3 ms·
https://www.engadget.com/2019-06-19-upscaled-uhd-4k-digital-intermediate-explainer.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-06-19-upscaled-uhd-4k-digital-... is one e
by superkuh 6y ago
https://www.engadget.com/2019-06-19-upscaled-uhd-4k-digital-intermediate-explainer.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-06-19-upscaled-uhd-4k-digital-... is one easily found example but it wasn't where I had read it. I'm pretty sure I've seen it on HN itself.
edit: here's another https://old.reddit.com/r/cordcutters/comments/9x3v4e/just_learned_most_4k_content_is_actually_2k/ https://old.reddit.com/r/cordcutters/comments/9x3v4e/just_le...
- crazygringo 6y agoOK, so by 2K you mean 1080p. That's a very unusual nomenclature but I see what you mean, thanks. The top link in the reddit thread disproves what you're saying though: https://4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/ https://4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/ Somewhere between a third and a half of films are listed as "real 4K". So there is actually tons of real 4K content. (And the list is just films -- there are plenty of streaming TV shows in real 4K too, like Mrs Maisel.) There might be another reason for the misperception -- it's true that film editing is generally done in something lower-quality like compressed 1080p, but that's just for speed/space while you work. All the clips "point" to the 4K originals, so when the final master is produced, it's still produced out of that "real" 4K.
- fomine3 6y agoBTW: I really dislike calling horizontal 2660px as "2K" resolution. It's even close to 3K than 2K. It should be called as 2.5K.