5 ms·

The jump to 1080p from 480p is very, very noticeable— I own Firefly on both DVD and Blu-Ray, and I accidentally watched a few minutes of an episode on the DVD v

The jump to 1080p from 480p is very, very noticeable— I own Firefly on both DVD and Blu-Ray, and I accidentally watched a few minutes of an episode on the DVD version before being like.... wait, what? and then realizing what had happened and switching discs. However, IMO the jump from 1080p to 4K is way more marginal. It's definitely better, but it's just not that much better than what your TV's built in upscaler can do, nevermind some future AI-powered DLSS-type upscaler.

hotpotamus 4y ago
I'd say the jump from 480 to 720 is huge, and to 1080 is quite nice. 4K is already fairly marginal to my eyes and I can't imagine shopping for an 8K TV. Perhaps at a wall size TV, but I'm still quite well served by a 42" 1080p Sony TV I got in 2009 or 2010 (can't remember exactly).
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  Definitely fair— I'm rocking a 60" 1080p panel that was left by the previous occupants of the house, and it's perfectly adequate to my needs; I expect it is of similar vintage, in any case. I haven't felt any appetite for picking up a 4K unit, particularly if it means having to navigate the whole world of "smart" TV apps, figuring which stuff I want to use vs disable, and how to go about doing that.
  - Thlom 4y ago
    You don’t have to use the smart functions. Just hook up the peripherals you are using now and call it a day.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  For my money, 720p is more than enough for any movie except visually compelling movies. For things like LOTR, Star Wars, and some of the super-hero series I really appreciate that 1080p. My eyesight isn't good enough to discern 4k.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I can notice a 480p when watching vs 1080, but only really notice 1080 vs 4k if I pause and happen to wander near the screen.
  - ugjka 4y ago
    4K kind of loses its sharpness when they add film grain and blur on purpose. On the other hand there are some very stunning 4k nature videos on Youtube that blow me away
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  At about 8' distance from my 65" 4K TV I don't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p. At 5' distance I do notice. Even at 5', though, the visible difference between 1080p vs. 4k is tiny. And it's practically impossible to sit much closer than that and still have room to walk between the TV and front row. Maybe if I ever get a projector with an 80" diagonal screen or something, it will matter. My screen does HDR but it's not oled so the benefit to hdr sources is barely noticeable, and anyway you can get high-quality 1080p downsample rips that retain the hdr data.
  - Marsymars 4y ago
    I’ve got a projector with a 100” screen, still using a 1080p projector. My 1080p projector of choice was under $1k, while good 4K projectors are in the $5k range. I’d be willing to pay like 20% more for a 4K projector, not 400% more.
AlexandrB 4y ago
There's a problem though when studios mess with the original to do the Blu-Ray release. For example, The Wire went from 4:3 (DVD) to 16:9 (Blu-Ray) and introduced some problems[1]. There are worse cases like the infamously bad Buffy Blu Ray release[2]. Blu Ray releases would be great if they didn't mess with the source material. But this seems to happen all the time. I'll take the flaws of 480p over that kind of stuff any day. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7327539/wire-bluray https://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7327539/wire-bluray [2] https://www.themarysue.com/remastered-buffy-is-a-butt/ https://www.themarysue.com/remastered-buffy-is-a-butt/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Wow, it's really amazing these crappy remastered versions were ever released in these states. It doesn't have to be this way, as long as you don't assume your audience to be complete idiots (as apparently The Wire's owners do). Go watch the new versions of Star Trek (the original series): it looks beautiful. Luckily, it was all shot with real film, so it looks fantastic in HD, but they didn't do something stupid like changing the aspect ratio, they just left it at the standard 4:3. They did redo all the FX shots since those just weren't going to work in HD, but they look good. Star Trek: TNG on the other hand has a few problems, though nothing as bad as this other stuff. There's a few places where things that wouldn't have been visible now are, such as one of the early episodes (probably the pilot) where there's an extra piece of carpet under Data's chair. The old rounded screens wouldn't have shown this, so they just left it in on the original TV version, but in HD with rectangular screens it shows up. The other problem is that, with HD resolution, you can see the black cardboard they strategically stuck on the control panels on the bridge to prevent reflections from lights. It would have been nice if they had done a little more digital editing to fix these minor issues.
  - account42 4y ago
    > It doesn't have to be this way, as long as you don't assume your audience to be complete idiots (as apparently The Wire's owners do). Go watch the new versions of Star Trek (the original series): it looks beautiful. Luckily, it was all shot with real film, so it looks fantastic in HD, but they didn't do something stupid like changing the aspect ratio, they just left it at the standard 4:3. They did redo all the FX shots since those just weren't going to work in HD, but they look good. They also included versions with the original VFX upscaled in case you don't like the new VFX. I agree that that was a great release, same with TNG really even with the small nits you mentioned. Unfortunate that DS9 and Voyager are (and will be for the forseeable future it seems) stuck on crappy interlaced DVD (or streaming rips for pirates) if you want an offline copy. I'd be happy with just a 720p non-interlaced and professionally cleaned up release.
simcop2387 4y ago
that AI powered DLSS type upscaler exists now, though I'm only aware of a few products that have it, particularly the NVIDIA Shield devices.
jaywalk 4y ago
4K by itself is marginal. But 4K HDR is incredible.
- account42 4y ago
  Not if they mess with the color too much for the HDR re-release.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    That has nothing to do with HDR itself.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I'd say the jump from 480 to 720 is huge, and to 1080 is quite nice. 4K is already fairly marginal to my eyes and I can't imagine shopping for an 8K TV. Perhaps at a wall size TV, but I'm still quite well served by a 42" 1080p Sony TV I got in 2009 or 2010 (can't remember exactly).

mikepurvis 4y ago
Definitely fair— I'm rocking a 60" 1080p panel that was left by the previous occupants of the house, and it's perfectly adequate to my needs; I expect it is of similar vintage, in any case. I haven't felt any appetite for picking up a 4K unit, particularly if it means having to navigate the whole world of "smart" TV apps, figuring which stuff I want to use vs disable, and how to go about doing that.
- Thlom 4y ago
  You don’t have to use the smart functions. Just hook up the peripherals you are using now and call it a day.
Consultant32452 4y ago
For my money, 720p is more than enough for any movie except visually compelling movies. For things like LOTR, Star Wars, and some of the super-hero series I really appreciate that 1080p. My eyesight isn't good enough to discern 4k.
bombcar 4y ago
I can notice a 480p when watching vs 1080, but only really notice 1080 vs 4k if I pause and happen to wander near the screen.
- ugjka 4y ago
  4K kind of loses its sharpness when they add film grain and blur on purpose. On the other hand there are some very stunning 4k nature videos on Youtube that blow me away
yamtaddle 4y ago
At about 8' distance from my 65" 4K TV I don't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p. At 5' distance I do notice. Even at 5', though, the visible difference between 1080p vs. 4k is tiny. And it's practically impossible to sit much closer than that and still have room to walk between the TV and front row. Maybe if I ever get a projector with an 80" diagonal screen or something, it will matter. My screen does HDR but it's not oled so the benefit to hdr sources is barely noticeable, and anyway you can get high-quality 1080p downsample rips that retain the hdr data.
- Marsymars 4y ago
  I’ve got a projector with a 100” screen, still using a 1080p projector. My 1080p projector of choice was under $1k, while good 4K projectors are in the $5k range. I’d be willing to pay like 20% more for a 4K projector, not 400% more.

AlexandrB 4y ago

There's a problem though when studios mess with the original to do the Blu-Ray release. For example, The Wire went from 4:3 (DVD) to 16:9 (Blu-Ray) and introduced some problems[1]. There are worse cases like the infamously bad Buffy Blu Ray release[2]. Blu Ray releases would be great if they didn't mess with the source material. But this seems to happen all the time. I'll take the flaws of 480p over that kind of stuff any day. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7327539/wire-bluray https://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7327539/wire-bluray [2] https://www.themarysue.com/remastered-buffy-is-a-butt/ https://www.themarysue.com/remastered-buffy-is-a-butt/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
midoridensha 4y ago
Wow, it's really amazing these crappy remastered versions were ever released in these states. It doesn't have to be this way, as long as you don't assume your audience to be complete idiots (as apparently The Wire's owners do). Go watch the new versions of Star Trek (the original series): it looks beautiful. Luckily, it was all shot with real film, so it looks fantastic in HD, but they didn't do something stupid like changing the aspect ratio, they just left it at the standard 4:3. They did redo all the FX shots since those just weren't going to work in HD, but they look good. Star Trek: TNG on the other hand has a few problems, though nothing as bad as this other stuff. There's a few places where things that wouldn't have been visible now are, such as one of the early episodes (probably the pilot) where there's an extra piece of carpet under Data's chair. The old rounded screens wouldn't have shown this, so they just left it in on the original TV version, but in HD with rectangular screens it shows up. The other problem is that, with HD resolution, you can see the black cardboard they strategically stuck on the control panels on the bridge to prevent reflections from lights. It would have been nice if they had done a little more digital editing to fix these minor issues.
- account42 4y ago
  > It doesn't have to be this way, as long as you don't assume your audience to be complete idiots (as apparently The Wire's owners do). Go watch the new versions of Star Trek (the original series): it looks beautiful. Luckily, it was all shot with real film, so it looks fantastic in HD, but they didn't do something stupid like changing the aspect ratio, they just left it at the standard 4:3. They did redo all the FX shots since those just weren't going to work in HD, but they look good. They also included versions with the original VFX upscaled in case you don't like the new VFX. I agree that that was a great release, same with TNG really even with the small nits you mentioned. Unfortunate that DS9 and Voyager are (and will be for the forseeable future it seems) stuck on crappy interlaced DVD (or streaming rips for pirates) if you want an offline copy. I'd be happy with just a 720p non-interlaced and professionally cleaned up release.

simcop2387 4y ago

that AI powered DLSS type upscaler exists now, though I'm only aware of a few products that have it, particularly the NVIDIA Shield devices.

jaywalk 4y ago

4K by itself is marginal. But 4K HDR is incredible.

account42 4y ago
Not if they mess with the color too much for the HDR re-release.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  That has nothing to do with HDR itself.