First Epic Shipped

ok, so you say there's really a big difference, understood. but what if 1080p material is being shown on 1080p screen? even today, i don't find 1024x768 screen bad if material is quality.
 
Razz16mm said:
I can tell you from personal experience that a QHD (3860x2160) 50" display showing a QHD original video viewed at 10 feet is visibly quite superior to 1080p, as visibly different as 480p is from 1080p. And my old eyes are not that sharp. You can't see the pixels in either case, but the smoothness of the image, fine detail resolution, and micro contrast are all vastly superior to 1080p. It is like the difference between looking at a TV and through a window. The demo I saw was for a medical imaging system for viewing and teaching micro surgery techniques.
Click to expand...

Sure resolution is good for medical imaging, but one thing I know is that it is not very good to portrait human beings. I have seen amateur photographer who were obsessed by resolution, getting the sharpest portrait they could get. You could count every pore on the human face. Look at all these high end fashion and look at the skin.
 
Danielvilliers said:
Sure resolution is good for medical imaging, but one thing I know is that it is not very good to portrait human beings. I have seen amateur photographer who were obsessed by resolution, getting the sharpest portrait they could get. You could count every pore on the human face. Look at all these high end fashion and look at the skin.
Click to expand...

How you use the resolution is a matter of creative choice. Cinematographers have used all manner of optical filtering to make actor's closeups more flattering on film. But where 1080p still has a more video quality look to it, higher resolution acquisition and display are much smoother more organic and film like in their look.
 
I see what Raz is trying to convey.

I can see the difference between 4 (or in my case, 4.5K) and 1080. Also the difference between 720 and 1080. I can't quantify this statement properly, but the more the image is resolved.. Yes... The more cinematic it looks to my eye.

That said, a robust 1080/2K is enough indeed.
 
I can't predict when we will have 4K delivered into every home as a broadcast standard, but I can say with certainty, that there will be people people complaining how sh*tty it is 24 hours after it happens.
 
Last edited:
f64manray said:
I can't predict when we will have 4K delivered into every home as a broadcast standard, but I can say with certainty, that their will be people people complaining how sh*tty it is 24 hours after it happens.
Click to expand...

As my buddy Chris Tucker used to say, "And you know this, maaannnnnnn"
 
I think the true irony is that someday we'll get to 4k, then 8k, then 16k res, and while 99.999% of the people will still prefer to watch something of quality shot on an ancient DVX100 than something that's utter crap at 16k, we'll still be here splitting hairs as to which 16k camera looks better than the other.
 
snowleopard said:
I think the true irony is that someday we'll get to 4k, then 8k, then 16k res, and while 99.999% of the people will still prefer to watch something of quality shot on an ancient DVX100 than something that's utter crap at 16k, we'll still be here splitting hairs as to which 16k camera looks better than the other.
Click to expand...

Yup. Its what this forum is for - technical discussion.
 
Do you look like Chuck Liddell now?!

chuck-liddell-head-tattoo-2.JPG

chair.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top