Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-06-02 (Sunday) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:19:59 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 22:19:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="12c5c9c3c3db82020c0885789847cb44"; logging-data="42860"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sGSct8YGi9kJ+Q46c92Ppqe+zvCFE79E=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:3iZ3GdVsGjJEBPV6XkPuyecfUAA= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 2264 Ian J. Ball wrote: >On 6/3/24 9:30 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>Ian J. Ball wrote: >>>The Wolf of Wall Street (Apple TV+) - In glorious 4k. (But it's film, >>>and grainy, so I don't think this one really benefited much.) >>> Yeah, I had never seen this before. >>> If you enjoy funny stories about inveterate addict swindlers, this >>>2013 film is one of the better examples of the "genre", even despite >>>clocking in at 3 hours. Leo even does a pretty good job. >>> Anyway, I did enjoy this. >>Will you stop desparaging film? Film was always superior technology >>versus 4K. There's still more grain than pixels. It's very tiresome that >>you won't acknowledge this. Also, there's a video intermediary since, >>what, the '70s? Nobody has edited on film since then. >I'm not sure what your point is. My point is if the movie was produced on film and not video, that's not the reason why the 4K transfer image isn't adequately dense. >My point is that some things (generally >stuff produced within the last 3 years) looks noticeably better when >streamed as 4k. Other stuff (generally films a decade or more old) do >not really seem to benefit from a 4k stream. I don't know the actual >technical reasons why. But I know what my own eyes are telling me.