=0fd00712-277c-5930-9b9f-3fae6faa9933&pf_rd_i=352697011
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>pirate 4k bluray movie
>it's actually 1080p

kek

I never got the 4K meme, let alone the 1080p meme. What's wrong with 720 and 480 exactly?

I bet you download yify and watch it on your 3" phone.

1080p is fine. Anything above that are unnecessary to me.

I watch on a desktop. Again, why exactly is anything under 1080 unacceptable?

Try watching 4K + Dolby Vision content on an OLED TV and come back.

It's not unacceptable but why would you watch something objectively inferior.

Everyone knows the human eye can only see things at 2,000 frames per second. To see things at 4k you have to get really close to the screen. Stick with 3d televisions. All movies are naturally filmed in 3d before the image is captured by a 2d camera.

(you)

realorfake4k.com/list/

You're not even trying anymore

Because most theaters still use 2k projection.
So most films are mastered at 2k.
Only bigger budget movies specifically made for imax or 70mm or similar larger formats will POTENTIALLY get higher resolution masters.

All that being said, a 2k master upscaled to 4k still is higher quality than a 2k master at 1080p.

Biggest bullshit in my opinion is black panther and similar marvel movies. Shot at Digital 6.5k resolution, but the vfx and final master are rendered at 2k, then upscaled to 4k for the UHD bluray.

Good. There's nothing worse than capeshit.

>mastered in 2K
Didn't know most movies where 2048*1536

Lol 4k is snake oil especially if you dont have a BIG screen and sit CLOSE to it

That's fucking nothing, these movies are also encoded with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling so you're actually just getting a clearer sharper native 1080p movie.

When talking about films we tend to use the DCI film resolutions.

Attached: SmartSelect_20180505-090238_Samsung Internet.jpg (1111x277, 95K)

Since 1080p blurays are 4:2:0 as well, you've never seen real 1080p.

Stop being autistic, you know you're wrong. We can have the same argument again where I post image comparisons and you get blown the fuck out and stop replying. But it gets old.

I remember when I thought all movies were supposed to be 700mb because that's how big they were on demonoid

Good, thought I had a retarded 2560x1440 person in my bait, turns out it was a sane user.

Is there any chance these movies (shot in 4k+ and mastered at 2k) will get remastered at 4k or is it pretty much a done deal?

They'd have to go back and redo the vfx at 4k (or higher) and then remaster it.
Is it possible? Sure, but it would be fairly expensive and only more popular films would likely get this treatment.

>Shot at Digital 6.5k resolution, but the vfx and final master are rendered at 2k, then upscaled to 4k for the UHD bluray.
For what fucking purpose? Not only they are making their current releases look worse, they could have the best looking re-releases once 8k Blu Ray shows up in 5 to 10 years.

I assume because mastering at 2k is faster and cheaper. The mastering process is doing frame by frame color corrections and other tiny things. It's expensive and time consuming, with 4x the resolution this process takes even longer.

1080p looks fine on my 4k screen, maybe it depends on your TV's upscaler stuff

1080p looks fine on my 4k as well, but 4k still looks better. And when comparing side to side, it's blatantly obvious which is 4k, and which isnt

depends more on the size of the screen and how far you are from it

BD is just a format bro. you can store up to 50GB or 100GB on a disc. Its like blaming DVD for a shitty movie. its just a disc bro

Attached: blu ray chart3.jpg (1486x814, 144K)

Cost
Rendering and editing in 4K+ is extremely expensive

Yeah that's not how it works you retarded sperg

Disney owns starwars and Marvel.

Starwars last jedi was shot in several formats, the lowest resolution being 3.4k
VFX were rendered at roughly 3k

Final master released at 4k


Marvel movies
Thor Ragnarok
shot at 6.5k, VFX and final master at 2k

Spiderman homecoming
shot at 2.8k vfk and final master at 2k

Black panther
shot at 6.5k vfk and final master at 2k

etc
etc

They have the money, they're all backed by disney. No reason they couldn't take the time and spend the money.

>vfk
vfx

Anything over 720p is a meme, hdr is a meme. I'm poor and never experienced hdr and 4k, but I know it's a meme because 720p looks just fine for me ;)

Get your eyes checked.
Audiophilia is a meme, but not being able to tell the difference between native resolutions is silly.

>Chroma is only half the luma so your 2160p movie is actually native 1080p
what did he mean by this?

Because you can turn 2160p 4:2:0 into 1080p 4:4:4, he is delusional and thinks that is somehow better looking and higher quality than the original 2160p 4:2:0 source file.
He's wrong.

Attached: 1522778262463.png (1953x1077, 1.62M)

>Why is this allowed?
Because dumb consumer niggers eat up any shit the industry puts on their plate.
Also, do note that most people are fine with literally 600MB cdrip tier crap quality on their mobile phone screens. Why would they notice the difference between 2k and real 4k?

Attached: 1473081255070.png (492x419, 308K)

Because you have these things called time deadlines. Studios are going to move release dates up a few months cause less than 1% of the viewers bitch about the master not being true 4k.

Then why bother wasting the time and money on starwars? Which was generally less well reviewed.

Do any of you gents know where I can find the technology board? I'm terribly lost.

researchgate.net/figure/Visualization-of-the-artifacts-created-by-chroma-downsampling-a-Raw-image-original_fig1_282477746

Attached: Colorcomp.jpg (1236x616, 212K)

Lmao, you're ignoring the fact that you're throwing away 75% of the resolution. Which inherently gives LESS detail.

No one is arguing that 4:2:0 isn't worse than 4:4:4, but going from 2160p to 1080p means you lose a ton of the other information.

Sure 1080p 4:2:0 compared to 1080p 4:4:4, the 4:4:4 is better, but 1080p 4:4:4 compared to 2160p 4:2:0 is simply worse, it's less information.

Go kill yourself

>"blah blah blah, I'm literally fucking retarded and blibd"

lmao, i explained why you're a retard, and you come back with literally nothing.

You're just plain wrong, look at screen shots comparing 1080p 4:4:4 to 2160p 4:2:0 of the same content, and it's glaringly obvious which is worse.

sure thing bro, 4:2:0 youtube video is a 100% representation of 4:4:4 video.

Considering 4:4:4 content NEVER gets distributed anyway, I really don't know what you're arguing for, no one is going to go re-encode their library to 4:4:4 and downscale the resolution for no reason.

But oversampling gives much better detail overall in the smaller image, as you are rendering out with more inherent information, and not having the camera internally register the pixels.

I shoot in 8K a shit ton, but never master out in 8K. Hell, just internally recording 4K ProRes(which uses the full 8K sensor to record 4K).

Attached: Raven_vs_Helium.jpg (800x800, 339K)

No shit, but when you're talking about 1080p vs 2160p, unless you're doing frame by frame comparisons, you'll be FARRR better off using 2160p 4:2:0 than you would 1080p 4:4:4, no matter how much extra detail you're providing in the edges, you're still losing out on the total resolution and end up with worse looking image, especially for movies.

Just try to ignore him. I work in color grading and we all do our shit in 4:4:4 prores before we ship the final product in 4:2:0 blu-ray. I bet this dipshit actually believes you can also do greenscreen effects with 4:2:0 video.

Eh?

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High 4:4:4 Predictive@L5
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 10 frames
Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Duration : 22mn 13s
Bit rate : 1 841 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 23.976 (23976/1000) fps
Original frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:4:4
Bit depth : 10 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.083
Stream size : 293 MiB (86%)
Writing library : x264 core 155 r2901 7d0ff22

What's the source on that? Blurays are all encoded at 4:2:0, anything 4:4:4 is distributed in non-consumer channels.

Blu-ray. But you'll notice the encode's not 1080.

That's downscaled from a 1080p source and not from an untouched retail disc. Also somebody fucked up the frame rate.

Lmao, then it's not the source you dumbfuck, that's a re-encode.

Further, the 1080p 4:2:0

you were close my dude. 50% chroma res of "1080p" video is actually 540p. Still better than 4:2:0 1080p though

>>Further, the 1080p 4:2:0
would look better

Not for color. Why do you hate chroma so much man? Did chroma molest you when you were a kid?

You wouldn't be able to tell them apart, and the 720 is half the size.

Who gives a fuck? You're throwing out the remaining resolution for slightly better colors. It's fucking retarded since unless you're doing frame by frame comparisons, that extra color will never be noticed.

>people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p

What the fuck year is it? 2009?

Kid, you're dreaming.

You wanna know how I know you still have an IPS TV from WW1?

Attached: 1519482620497.png (424x326, 81K)

Actually supersampled > sub sampled.

how?

Attached: 2018-05-05 12_53_46.png (252x65, 4K)

Attached: 00001.m2ts_snapshot_00.10.png (1920x1080, 2.22M)

You know that anime was produced in 720p right?

Attached: 264_snapshot_00.10.png (1920x1080, 1.84M)

upscaled from original ntsc 480p 4:2:0 video

God I hate chinks

the original broadcast was 720p, not sure what you're smoking kiddo.

Man I forgot how pasty that little whore was. She could go in a snowstorm but naked and all you'd see is a floating wig.

The original archived video was mastered in NTSC format which was then upscaled to 720p "HD" and then upscaled again. fucking gooks man

>The original archived video was mastered in NTSC format
Got a source on that?

Almost all anime produced after 2010 has been 720p art.

That anime was released in 2014.
It never existed in NTSC as far as I am aware.

Does a more generic high-school power fantasies anime than this exist?

Depends what you're talking about, whether it's in process or final rendering.

That's why I'm doing it. To save people from 30GB 1080p's.

We're talking about distributed content. Blurays, streaming, etc.

Upset at how gay all those players look.
Here's a good one that probably isn't as unnecessarily expensive.
amazon.com/gp/product/B01G640T0Y/ref=s9_acsd_top_hd_bw_bNrsbT_c_x_3_w/147-7232526-5492135?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-3&pf_rd_r=V8C6WRX75K1PYA6YZE20&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=0fd00712-277c-5930-9b9f-3fae6faa9933&pf_rd_i=352697011

It's 16:9 with no black bars, that was obviously released in 720p, how the fuck do you think that was EVER an NTSC upscale?

kys

bigger is better? :^)

meh
you don't need more than a 576p mpeg2

what's the fps supposed to be?

been to /a/ lately? it's full of franxx threads

most "movies 1080" are YTS upscales. Genuine 1080s are out-of-place for the average joe because his size is 14GB or more

That's just because you look in the wrong places.

rarbg, 8-12GB 1080p rips, never gotten a DMCA notice

>what are HVEC encodes

Woah, Ghostbusters look like that?

Attached: screenshot.2018-05-05 (2).png (1366x768, 966K)

Viewing distance/Screen size. After so many feet away from the screen it all (1080p/720p/480) all look same. However the closer you are to big screen that extra res comes into play. So you'd notice it more. Other thing is that upscale low res stuff to jumbo screen will look like shit no mater the viewing distance. the source encoding bitrate also factors into this to. Which is why sometimes dubbing an older film/show to blu-ray 4K is not a good idea cause all you'd be doing is wasting your time/disc space due to the source film quality is only really geared to fit dvd spec (720x480). Thank the fucking christ that this one rare show I've got (352 x 480 res) looks decent on my 65". There was never any disc release so this torrent was/is all that exists of it.

>Considering 4:4:4 content NEVER gets distributed anyway
Anime by at least one paid source (not crunchyroll) seems to be H264 4:4:4 8bit + stereo EAC3 or AAC.

what bluray release is 4:4:4

Will Jow Forums ever learn how scaling works in LCDs? A 2160p on a 1080p screen is not just 3640x2160 divided by 4 pixels. A 1080p image on a 2160p image isn't just a 1920x1080 image squared. 1:4 PIXEL SCALING IS EXTREMELY RARE. Everything uses fucking filtering. A 2160p 4:2:0 movie downsampled is not 1080p 4:4:4. And a 1080p image scale perfectly in a 2160p screen because "hurr it's 4x the pixels." Years later that fucking 4k phone thread screenshot is still relevant. Literally nobody knows how scaling works.

Typo, I meant 1080p doesn't scale perfectly on a 2160p screen.

A 1080p image will look much upscaled on a 2160p display than a native 1080p display. 1080p is objectively shit, enjoy your giant blocky pixels.

Any modern 4k TV or monitor (from 2017+) should be fine, 4k stuff from 2013-2016 tho can be hit or miss.

1080p is good. But honestly for me DVD's are a good contender. Cropping out the black bars and scaling it up, I think it looks alright. Of course Bluray is going to be better, but I can live with what I have. I do try to get Bluray stuff though.

That's QXGA

a 1080p video on a 27" 1080p monitor will look almost the same on a 27" 4k monitor.

but if the 4k monitor is 40"+ and you are seated up close, it will look worse than on the 1080p screen.

if seated far enough away (depends on details) again you wont tell the difference.

>QXGA
Yes it is.
I've used it since 2001, and I still have my two monitors from then. (one has a faulty power button that needs a needle to keep it turned on).