4k on 2k

[seemorebtts]

 

[seemorebtts]

so sony have put 4k on a blu ray well not really but does this mean im going to get a remastered ghostbusters and will total recall look better on my 2k tv or is this like superbit on dvd

 

[bigboss]

From what I can see, it's all a hogwash. The film is still being compressed to 2K. I'll be interested to see if there is indeed any difference. At least on 2K, you're unlikely to notice any difference.

 

[seemorebtts]

just peordered ghostbusters it comes out in may,i have this on blu ray so il let you no

 

[Andrew Everard]

just peordered ghostbusters it comes out in may,i have this on blu ray so il let you no

Well, the new version couldn't look any ropier than the current one, could it?

 

[Alantiggger]

Higher frame rates, not more pixels.... that's what's needed. :bounce:

 

[seemorebtts]

yea thats why i thought i would get this one hopeing it would be better.will you be getting some in for review:dance:

 

[bigboss]

yea thats why i thought i would get this one hopeing it would be better.will you be getting some in for review:dance:

"That's why you thought"?? No one has really said that they expect the picture to be better. Whatever they're doing with remastering, it's mainly to ensure that 1080p movies upscale better. No upscaling is needed for 1080p sets, so I can't see how there will be any improvement.

Let us know what you think.

 

[Paul.]

yea thats why i thought i would get this one hopeing it would be better.will you be getting some in for review:dance:

"That's why you thought"?? No one has really said that they expect the picture to be better. Whatever they're doing with remastering, it's mainly to ensure that 1080p movies upscale better. No upscaling is needed for 1080p sets, so I can't see how there will be any improvement.

Let us know what you think.

Few movies get close to Blurays max bitrate. Apparently Ghostbusters is only 23Mbits/s and bluray maxes out for video at around 40 (depending on film length and number of languages etc. It could quite conceivably be improved upon, but that doesn't change the shallow marketing ploy this is...

 

[seemorebtts]

yea thats why i thought i would get this one hopeing it would be better.will you be getting some in for review:dance:

"That's why you thought"?? No one has really said that they expect the picture to be better. Whatever they're doing with remastering, it's mainly to ensure that 1080p movies upscale better. No upscaling is needed for 1080p sets, so I can't see how there will be any improvement.

Let us know what you think.

Few movies get close to Blurays max bitrate. Apparently Ghostbusters is only 23Mbits/s and bluray maxes out for video at around 40 (depending on film length and number of languages etc. It could quite conceivably be improved upon, but that doesn't change the shallow marketing ploy this is...

so its like superbit dvd then,which was rubbish,for me anyway.

 

[seemorebtts]

sorry bigboss my english is BAD:doh:

 

[Frank Harvey]

Higher frame rates, not more pixels.... that's what's needed. :bounce:

Higher frame rates? No thanks. I'd rather have a little bit of judder than the excessively smooth pans that look completely fake, and look like video. With some scenes it looks like the search is on x2.

More pixels will give you a more solid picture with far more detail and naturally looks more three dimensional.

It could also mean the decline of stop animation movies as they'll have to do twice as much work!

 

[duaplex]

As already mentioned this is Hogwash. I went along to the Demo of the 4K display at the Bristol show, they mentioned that a 3 -4min clip is rougly going to require 300GB, which really puts in to perspective what you dealing with.

Until they develop a format that can store 4k then don't buy into this marketing ploy. Besides 8k is only round the corner!

 

[Frank Harvey]

As already mentioned this is Hogwash. I went along to the Demo of the 4K display at the Bristol show, they mentioned that a 3 -4min clip is rougly going to require 300GB, which really puts in to perspective what you dealing with.

Until they develop a format that can store 4k then don't buy into this marketing ploy. Besides 8k is only round the corner!

It depends how compressed that clip was. The 300GB for 3-4 mins is probably just a numbers thing to impress people, and might be what is needed for fully uncompressed 4K, but with a certain amount of compression that will probably be undetectable on the average large PJ screen, it might need far less than 300GB.

 

[bigboss]

sorry bigboss my english is BAD:doh:

That's fine. Not to worry.

 

[duaplex]

As already mentioned this is Hogwash. I went along to the Demo of the 4K display at the Bristol show, they mentioned that a 3 -4min clip is rougly going to require 300GB, which really puts in to perspective what you dealing with.

Until they develop a format that can store 4k then don't buy into this marketing ploy. Besides 8k is only round the corner!

It depends how compressed that clip was. The 300GB for 3-4 mins is probably just a numbers thing to impress people, and might be what is needed for fully uncompressed 4K, but with a certain amount of compression that will probably be undetectable on the average large PJ screen, it might need far less than 300GB.

True, but with 8k around the corner and lacking a real solution for storage of such media, which can be easily transferable from the store to the users home, I doubt its going to take off anytime soon.

People will start to argue, in time, how thier eyes can see the difference

 

[duaplex]

Oh and David, I'm curious. What is this "kick ass system" you refer to?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Oh and David, I'm curious. What is this "kick ass system" you refer to?

I wouldn't like to say - wars have started over more trivial things :rofl:

 

[Alantiggger]

Higher frame rates, not more pixels.... that's what's needed. :bounce:

Higher frame rates? No thanks. I'd rather have a little bit of judder than the excessively smooth pans that look completely fake, and look like video. With some scenes it looks like the search is on x2.

More pixels will give you a more solid picture with far more detail and naturally looks more three dimensional.

It could also mean the decline of stop animation movies as they'll have to do twice as much work!

Ahh well, see here then as this fellow explains it well : http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

 

[Sliced Bread]

yea thats why i thought i would get this one hopeing it would be better.will you be getting some in for review:dance:

"That's why you thought"?? No one has really said that they expect the picture to be better. Whatever they're doing with remastering, it's mainly to ensure that 1080p movies upscale better. No upscaling is needed for 1080p sets, so I can't see how there will be any improvement.

Let us know what you think.

Few movies get close to Blurays max bitrate. Apparently Ghostbusters is only 23Mbits/s and bluray maxes out for video at around 40 (depending on film length and number of languages etc. It could quite conceivably be improved upon, but that doesn't change the shallow marketing ploy this is...

so its like superbit dvd then,which was rubbish,for me anyway.

i quite liked superbit. It did squeeze a bit more out.

The 4k to 2K thing is non-sense in my opinion, but if the bit rate is going to be higher then it might be worh a look.

Bit rate > resolution (within reason) IMO

EDIT: +1 for higher frame rates too.

 

[seemorebtts]

i liked the dts sound on the superbit but just couldnt see the differance in picture,maybe my set up was a bit pants at the time

 

[Sliced Bread]

I forgot about the sound. ..that was pretty good too for the time.

 

[duaplex]

Oh and David, I'm curious. What is this "kick ass system" you refer to?

I wouldn't like to say - wars have started over more trivial things :rofl:

Go on, do tell oke:

I bet its a KEF system, right?

 

[GSB]

NOPE........