By 2015, almost everything was in HD resolution

[Pools2013]

Huge internet shift in 2013 I tell ya.

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by Pools2013:

Huge internet shift in 2013 I tell ya.

Fact. Movies shot on film were already HD.

[Ulfrinn]

It's true, 35mm film does have a resolution capability of higher than 4K, assuming you have the equipment that can scan it at that resolution. Case in point the Star Wars 4K77 project. It's not an upscale, it's a high resolution scan of original 35mm film. And that's not even the most detail you can capture on film. There are even larger formats than that. old 120 format film greatly exceeds even the most high end digital camera capabilities today. 120 format is still in production and has been since like 1901.

Digital technology still hasn't caught up. in many instances.

[Sigma957]

Originally posted by Ulfrinn:

It's true, 35mm film does have a resolution capability of higher than 4K, assuming you have the equipment that can scan it at that resolution. Case in point the Star Wars 4K77 project. It's not an upscale, it's a high resolution scan of original 35mm film. And that's not even the most detail you can capture on film. There are even larger formats than that. old 120 format film greatly exceeds even the most high end digital camera capabilities today. 120 format is still in production and has been since like 1901.

Digital technology still hasn't caught up. in many instances.

4k77 is the best it's going to get. They spent tens of thousands of dollars to preserve it. I'm looking forward to the completed 4k80 which will complete the original unaltered trilogy. Local drive in theatres only projected Star Wars 1977 in 2k and none of them had indoor 4k prints here back then. So 4k77 is actually a better quality print than what was shown locally at the drive in.

[Spencer]

And yet there's nothing worth watching, the podcast is king.

[Ulfrinn]

Originally posted by Sigma957:

Originally posted by Ulfrinn:

It's true, 35mm film does have a resolution capability of higher than 4K, assuming you have the equipment that can scan it at that resolution. Case in point the Star Wars 4K77 project. It's not an upscale, it's a high resolution scan of original 35mm film. And that's not even the most detail you can capture on film. There are even larger formats than that. old 120 format film greatly exceeds even the most high end digital camera capabilities today. 120 format is still in production and has been since like 1901.

Digital technology still hasn't caught up. in many instances.

4k77 is the best it's going to get. They spent tens of thousands of dollars to preserve it. I'm looking forward to the completed 4k80 which will complete the original unaltered trilogy. Local drive in theatres only projected Star Wars 1977 in 2k and none of them had indoor 4k prints here back then. So 4k77 is actually a better quality print than what was shown locally at the drive in.

Well the resolution potential of the film isn't unlimited though. Analog film had a grain to it. 4K may not capture all the detail of the film but then we have to look at another side of it. There's how much detail exists in reality under a microscope, and how much detail the human eyes are capable of detecting at reasonable viewing distance of a reasonable screen size. I've done my own tests in this with PC monitors and at 24" you won't really notice higher resolutions at normal sitting distance, you'd have to lean way in to. This means if you go for a 4K resolution, you're basically just wasting pixels if you're not getting it closer to 48" diagonal. And I'm not sure someone will want to sit normal desk distance from a screen that size to get everything out of it.

So, unless their goals are to get some kind of zoom-in shots off of the film, it's already well beyond what it needs to be for actual watching.

[Rendezvous 9]

I remember it was. Oh good old days. I still missing those days.

[Adam Beckett]

Most Internet traffic by category used to be:

1. Spam (Emails)
2. Emails
3. P0rn
4 ... everything else.

In the past years, video took over half of ALL Internet traffic, rising year by year.

"Everything is in HD now" ... is not totally accurate. Every video provider (from Netflix, YT to your local News website) is providing video streams in various quality and bandwidth.

Every single video is available in different sizes (stored in smallest chunks) and can be pushed to users dynamically, and adjusted depending on their bandwidth, which can be checked in milliseconds by the web browser or video player (javascript). That is why you often can see how the quality of a web video 'fluctuates' (getting worse/better) over time, if your Internet connection or router has a hickup (package caching).

Since - also a 'new trend' - now over half of all Internet traffic is done by users via mobile devices, they are not always on fibre-fast connections.

So "Everything is in HD" is not really true?



____

As for '4K and beyond' discussion. Film already can be digitized in 8K natively. ARRI and Sony Cameras and their chips allow this. But, for the 'consumer', I would argue, BANDWIDTH is more important than higher resolution (or even reso-upscaling).

Some high-quality BluRay discs (1080p@50Mbps) look 'better' than '4K' streaming videos.
____

I personally, do not mind even watching pixelated 360p videos ... as long as they come with high-quality SURROUND SOUND (at least 5.1) audio. In the end, we see not with our 'eyes', but with our 'brain' (it is the brain processing what hits the eyeballs, much like a CPU computes).