|misterbuns - 2013-12-11 |
FYI 4k means 4 thousand pixels.
There are not 4 thousand pixels on your monitor.
There are not 4 thousand pixels on your television.
This format exists to be projected on screens designed to have 35 - 70mm images projected onto them.
Two file types can faithfully handle a 4k finishing workflow. DPX and Cineon. these average about 16mb a frame and instantly suffer from compression damage unless being printed to 35 or 70mm film.
anyway, this isn't 4k.
i mean that the term is meaningless if youre watching a film prime on anything other than a huge theatrical screen.
i mean that the video you're watching is just flash compressed video like everything else on the internet.
4k is a pixel resolution. that's all. it doesn't matter how big the source was if you compress it down to fit on a flash player.
it's a thing you'll hear thrown around soon by electronics places, it means nothing unless you own a film printing pipeline and a personal theater.
There are 2073600 pixels on my monitor. Smart-assness aside, I do think that 4k is useful on huge TV screens (70+ inch), the ones that are being sold right now.
I saw the Hunger Games 2 projected in 4k the other week and the image quality was terrible. Turns out that four times as many pixels as I have at home projected onto a screen that is easily 30 times as big doesn't make for a very good image.
4k has very limited home use, I don't buy the argument for theaters. Besides that, 4k sources for home use will come very soon.
Personally I can't tell much difference between 740 and 1080 on my 1080 monitor except for a noticeable framerate drop (probably my computer)
What bitrate is this? Normal cinema projection is only barely above 1080p resolution, but on YouTube 1080p looks like diarrhea.
1080p means a resolution of 1920 x 1080 with progressive frame ordering (no interlacing)
it has nothing to do with a codec or bitrate.
it's just the amount of pixels the image has been scaled to.
it is also a meaningless term if you are talking about image quality.
yeah, there is a lot of buzz about that.
i havent done research yet on it, so i really don't know what they mean.
are the pixels now 100% smaller?
in filmmaking 4k is generally thought of as an incredibly wasteful format to shoot on unless you are shooting a theatrical feature that can afford a rich post pipeline.
When the first 4k RED came out everyone was excited to be shooting 4k video and we all learned pretty fast that it just left you with immense data management problems and incredible transcode times.
It became a format you shot for VFX or editorial purposes: squeezing a close out of a medium if you had to, but you wouldnt cover scenes in 4k ever.
It just made no sense. It was an engineering gimmick the outside of studio industry just hadn't caught up to yet.
|misterbuns - 2013-12-11 |
ps rad clip
|memedumpster - 2013-12-11 |
Another space video that choked me up. Wish you guys had watched it instead of nerd raging over a codec.
|Adham Nu'man - 2013-12-12 |
I specifically made a point of watching this at 144p 'cause I'm punk rock.
|infinite zest - 2013-12-12 |
Wow. They actually got Sinead O'Connor up there to sing that song!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|