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.
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.
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.
Rock on. Edited my post...yeah, you don't need a 4k tv. Live your best life.
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?
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HDR when done properly is actually amazing, I took my ps4 to a rich friends house to play Gran Turismo Sport on their HDR TV, and the difference is night and day. This is because the developers of the game calibrated the HDR to pretty much work on any TV made by the major manufacturers, and dumped a ton of time into it. However that is the exception, probably 99% of HDR content looks worse than the normal equivalent due to a lazy implementation by the movie production company/game developers or the TV manufacturer. Seriously there is so little good HDR content out there (not that I'd be able to tell on my 10 year old 720p TV ), all the different implementations and standards are a great example of capitalist inefficiency.
Watch this (with HDR on of course) and see if it's good or not for you: GT sport in HDR
Very good point but I would say the better analogy is playing a NES game on a non-CRT screen.
Broke: buying a thousand dollar graphics card so you can do some sick anti aliasing
Woke: playing on a 20 year old CRT and getting the same effect
CRTs still have better temporal resolution than any LCD or OLED. The only other acceptable option were Plasma TVs. The DigitalFoundry videos about the topic are very enlightening.
Why the fuck do I need 4k when 1080p is already as sharp as I can really see bitch I'll kill you
I've been thinking about hardware in landfills a lot and how fucking stupid that is on both an environmental and economical level.
I think there should be a large deposit in place on tech items, something like 15-25% of the cost, that you are refunded when you bring the item you are replacing back to a distributor who either has to resell it or move it on to an actual recycling plant.
This would increase the used market dramatically, lowering the bar of entry into higher-tech, or at least a lot of the components could be reused.
Obviously private reselling would still be a way people move on old goods, but this would make it so broken or unwanted items could end up somewhere besides a landfill and there would be motivation on the part of the owner to actually bother to do it.
A huge amount of the tech that gets thrown away is only very slightly broken and I think this would eliminate a lot of that waste.
My last three laptops were pulled out of the top of the pile at my dump, I just grabbed them at random on a random day and it took next to nothing to fix them.
I also think the whole industry should be nationalized (globalized?) so everything can be standardized and we can slow down the constant replacement culture. But this last idea is impossible under capitalism.
The first one is totally doable though and I think would make a fairly big difference.
Yeah a reformation of the recycling industry would need to be done as well for most of this to work.
But there's a ton of actually good tech that ends up in the pile as well that takes next to nothing to refurbish.
I'm currently operating on a laptop I found in the trash that had a busted screen and a dead fan. 1200 dollar laptop when it was new in 2015, now about 4-600 depending on condition.
Fine otherwise. Super easy to repair.
This was more broken than the last one I found, which I sold, that literally just had some malware on it. Just reinstalled windows and sold that for 250 bucks.
It's insane lol, and this wasn't even me going out and looking for the things. They were just equipment I came across while throwing out the trash at the dump.
All the TVs in my house and garage are from the dump
I got yelled at last time though and the guy told me if I came back it would be trespassing, and then he wouldn't let me leave until he took down my license plate number lol
He yelled "You can't be doing that! NO SCAVENGING!" as if I should be ashamed of it. I'm not going to apologize for being poor.Lol I had one of those guys where I used to live. Any position of power at all for some people. I used to call him the dump lord.
The guy trying to harass you I mean.
Nothing makes me feel like a boomer like the fact my TV is 10 years old and I don't give a single shit about 4k or HDR or any of that bullshit.
Spoken like someone who has never watched HDR content.
It's fucking amazing when done right. It's more significant and noticeable than the jump from "SD" to HD was.
It isn't though. When someone can provide HDR content when others can't, they charge as large of a price premium as they can get away with, and the cost of this price premium has very little to do with the actual cost to start producing HDR content as opposed to regular stuff. The majority of the equipment required to do HDR isn't extra expensive because it's HDR, it's just expensive because it's new.
I don't care. It's a stupid-ass indulgence and any resources spent on it are too many. it is utterly and completely the capitalist style of 'innovation' that adds nothing of value to a product.
I guess it depends on the person, I personally can't really see the difference in the resolution after 2.5k but literally everyone I've asked irl told me there is a huge difference. 🤷
It all depends how close you sit to the screen and how big the screen is, weather you can tell a difference or not
I know that but I personally couldn't tell any difference until I was less than 0.5m away and I don't think most people stare at their TVs from that close. I guess it would make sense if you have one of those really wide TV's but once again, it probably depends on the person.
Most people who "don't need glasses" actually could use them, they just aren't crippled without them. And thus will not see much difference between 1440p and 4k or whatever.
You know it’s embarrassing to admit now, but I just realized that the reason I don’t see the difference is almost certainly because I am myopic... just ignore everything I’ve said.
There are few games I notice any substantial difference with HDR on vs off.
I will say however, check out Ori and the Blind Forest: Will of the Wisp with HDR on. God damn is that not the most beautiful damn colorful HDR experience I have ever seen. Absolutely worth it just for that. Besides, its a new standard, no one should go out and buy a new tv just for HDR. Buy it because it can provide a better experience, sure, in whatever fashion you'd like it to do that. Just don't waste money thinking its some selling point apart from a couple of games and the possibility of new amazing experiences.
