With the original IMAX (70MM film not the current upconverted stuff), The screen was huge and you were really close to it. SO you could see tiny details, but you couldn't watch everything on the screen at once. Lots of neck craning to try to catch everything. So yes it was a great spectacle, but not conducive to watching dramatic storytelling.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Mikeparsons.tv" <mikeparsons.tv@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...> 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 (18) |
No comments:
Post a Comment