Does a 4K projector need "pixel perfect" resolution if the source material is a 4K animation?

[wooferocau]

4 hours ago, Javs said:

 

NOW, I also dont buy, and dont like, when people outright refuse to address the benefits to 4K as a resolution and technology. As I said, its utterly ridiculous to use a 3k eshifting technology to display an image composed of 8 million pixels and only be able to show 4 million of them at best... There IS going to be information missing if you know where to look for it

Yep,

 

Only "2" reasons  not see any advantage of a Native 4K Projector over  an E-Shift Projector....

 

"1" ....... Terrible eyesight!  

"2" ........ Something is 'VERY" wrong with the setup!

[TP1]

 

4 hours ago, Javs said:

I will remind the forum that this is the first time that a native 4k projector has become available with ANYTHING north of 20k:

While I wouldn't bet the house on those numbers, the new JVC's do seem to have got the balance right with decent native contrast and full 4k panels. 

[muriwai]

Yep,
 
Only "2" reasons  not see any advantage of a Native 4K Projector over  an E-Shift Projector....
 
"1" ....... Terrible eyesight!  [emoji3]
"2" ........ Something is 'VERY" wrong with the setup!
[emoji4]

3......your name is Owen!

[wooferocau]

3 minutes ago, muriwai said:

 

3......your name is Owen!

 

  

[muriwai]

Lolz,apologies to Owen,I always enjoy reading his posts and he is far more knowledgeable than me and very passionate about this hobby we all love,
Peace

[Javs]

 
While I wouldn't bet the house on those numbers, the new JVC's do seem to have got the balance right with decent native contrast and full 4k panels. 

I think we will be pleasantly surprised there. JVC have never ever overestimated native contrast figures.

If it's in literature it's almost always accurate, in fact the last few generations have easily beaten the quoted numbers.

[poppybob]

Can’t wait to read Owens responses. [emoji39] he certainly is very knowledgeable.

[Javs]

Can’t wait to read Owens responses. [emoji39] he certainly is very knowledgeable.

Or stubborn...

[TP1]

To be fair to those sceptical of noticing  improvements with native 4k panels ,  quite a bit of  BS has been disseminated on this topic when it was only Sony doing native 4K.  It would be difficult to throw out those notions if someone had accepted in good faith the  case being presented by the naysayers.    

[kukynas]

17 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I was very impressed by Planet Earth II, not least because of the HDR effect highlighting glistening water or sunlight filtering through a rainforest canopy. I made some comments last year:

 

David Attenborough and his photographic teams have led the way with photography of the natural world. For example I was very impressed with Sir David's 3D Blu-ray programs covering the Galapagos Islands:

ah ok, I somehow overlooked your post about it

18 hours ago, Javs said:

Anything shot with the RED Weapon or the Arri Alexa 65 would be the best.

 

Planet Earth is nice, but it does have some source banding and noise in the image, I found it inconsistent at times, there are much better shots in films IMO.

 

any link to those movies? I was looking at the list of natively shot 4K movies but couldn't find any other than some old one with like 30 movies in total (including upscaled remasters)

[TP1]

8 hours ago, kukynas said:

any link to those movies? I was looking at the list of natively shot 4K movies but couldn't find any other than some old one with like 30 movies in total (including upscaled remasters)

 

You can look up the movie on the IMDB site, and then click on the menu item "More".   

 

 

That will bring you this screen

 

 

Then click on "Technical Specs"  and voila!

 

 

[kukynas]

Thanks @Tasso but I would prefer some user friendly way of looking at it than going through more than 500 titles one by one 

 

something in similar fashion to this:

http://gadgetflux.net/list-of-4k-mastered-hollywood-movies/

https://referencehometheater.com/ultrahd-blu-ray-title-info/

 

[TP1]

10 hours ago, kukynas said:

Thanks @Tasso but I would prefer some user friendly way of looking at it than going through more than 500 titles one by one 

 

something in similar fashion to this:

http://gadgetflux.net/list-of-4k-mastered-hollywood-movies/

https://referencehometheater.com/ultrahd-blu-ray-title-info/

 

 

 

I used to use 'real or fake 4K?'  until they went belly up and then this site  came out.  It seems to have taken over from realorfake4k.  They all rely on IMDB for info and are not always up to date , so IMDB is my first port of call when I look up a particular movie.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Tasso

[betty boop]

imdb is owned by amazon and is extensive ! I would just look at that.

 

 I am not suprised real or fake has gone belly up.

 

also I have said it before. there is FAR FAR too much OBSESSION with this. 

 

people were using that stupid real or fake site and ruling out (because they did) what are ABSOLUTE and utter audio and visual treats on UHD just because it had a 2k DI. this is UTTER stupidity folks. check out something like the shallows uhd. it is tantamount to illustration where you shouldnt be ruling out movies just because 2k DI. animations and CGI thats used heavily these days is usually finished in 2k, yet there have been some absolute stunning examples you would miss out just going on this premise. talk about cutting nose off to spite face. 

[TP1]

Not all movies that are shot and mastered in 4k are worth getting though .  The ones I am referring to are where the director has decided for fartistic reasons to wash out colours or dominate the movie with a particular hue, reduce dynamic range  etc.    Movies like  "The Post" for example have no business  being released in 4kUHD format when it is designed to look poor visually ( my take on the artistic process). 

[TP1]

1 minute ago, al said:

you shouldnt be ruling out movies just because 2k DI

I hear you but when the native 4K projector can itself upscale the  1080P bluray image to look subjectively better in many respects than the upscaled 4K disc,  there is little incentive to do so.  You do have the wider colour gamut and HDR but compared to the quantum leap in resolution that you can get with 4K DI,  I feel cheated with the upscaled discs.   

[kukynas]

those 2 links I provided were just examples, the reason I was asking for some specific site with listed info about 4K movies is to get full picture of the media used i.e. original format (35mm, 2.8K etc) but also HW used so not just if it's fake or real 4K, I thought I would be able to compile our own list next to the 4K titles thread where we could add additional info for those interested, going through each movie 1 by 1 through several clicks and copying info from several fields is no go for me 

[TP1]

3 hours ago, kukynas said:

 

those 2 links I provided were just examples, 

 

Ah, I see.   It would be useful to have the info on that thread. 

[GAARA]

On 21/09/2018 at 11:05 AM, al said:

also I have said it before. there is FAR FAR too much OBSESSION with this. 

 

people were using that stupid real or fake site and ruling out (because they did) what are ABSOLUTE and utter audio and visual treats on UHD just because it had a 2k DI. this is UTTER stupidity folks. check out something like the shallows uhd. it is tantamount to illustration where you shouldnt be ruling out movies just because 2k DI. animations and CGI thats used heavily these days is usually finished in 2k, yet there have been some absolute stunning examples you would miss out just going on this premise. talk about cutting nose off to spite face. 

 

I don't think so, it's about people trying to get to the bottom of this and finding out once and for all that what they're paying for is exactly what they're getting....4K as defined everywhere else in technologies like TVs and mobile phones.

 

Someone commented if anyone would buy a pixel-shifting 1080p projector right now, and the answer is clearly NO.  So if no one will buy such a projector then what makes the case for pixel-shifting 4K projectors any different? 

 

[GAARA]

On 19/09/2018 at 11:05 AM, MLXXX said:

I was very impressed by Planet Earth II, not least because of the HDR effect highlighting glistening water or sunlight filtering through a rainforest canopy. I made some comments last year:

 

David Attenborough and his photographic teams have led the way with photography of the natural world. For example I was very impressed with Sir David's 3D Blu-ray programs covering the Galapagos Islands:

 

 

 

 

You have to give it up to the BBC and filming technologies today, they do get very close to the action that makes viewing so enjoyable.  There are some highly impressive 4K and even 8K videos on youtube that I get a kick out of watching.

 

Quote

My own visual acuity is such that I find that a 3840x2160 pixel display leaves a little to be desired in terms of matching up to the detail I can see in real life. I'd probably prefer 8K for a feeling of looking through a window onto a real life scene.

 

Uncompromised "3840x2160" is easily far better than 1080p, but I agree that 8K is even better having seen Sharp's 8K TV in person.  Sometimes you will see details and highlights that most people don't even bother noticing in real life, that is the magic of technology and higher resolutions.

Edited September 26, 2018 by GAARA