T2K Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 .Onward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 hour ago, T2K said: ??? On 12/4/2018 at 5:13 AM, JJkizak said: If I talked that much I would have to take a 12 hour nap to recover. So that leaves 21 x 9? JJK @T2K: I guess the marathon talker in the video didn't cover the few TVs that are 21 x 9 or a 2.33:1 aspect ratio, which was never the shape of a movie. It was suggested as an alternative to 16 x 9, or 1.78:1, which was never the shape of a movie. 1.78:1 should have been 1.85:1, which was the shape of many movies. 2.33:1 could have been 2.35:1 which was the shape of many CinemaScope and early Panavision movies. Or, 2.33:1 could have been 2.39:1 (called 2.4:1) which was and is the shape of many later 'scope movies in Panavision and other formats. It all figures, somehow, since TV sets were 1.33:1 (give or take) for decades, which was never the shape of a sound movie (most sound movies before 1953 were 1.375:1) Could it be that the people who design TVs are not film buffs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 7, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2018 On 12/3/2018 at 7:14 PM, Jeff Matthews said: This was a pretty good video demonstrating 480p, 720p, 1080p and 4K and how we've pretty much already hit peak useful resolutions. I have to say on some of what he says. If he can't tell the difference he needs glasses more than I do because I can even see a big difference. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 7, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2018 13 hours ago, garyrc said: guess the marathon talker in the video didn't cover the few TVs that are 21 x 9 or a 2.33:1 aspect ratio, which was never the shape of a movie. It was suggested as an alternative to 16 x 9, or 1.78:1, which was never the shape of a movie. 1.78:1 should have been 1.85:1, which was the shape of many movies. I hate this, nice 16x9 Tv and with BR's I get the bars on top and bottom with no way to change it, just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 18 minutes ago, dtel said: I have to say on some of what he says. If he can't tell the difference he needs glasses more than I do because I can even see a big difference. Could be BS. I don't have enough experience watching 4k material to see what it's like compared to 1080p. I don't subscribe to TV stuff and just watch what's OTA or nothing. 4k would be useless to me since it is not broadcast yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 7, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2018 We have only bought one 4K movie and tried some rentals, but there are many 4k videos on youtube that we tried and there is a big difference. I think it also matters if it was filmed in 4K or remade into 4K, some of the remakes are just slightly better than 1080p. I would like to get the Planet Earth series in 4K, or something similar. We actually never got the Tv for 4K it just had everything else we wanted and it just happens to be 4K. 24 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: I don't subscribe to TV stuff and just watch what's OTA or nothing. 4k would be useless to me since it is not broadcast yet. We use Dish, but your right not much if any 4K, I wouldn't switch to a new Tv mostly just for 4k at this point, it may be years before it's a standard ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, dtel said: it may be years before it's a standard ? 5G is well on its way. I hear it can handle the required bandwidth with ease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I sort of agree with his assessments concerning the general public. 1080P and Bluray are very good for the distances we generally watch TV. 4K is perceived to be a bit sharper and 8k is technological/monetary overkill and the bean counters will eventually kill it. They always win. For instance---!080P bandwidth was supposed to be 100 megs at first, the it was cut to 50 megs, then to 25 megs. The bean counters knocked it down to 14 megs eventually and now it's around 8 megs for top quality broadcasting even with banding. Yes they used codecs to do it but they were forced monetarily. Money wins and resolution gets crapped on. It will be a long time before all of the TV stations junk the 2k stuff for 4k. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 7, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2018 "5G is well on its way. I hear it can handle the required bandwidth with ease." I read something about that, I'm done for a while unless something breaks. It's never going to end, it never does, which is good I guess since HD is way better than before. And Tv are much better and the price is going down , it was not that long ago when a 50" tv was around $2000. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, JJkizak said: I sort of agree with his assessments concerning the general public. 1080P and Bluray are very good for the distances we generally watch TV. 4K is perceived to be a bit sharper and 8k is technological/monetary overkill and the bean counters will eventually kill it. They always win. For instance---!080P bandwidth was supposed to be 100 megs at first, the it was cut to 50 megs, then to 25 megs. The bean counters knocked it down to 14 megs eventually and now it's around 8 megs for top quality broadcasting even with banding. Yes they used codecs to do it but they were forced monetarily. Money wins and resolution gets crapped on. It will be a long time before all of the TV stations junk the 2k stuff for 4k. JJK Having been involved in Digital Output, starting in 1986, in Automotive Electronics Printed Circuit Design and Manufacture, I saw the Light (pun intended) and realized we would eventually be taking pictures digitally. So in 1995, I became the first digital photographer in Michigan (according to Kodak), and started capturing with pixels instead of Silver Halide. My 1.5 Megapixel Digital Camera (a 420) was 1.5 Megapixels and $11,000 without a lens. My first card was a 105 Megabyte, full size PCMCIA hard drive. How soon we forget. Fast forward to 2,000 where I got the first large format Epson printer (44") for about $10,000. I finally understood pixels! HD TV's are basically 2 Megapixels and look great. 4K is basically 8.3 Megapixels, but you need at least a 110 inch Diagonal to see any difference in sharpness at "normal" viewing distance. This is why I'm buying a DLP projector for less than $1,500 to do 4K, for which, HD (2K, if we use the same terminology for both) will look good with Pixel Interpolation, something I've done with still photography for 23 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 7, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 hour ago, ClaudeJ1 said: My first card was a 105 Megabyte, full size PCMCIA hard drive. How soon we forget. Something I never thought about also, wanted a newer camera and I do like it much better. Much better pic's ane better at higher ISO but never thought until I started using it was the size of the pictures, went from 10 mp to 24 mp, I had to get a few more memory cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 All I know (but don't fully understand) is: On a 130" wide (not diagonal) 2.35:1, common height, projection screen, 'scope Blur-ray looks great from about 12 feet away, with marvelous facial detail, blemishes and all, and very sharp pores. Something about a digital transfer from a photochemical original makes the grain show a bit more that it did in a commercial cinema. The only thing I can think of is that a theatrical print is fairly far from first generation, but if a digital disk is made directly from, say, a negative, it may lack halation and other fogging/milkiness due to the light bouncing around when going through all those generations of film, each with its own obscuring grain and light spreading through emulsions and bases. Would the grain in these classic films show even more in 4K? Richard A. Harris needed to use 8K to scan the 65 mm original of Lawrence of Arabia, to avoid losing detail. Film emulsions are much better today, with higher resolution, but 70mm prints of Lawrence were sharp as a tack. Because of the Nyquist phenomenon, I guess that implies that the 65 mm negative of Lawrence was the equivalent of about 4 K. The Blue-ray (at a bit less than 2K horizontal) looks great at about 122" wide at 12 feet away (only 122" because the 70 mm format for this film is 2.20:1, so when it fills the screen vertically (which I insist on), there are very small black bars on the left and right -- each are about 4" wide, 3 hundredths of the overall screen width. Of course, standard 'scope (either 2.35:1 or 2.39:1) fills the screen completely, thanks to the black felt border. So .... would going to 4K, for someone who collects films that were originally photochemical, and who prefers a large image, be a step up or a step down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 Did Dave ever get a TV. Maybe I missed something. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted December 8, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 8, 2018 I think so but it's probably still in the box he's mattress shopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 1 hour ago, T2K said: Did Dave ever get a TV. Maybe I missed something. Keith "TV Bought" is in the thread's title now so I'd assume so. Wb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 13 hours ago, dtel said: Something I never thought about also, wanted a newer camera and I do like it much better. Much better pic's ane better at higher ISO but never thought until I started using it was the size of the pictures, went from 10 mp to 24 mp, I had to get a few more memory cards. Another thing only early adopters of digital cameras (owned over 100 but slowing down) like me understand................I got my first SanDisk Memory Card in 1999. It was 80 Megabytes and cost $260 ($3.25/Megabyte). My 1 Gigabyte Micro Drive cost $500 back then also. Now when you go from Meg to Gig, that's 1,000 times more memory. So, 19 years ago, if a 32 Gigabyte SD card had even EXISTED, it would have been $104,000 in 1999, or, more realistically $158,000 when adjusted for inflation (via a modern devalued dollar)!! How soon we forget when I just priced a tiny 32 Gig Micro SD card for $8.88. This is why we take digital photography and video for granted today (cell phones being the most Techie thing we take for granted). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 On 11/13/2018 at 11:18 AM, wvu80 said: Nice! The eighty-five inchers are NOT the cheap ones! Is that Sony a 4K set ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 On 11/16/2018 at 10:39 AM, JL Sargent said: Good luck with the Vizio! I had one myself for a couple of months once............ I have had three Vizios, and two lasted less than a year! There is a reason they are cheap, and you get what you pay for!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 On 11/17/2018 at 8:27 PM, oldtimer said: Well, we have vizio in the bedroom and it has been solid for years. These days I think it is all a crap shoot. Do you feel lucky? Well do ya? I've had three Vizios and two of them didn't last a year, even had one of them rebuilt and it didn't last. The third one is my present TV and is an oddball at 68 inches and it was only $800 at Sams Club, but is only hi def and not 4 K Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.