Tfw most films are mastered in 2k

>tfw most films are mastered in 2k
>tfw 4k is a meme

Attached: 1432544473203.jpg (205x246, 8K)

This isn't true user

site:imdb.com "Digital Intermediate 2K"
site:imdb.com "Digital Intermediate 4K"

50/50. Most movies use a 2k intermediate for effects and shit. The amount of 100% 4K movies isn't as large as you think. Just do a simple google search for "real 4k movies" or "real native 4k movies" and you'll find a lot of releases are bullshit 2K upscales.

4K is future-proof, 1080p is not.

>he is actually autistic enough to believe 4k wasnt a meme at some point in his life

Movies shot with digital cameras, yes.
Not true for movies shot with good old film

should have stopped at 1080p and just came up with an affordable disc format that can hold lossless 1080p video. 4K is only "future-proof" because nearly all movies are shot on 2K-5K cameras so anything higher is an upscale.

No, they often still choose to use a 2K intermediate. There are movies shot at 5K and used a 2K intermediate.

>disc format that can hold lossless 1080p video
A full 1080p movie with some meme encoding used in post-prod like DNxHD fits on a bluray

>King Kong came out in 1933
>it'll be able to be rereleased up to ~"17k" (not that that exact resolution will ever exist)
>modern movie
>shot in 4k, will always be in 4k at best
We've taken massive steps backwards

The '"K'" in 2k, 4k, and 5k comes from sheKel.

It's the way jews signal each other their jewing gullible goym like you.

Buy a VR Headset now, goy.

>2019
>caring about pixelcounts of Hollywood trash

Attached: 뭔들투어 in 포르투갈 1화 [2160 UHD].mp4_20170901_083908.292.jpg (3276x1842, 883K)

>implying your eyes can even see in 4k

Attached: 1080p-vs-4k.jpg (1644x548, 461K)

DNxHD is lossy, I'm talking about lossless like Huffyuv or x264 set to lossless mode.

film has limitations. Obviously 35mm will get you a lot further than older 16mm. If only 70mm film stock wasn't so fucking expensive.

>nb4 Avatar 2 will be shot in 16k 3D

The main selling point of 4K isn't really image quality, but HDR for color which matters far more to most people.

>film has limitations
Which is where the ~17k comes from. That's about the limit of digitizing 35mm film.

>HDR
The thing that hasn't even been standardized?

normies wont fall for the HDR meme. they dont even know what it is and its not an easy thing to sell.

I've seen all sorts of theoretical maximum resolution of film. Not 100% myself which is truly correct as they all offer reasonable arguments for their conclusions.

Even currently it improves colors and overall look of the movie by a ton.

The Mc Gullibles spend 3000 USD for a TV Set.

They sit down in front of it, being brainwashed like their parents and grandparents.

But they are actually being brainwashed in vivid colors their grandparents won't even imagine.

Call it ( ( (progress ) ) ).

Doesn't it just come down to film grain density? Shouldn't that be rather straightforward?

Wait. Is this picture supposed to prove that? Because the difference between 1080p and 4K is pretty apparent.

If anything the 4k looks even shittier, more processed and angular. WAY to clean, I can tell where the actor and the makeup/cgi 'mesh'

there's ISO settings, machines used, processing, condition of the film, etc.

literally a meme image given that it's jpeg and not png.

That's almost a 10 y-o movie user

Dude, film is an analog medium that essentially records blotches of light. Have you ever seen a film reel really zoomed in? At the end you get better defined blotches, but no detail out of everything.

Digital is always future proof. You can always bump up the resolution and fill whatevermuch space there is. However, film has limitations, and digital comes mostly out of scanning analog film. IMAX now has an upper limit that will be exhausted in about a decade.

You can get 4k tvs for $300.

You're interpolating though, literally just making up new data. It'll never look as good as native. Look at 28 Days Later, shot on 480i. It looked like ass on DVD, looks like vomit on Blu-Ray, and I really hope it never gets a 4K release.

>I can tell where the actor and the makeup/cgi 'mesh'
That's a problem with the particular footage though and not an argument against the resolution in general.

Sure the JPG conversion discarded some data, but you still have noticeably more details with every step to the right.

People with poor eyesight (basically every other person nowadays) can't even make the difference between 2K and 4K.