Also, it's meant to make money for the industry4k is meant to be something special.
Also, it's meant to make money for the industry4k is meant to be something special.
But in no way noticeable from a normal seating distance.
4k seems to be taking on a life of its own, and in most cases more sizzle than reality.
A newly produced standard issue Blu would probably look just (or almost as good) as the new 4k.
4k is meant to be something special.
They already bungled that.Also, it's meant to make money for the industry
Also, it's meant to make money for the industry
How so?They already bungled that.
Yes. One can know by looking at it. Not so much the stock, which would have been 5254, same as Godfather, but optics, filters, et al. It’s not a sharp film, overall.I'm not trying to be funny but how do you know the resolution isn't more than 3k without knowing the type of film used?
Can you observe this by just watching the movie?
A nosy parker wishes to know these things.
How so?
However, you're not taking in consideration the monies they're getting for 4K streaming.Well when the market has stalled at 7% and is beginning to decline again. I think tethering the format to overpriced combo packs nobody wanted may be the culprit.
But in no way noticeable from a normal seating distance.
4k seems to be taking on a life of its own, and in most cases more sizzle than reality.
A newly produced standard issue Blu would probably look just (or almost as good) as the new 4k.
4k is meant to be something special.
But the 2011 release was the same old master, as I recall. This was controversial, as the Blu-ray was released after the 4K restoration had played at Cannes, yet did not use that restoration*.
The included BD is the one from the 40th anniversary release in 2011 - NOT the disc from 2007.
Looks like this is another title with supply chain issues. I preordered the day it went up, but Amazon sent me a notification that my order is not expected to arrive until October 13...
Faster film stocks, more portable equipment and on location shooting, and a more documentary-like aesthetic.Weren't most films going 'soft' around 68/69? It seemed to have coincided with the collapse of the studio system and a newer younger audience being the majority of film patrons. Of course there was the fluke that was the Todd AO Airport.
Indeed it's not a sharp film overall, nor is The Shining or Dr. Strangelove. I sometimes think that it is frustrating to get these while waiting for movies that would really look good in UHD but if sales are right one cannot argue with that.Yes. One can know by looking at it. Not so much the stock, which would have been 5254, same as Godfather, but optics, filters, et al. It’s not a sharp film, overall.
I never thought of a Debbie Reynolds and Jane Powell musical as "gruesome".When a film is as gruesome as A Clockwork Orange my sensibilities are such that I can make it through about 20 minutes before I have to leave. Other such films have been Ulzana's Raid and Athena.