Titanic was 1k.
I've done IMAX at 8k and IMAX at 4k - looked the damn same watching it in IMAX...
Pixel count is the least of our issues with image quality these days.
Mike
On 13 Jun, 2013, at 11:47 PM, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@aol.com> wrote:
> Wow, Greg is still the voice of reason even though he works for a monitor manufacturer.
>
> PS: The same factor applies to 4K in a theater. Once you get enough rows back (where most would sit) you won't be able to see the difference between 4K and 2K.
>
> There is a great chart here to illustrate what we are talking about:
>
> <<http://www.avsforum.com/t/1416475/viewing-distance-chart-720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-vs-8k-and-beyond>>
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Greg Staten <gregstaten@...> wrote:
>
> "the reality is that for a typical consumer viewing distance of 10' from the TV (and in many homes the WAF means the distance is even greater) you need a 95" diagonal TV to even * begin* to see the difference between 1080p and 4K (assuming 20/20 vision)."
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (16) |
No comments:
Post a Comment