ThinkOutsideTheTV | 164 points
Disney has yet to release any 4k or HDR content except for the Iron Man trilogy a few days, so unless the uploader has got his hands on an original film reel (I wouldn't bet on it, it's fucking Disney/Star Wars, security doesn't get any tighter than that) take it with a grain of bullshit, not even theaters would have had an "HDR" copy anyway.
source:http://ca.ign.com/articles/2017/04/04/which-star-wars-rogue-one-blu-ray-should-you-buy
^^^^^
If it's 4k upscaled, it's not 4k, and will be the same as playing a 1080p movie on a 4k tv that upscales, which all name brand TV's are doing now. A large number of 4k torrents going around are frauds, either upscaled or so small and compressed it's far shittier than 1080p.
^^^^^
The problem with this is fake 4k torrents get popular and people flock to them which slows down or kills other real torrents and true 1080p REMUX bluray rips that consistently look far better than 90% of 4k content I have downloaded over the last few months. It also can stop new uploaders from uploading the real thing when they see a 4k torrent is already popular and assume it's legit and already available.
^^^^^
So keeping that in mind follow these steps and you probably won't be fooled, lets work together to stop the spread of garbage:
^^^^^
1) When outside of mega or to verify links on here, use a decent search engine like Torrentz2.eu or Extratorrent.CC to check out what is available (Beware imposter sites) ^
^^^^^
2) Use google and find out if the movie you are trying to download in 4k has actually been released in 4k... as of early 2017 the majority are NOT
^^^^^
3) Do the math, if the size isn't huge, it's probably shit. If the 4k torrent is smaller than any 1080p copies it WILL NOT be better! For 4k to match the quality of 1080p it needs to be 2-3x the size, 4k is FOUR TIMES the pixels of 1080p.
^^^^^
PS. If you download a 4k torrent with brand new audio codecs like Dolby Atmos, 7.1, DTS-X etc. there is a good chance it will not play on your TV. This is why I recently built a PC capable of decoding new complicated codecs, my 2016 Samsung would fail to play stuff like The Martian in 7.1
[-] dfdsfsdfdsfsdfdsf | 10 points
This is why I recently built a PC capable of decoding new complicated codecs, my 2016 Samsung would fail to play stuff like The Martian in 7.1
what kind of pc is capable of playing them?
also what happens if one plays these files with epic sizes on a normal pc?
im pretty sure nvidia gpus handle 265 pretty well, ill confirm in a couple of weeks.
[-] ThinkOutsideTheTV | -13 points
You need a monster video card to decode HEVC video which everything in 4k right now is. I had to buy a Radeon rx480 to do it. If you want to make the jump PM me because I went through weeks of absolute hell to get it working right.
[-] ShitstainsIII | 33 points
You don't need a monster GPU, just one that has a hardware decoder for HEVC. Even the RX 460 will do just fine. If you don't have a hardware decoder, if your CPU is fast enough, it'll serve as a software decoder.
You need a monster video card to decode HEVC video which everything in 4k
um...no. stop spreading bullshit, you dont need a "monster" video card to decode hevc. like the guy below said, you will be fine with an rx460 or even lower
[-] dfdsfsdfdsfsdfdsf | 1 points
any idea how to increase the mega decryption time? is that to do with cpu?
my current pc takes a long time to decrypt the downloaded mega link (for large files, it takes longer to decrypt than to dL them).
[-] mickeythefist | 8 points
I have a laptop with a midrange GPU and high end CPU and I can watch 4K HEVC fine.
Here’s a quick rundown of well-known hardware that includes dedicated HEVC decoding blocks, which definitely support efficient HEVC playback:
source: techspot
[-] notdeadyet01 | 2 points
you need a monster video card
Radeon rx480
¿Que?
[-] saintspidey67re | 1 points
My Xbox One plays HEVC just fine, so you don't need monster anything.
My $500 Samsung TV (model 6270) I got this past winter plays H.265 HEVC 4K movies fine. I've watched file sizes up to 50GB.
[-] dfdsfsdfdsfsdfdsf | 1 points
[-] dfdsfsdfdsfsdfdsf | 1 points
hey I am indeed thinking about making a jump to a better pc. I've been getting work done with a laptop but none of these large video files are able to be played.
Thanks for the advice
[-] visionplushdr | 8 points
Are you sure what you are saying on here? Did you read what we have said in the Rogue One Subreddit?
We don't do what movie studios do which is simple bilinear upscaling from 4:2:0 digital intermediate.
We do proprietary upsampling/upscaling with also proprietary HDR re-grading in native BT. 2020 colorspace/gamut, that movie studios don't own. So, it will never be what you can "buy".
Blu-Ray HDR is also DCI-P3 output, we do BT.2020.-
You are claiming "TV can do upscale" as what we offer to individuals in terms of video processing.
Then please show proof any TV can make Avatar look like this:
https://extraimage.net/image/N8hl https://extraimage.net/image/N8hm https://extraimage.net/image/N8hi https://extraimage.net/image/N8dU
We really don't mind about people who doesn't understands video processing talks over the internet, though we would really love you to understand what we do, and we try hard.
Our movies are new masters, complete new video, nothing to do with "ripping" or "encoding" from a blu-ray source.
[-] peanutmilk | 7 points
I don't understand why hasn't 4k gotten adopted like 1080p was. The technology has been here for quite a while. Why not film everything in 4k now?
[-] RAWRzilla22 | 24 points
The technology may be available, but the consumer demand for it is not. 4k, while amazing, still sits in the same niche category as 3D television in the minds of consumers. Doesnt help that the displays for them in-store tout them as some kind of futuristic, ultra luxury option. The sooner they normalize 4k content in the same way its considered normal to have a 1080p tv, then we'll see more 4k.
Why not film everything in 4k now?
Unless a stylistic decision by a DP you'll be hard pressed to find a recent release not shot in 4k. That said a 4k scan is supposed to be able to sufficiently reproduce 35mm (closer to 6k though, depending on who you ask) even though the archival scans are usually done 8k.
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
Because unless you have 20/20 vision and are viewing it with a 60 Field of View, its not possible for your eyes to see the difference. The technology is better than what our optic nerves can process.
[-] reallynotnick | 6 points
Bullshit, a 60° Field of view is HUGE. I just calculated out my setup (65" and 8.5ft) and it's 31° and 4K looks a hell of a lot sharper than 1080p. If I had a 60° field of view (130" screen 8.5ft away) I could
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
Believe what you want. I stick with the facts.
Facts have sources
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
I provided on another comment. OR here's a crazy idea. Look it up and confirm if you have doubts.
[-] TheDONIsAMoron | 2 points
You presented the, wrong, premise, onerous is on you to provide reference. It's how discussion work.
It doesn't work for you? fine. Your reasoning is factual incorrect.
It's akin to basing the quality of a CPU just on Hz.
Protip: It's more then pixels. The eyes aren't pixel viewers, brain interpretation is also a factor.
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing
There is the link. As stated before, I already posted it, AND others posted it too. I'm sorry its difficult for you to read the entire thread and easier for you to cherry pick a single post that you don't agree with.
Thank you for agreeing with me. It is more than pixels, its about Brain interpretation along with what the optic nerve can see. Even with perfect 20/20 vision the viewing conditions still have to be just right for your brain to have a chance to interpret 4k.
[-] Selrisitai | 3 points
Your link seems to contradict your argument.
The key is that as the viewing angle increases, either due to a larger image or a closer viewing distance, the resolvable pixels also increases. Applying similar viewing angles to home cinema, high definition displays are typically out-resolved and can appear pixelated.
4K resolution is required to produce maximally sharp and seemingly continuous pixels for a majority of viewers | Megalinks MegaDB 4K resolution is required to produce maximally sharp and seemingly continuous pixels for a majority of viewers:
What am I missing?
you dont have a clue about facts lad, not a clue.
Youve read some now debunked gibbersih off some random blog...
I have a 4K TV.... the distance claim is a myth, I sit 9 feet away and the difference between 1080p and genuine 4k is like the difference between the wright brothers first attempt, and a modern Airbus....
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
A little late to the party there bud, this thread was from over a month ago. I'm actually impressed that you found it.
Your analogy is comically great, but not accurate. Distance does matter, it always has when it comes to TV. Another very important question is, how big is your TV. The Ratio of TV Size vs. Viewing distance is a bigger issue than resolution. Like anything, there is also the Plecebo effect. You know that you have a 4k TV, You know that 4k should be better, so it is.
But going back to what I originally said, even if you have perfect 20/20 vision, Your eyes cannot perceive 4k.
As far as 'debunked gibberish'....how about educating me on how I'm wrong with actual facts, not your personal experience.
The TV is 49" and properly calibrated. The idea of sitting 4-6 feet away is a laughable concept. Do you actually have a 4k TV?
Take, for example, the 1080p version of Planet Earth 2. Compare it with the UHD HDR edition, and the difference is so obviously clear, you can only laugh at those people who claim otherwise. This is on a non HDR, but 10bit, WCG set too. On a HDR capable set (which my friend has) the difference is as if you are watching two different programs.
I cant educate someone whos views are based on the opinions of others. believe me, I have been trying throught the UK General Election to educate people who's default position is based on memes..... No easy task. All I can say is try it for yourself.
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
You are right, I don't have a 4k TV.
I've been researching and following it for a few years, and based off the science, I have no desire to spend my money on one. As a human with less than perfect vision I'm not physically able to enjoy it in all its glory. Now in about 100 years that might be a different story, as we will probably adapt so all can enjoy 4k regardless of your vision.
Side note, I find it very interesting that the old silent movies look herky-jerky to us now. When they were new, they were smooth to people watching. Why the change, well the reason why is they run at 10 frames per second. Back then people didn't watch anything faster and their eyes could process it, Over the years we've crammed more FPS and our eyes are now used to +/-30 FPS so the old silent movies are running with 1/3rd as fast with the same amount information to process, so our eyes can perceive a 'stutter' as they are anticipating the information before its there, so there is a moment of nothing. That's also why when The Hobbit came out and was filmed at 60 frames per second a lot of people complained and said it didn't look right. It was because their eyes couldn't process the information correctly since they were overloaded with twice as much information in the same amount of time.
Back to the original point. Now if they offered say a 3k, I might be tempted as your eyes can perceive that difference of 3k over 1080p (1.9K), but after 3k, our Optic Nerves don't know any better, so is it worth spending on average 4 times the money for a 4k TV? At this point, I stick with the science and nothing has convinced me that the answer is yes.
All I can say, is try for yourself. Are you in the UK? If so, do you have a Richer Sounds store local to you? Pay then a visit and have them demonstrate various 1080p blurays and UHD ones of the same name. You will get an idea of the difference.
Oddly enough, I play some game at what would be considered 3K (2880 x 1620) resolution, it provides fantastic graphic fidelity with far less of a hit than 4K. I am using DSR unless I connect the TV up, mind.
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
Nope, not in the UK, on the other side of the pond.
I'm sure there is some place over here that can do a demonstration for me. Also too I'm happy with my TV Setup, when I am ready to upgrade I'm sure I'll look a bit closer and do my research for what's good at that time.
[-] TheDONIsAMoron | 3 points
Wrong. I do not have 20 20, and watching them side by side is clearly different. I literally saw two TVs from 50 feet away. I could tell the difference easily.
Yes, I did not know which was which, otherwise it would have been pointless.
[-] Selrisitai | 1 points
It might simply be because 4k TVs are displaying higher quality content. I wonder what would happen if both were playing 4k content.
[-] peopeareidiots | 1 points
Seems like some of you are just believing some bs that u have read. Do any of you actually have a 4k Tv and 4k movies? Not possible to see the difference? Ahha obviously u haven't seen 4k porn pmsl
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
I don't have 20/20 vision. Why would I waste my money on a 4k TV, when I have done my research and found that its not worth it.
[-] mangofromdjango | 3 points
I have a 4k for a year now and for videogames it's amazing. Also the 4k youtube videos I watched are a lot better, mostly due to the higher bitrate 4k youtube allows. Fonts look A LOT better than on 1080p. I can imagine it's not a big deal for movies in general as there is much less to focus on than in a big open world video game where suddenly that tree 300m away actually looks like a tree and not like a bunch of green pixels.
EDIT: I actually calculated a FOV of 75° (sit 2m in front of a 49inch tv) and have decent eye sight (was tested 120% a month ago for my glasses, no idea about that 20/20 system though and have never heard about it in europe)
[-] Lobstradomus | 2 points
Why buy a 4k TV? The short answer is: HDR. The long answer is 1,000 nits peak target brightness, Rec. 2020 and 4:4:4 chroma sub sampling. If you have content that supports it and a reliable way to transport it to the display it is well worth it IMO.
[-] CosmicTransmutation | 1 points
everything does get filmed in 4k or higher, its whether or not it gets released to us in that format
Research has shown that unless the screen is massive, or you are really close to it, almost all people can't see the improved quality above 720p, and definitely above 1080p.
[-] eightballthrowaway | 13 points
This is so wrong lmao. I have a 40 inch tv that sits about 2 metres from the chairs in my loungeroom and you can totally see the difference between 720p and 1080p. I havent had the chance to see 4k yet but 1080p doesn't look that great even when upscaled well and I'm sure I'd be able to tell the difference since it's like. four times better lol. Maybe you're thinking of phone resolutions ?
No, I'm not. I'll try and link you to the research in the next 24 hours. I can see the difference, apparently many can't (or don't notice it). 2 metres from a 40 inch screen is pretty close!
[-] eightballthrowaway | 1 points
Maybe a lot of people are blind and don't know it lol. It all looks the same without glasses on :^
And is it? It's not really that big I don't think.
40" isn't that big compared to other screens available, but it's big enough. I don't actually recall the exact details of the research though. Re what people see, it seems pretty clear that most people really don't pay attention, or can't process/understand things.
(Thanks to @SackOfrito for posting this link... I think this was the research I'd seen.) http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing
and this is relevant to the overall discussion here, http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/upscaled-1080P-vs-4K
[-] thunder2132 | 2 points
The old adage was that you take the screen size of the TV (this works for up to 50") multiply that number by 1.5. If you sit that many inches away a person with 20/20 vision can't tell the difference between a 720p TV (the TV itself, not the content on it) and a 1080p TV. Above 50" and the screen door effect is too great and you can tell a difference from further away.
I'd imagine there's a similar formula for 1080p and 4k. I have a 1080p 60" in the basement (Samsung) and a 4k 50" upstairs (LG). I can see a difference between them if I'm within a few feet, but can't see any difference from my couches. The biggest improvement is with PC output, text is much clearer on the 4k, and a ton clearer than it is on my 720p 42".
[-] Lobstradomus | 2 points
There is a formula used for determining minimum viewing distance that calculates the angular resolution - it is a good deal more complex than 1.5 x diagonal but for speeds sake you can use calculators like the one here: http://ca.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship
Once you look at the numbers for UHD display sizes and distances you start to understand why calibrators and integrators usually respond to the common question of "what size tv should I buy" with the question "where do you like to sit in the movie theater?" With UHD, display size is much less about resolution than it is about customer preference - understanding the experience they want is still one of the best tools in determining field-of-view and ultimately display size and position.
[-] thunder2132 | 1 points
That calculator seems to be a bit more "how big of a TV should I get for where I'm stitting." where mine was a rule of thumb for "will I be able to see a difference between 1080p and 720p from where my couch is located." Their diagram a bit further down is more in line with what I was talking about. My rule of thumb was a sales techniqu taught back when 1080p was a new technology in the consumer world (probably 11 or 12 years ago), so I'm sure it's outdated.
[-] blueturtle00 | 1 points
Ugh do you think you can't tell the difference over 60 fps too.
[-] hedgeborncerebellum | 1 points
Have you been in any TV selling shops lately? I bought a TV 2 years ago and when I walked past a 4K TV with a nice scenery movie, I was lost for words. I didn't even know what I was looking at at the time.
I'm still holding back buying one because of the lack of content. But I will definitely buy one when 4K is mainstream.
[-] Crispy_socks241 | 3 points
thanks, just deleted it and wiped my harddrive clean
Samething few years ago with 3D, many movies with 3D but only few was with original 3D, the rest is just converted by Movie23D...
[-] shhsfootballjock | 1 points
man i was about to download this as soon as i got home.... thanks
[-] thefastandme | -1 points
Idk if you considered marvel under Disney as well, but I've seen some legit HDR copies of marvel movies.
what movies are those ?
[-] thefastandme | 1 points
I've personally seen Guardians of the Galaxy in HDR.
[-] SackOfrito | -3 points
What's the point in 4k. Unless you have perfect 20/20 vision, you can't see the improvement, its not possible.
[-] [deleted] | 6 points
You got some proofs there?
[-] SackOfrito | 6 points
This was an article refered to me when I asked the question: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing
For the Record, I'm talking about Televisions. Not Computers. It seems that for laptops and desktops, since your eye is much closer the additional pixels do make the picture more complete.
So, your research is red.com and not anything to actually do with human ocular ability? Smart.
That said, RED.COM doesn't say what you are saying. Although now that you added a qualifier as distance, at least you are back peddling.
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
No backpedaling here, that's called clarifying.
Personally I enjoy this one. But Whatever...have fun wasting your money on 4k.
[-] [deleted] | 0 points
Oh well in that case I can agree. 4k tvs are really just dumb
Funny how we both expressed this "fact" of how eye sight works, and we both got downvoted.
[-] SackOfrito | 1 points
[-] Lobstradomus | 1 points
To me its a lot less about the resolution than it is about all of the other improvements that are tagging along with the UHD rollout. The ISF has known for years that resolution is not the most important factor in a display looking better - if I remember right its actually fourth after contrast, color gamut and color accuracy.
With the new HDR-10 and Dolby Vision brightness standards and the developments in OLED displays (and Sony's Backlight Masterdrive,) contrast is finally starting to kick some ass. Right along with the HDR brightness we now have the REC 2020 color gamut and increases in color depth and chroma sub sampling - all very noticeable improvements.
While there is technically nothing in either HDR standard requiring 4k, I am not aware of anyone making a 1080p set that supports Dolby Vision or even HDR-10.
So while there may not be a truly noticeable difference between the common size HD and UHD displays at your average seating distance, I do still appreciate what UHD is bringing along with it. Of course with LG's OLED wallpaper looming I might just eat those words - but I am still baffled by the decision to push 8k and 10k in the new HDMI 2.1 spec, its hard enough to get 18gbps over those three TMDS channels -how in the hell are they supposed to manage 48!?
[-] stonecats | 19 points | Apr 06 2017 04:34:46
http://realorfake4k.com/
permalink
[-] slippery_salmons | 3 points | Apr 09 2017 08:11:37
This website says that Rouge One is real 4k, but OP is saying that Rouge One is not 4k. I don't know what to believe.
permalink
[-] Vepanion | 5 points | Apr 11 2017 03:15:59
The movie itself, as shown in the cinema, was real 4k. There are movies shown in 4k cinemas advertised as 4k that are not real 4k. That is what the website is for. OP is saying that a 4k bluray of rogue one does not exist and therefore all 4k torrents are fake.
permalink