Sign In

Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released) — Page 8

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Handman said:

Return of the Jedi had a blue tint inherent to the film, which I believe your algorithm removes entirely. That wouldn’t be proper, right? Someone feel free to correct me on this.

No, this print had a blue tint, that Harmy corrected to the point that the film is watchable. I just noticed a pretty strong green tint during the space sequences.

Dre, do you have any plans to try to color correct this with your algorithm?

Author
Time

No, as I understand it, the blue cast in this print is caused by poor quality control, and not fading, so any correction with the algorithm would be approximate and only serve to balance the colors, not to reproduce the original theatrical color timing.

Author
Time

You mention there is no gain releasing in 4K, is that still the case if one has a 4K monitor?

Author
Time

Yes. People having 4K monitors is the only reason it was even a question.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

having trouble getting the last part of this via s-o.biz

has it been uploaded to usenet in 1080p?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Monitors you’re sitting 2 feet (60.96 cm) from are about the only place 4k makes any sense. The fact that it barely makes any sense in a movie theatre is exactly why most theatres are still using 2k projectors. In the home it makes absolutely no sense. You can’t practically buy a TV big enough to make the resolution worthwhile. Take a 60" (152.4 cm) 1080p set and sit 8 feet (243.84 cm) from it. You’re at the resolution threshold for the average eye. In other words, a 60" (152.4 cm) 4k TV would look EXACTLY the same as the 1080p set at that distance. You’d need a 120" (304.8 cm) 4k TV at 8 feet (243.84 cm) to get the most from the extra resolution. But do you want to sit only 8 feet (243.84 cm) from a 120" (304.8 cm) TV? I wouldn’t want to, but that’s me. How much is a 120" (304.8 cm) 4k set? That’s right. heh. 😉

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, I have a 58" 4K TV as a monitor and I sit about 2 feet from it. And then I have a 135" projection screen and sit 10 feet from that - I would prefer sitting even closer but if I move any closer than that, I can see the pixel grid of my 1080p projector, so I’d love to have a 4K one. In cinemas, I can always see the pixel grid as well and it’s really annoying. 4K definitely makes sense for screens.

But even sitting 2 feet away from my monitor, I can’t really tell the difference between 4K and well-upscaled 1080p. Especially when you add compression.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

The average eye should be able to see pixels on a 135" (342.9 cm) screen up to around 17’7" (535.94 cm) away at 1080p. Moving to a 4K projector should allow you to move that pixel threshold distance to about 8’10" (269.24 cm) away instead. If you find that comfortable that would work for you, but I don’t like whipping my head around like I’m in the front row of a tennis match while I’m watching TV. Hehe 😉

In case you’re curious, 3’9" (114.3 cm) is the pixel threshold for the 58" (147.32 cm) 4K TV.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If I focus, I can see individual pixels on my TV from max about 12", so 3’9" seems weird - maybe for a 1080p 58" TV.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

Nope, it would be 7’6" (228.6 cm) for 1080p for the average eye. Perhaps you need glasses.

Author
Time

Are you telling me, that you can see individual pixels on a 58" 1080p TV from nearly 8 feet away? BS.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

There is a reason my 60" (152.4 cm) 1080p TV is 8’ (243.84 cm) away from my couch. That’s 96" (243.84 cm), and the pixel threshold for a 60" (152.4 cm) 1080p set is 94" (238.76 cm) for the average eye. I can indeed see individual pixels if I get much closer than that. Maybe you should go get your eyes checked if you are in disbelief. Maybe you do need glasses now. The reason that thought enters my mind is you say 10’ (304.8 cm) is enough to not see pixels from your projector, when 10’ (304.8 cm) should be well inside the threshold. Pixels should be very noticeable at that distance with a 1080p screen that size.

Author
Time

From that distance, I can still see the pixels on the projection screen on very bright parts, like on subtitles, but they aren’t distracting any more.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

From 12" (30.48 cm) away the average eye is supposed to be able to just barely see individual pixels on a ~300 pixels-per-inch display (118.1 pixels per cm). That should be the threshold around which they begin to disappear as individual pixels and begin blending together. Your 58" (147.33 cm) 4K (3840x2160) display has a pixel density of just 75.96 PPI (29.91 PPcm). If the pixels start blending together for you at around 12" (30.48 cm) then you are only seeing roughly 25% as well as the average eye. The 3’9" (114.3 cm) distance I mentioned earlier is indeed accurate pixel blending distance for someone with average vision for a set that size with that resolution.

Author
Time

Well, you really got me thinking there, so I did the Snellen Chart test and I guess I may need to visit an optometrist - 20/20 on the left eye but only 20/25 on the right eye.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

The math for your 1080p projector setup doesn’t sound as bad as your guess for the 4K screen. A 135" (342.9 cm) 1080p screen has a pixel density of 16.32 PPI (6.425 PPcm). That gives a pixel threshold of 211" (535.94 cm), and going with your 10’ (304.8 cm) figure that would put you at about 57% of the average eye’s resolution. Though now I see you’re saying that it is only the distance at which it doesn’t bother you with a natural image, but subtitles or other things you can still make pixels out. So that may not be very accurate either. I was going to say that if that 10’ (304.8 cm) distance was the threshold for you then you wouldn’t even be bothered by 720p at that screen size, because ~57% of 16.32 PPI (6.425 PPcm) is around 9.28 PPI (3.654 PPcm) and that would work out to a threshold resolution for you of only 1092x614 for a 135" (342.9 cm) screen at 10’ (304.8 cm)! But since you clarified what you can see at 10’ (304.8 cm) we can ignore that now. 😉

Author
Time

Have you tried looking at test images that alternate black and white pixels or black and white lines? When it starts looking grey instead, you’ll know one kind of threshold has been reached.

Author
Time

This discussion would really be interesting if you used metric numbers. But this way it’s like you are counting how many apostrophes fit between me and my screen.

“I want to watch Empire on my refrigerator’s LCD screen but listen to the Austrailan audio thru my USB phonograph setup and it worked on the other two movies” -yoda-sama

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Hm, when I look at an image like that (couldn’t find one, so I created a couple in photoshop), I can see the separate lines from quite a bit further away.
I guess I was talking about the distance at which I can no longer see the grid between the pixels when looking at an amorphous uniform field of the same color, which is quite a different matter and is what I find irritating and especially visible on bright areas - like when I saw a 2K digital projection of the Hateful Eight, all the snow scenes looked like I was watching them through a mosquito net.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

Haha ok I’ll edit and add in cm. 😉

Discostu said:

This discussion would really be interesting if you used metric numbers. But this way it’s like you are counting how many apostrophes fit between me and my screen.

Author
Time

a_o said:

having trouble getting the last part of this via s-o.biz

has it been uploaded to usenet in 1080p?

after re-downloading its evident that many more rars in the fileset are giving errors. are there par2 files available to repair them?

Author
Time

Now that’s handy! Shows you where you begin to get some benefit and where you’d need to go to get 100% of your money’s worth. When I say 4K is next to useless I guess what I should be saying is you’ll have a very hard time getting 100% of your money’s worth. This appears to have been made with the same math I was referring to as well, with a 60" 1080p screen pretty much lining up with 8 feet.

Author
Time

If it actually gets used and the banding is better/gone then that is terrific!