Quake3World

Why not 32k?...

Also isn't everything filmed in 4k so anything above that a waste?...

scared? wrote:Also isn't everything filmed in 4k so anything above that a waste?...

Some things at least are shot on celliuloiid which coiuld be scanned at 8k. The new Star Wars films are going to be shot on celluloid, cause George Lucas says it looks better. I think there are some 8k cameras, not sure who's using them. Also 8k would give you 4k passive 3D, whereas 4k will give you only 1090p passive 3D. Passive 3D is supposed to be better than active 3D apart from the resolution being halved.

so ur saying wait for 32k?...

scared? wrote:so ur saying wait for 32k?...

no.

If you don't want to wait get that Sony 4k screen that comes with a HTPC and a free supply of Sony published 4k films to go on the hard drive.

If you want to wait, wait until a console has 4k films. Get a screen 4x the size of your old one for the full effect.

DTS wrote:The new Star Wars films are going to be shot on celluloid, cause George Lucas says it looks better.

Got a source for that? Because Lucas was the one who started the whole shoot-straight-to-digital thing saying it would look better than film.

Here's a source saying it's going to be shot in 35mm celluloid:

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a ... gital.html

You are right about George Lucas, though, I was thinking of Spielberg who went against George Lucas' advice to shoot in digital, saying that celluloid looks better.

Edit: JJ Abrams says celluloid looks better in that link.

Okay, that makes more sense. If Lucas the Hut had said that, then Tattooine just froze over.

scared? wrote:Also isn't everything filmed in 4k so anything above that a waste?...

The Hobbit was shot with double Red Epic camera's at a 5K resolution each.