Latest on MJJC

Dangerous Short Films are currently being upscaled to 4K on YouTube!

MJJ.D777 said:
Jam is now available in "4K" AI Upscale on all platforms except YouTube (for now).
Click to expand...
Can you give me a link to see it? Because I can’t find any trace of the 4K upscale on Apple Music. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention, but I can’t find it anywhere.
 
someplace_else said:
why do they not care?
Click to expand...
They're not supposed to care. They're a team of lawyers. They're supposed to make money. Nothing else matters.

4K videos don't matter because (1) they don't make money because people don't buy videos any more, (2) nobody can actually tell the difference with 4K, especially on a phone, (3) people have kinda stopped watching music videos because they don't have the attention span - especially for songs that are 7 minutes.
 
R1chard said:
They're not supposed to care. They're a team of lawyers. They're supposed to make money. Nothing else matters.

4K videos don't matter because (1) they don't make money because people don't buy videos any more, (2) nobody can actually tell the difference with 4K, especially on a phone, (3) people have kinda stopped watching music videos because they don't have the attention span - especially for songs that are 7 minutes.
Click to expand...

I don't get why that argument is constantly repeated. You can absolutely see the difference. Most phones actually have really good displays. Nobody can tell me that they don't see the difference between these on a phone screen:
 
Scared of the Moon said:
Most phones actually have really good displays.
Click to expand...
I was actually referring to the fact that your eyes aren't good enough.

Scared of the Moon said:
Nobody can tell me that they don't see the difference between these on a phone screen:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can tell that the first video is slightly better than the second. And then I actually looked at the settings. The top video was being played on "auto" at 720P. I changed it to "higher". Still being played at 720P!

The difference you're seeing is not down to the resolution.
 
R1chard said:
I was actually referring to the fact that your eyes aren't good enough.


Yeah, I can tell that the first video is slightly better than the second. And then I actually looked at the settings. The top video was being played on "auto" at 720P. I changed it to "higher". Still being played at 720P!

The difference you're seeing is not down to the resolution.
Click to expand...
slightly? that's crazy. and the 720p thing is either due a bug in the app (which is known) or sometimes due to internet issues. The picture quality is a huge difference due to the source being the original 35mm film, of course that in 480p will look better than the Tape source that was previously available, that's obvious, which further says that an AI upscale is not the way to go as the source has too less information and man you can tell a heck of a difference between a 480p vs 2160p and a 480p->2160p AI vs 2160p native. And if you say your eyes aren't good enough then that's on you, I can still count the pixels on my 4K OLED
 
After doing some more research, I could tell the difference even on an older screen that was 412 x 869 in portrait. In other words, both videos were being displayed to me at a resolution that was at most something like 400 pixels by 300 pixels.

Lol.
 
Hm, if there is 35mm footage, you can do 4K or even higher. So why are they doing AI upscale. I don't get it.
 
frozenray said:
Hm, if there is 35mm footage, you can do 4K or even higher. So why are they doing AI upscale. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
The master remains on tape, they would have to recreate the whole video shot by shot as well as the VFX (although you could upscale the individual shots or manually cut them out and edit them into the film scan but hat would take a lot of time and cost a lot of money
 
R1chard said:
After doing some more research, I could tell the difference even on an older screen that was 412 x 869 in portrait. In other words, both videos were being displayed to me at a resolution that was at most something like 400 pixels by 300 pixels.

Lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's due to the source being of higher quality or do you actually want to tell me you can't see a difference between Wembley and Bucharest on your screen?
 
mjfp said:
The master remains on tape, they would have to recreate the whole video shot by shot as well as the VFX (although you could upscale the individual shots or manually cut them out and edit them into the film scan but hat would take a lot of time and cost a lot of money
Click to expand...
Just give them to a fan, we'll do it for them for free!
 
mjfp said:
slightly? that's crazy. and the 720p thing is either due a bug in the app (which is known) or sometimes due to internet issues.
Click to expand...
People don't care about bugs. I wasn't having "internet issues". I'm just telling you what was presented to me by default (and what will be presented to many other people by default). Maybe my browser requested that quality because it knew I was viewing in portrait and wanted to save bandwidth or something.

mjfp said:
And if you say your eyes aren't good enough then that's on you, I can still count the pixels on my 4K OLED
Click to expand...
You really cannot see individual pixels at 4K on a five-inch screen. You just can't.

The Retina display debuted in 2010 with the iPhone 4. Everything since then has been a fake improvement. If you think you can see a difference then it proves you've been conned by Samsung and their hype, because it's in the interests of the electronics industry to sell you a new phone every 12 months.

mjfp said:
Yeah but that's due to the source being of higher quality
Click to expand...
As I said, the difference you are seeing is not down to the resolution of the file.

mjfp said:
do you actually want to tell me you can't see a difference between Wembley and Bucharest on your screen?
Click to expand...
Wembley was garbage because the source resolution was limited to about 160x120. That's quite a difference.

But again - diminishing returns:

The difference between 120P and 240P is huge.
The difference between 240P and 480P is large.
The difference between 480P and 1080P is adequate.
The difference between 1080P and 2160P is minimal.
The difference between 2160P and 4320P is imperceptible.
 
R1chard said:
People don't care about bugs. I wasn't having "internet issues". I'm just telling you what was presented to me by default (and what will be presented to many other people by default). Maybe my browser requested that quality because it knew I was viewing in portrait and wanted to save bandwidth or something.


You really cannot see individual pixels at 4K on a five-inch screen. You just can't.

The Retina display debuted in 2010 with the iPhone 4. Everything since then has been a fake improvement. If you think you can see a difference then it proves you've been conned by Samsung and their hype, because it's in the interests of the electronics industry to sell you a new phone every 12 months.


As I said, the difference you are seeing is not down to the resolution of the file.


Wembley was garbage because the source resolution was limited to about 160x120. That's quite a difference.

But again - diminishing returns:

The difference between 120P and 240P is huge.
The difference between 240P and 480P is large.
The difference between 480P and 1080P is adequate.
The difference between 1080P and 2160P is minimal.
The difference between 2160P and 4320P is imperceptible.
Click to expand...
I don't really get what your point is. Yes the difference between watching something in 4k and watching the same file downscaled to 1080p is not that big. Resolution alone doesn't matter that much. In your previous post you've said "(2) nobody can actually tell the difference with 4K, especially on a phone". So what is your argument supposed to mean? The estate shouldn't remaster the music videos by scanning the original film because the difference between 1080p and 4k is not that big? You're completely missing the point.
 
R1chard said:
People don't care about bugs. I wasn't having "internet issues". I'm just telling you what was presented to me by default (and what will be presented to many other people by default). Maybe my browser requested that quality because it knew I was viewing in portrait and wanted to save bandwidth or something.


You really cannot see individual pixels at 4K on a five-inch screen. You just can't.

The Retina display debuted in 2010 with the iPhone 4. Everything since then has been a fake improvement. If you think you can see a difference then it proves you've been conned by Samsung and their hype, because it's in the interests of the electronics industry to sell you a new phone every 12 months.


As I said, the difference you are seeing is not down to the resolution of the file.


Wembley was garbage because the source resolution was limited to about 160x120. That's quite a difference.

But again - diminishing returns:

The difference between 120P and 240P is huge.
The difference between 240P and 480P is large.
The difference between 480P and 1080P is adequate.
The difference between 1080P and 2160P is minimal.
The difference between 2160P and 4320P is imperceptible.
Click to expand...
just cause you watch videos on your phone doesn‘t mean it shouldn‘t be done, and I was talking about my TV as well as my monitor. I only use my phone for texting. What is presented to you „by default“ by an app on your phone has nothing to do with the content itself (btw I just checked and it automatically selected 2160p on my phone). You wanna tell me there‘s no improvement between a Retina 2010 and modern technologies? You can see a heavy difference, but ig some people also can’t hear the difference between an mp3 and a lossless PCM. That‘s on the individual, not the technology. Wembley was a 2nd or 3rd gen VHS, which is around 480i, not 120, the video looks worse due to degradation of the video and tape, on top it was „restored“ by a team that actually made it worse in comparison.
 
R1chard said:
They're not supposed to care. They're a team of lawyers. They're supposed to make money. Nothing else matters.

4K videos don't matter because (1) they don't make money because people don't buy videos any more, (2) nobody can actually tell the difference with 4K, especially on a phone, (3) people have kinda stopped watching music videos because they don't have the attention span - especially for songs that are 7 minutes.
Click to expand...
I could quote my older posts here and a lot of other user's posts, because this discussion is going in circles. But again:

  • I already wrote, doesn't have to be 4K, but better contrast, sharpness, etc., not some AI-watercolor-everything smooth and blurry nonsense
  • People may not watch the full short films, but share snippets e.g. on tiktok. The better the quality, the higher the probability that people watch it, share it, watch it, etc., - equals marketing, bigger fandom, more people interested in going to musicals or buying silly T-shirts, equals $$ for our beloved Estate
  • and most of all, it's just the right thing you do with important pieces of art. You try to preserve them in the best way possible for future generations
 
archonten said:
Acabei de dar uma olhada e parece que a propriedade finalmente aprendeu a usar software de ampliação de imagem. Parece um pouco melhor.
Click to expand...
Still, they have to do it directly from 35mm film. They have that flimsy argument that young people don't consume music videos anymore, etc., but they'll be even less interested if the video itself is a "4K" rendered by AI on top of a 480p resolution, further ruining the work. The product is garbage (forgive me if I seemed rude).
 
MJJ.D777 said:
Still, they have to do it directly from 35mm film. They have that flimsy argument that young people don't consume music videos anymore, etc., but they'll be even less interested if the video itself is a "4K" rendered by AI on top of a 480p resolution, further ruining the work. The product is garbage (forgive me if I seemed rude).
Click to expand...
I agree with you: the short films deserve proper remasters rather than 4K upscales, but I suppose this is the best we're gonna get from the estate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top