>>5045117
You can't see the detail of 8k unless you move closer. If you move closer to 24 FPS footage, the motion jagging becomes worse. And with that specific LoA movie, even though it was done on 65mm and scanned at 8k, the actual captured clarity literally doesn't even warrant 4k. When it comes to my media, if something is clearly a DVD upscale slapped to blu-ray, I DO NOT encode it in 1080p. It's a waste of encoding time and a waste of space. I crop out black bars, because they actually DO take up space. That, and some people behind the scenes used horrible scaling algorithms that have nasty artifacting on the edges of the picture (striping/ringing of light and dark). I have albums that were recorded in mono. They get a channel thrown away and are encoded as mono. If all I can find is a vinyl capture, they're always 24/96 or 24/192. I encode them down to 16/44.1, because vinyl doesn't even have that much fidelity in the first place. Audio for video, I encode to FLAC and throw away the stupid DTS-HD and TrueHD/Atmos nonsense. It's bit-perfect being FLAC. I will never run height speakers, so :X and Atmos is pointless. DTS-HD and TrueHD are horribly inefficient because they take into account keeping a lossy core. They're a massive waste of space. All I want is lossless surround, so FLAC fills my need and saves space. Electricity is cheaper than storage.
