Quake3World

lol I mention the concept of "potential energy" and the dummies on this board with actual mental damage start freakin...not predictable at all.

Yes, continue to impress us with your knowledge of 4th grade physics.

Plan B wrote:

seremtan wrote:wasn't it the 48fps that made the Hobbit look like a set rather than the resolution?

frankly I'd welcome what your describing; it might force directors to shoot on location more and not make rocks out of fucking polystyrene

you're.

And, I think the whole point is you don't really *want* "realistic".

IMO escapism is more enjoyable when it transcends realism. Not just content wise, but also in the way things are visualised.
Indeed, I read more negative than positive comments about The Hobbit @48 fps, where the achieved hyperreality didn't immerse the audience more in the illusion as intended, but rather made them constantly aware they were watching actors fucking around on a set.

That isn't to say these technological advancements don't have merrit, but the way they're handled right now just don't produce the desired results.
I'm sure higher fps and higher resolution have potential in the future, but right now a market is forcefully and prematurely being created for which there is no real demand, except by self delusional wankers.

merit

Tsakali wrote:

Doombrain wrote: The clown is correct. Higher pixel density will equal a wider gamut.

I guess it makes sense, it would allow for more true representation of a color gradient across the screen for example. granted it's all relative to the view distance, because technically, if you can actually see the pixels that means that subtleties of a color gradient must be missed from one pixel to the next.

Yet, this has been the case ever since color TV (rgb triplets).
I'd much rather have OLED with 30bit RGB for increased dynamic range though.
This resolution race is all about numbers. Quality per pixel needs to go up.

Nail>head

My setup lands directly in the center of the 4k range. 120" at around 13'.

Netflix added some test streams for 4k

http://www.reddit.com/r/hometheater/com ... _8/cd4iqg1

Nice for early adopters.
And who knows, maybe in 2 years 4k is the standard, although now it seems pretty point(hehe)less.

Fuck you Rick Berman!

Next time post a link, so I don't have to google that shit myself, you dick.
Assumed knowledge my ass.

EDIT:
fuck

Forget 4K:

16K put through The Mill as it re-imagines post

Seriously, WTF.
I mean, yeah, it's great that this facility have the spindle speed and a workstation powerful enough to play this back. A real technological achievement.
But what the fuck is the endgame here?
You can't honestly convince me there's an end-user requirement for such a ridiculously high resolution.
Impractical industry dick-swinging.

Wouldn't imax theaters be able to benefit from those kinds of resolutions?

I assume the shitting up of reg hd has already begun

like they did to sd when the push to purchase std hd was on

Eraser wrote:Wouldn't imax theaters be able to benefit from those kinds of resolutions?

Recent Sony tests in IMAX theatres have been experimenting with 16,000x8,000 projection, but again, it's uncertain the viewing public can tell the difference between that and 8K.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I know exactly how 4k works and what benefits it brings, and how it only brings benefits to less than one-tenth of one percent of the mass market audience.
Yes, I am looking at it from a negative viewpoint, because it's a tech that's not really relevant for consumer use.

"Depends how close you sit to the screen"? Yeah...you have no idea what you're talking about and morons like you will waste your money on it. Believe the hype, it's your wallet.

There's more to it than 4k. New standards that include 4k may introduce increased framerates, color bit depth, color gamut, in addition to increased resolution.

Yeah sure, that's simply the progress of time and refinement. Sorry, but your argument is kinda retarded if you read the rest of what I've posted about why I believe 4k is future-tech that's not relevant for a long time. Who gives a fuck?

There are still millions of people who aren't even at HD standard yet and still own old teevees (it's why action and title-safe zones in 4:3 aspect are still enforced on most broadcast networks). So why ram another standard down our throats when the current standard hasn't completely wiped out the old? The old NTSC standard was going for 60 years before it was replaced by HD...which has only been going steady since the mid-1990s. Like I said, progress is natural. Chasing the never-satisfied demands of a few bored nerds every few years isn't. Who gives a fuck?

All the hype about 4k is exactly that, so fuck the hype when my current system works fine. Ask me in 10 years if I'll give a shit about 4k and I somehow doubt I'll upgrade. FFS I was still using CRTs at work in 2003, so why care about 4k now? Who gives a fuck?

I honestly cannot understand the arguments that somehow paints 4k as a necessary tech that somehow fills some huge gaping hole in the market. Nobody gives a fuck about it except the same nerds that tried to convince us that plasma would be the be-all-end-all of screen tech. Does anyone care if the Jumbotron got more pixels? Get some fucking perspective people.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Yeah sure, that's simply the progress of time and refinement. Sorry, but your argument is kinda retarded if you read the rest of what I've posted about why I believe 4k is future-tech that's not relevant for a long time. Who gives a fuck?

I wasn't aware I made an argument. I pointed out that there is more to it than resolution. That's all.

Here's a great discussion with Joe Kane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtL8hG_JJWY

[xeno]Julios wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I know exactly how 4k works and what benefits it brings, and how it only brings benefits to less than one-tenth of one percent of the mass market audience.
Yes, I am looking at it from a negative viewpoint, because it's a tech that's not really relevant for consumer use.

"Depends how close you sit to the screen"? Yeah...you have no idea what you're talking about and morons like you will waste your money on it. Believe the hype, it's your wallet.

There's more to it than 4k. New standards that include 4k may introduce increased framerates, color bit depth, color gamut, in addition to increased resolution.

so true

no doubt improvements like that make a huge huge difference .

and as a super leet person i can always spot higher res.

when its not shitted up that is

color and contrast resolution ey

Lol, I think you mean gamut.

Displays are already starting to target the consumer market:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/ces- ... ies-price/

Time to upgrade or wait for 8k?...

Wait for 16k bro