72 Hz mode was available from brands like Pioneer since twenty years ago. Now that Pioneer has long quit the TV business, this mode has been re-discovered and re-branded.
It was well within the specs, which are up to 10 Mbps. The best Superbit discs had 6 Mbps. Average DVD has 3-3.5 Mbps. This is how DVDs should have been from the start: no stupid FBI warning, no previews, no menu, no extras: just a damn movie. Well, Superbit discs still have the FBI warning. They should have called it Barebones Edition, but Superbit sounds cooler, doesn't it?
I ended up buying a new $1600 receiver that streams surround sound for Amazon Prime. I'm not in a rush to purchase a new big TV and then a new player. So I guess I just decided to stay on the fence.
I don't believe "Superbit" DVD's were a scam. They were all about maximising the available space for the movie. They offered less compressed video at a higher bitrate plus DTS audio as standard. There were also several "Superbit Deluxe" titles which came with an extras disc. Consumers always had the choice of buying the cheaper regular DVD version instead. IMHO "Superbits" were aimed at the "enthusiast" who most likely had come from collecting Laserdiscs, would happily pay more for higher PQ and AQ and didn't care about extras or commentaries (of which I was one) I loved acquiring "Superbits" and fondly remember importing the Jurassic Park trilogy (with gold discs) from Japan for big $......... which I still have!!!!
I just bought a 4k player for my parent's 4k tv and I have to say I was very impressed. I still don't think I would go out of my way to buy a new player and tv at home, but I do think 4k would be worth getting into through attrition.
8K is gonna be a total non-starter for home viewing. There's next to no content that would take advantage of it, and home TVs aren't big enough for 8K to make a difference. I'll be shocked if there are 8K discs. 4K is a niche of a niche already - only the most obsessive of HT enthusiasts would bother with 8K discs...
What's the screen size? That's the only reason for investing in 4K IMO in regards to seeing more detail that isn't film grain or noise. A bigger screen size forces you to set farther back and have more room for other viewers to watch at normal angles of field of view which means edge halo thickness that creates the visual illusion of sharpness in detail will be viewed at a distance. It's still better looking than digital projection at a movie theater. My one quibble is none of the disc formats have fixed the issue of sound volume extremes being too quiet for dialog and too loud for explosions when playing straight stereo analog. I don't know what surround or Dolby whatever sounds like because I only use two speakers...left and right...one for my left ear and one for my right ear. Hearing helicopters flying over my head doesn't make any sense when they are out of frame and heard above and behind my head. Even with DVD and BD I have to sit next to the volume knob and adjust so I can hear quiet parts of the movie and turn down loud parts. And my disc player settings don't fix this.
Do you think that 8k will become the "reference point" that is quoted regarding restorations etc for marketing purposes of product , rather than the consumer end "viewing level"? Hope that makes sense!
Exactly! When I watch regular broadcasts, I usually have the volume level set between 15 and 20 and can hear dialogue perfectly well but DVDs, Blus and 4K requires volumes upwards of 30 or more and Lord help me and my neighbors when the booms and crashes start.
4K UHDs are absolutely worth it. Their picture quality is far superior to any streaming service and you get to own, collect and enjoy them without restrictions or limitations.
I largely agree on all points. I would say though that when and if a 8K player and screens become viable I will definitely get one. But it will absolutely not be a priority and I will wait until they are considerably cheaper than launch prices. Plus if upscaling* is anywhere near as good as current 4K players then I would be more than happy to take the plunge. *Upscaling is a guessing game though so it can sometimes work really well and others not.
Below is a macro shot I took of my 27in. diagonal LG 1080 computer display of an SHF white page. Each RGB square is a pixel. If you double the size of the screen it becomes close to 55in. A 4k screen will enlarge these pixels somewhat to get to a 55 to 65in screen but no one will be able to see the individual dots or RGB triplet subpixels because 4K is very close to computer screen resolution. At arms length (normal desktop viewing distance) I can't see these pixels on my 27in. LG, not even dots on the screen viewing with reading glasses. The same thing will happen viewing a 4k screen from greater distances. 35mm movie film can't resolve sharp edges enough to keep up with a 4K screen. Check out the Roller Ball screengrabs up thread to see how much grain there is and soft edges. I think 4K is going to be the last stop in resolution HDTV viewing because the way up is to make much bigger screens that most won't be able to sit far back enough in their living rooms to not start seeing RGB subpixel pattern.
As I mentioned, there's exceptionally little material that can take advantage of 8K. From what I understand, 35mm film continues somewhere between 3K and 4K of info. This makes those films look better on 4K than 2K, but 8K won't improve them. A small portion of movies are shot with equipment that allows for more than 4K of info, but a lot of those movies are "finished" at 2K. Finishing movies at 4K is expensive, so even films shot on 4K or higher equipment usually go through 2K finishing. Restoring movies to 8K won't make a difference for the vast majority of flicks because they don't have 8K of info...
it seems easier to obtain a 4K copy with each BD I buy...the 4Ks are sometimes cheaper than the BD alone....
Yes, with the decline in physical media I think 4K UHD discs are the last film format we will see for the home.
Agree, though 8K could find usage for video games. 8K TVs are already out there but the question remains what content will be available for them. Like I mentioned, 4K discs are already a niche of a niche, so 8K discs are a non-starter. I don't know much about the world of streaming so I don't know how practical streaming 8K video will be - at least with current Internet speeds. 8K could be nice for sporting events and other stuff shot that way, but for movie buffs, it's next to useless due to the lack of content. Hollywood would have to commit to shooting - and finishing - most movies 8K for there to be much content. And that's unlikely to happen due to costs. Besides, for consumer displays, there's going to be next to zero discernible difference. Who's going to tell the difference between 4K and 8K on a 65" TV from 8 feet away?
No 4K for me, im just fine with 1080p. Heck I remember when the first 1080p TV sets were $20k.....now can get them for almost nothing. Besides there's just some detail I'd rather not see in film movies and TV shows. Like the Three Stooges even though it's on DVD I can see the pull string they use on some of the shorts. I'd rather not see that but I ignore it because I would re-watch them anytime all the time being my favorite show. Sometimes too much detail is not good. So won't be any 4k in my household and i don't really care for streaming services.
I don't think it matters if they don't have 8k of visual information, I think there must be some benefit to scanning a negative at 8k instead of 4k if only to get a more accurate representation of the film grain.
I think they're scanning at 8K but I'll admit I think that's kind of a gimmick. For a 35mm film, I think an 8K scan isn't going to be any better than 4K scan. It just sounds better to say "8K SCAN!!!"
