Return Entire thread Last 50 posts

Is UHD 4k that impressive ?

12 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:16
>>1
I'm still quite happy with old school standard definition aka analog broadcast TV or VHS.
4k and HDR are totally wasted on me.
13 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:18
>>12
Lot of people feel the same.
But be sure to try them on a proper setup prior to draw your conclusions.
But anyway we were appreciating movies in the past with that technology, and we still can. It's cultural. That can also mean someone can stop appreciating SDR and low res SD releases if learns to appreciate other things.
I value contrast, but adding contrast to SDR destroy the images. For that reason HDR is a thing
14 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:33
>>1
Depends on many factors. For screens above 49 inch is a must i’d say
15 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:35
>>13
If you or other people are into it and care about the difference then go nuts. Just not really much of a thing for me.
Enjoy :)
16 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:36
>>1
I honestly can't tell the difference. Also 8K is coming out soon. Better wait.
17 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:38
>>12
VHS
VHS is hell on screen. What the fuck is wrong with you
18 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:38
I don’t even own anything 4k compatible, so my family’s 4k TV has gone to waste. All we have are seventh gen game consoles and we don’t pay extra for ultra HD video streaming, so it’s pointless. I’d say wait and get 8k if you plan to have that TV for a long time. Otherwise just get 1080p.
19 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:39
>>1
How can you appreciate HDR on a photo like that? You need a HDR panel with a good contrast and even that way you won't appreciate the difference on the same picture, that is emulating two dynamic ranges. You can appreciate the difference only switching movie, or with two screens side by side.

>>16
Dumb fuck
8k is and will be meaningless forever for movie watching
Falling for the bigger number scam

>>14
You shouldn't say shit since you know nothing
20 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:39
>>17
I miss VHS. You could skip all the ads and it was super easy to record TV. I would unironically buy HD VHS tapes if they were a thing.
21 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:40
>>18
4K is pointless as of now
just wait and buy an 8K TV instead
22 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:40
>>17
I regularly watch shows at 120 or 144 line res on my phone.
VHS is fine, especially with an analogue CRT.
I admit I may be slightly spoilt thanks to being from PAL land where at least colour reproduction is semi-reliable.
23 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:41
>>18
A google tv is 70 bucks or less.
Setting a Plex server is free.
Pirating movies is free.

8k is meaningless you retards
I'm trying to educate you but you continue to fail
24 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:41
>>21
I said 4k was pointless for me specifically lol.

My point was that if he’s going to buy a new TV that he plans to have for over a decade, than he should probably get an 8k. If not, then he should just go with a 1080p. Granted, I don’t know shit about 8k, so that could be a really dumb move for all I know.
25 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:42
>>22
Watches deinterlaced shit on phone
26 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:42
>>20
This is your nostalgia speaking. I grew up with VHS myself and the only thing I still love about those tapes are the cases. They have an aesthetic to them that I absolutely love, from the bulky feeling to the vintage cover arts. VHS is great for collection but they are unwatchable by today's standards. Seriously just go watch YouTube comparisons.
27 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:43
>>23
A google tv is 70 bucks or less.
Setting a Plex server is free.
Pirating movies is free.
Setting up your own pirating site with ads pays you.
28 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:43
>>1
I started dinking around playing Doom in 4k, it looked better at medium settings in 4k than at ultra in 1080
29 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:44
>>25
Yes, deinterlaced shit at a lower res than VHS (roughly a quarter the total res or a half the field res). And I'm happy.
If you don't like VHS then good for you, don't go to the effort of sourcing a player and tapes then.
For people who don't care much for the graphical quality beyond "can i work out what's going on" then it's fine.
30 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:53
>>24
It is
Unless you buy a fucking wall display
Stick to 1080 (the content standard today) or 4k (new standard). Calculate the viewing distance based on display resolution and size. If you go HDR don't buy a cheap HDR monitor.
31 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:54
>>26
Given that I only ever watched them on an old SD box TV, you’re probably right. Still, back then I didn’t know any better, so it was nice.
32 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:55
>>29
Care to explain why would you do that? Why don't you source higher res sources
33 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:55
>>30
Depends on your vision. I have great vision with my glasses on, so 4k looks amazing to me on my 32” TV. Whenever I switch back to my Xbox 360 it just isn’t the same.
34 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:56
>>32
Care to explain why would you do that?
In my case, I already have the VCR and tapes around.
And the low res videos are converted from whatever sources I can find them from, to minimize storage and battery use. Why waste 5GB on a movie when (for me) it's just as watchable at 500mb and chews less power to replay?
35 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:57
>>33
Your 32 inch does not have 4k. You're lucky to find 32 inch 1080p TV. Reason being because there isn't enough screen room to fit all the pixels inside. And I'm betting your 360 is set to 720p
36 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:57
Porn is amazing in 4K UHD
37 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:59
>>36
What about VR?
38 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 16:59
>>35
the boy is right
But the reason is not that. It's because it's meaningless since to appreciate that you should use that as a pc monitor. Even laptops are 4k today. Even smartphones. Not a production limitation
39 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:00
>>34
But that is a lot of work
Do you go H265? Bitrate? Could you share a frame?
40 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:02
>>38
32" 1080p as a PC monitor from a dozen inches is gonna be grainy.
41 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:03
42 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:03
>>40
Sorry forget the message. Yes, a distance of 60cm for 4k (right for a monitor, not for a TV) and a distance of 131cm for 1080 (not right for a monitor, right for a TV)
43 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:05
>>39
https://i.imgur.com/8PIAG5g.png

But that is a lot of work
Don't have to do it often, usually only a batch before a big trip (and that's not been an option for a bit now, for obvious reasons)

Could you share a frame?
pic related
44 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:07
>>41
this video is satire right? fucking kekked
45 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:07
>>43
Ahahaha well fuck me
I love you pal.
Thank you for sharing

May I ask you how old are you?
46 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:09
>>45
Mid thirties. Old fart.
When you grow up on VHS, broadcast, and the FMV clips in 90s DOS and Win3.1 games, you get pretty tolerant of shitty video heh.
47 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:09
>>46
I'm 30 bro, probably we grew up on the same dial-up porn
You should really go H265 tho :)
Have a nice day pal
48 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:10
>>46
>>47
dat 10 minutes freeview at 11:50PM amirite?
49 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:10
4k is nice, but I only really use it because I have a projector. At 120", every pixel counts.
50 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:10
>>48
dat 10 minutes freeview at 11:50PM amirite?
Not quite sure what you mean there but I do vividly recall SBS going into test pattern overnight and catching Rage video clips very early on Saturday mornings...
51 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:12
>>49
Sheit bro, how much a 4k projector set you back?
52 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:12
>>51
Optoma is pretty affordable, and I got it half off, so only $800
53 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:13
>>1
My boyfriend wants a 4k tv for his new PS5, I keep insisting not all and really most games will not have 4k native and thus not take advantage of a 4k tv, but he still wants one, personally I don't see a huge difference and those high FPS tvs look so awkward and weird to me, but on the off chance it does look better I figure why not have one.
54 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:13
>>53
faggot
55 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:14
>>54
Okay, now what?
56 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:15
>>7
In some cases I think the 4k looks worse, I agree that the color is the main difference which in all honesty confuses me mostly, but some of those 4k shots I don't know they look off.
57 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:15
>>10
Kill yourself you toxic bitch
58 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:15
with 4k its only a matter of time until the memes win. You are being controlled like sheep.
59 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:16
>>52
Oooo nice. I've had an Optoma W1060 for the last ~10 years. It's 1080P and was £600 I think at the time. Cheaper than TVs were back in those days.
60 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 17:17
>>53
They do look better, and play smoother if they're 120hz. I bought a 55" LG nanocell90 for my series x in my room. Replaced my 49" TCL 4 series (which was also 4k HDR, just no local dimming zones or 120hz.) I can tell the difference even between those 2 TVs.
Definitely with it. There's better TVs out there than the nanocell, but I didn't feel like dropping around 2 grand.
61 Name: Anonymous 2021-04-28 20:54
All you noons still talking about a out of date format like UHD when 12K is out from RED cameras.

Return Entire thread Last 50 posts
Name:
Leave this field blank: