You got 720p,1080p, 4k. More pixels. Doesnt take a fuckin brain genius to figure out if your tv's picture looks better because of course it does, and you don't gotta do anything to get it to work. but they realized that past 4k, shit ain't gonna look much better for the cost. so what do they do? more colors per pixel. only problem is color settings on tvs suck. tv manufactures handle this like dogshit. so now you gotta spend 30 minutes before watching a movie cause your fuckin tv automatically changes the setting from time to time for no fuckin reason. all this just to get slightly more colors. it's not even that noticeable. i fuckin hate HDR. i fuckin hate tv manufacturers.

the shining's still a beautiful movie but fuck me did i not notice the HDR one bit.

  • Ericthescruffy [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    No. Peak capitalist bullshit fake innovation BY FAR is 4k as a resolution. Even big massive budget films like your Marvel Superhero shit is mastered in 2k with all the VFX (basically 1080p more or less) and then upscaled to 4k for the gimicks sake. Outside of maybe VR where the screen is like two inches from your face there is no point to 4K.

    HDR on the other hand is incredible....if its properly done and if your tv has local dimming (ie, real hdr). The problem is that HDR is like anything else: a new thing that older films weren't really thinking about and have to be remastered for like 5.1 surround sound or something.

    All that aside here is what I will stress about 4k tvs of today: they are better then 1080p displays of yesteryear if only because they more accurately show color and black levels. Like...significantly so.

    If I could have a 1080p display with the same kind of black level and color accuracy with HDR for cheaper then a 4k display I'd buy it in a heartbeat...but that just aint a thing. Its dumb...but that's capitalist "innovation" for ya....

    EDIT: Oh and like some others have pointed out, if you do any gaming HDR is HUGE. I finally upgraded my tv after like 10 years specifically because I wanted to enjoy that sweet sweet cultural appropriation of Ghost of Tsushima in HDR. You'll never convince me it wasn't fucking worth it.

    EDIT EDIT: oh also, like was pointed out, you need high rate content to make it worth it anyway. if 99% of the content you watch is low bitrate rips from streaming sites 4k is a waste even with the better black levels and color values. Get a second hand 1080p screen at twice the size and a quarter of the cost of a new 4k and live your best life.

    • Shinji_Ikari [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I got an absolutely giant 1080p screen for free and 30 dollars in parts and a 15 dollar remote and I was going.

      I mostly stream shit from sites like europixhd so you'll never see me getting a 4k tv until its free with some repair needed.

      • Ericthescruffy [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Rock on. Edited my post...yeah, you don't need a 4k tv. Live your best life.

    • TankieTanuki [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Even big massive budget films like your Marvel Superhero shit is mastered in 2k with all the VFX (basically 1080p more or less) and then upscaled to 4k for the gimicks sake.

      Can you give me a source to read about this? I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just super curious because this is blowing my mind. I have some 4k remuxes occupying hard drive space and I'd like to know if they're worth retaining.

      What about scans of old 70 mm films like Lawrence of Arabia?

      • Ericthescruffy [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Captain Disillusion has a great video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1unkluyh2Ks

        For specific films you can google search but the long and short of it is that almost every single big budget film may or may not be shot at 4k or in imax but its always downscalled to a 2k pass simply because all the VFX passes are still rendered at 2k for the sake of render times. That 2k master is then re-upscalled to 4k for its final release. This process is pretty much standard and ubiquitous for all film releases which is exactly why 4k is such a load of fucking bullshit for film.

        Something like Lawrence of Arabia depends ENTIRELY on the remastering/restoration process. For a crown jewel release like that the studio usually will front the cash for a full blown remaster of the original negative but just as often they'll cheap out and just upscale a 1080p master from several years ago and re-encode it. Sites like blu-ray.com usually do a good job keeping track of where the source files come from so they can advise the consumer on what double dip purchases (or downloads :) ) are worth it.

        Three additional notes worth considering: -Often whether or not the original director is involved is a valid consideration in a 4k purchase. Some remasters are done without there involvement and they take....less care and/or creative liberties. The criterion release of Robocop versus its original bluray release is a perfect example.

        -Some films may never get true/proper "4k" restorations/remasters simply because they can't. Star wars is one such tragedy. Film degrades over time and some chemical processes on films (especially from the 70s apparently) reduced the longevity by a massive factor. The original negative for Star Wars is apparently so far gone its basically lost to time at this point.

        THE BIG ONE: -Your 4k remuxes are probably worth holding on to even still. 4k as a resolution may be pointless BUT the bitrate, color depth, and codecs still most likely makes those files superior to the bluray remuxes as a watching experience. Some Bluray masters still use Mpeg2 for gods sake.....

    • anthm17 [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      God of war in 4k HDR on my OLED is still the best looking game I've seen, by far.

      I haven't tried RDR2 on the OLED though.

    • CylonZebra [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      local dimming

      Not sure if my tv is just too cheap or if it's not intended to be used with subtitles, but it ended up making subtitles dim in some areas and was really distracting.

      • Ericthescruffy [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Interesting, what model? I never thought much about it but I could definitely see that being a thing. Outside of OLED tvs, one of the big problems you run into is light bleed because unlike OLED tvs where every pixel is individually backlight, most tvs have much larger zones. if the algorithm isn't sophisticated enough to account for it or it doesn't have many zones that could be an issue.

        • CylonZebra [he/him,comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Vizio M-Series 50" has 16 local dimming zones, I'm sure there are other/better options but I got it from Costco last year on Black Friday so I have no intention of getting something else for another 4-9 years.

      • Ericthescruffy [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        4K video on the other hand, mostly looks better due to more efficient/higher quality codecs rather than the improvement in resolution.

        100%. The resolution itself is kind of a wash but all the other things that come with it are legitimately worthwhile improvements to the watching experience.

    • VILenin [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Speaking of resolution, what about the 70mm shit? Seems pointless to me. They're putting it through a computer and digitally transfering it back to film anyway.