ST Alpha - "As impressive as it may sound, you shouldn't think of 4K as any type of improvement over film. It's still a degraded version of the original. -- (edited)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 157

In response to "Gotcha. Thanks! -- nm" by JaxSean

As impressive as it may sound, you shouldn't think of 4K as any type of improvement over film. It's still a degraded version of the original. -- (edited)

Posted by con_carne Jul 24 '17, 15:08

Whether it's 4K, 16 K, whatever. The reason for all these pixels and digital mastering is that they are trying as hard as they can to emulate the source. But it will never equal the source. It can only be an imitation of what the film may have looked like on film in 1986 on opening day.

An easy way to see what I mean is if you attend a classic film revival screening with a "new print." Despite it not being in digital, it should look spectacular and like it was just shot yesterday.

Responses:

Were the projectors at that time projecting at better than (or close to) UHD? -- nm - JaxSean Jul 24, 15:12 1
- Film theoretically has infinite resolution - Reagen Jul 24, 16:04

Post a message top

As impressive as it may sound, you shouldn't think of 4K as any type of improvement over film. It's still a degraded version of the original. -- (edited)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.