Jump to content

Home

Unpopular opinions


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, OzzieMonkey said:

The best part is in the Disney Plus version: Greedo now says "Macklunkey" for no reason before they shoot :p 


Man, that scene is terrible in 4K. You can see that they seemingly replaced Harrison Ford with a CGI model and the surrounding area isn’t quite right either, for example the wall next to him has different details.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thrik said:


Man, that scene is terrible in 4K. You can see that they seemingly replaced Harrison Ford with a CGI model and the surrounding area isn’t quite right either, for example the wall next to him has different details.

For sure. But did I have Macklunkey as my text alert after I saw it? You bet! :p 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ATMcashpoint said:

It's like Tuco Ramirez said in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, in the very scene that was the model for the original SW bar shootout in the first place: "When you gotta shoot, shoot, don't talk!"


Is this citable or is it your suspicion?

 

I only ask because this sort of stand-off is a very long-standing cinematic trope. When I watched it, it brought to mind this classic Bond scene which predates TGTBATU:

 

iWspgLE.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OzzieMonkey said:

For sure. But did I have Macklunkey as my text alert after I saw it? You bet! :p 


Haha. Overall despite the tampering it was a joy to see the original trilogy in 4K and HDR.

 

Weirdly I think they look even sharper than the prequel trilogy, probably the film used or something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thrik said:

Weirdly I think they look even sharper than the prequel trilogy, probably the film used or something.

Phantom Menace is probably able to be crisp, as it was shot on film, but episodes 2 and 3 were shot on very early digital video tech that maxed out at 1080p. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hades said:

i dont like this new site. What happened to the Scummbar and all the cool stuff in the menu like mp3´s and interviews and stuff?

It’s only changed for the lead-up to Return to Monkey Island. The old site is still there and linked from the bottom of the page: 

 

 

F498F5CB-7DAF-4FAA-81F9-79C39BBDA1E6.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, hades said:

i dont like this new site. What happened to the Scummbar and all the cool stuff in the menu like mp3´s and interviews and stuff?


It’s not for nothing you posted this under unpopular opinions, of course. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jake said:

Phantom Menace is probably able to be crisp, as it was shot on film, but episodes 2 and 3 were shot on very early digital video tech that maxed out at 1080p. 


Really? I didn’t know that! Of course most digital projection in cinemas would have been 1080p back then, right?

Edited by ThunderPeel2001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Phantom Menace got so many VFX (or just digitally altered) shots, most of which didn't go far beyond 1080p either. Some where even created below that res (because rendering capacity was severely limited), so short of re-compositing or re-rendering all those shots at a higher resolution, that movie will never be fully 4k either.

 

(But unlike Eps 2 and 3 most of the footage was shot on 35mm film, so in theory the live-action and model shots at least exist at higher res).

Edited by Laserschwert
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I wonder how bad this is. Supposedly most people can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K. The human eye just cannot resolve the extra detail unless the screen is massive. Almost certainly not while viewing from home -- sit 10ft/3m from your TV and you need AT LEAST a 75" screen (more like 80"), and that's if you have perfect vision.

 

The science:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

 

So probably the best thing about "4K" is the improved colour gamut from HDR, which can add a huge amount to an image. So maybe 1080p doesn't matter.

 

 

Edited by ThunderPeel2001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a good source, a film can look spectacular at 1080p, which is proven by the many great Blu-rays that were released in the pre-4k days. Granted, through all the 200X and 201X most movies were finished at 2k resolution (which is close to the same res of 1920x1080 that we know as HD), after applying visual effects and digital color grading, and it was good enough for the cinema.

 

The SW Special Editions and Episode 1 suffered from not-yet-great digital-to-film processes, so the quality of the VFX was even worse once transferred back to film.

Edited by Laserschwert
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

Hmm. I wonder how bad this is. Supposedly most people can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K. The human eye just cannot resolve the extra detail unless the screen is massive. Almost certainly not while viewing from home -- sit 10ft/3m from your TV and you need AT LEAST a 75" screen (more like 80"), and that's if you have perfect vision.

 

The science:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

 

So probably the best thing about "4K" is the improved colour gamut from HDR, which can add a huge amount to an image. So maybe 1080p doesn't matter.

 

 


Have you not used a 4K TV? The difference is quite obvious, although yes it tapers off over distance. You absolutely can tell the difference at, say, 55 or 65 inches, which are now fairly typical living room TV sizes.

 

I eyeballed the difference in sharpness between the trilogies straight away the other week while doing a marathon, which as we saw above I now know the reason for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Thrik said:


Have you not used a 4K TV? The difference is quite obvious, although yes it tapers off over distance. You absolutely can tell the difference at, say, 55 or 65 inches, which are now fairly typical living room TV sizes.

 

I eyeballed the difference in sharpness between the trilogies straight away the other week while doing a marathon, which as we saw above I now know the reason for.

 

I have not (😞). I mean, I've seen it in the shops when I'm 12 inches away from the screen. Then it looks amazing... but am I really going to see extra detail from 3m away with a 55" screen? The science [on teh internet, admittedly] says no -- although I want to believe.

 

(I know the HDR aspect of it is going to make a huge difference, though)

 

A lot of the time in the cinema you're seeing "2K" a DCP package (which, as LS points out, is essentially 1080p). I've watched Blu-rays projected at the cinema and not noticed (until I saw the Bluray copyright notice after the credits to my surprise).

 

But one day I will take the plunge on a really good 4K set and finally see for myself.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean don’t expect miracles but you should enjoy it @ThunderPeel2001, as long as you’ve got the appropriate setup. In my ‘man cave’ where I’m pretty close to a 55-inch TV I can appreciate the differences quite easily, but with the 65-inch downstairs I can’t — because we sit quite a bit further away.


The thing about 4K is that it creates a ‘sharper than sharp’ sort of effect. A starfield is a classic example, where the dimmest stars would occupy less than one pixel in HD, yet in 4K you can still perceive them even though you can’t see the individual pixels themselves as such.

 

I guess it’s a similar concept to ‘retina’ screens on phones. It’s not so much that you can see the extra detail, but that the detail is so fine it creates this perception of a much more detailed image a la real life.

 

Of course, all this falls apart if the source material isn’t ideal, you’re too far away, or your vision isn’t so hot.

 

It’s also worth noting that it’s an entirely different situation with games. The difference is very visible there; even going from 1080p to 2K makes a notable difference. I think it’s because of the perfectly sharp nature of games, plus the fact that many have jagged edges or other such artifacts. Cinema smooths this out somewhat.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jake said:

When I finally got glasses a decade ago I was deeply upset that I could see the pixels in theatrical screenings. What a ripoff!

 

I have noticed pixels before on cinema screens (when text appears mainly). It's pretty disconcerting, especially when you remember how much a cinema ticket can cost here in London!

 

Fun fact: A 2K DCP package for a 2.35:1 film has only 858 vertical pixels 😳 ... and most cinemas are 2K (I've only just started noticing "4K" as a selling point in a few screens here).

Edited by ThunderPeel2001
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

Hmm. I wonder how bad this is. Supposedly most people can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K. The human eye just cannot resolve the extra detail unless the screen is massive. Almost certainly not while viewing from home -- sit 10ft/3m from your TV and you need AT LEAST a 75" screen (more like 80"), and that's if you have perfect vision.

 

The science:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

 

So probably the best thing about "4K" is the improved colour gamut from HDR, which can add a huge amount to an image. So maybe 1080p doesn't matter.

 

 

 

I'm forced to admit as someone who thought they wouldn't know the difference... I can tell the difference. Or.. to be more accurate I can *definitely* tell the difference between 1080 and 1440 on my (nowadays fairly modest) 40 inch screen, sitting about 2m away. but from there up it's diminishing returns. I really didn't think I'd be able to, but...

 

well, you know when 720/1080 first started emerging and both looked pretty sharp compared to what we had before? But then if you got used to 1080 you'd start noticing being juuuust a little less sharp if you accidentally switched to 720 or used a device on it which maxed out at 720 (like the Wii I think?)

 

Well it's like that. If something boots up in 1080 I can tell that it's off, and when I boost that to 1440 I see an improvement that I like. But when I boost further up to 4K resolutions ... meh. There might be a very slight improvement, but not enough for me to accept the performance hit on games.

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure that Disney could afford to do a pretty effective 4K upscale assisted by AI if they really wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean upscaling the Star Wars prequels? That's pretty much been done by Disney for the 4k releases (Disney+ and UHD), though probably not with as much AI support as would be possible. But there are fan projects out there, doing just that, upscaling Eps 2 and 3, plus adding digital film grain to make them look ever so slightly more detailed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

 

What film content is delivered at 1440? (Or are you referring to gaming?)

I'm referring to gaming for sure. I use my TV for my games PC and for my consoles too. I haven't watched a 4K film on it, but I think I've watched fullscreen 4K video. I would say the difference is likely to be a bit more subtle for films than games, but I'm sure it would still be noticeable. But yeah, I doubt it'd be easy to notice the difference between 1440 and 4K (which is... 2160?) in films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes for sure, 1440p is a nice sweet spot where you get much of the ‘ah nice this is higher than 1080p’ benefit without destroying your gaming device.

 

In practice, game consoles now tend to output at 4K but dynamically adjust the resolution from as low as 1080p right up to 4K, often hovering around 1400–1800p. Strangely this option is uncommon in PC games.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me to discover some streaming platforms like Netflix might have something in between 1080p and 4K that gets used where bandwidth is good but not great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really an unpopular opinion... but I thought this would be the most appropriate thread where I could admit that I have actually never played the EGA version of SOMI. 

 

I grew up on the VGA (not CD) version and for me that's the one that will always be the most nostalgic I guess. I even have troubles playing the CD version, as seeing the MI2 style interface seems... wrong? (not sure if thats the right word).

 

Anyways, I guess the unpopular part would be that at one point in my childhood I did find out about the EGA version, loaded it up once, and thought it looked terrible. I then went back and replayed the VGA version again.

 

That being said, I read an old Mojo article today that talked about the differences in the portraits between the two versions, and I was I was really surprised, as I had no idea there were so many changes. Seeing as the EGA is the original version I felt like I should really go back and play it. So I just started it up in ScummVM and have to say that I have a newfound appreciation for it. It looks a lot better than I remember, and I think I really need to give it a shot.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...