Anamorphic Bluray? (1 Viewer)

[Worth]

Just waiting for that Powerball windfall to happen - then I can get it just right.

Then you can get one of these.

 

[OliverK]

Then you can get one of these.

0607_imax_630x420.jpg

Is it only me or is this not really cool? Where is the variable masking and why does it look blueish and uninviting and then the screen is 16:9 like a huge TV - no thanks.

With 2 million and also mwith much less one could do a lot better than that as far as a great looking home theater with fantastic sound is concerned. And I have to admit that I am not very fond of Imax since they started out with their crappy 2k digital cinemas that they still call Imax as if it was the real thing. They should have waited for brighter and better 4 projectors at least.

 

[Todd Erwin]

I have a ? I saw an ad for "Ghost busters" Blu-Ray that says it's from a 4k source, what does this mean picture wise?

This is just Sony rebranding the old SuperBit idea from DVD, as a way to sell more 4k (or UltraHD) displays.

 

[Osato]

I'm not qualified to get technical, but I think it means the digital image was created by scanning the source at 4K so a lot more detail was lifted from the film than would occur if it had been scanned at a lower resolution. In terms of the home theater environment, whether anyone could tell the difference between something coming from a 2k scan and a 4k scan, I don't know.

Several of the James Bond films were scanned at 4K and the others were at 2K. John Lowry commented in an interview that he felt scanning at a higher rate meant that more detail would come through in the picture when transferred. He also mentioned data loss during the transfer and that again was another good reason to scan at a high rate.

I do think the 4K scanned Bond films (Dr. No - Live and Let Die and Moonraker) look a bit better on blu ray than the 2K ones. That being said many of the 2K Bond films look quite good on blu ray as well.

Great discussion!