2018-06-06, 21:40
To my eyes, original UHD doesn't need any enhancements. NGU Sharp does the job presenting it. Lower settings look equally as good and are unnoticeable to me no matter the seating distance. Even various players look very good like DVDFab player with no madVR. I think the techniques they use are actually KODI's. I've looked at some of that players code and it's kind of obvious. This on 65 inches of real estate though. For larger screens, this might show differences I suppose simply because the pixels are larger and might introduce detail otherwise incomprehensive although 65" to 85" is not a good comparison as the increase is not that great imo. Comparing with a PJ at 100" to say 150" would be although no PJ is going to match the clarity of a panel. We are also centering around chroma.
Squashed compressed UHD sources would be a completely different story. For instance, remastered 1080p to 2160p is nice, no doubt about it. But each and every one has a certain amount of deficit inherited. I find if it isn't cleaned up, it's not as pleasing as original UHD. I do understand they were shot in 4k and scaled to 2k. Why they can't be remastered like a modern UHD, I don't know? I leave it to the mathematicians. Perhaps the cameras of the era had everything to do with it. The deficits would and do need to be algo'd and if the info simply isn't there, you're starting with a canvas that will never be as clean as the original although the algo's applied can be quite amazing.
Whether what is streamed to an Apple TV or any other device is compressed or sent fully untouched matters. Hi Def audio is often omitted already. The rumor Hi Def audio will be included in the future makes me wonder if something video will be sacrificed to accommodate the extra bandwidth higher audio requires. Maybe streaming services and devices already incorporate their own algo's? What does 720p look like streamed without the madVR touch? Or DVD titles?
So, madVR may have some competition remaining relevant as 4k becomes mainstream but what of 1080p stuff that will never be remastered? This will remain a niche. As will 1080p remastered to 2160p, cleaned by madVR vs the streamed content. I understand most will only be interested in new modern UHD productions. The 8k horizon is something else to consider at even higher bitrates while streaming services are barely addressing 4k. I doubt madVR is going anywhere except forward but that is madshi's decision. I too read he's nearing his latest collaborated creation and look forward to it. Even if my GPU can't handle it, I applaud the continued advancement. I'm pretty happy with what I have but if I'm offered an edge that blows my dress up, I'll adjust.
My tastes may be different than most too. I embrace the look of video over that of film. I've become addicted to the clarity that is undeniable. Most prefer the grain and haze through the screen door look of film.... what they were raised on. madVR would only ruin it for these tastes since it cleans up detrimental effects film introduces. There's even an add grain setting for these tastes although I don't think anyone uses it. Even the video cameras shooting commercials instead of the film cameras that used to shoot them are noticeable at 720p/1080i broadcasts. Some of the clarity in those commercials will knock yer' socks off even if you're not a fan of commercials which most of us are not. Even as crappy as GoPro or iPhone for that matter. There is a pretty interesting title that goes into some depth about the subject called Side by Side (2012). Although somewhat outdated, you will get 1st hand opinions from those in the industry. In a nutshell, shooting something directly to the chip digitally vs burned to nitrate opens a lot of doors and closes many others. The ones that close are for cinematographers/colorists as the editing is real time and easier. With this in mind and long time industry jobs on the line, no wonder so many cling and propagate the advantage film will always have over "cheaper" video. This alone reduces production costs immensely I'd imagine. Pass it to the consumer I say. I'd bet many of those opinions have changed. Check it out sometime.
OT. NiCe close in the stock market today. YeeHaw!
Squashed compressed UHD sources would be a completely different story. For instance, remastered 1080p to 2160p is nice, no doubt about it. But each and every one has a certain amount of deficit inherited. I find if it isn't cleaned up, it's not as pleasing as original UHD. I do understand they were shot in 4k and scaled to 2k. Why they can't be remastered like a modern UHD, I don't know? I leave it to the mathematicians. Perhaps the cameras of the era had everything to do with it. The deficits would and do need to be algo'd and if the info simply isn't there, you're starting with a canvas that will never be as clean as the original although the algo's applied can be quite amazing.
Whether what is streamed to an Apple TV or any other device is compressed or sent fully untouched matters. Hi Def audio is often omitted already. The rumor Hi Def audio will be included in the future makes me wonder if something video will be sacrificed to accommodate the extra bandwidth higher audio requires. Maybe streaming services and devices already incorporate their own algo's? What does 720p look like streamed without the madVR touch? Or DVD titles?
So, madVR may have some competition remaining relevant as 4k becomes mainstream but what of 1080p stuff that will never be remastered? This will remain a niche. As will 1080p remastered to 2160p, cleaned by madVR vs the streamed content. I understand most will only be interested in new modern UHD productions. The 8k horizon is something else to consider at even higher bitrates while streaming services are barely addressing 4k. I doubt madVR is going anywhere except forward but that is madshi's decision. I too read he's nearing his latest collaborated creation and look forward to it. Even if my GPU can't handle it, I applaud the continued advancement. I'm pretty happy with what I have but if I'm offered an edge that blows my dress up, I'll adjust.
My tastes may be different than most too. I embrace the look of video over that of film. I've become addicted to the clarity that is undeniable. Most prefer the grain and haze through the screen door look of film.... what they were raised on. madVR would only ruin it for these tastes since it cleans up detrimental effects film introduces. There's even an add grain setting for these tastes although I don't think anyone uses it. Even the video cameras shooting commercials instead of the film cameras that used to shoot them are noticeable at 720p/1080i broadcasts. Some of the clarity in those commercials will knock yer' socks off even if you're not a fan of commercials which most of us are not. Even as crappy as GoPro or iPhone for that matter. There is a pretty interesting title that goes into some depth about the subject called Side by Side (2012). Although somewhat outdated, you will get 1st hand opinions from those in the industry. In a nutshell, shooting something directly to the chip digitally vs burned to nitrate opens a lot of doors and closes many others. The ones that close are for cinematographers/colorists as the editing is real time and easier. With this in mind and long time industry jobs on the line, no wonder so many cling and propagate the advantage film will always have over "cheaper" video. This alone reduces production costs immensely I'd imagine. Pass it to the consumer I say. I'd bet many of those opinions have changed. Check it out sometime.
OT. NiCe close in the stock market today. YeeHaw!
