Search results

Which of course begs the question of whether there was any point to encoding it in HDR to begin with.

I notice that he was never banned there, though his insider status was "retired." I suspect that others at Sony (including his neighbor friend) were aware of his antics and allowed him tacit permission to continue so long as it served their interests, until the ruse was uncovered.

I assume you're talking about the "insider" who turned out to just be the neighbor to an actual Sony exec? My lord, was he ever arrogant about the little fiefdom of followers he'd accumulated on that site.

I agree with this point in general. However, some films make such a striking use of color that they can leave an impression that will stick with you. When I watched the first Blu-ray release of Coppola's Dracula, it was immediately clear that the color grading was all wrong. When I saw that film...

I really don't want to belabor this argument, but this is what was written: "[F]or every problem spot I double-checked, the 1080p disc easily outpaces the 4K disc. When the train pulls into Stoddard, the 4K discs leaves the impressive 70-ish mbps range of the credits and craters into the low...

This is still an apples-to-oranges comparison The two formats not only use different compression codecs, but are compressing very different amounts of data due to the differing video resolutions. The way the review in question was written presents these statistics as a smoking gun. Ah ha! This...

The whole point of a more efficient codec is to use lower bit rates than the less efficient codec. If it's more efficient, it doesn't need to waste as many bits. I'm not saying this disc has an optimal encode, just that comparing the bit rate numbers between two different codecs tells us...

It's fairly pointless to compare bit rates between Blu-ray and UHD when the two formats use completely different compression codecs.