|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » 4k Ultra HD Files |
| 1-22 of 22 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 09-10-16 05:55am - 2931 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Otrivine (0)
Active User Posts: 54 Registered: Aug 28, '16 |
4k Ultra HD Files Dear Forum Members, Whenever I buy a subscription on a porn website I always tend to download the picture and video content with the highest available resolution. In the majority of cases, these days, for videos files this is the Full HD 1080p resolution. Lately more and more websites are adding 4k Ultra HD content. I recently downloaded a video file with a length of approximately 13 minutes in 4k Ultra HD format. I have the fastest available cable connection that is available so I can’t complain about the download speed for a file that was nearly 4 GB in size. To view my downloaded video files I use VLC player. Not so much because this player is available for free but rather for its simplicity and for the versatility of audio and video file formats this player is capable of playing. So far this player always did a fine job. I was pretty curious what the output of this 4k Ultra HD file would be compared with a Full HD 1080p movie therefor I couldn’t wait to play it. The file took awfully long to load in VLC player. The video playback was even slower than a snail and the output was totally cluttered. I didn’t even bother to check the sound. I immediately closed the file because this wasn’t what I was expecting and it hurt my eyes so much. I admit that I have a pretty old desktop PC that lived its best days and I know that one day I will have to replace my old box by a new rig. I searched the internet hoping to find solutions because at first I thought it would be an issue with VLC player. I tried every proposed solution offered on tons of websites but to no avail. One website advised to use one of the following players: DivX player, PowerDVD player or Windows classic Media Player with the K-Lite Codec pack. Another website claims that you need at least an Intel i7 or its AMD equivalent and at least 8 GB of memory even preferably more if you want to smoothly watch 4k Ultra HD movies. That left me with the choice of either buying a new PC or rather sticking with Full HD 1080p movies. A though decision to make. Please feel free to share your experiences and thoughts. Enjoy your weekend! Kind regards. | |
|
||
| 09-10-16 10:38am - 2931 days | #2 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I read an old article on the difference between HD and SD that was published on the internet in late 2013. I'm basically cutting and pasting from that article: http://dmediamom.com/2013/08/09/hd-vs-sd...r-hd-digital-videos/ HD (high definition) versus SD (standard definition). The article basically said that, unless you are a video fanatic (with expensive equipment to view and hear the video), the average person won't be able to tell the difference between HD and SD. So it's basically a waste of money to spend more to buy HD movies, for the average person. There are different reasons for this. -For anyone over the age of 40 who’s already had to start using reading glasses, there’s an upper limit to how much clarity we can expect, even when viewing the real world around us. -If the device you plan to use for watching digital videos doesn’t have an HD display (you can check this in the device’s product details either in the user guide that came with it or on the manufacturer’s website), there’s no point in paying extra to watch HD videos on it. This would also apply to the much higher 4K standard. -Screen size: HD is wasted on a small screen. The more pixels there are per square inch, the higher the resolution. The higher the resolution, the finer the detail on your pictures will be. But the extra pixels in a high-def image aren’t distinguishable by the human eye when the image is small. You know how sometimes when you’re online, you’ll see a small (or “thumbnail”) version of an image that looks pretty clear, and when you click on it to load the full-size image, the enlarged image looks fuzzy? That usually happens when the image was saved at a low resolution setting. The image looks fine to your eyes when it’s small but the bigger it gets, the worse it looks. So if you’re intending to view digital video on a small screen, not only will you NOT notice the loss of finer details in a standard definition video, you also won’t notice the increase in finer details in an HD video. But How Small Is The “Small” When I Say “Small Screen”? I’ve watched both the SD and HD versions of The Matrix and Constantine, two movies with a lot of digital special effects, on my Kindle Fire HD’s 7″ screen, and didn’t notice any difference whatsoever for either movie. I repeated the experiment on my 37″ diagonal HD television set, and again, did not notice any significant difference. I think this is because even though the image is a lot larger on my TV, I’m still sitting at least 12 feet away from the screen when I’m watching it. I don’t have a huge living room, this distance is mostly because the TV is mounted on the wall. The further I get from any image, whether on TV, my computer, my phone, my Kindle Fire or even in real life, the less I’m going to notice fine detail. In my opinion, the difference between SD and HD is most noticeable on broadcast, network TV. But when I’m watching the news, a sitcom or a panel discussion show, I’m focused much more on what the people are saying than whether or not I can count the freckles on their noses. Admit it: if we’d never heard of Blu-ray or HD, we’d have been perfectly content to keep watching DVDs and we would still be impressed by their image quality. The difference between SD and the old VHS tapes was huge, in terms of image clarity. But the difference between SD and HD is not that huge (except for the hype). -In Conclusion: Since HD digital movies run anywhere from $2 – $5 higher than their SD counterparts, and HD digital TV shows can be as much as $20 higher per season than the SD versions, the choice between HD and SD really can have a significant impact on your budget. For all the reasons above, for most of us, it’s not worth the extra spend. Also, 4K files are huge. So you will need increased storage space. Another expense. And if you can't tell the difference, when watching a 4K video versus watching a SD video, you're basically just fooling yourself that 4K is better. Unless you have high end equipment, and a huge monitor to watch it on. Since you have an old PC, I'm guessing that even if you were able to watch a 4K video with no playback problems, you would not be able to tell the difference between a 4K video and a SD video. Because you don't have the expensive equipment needed to actually see the difference between the two file definitions (or to hear the difference-unless you have upgraded your speakers as well). I've watched TV at my brother's house. He has a new, super-large TV with all the bells and whistles. And upgraded speaker system. I'm well over 60. I can hear the sound is nice. The image is nice. But my eyes are old. I can't really tell the difference between watching a TV show on his expensive, high grade TV and sound system and watching on my much smaller, older TV (that makes farting noises when the bass is too loud). Amend that. His sound is much nicer. And I know that his images are sharp and clear. But I can't really see the sharpness or clarity improvement that much. But since he has the money to spend, he spends it. I don't have the money to spend. So I'm satisfied with what I have (except for the farting noises from the over-loud bass noises). | |
|
||
| 09-10-16 06:43pm - 2931 days | #3 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
There was a time when I avoided large video files because my ISP limited me to 150GB of download per month and going over was so expansive that it made my monthly internet bill look like a joke. That said I now have unlimited download capability and yet I still avoid the large video files. The two main reasons are that I don't want to use up my hard drive space downloading a 1080P porn video when the 540p or 720p look amazing. The other reason is that I don't really see a difference. The one major negative that higher resolution has done is that what was once invisible to the naked eye is now impossible to overlook(at least to me). There are plenty of beautiful women in porn that once the camera gets closer to their faces or lingers too long on some body parts loose a lot of their luster. Skin blemishes could in the past be partially or completely hidden behind makeup but it's not possible with the high resolution in todays porn. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-11-16 06:52am - 2930 days | #4 | |
|
Otrivine (0)
Active User Posts: 54 Registered: Aug 28, '16 |
Hello Ik2fireone and pat362, Thanks for your reply on my thread which I really appreciate. Also thanks for sharing your opinions and experiences regarding this topic. I'm also a client of an ISP with download limits. The FUP of my ISP, according to the package I have, permits me a data traffic of maximum of 750 GB per month during peak hours (noon till midnight). Between midnight and noon it states that I have unlimited traffic but still that's a bit vague. Sometimes unlimited can be limited too. I contacted my ISP just to make sure that I won't get myself into trouble. If my ISP detects you as a super user (< 750 GB per month during peak hours) you will surf at lower speed during peak hours till the end of your monthly data period. During off-peak hours you can surf at full speed. Based on your reply and experiences I did the test myself and downloaded a file in Full HD 1080p and the same file in Full HD 720p. I noticed a difference in file size of approximately 100 MB between both files. Once I started to watch both movies indeed with my old eyes and glasses I couldn't tell the difference between both movies. I still hope to do the test with a 720p SD file and check the difference in size and quality. I guess sometimes we let us lead by commercials from manufacturers hoping that we would buy overkill and overpriced equipment which is in a majority of cases not necessary and cost a lot of money that one could invest in other things. | |
|
||
| 09-11-16 08:17am - 2930 days | #5 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Even on a 1080 screen you would see a difference in quality. It is not much, but it is there. Some times there really is no difference and usually this is because the video was recorded with a lower end camera or the post processing was not set up right. I have a decent connection and a lot of storage capacity and I still generally do not see a reason to take the 4k at this point. The video has to be pretty good for me to take the 4k. If your eye sight is a limiting factor than there truly is no sense in taking the 4k version at 4-8x the size. I also have a tendency to skip around the videos so if you do that you either need a stronger computer or lighter videos. For most of us at this point, filming in 4k is mostly good for error correction. If a pixel is bad/wrong, the others around it will correct for it. If it is a 1/1 ratio the bad pixel will come through. For this reason a 1080 version of a 4k video can look a little cleaner, especially if watching on a 1080 screen. The best thing I can tell anyone is to download the same video in two or three types and compare. Do it once for each site to see if one site does better than the other. Figure out which you like better then stick with that for the site, at least for a while. In the future they may figure things out more and change this. Lastly, if your monitor is not very good or your eyes not very good, take the 720p and enjoy the smaller file size. I have thing for smooth, crisp video so I will lean towards they larger ones. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 09-11-16 08:52am - 2930 days | #6 | |
|
Otrivine (0)
Active User Posts: 54 Registered: Aug 28, '16 |
Hi Badandy400, Thanks for your reply and for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I have an Asus VS247HR - 23.6" Monitor (1920 x 1080) Monitor connected to my PC. Also thanks for your advice. Kind regards. | |
|
||
| 09-11-16 11:58am - 2930 days | #7 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
I need to wear reading glasses now but can read fine if the book is far enough away from me (strange). As for 4D, it takes up a lot of file space and I can't tell the difference. I guess I'm old.  "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016)Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 09-11-16 11:37pm - 2930 days | #8 | |
|
exotics4me (0)
Active User  Posts: 664 Registered: Jan 12, '07 Location: USA |
I think this is similar to the poll question a month or so ago about buying the newest cellphones. On the cellphones, I did bounce from the iPhone 5 to the Samsung Galaxy S4 to the iPhone 5s then the iPhone 6. I felt the 5 was too small, the Galaxy S4 was too big and the iPhone 6 was just right. As you can see it's not really about the technology for me. I have to be able to text with one hand since I usually have some sort of gauge in my other hand for work. I don't see me upgrading for several years. It's the same on televisions/monitors. Before I married my wife she bought a 46" Sony 3D television. She paid $1,500 for it. I hate it. It's slow. Its menus are clunky. I bought an LG 32LF5600 for my home office. I have my PC and Xbox One hooked up to it. I got it on a Black Friday sale this past Christmas for around $200. It has one of the best, clearest, pictures I've ever seen. Has no other bells and whistles though. The 720p videos look great on it. I only sit 3-4 ft from it. The 720p videos also are at least somewhat easy on my PC and external hard drive space. I think that's where technology will run into a wall if it hasn't already. My eyesight is pretty bad. My optometrist says if something doesn't change, I'll be looking at bifocals in a year or two. So again, it's not just about the technology. I really don't want to have to buy a monitor just to watch 4k videos when I am doing just fine with the 720p ones. There's also the chance my eyes can't see the difference. Throw in being bigger files and needing more external hard drive space. Plus, I use my PC for work and to play some video games on, so I don't know how hard the 4k video files will push it. I just can't justify moving forward, at least not yet. One technology feature I do like is the smart feature on televisions. We have three more of the above listed LG televisions, different sizes and all three with smart features. They're mostly inexpensive, seem to last well and are nice-looking. What I run into is I grew up in a house that had one television in the living room. It was a 25" RCA floor model. My dad bought me a 13" black and white television for my bedroom. A few years later, I was maybe 11 or 12, he bought me a 19" CRT RCA color/with remote for my bedroom. I used it until I moved out for college. My interest in a television/monitor is if the picture is crisp and clear. Beyond that becomes overkill for me. My first time I jacked off, I thought I'd invented it. I looked down at my sloppy handful of junk and thought, This is going to make me rich. - Chuck Palahniuk | |
|
||
| 09-12-16 08:47am - 2929 days | #9 | |
|
iknowwazzup (0)
Active User  Posts: 132 Registered: Jan 06, '16 Location: United States |
I totally agree with some other folks about there being too much of a good thing when it comes to resolution. And it isn't just in the world of porn, I find that a lot of television shows and movies have suffered for it, too. I always find it funny that people think that higher-res images are more realistic, because when you look at a person, object or landscape with the naked eye, you don't actually see the same level of detail in real life. Your eyes can only focus on a relatively small area within your much larger field of vision, which is significantly broader than the size of even the largest screen. Whereas depending on how close you sit to the screen, you can focus all at once on a large portion of what's happening. In real life, you will also have to deal with other factors such as lighting conditions, visual distractions, etc. Whereas video footage tends to be brightly lit with background distractions controlled during production and you can be much more concentrated while viewing it, too. I think for me that 1280x720, 2000k is about as good as I need a file to be. It also uses up a lot less of my bandwidth limit and that's important, because I refuse to pay the $30 extra my ISP charges for unlimited. | |
|
||
| 09-12-16 03:58pm - 2929 days | #10 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
My story is almost identical to yours except that I'm the one who bought a 10" or 12" B & W TV. My taste tended to run toward Sci/Fi so there was no way I could torture my family into watching that kind of movie/tv show. I was a teenager before I discovered that Forbidden Planet was actually in color. I could get decent reception on some American channels if my rabbit ears were in just the right position. That's probably why screen resolution is still not all that important to me. That doesn't mean that I won't buy some movies in Blu-ray but the reduction in price has more to do with my decision to buy BR over basic DVD. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-12-16 07:08pm - 2929 days | #11 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Anybody else finding forum responses not "catching"? I wrote a response on this topic yesterday, hit "Add Reply", the window took a long time to move after I hit "Add Reply" and my reply seemed to vanish. | |
|
||
| 09-12-16 08:22pm - 2929 days | #12 | |
|
Otrivine (0)
Active User Posts: 54 Registered: Aug 28, '16 |
When I initially was typing this thread, although I was logged in at that time, once I wanted to post this thread the system logged me out and I lost what I typed. The second time again the same scene. The third time I opened an MS Word document, typed my text, logged in a copied and pasted the text into the thread. This method worked however this should not be necessary. | |
|
||
| 09-13-16 04:39am - 2929 days | #13 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Writing to a text document is usually a good idea, if you want to post a comment or review. Especially a review, because of the time involved in writing it, and you don't want to try to re-create a review because it somehow "vanished." This was discussed on another thread recently, where several PU members talked about how the PU site can eat their posts. So if you want to post a comment or review, the safest method is to write it to a text document, then paste it to the PU site. | |
|
||
| 09-13-16 07:28am - 2928 days | #14 | |
|
Amanda (0)
Active User  Posts: 534 Registered: Jul 02, '15 Location: Montreal, Quebec |
Hi Otrivine. My apologies for the complications. We are aware of the time-out issue and are working on it. | |
|
||
| 10-06-16 01:10pm - 2905 days | #15 | |
|
Roberto281 (0)
Active User Posts: 5 Registered: Nov 02, '12 Location: US |
I use the VCL Player on an old computer and had the same problem playing 4k vids but when I used DivX player on the same machine, it worked perfectly. Roberto | |
|
||
| 10-08-16 10:50pm - 2903 days | #16 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
FYI: The new Chromecast Ultra will have full 4K capability and will only cost $69 (it is almost like they are marketing to porn consumers with that price tag.) $500 on Amazon can easily get you a 50" 4K Ultra TV — between the two, that's a lot cheaper than buying a new PC that can handle 4K videos easily. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 10-09-16 06:11pm - 2902 days | #17 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User  Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Otravine, After literally a dozen or so lost reviews because I take an hour or more to write them, I FINALLY figured this out! OPEN TWO TABS for PU. You can type away on your review or whatever, but before you submit, go to the OTHER tab and click someplace. If it logs you out, just log back in again. Most websites only put one cookie on your computer and PU does too. So, after logging back in using a different tab, when you submit, the cookie will say you are still logged in! It took forever to figure this out but I am SO glad I did! Amanda, you might want to share this with the other folks that run into it. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 10-17-16 03:32am - 2895 days | #18 | |
|
Colm4 (0)
Active User  Posts: 117 Registered: Sep 22, '07 Location: Holland |
I have the same problem with VLC. I have pretty fast pc (i7, 8GB ram, 2Gb Videocard), so it's not your PC. I guess VLC is just unsuitable for 4k vids. I use VLC for the smaller files, but PowerDVD16 for the big files. | |
|
||
| 10-21-16 11:15am - 2890 days | #19 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Ive been using Potplayer64 for about 6 months lately its seems to work real well even on a 8gig file I loaded to test and it was just fine. VLC had a problem with that file. I agree with what has been said I notice scratches, blemishes and allot I never even saw before. Just 4 years ago 720 was great to see in Porn and was perfect in my opinion 720 is good enough for porn higher and really the quality hurts not helps. With VR on the rise who wants an up close pimple to kill the mood. They were there before but now more then ever you can tell when a star has lots of doctoring done up it looks almost unnatural. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-05-16 01:17am - 2876 days | #20 | |
|
CharlieSkyward (0)
Suspended Posts: 16 Registered: Oct 25, '16 Location: UK |
If I compare 576p (DVD) vs 1080p videos, on a 24" monitor or 15" laptop, let alone a 40" TV, the difference in sharpness and detail is clear (provided the bitrate hasn't been set too low, as often happens: for 1080p you really need 8kbps). With 4k, though facilities aren't there yet in user software, the capacity to interactively pan and zoom on a full hd screen without losing detail seems nice. I have yet to buy myself a 4k TV, but quietly the biggest motivation for me to do so, as it was with a 40" full hd tv, was to see what porn would look like on it. (I have been a hobby photographer quite a bit in the past, and the sharpness is easy to see, and something I like. I look forward for HDR (high dynamic range) 4k porn on a high-end 4k tv.) With respect to 1080p vs 4k, I generally download the 4k first, and if possible also the 1080p, since both will have been encoded from the original high-res source files, and so the 1080p will have fewer compression artifacts than a file re-encoded from the 4k, assuming identical bitrates. That, and encoding time. With modern graphics cards and ffmpeg it still takes rather a while to encode from 4k to 1080p (and also 540p, which is fine for smartphones and devices with a screen res less than 1080p). Finally, I like to draw (with pencil and paper, or with corel painter/krita and tablet) from scenes, and that is where 4k is wonderful as source material (since the DSLR stills often do not exactly match the video). | |
|
||
| 11-13-16 07:39am - 2867 days | #21 | |||
|
Otrivine (0)
Active User Posts: 54 Registered: Aug 28, '16 |
No need for apologies dear Amanda.  I'm working in IT nearly since the beginning I do understand that sometimes not everything works as it is intended to. Take care !
Thanks for the advice Skippy. I will try your advice next time I'll write a forum post or even a review. Take care !
I also use VLC player to view files I downloaded. VLC player is a very versatile player capable of viewing and listening to tons of different kind of video- and audio files. Although I have the latest version installed it seem buggy when it comes to 4K Ultra HD files. I recently ripped a scene from a porn DVD with the new H265 codec. The rip was successful with Handbrake but VLC doesn't seem to like that codec at all. I just downloaded the free 5K Player hoping this would be a solution till VLC knows how to solve their 4K Ultra HD issues. Edited on Nov 13, 2016, 12:44pm | |||
|
||||
| 11-15-16 07:29am - 2865 days | #22 | |
|
luthien (0)
Active User  Posts: 101 Registered: Jan 07, '16 |
4K files take up a lot of room for something that I am probably only going to watch once and in the moment. Unless it's some award winning porn flick, 1280x720p is sufficient. | |
|
||
| 1-22 of 22 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
