Just wondering, is the 4K UHD version welcome?

[thecyanray]

But for a few high-quality and detailed works, I definitely support the better experience brought by 4K/up-to-120fps/HDR, etc.

You'd be getting a pretty nasty 'Soap Opera' effect @120fps. I think 30fps max is best for films. More isn't always better

[E9A7F3bD]

You'd be getting a pretty nasty 'Soap Opera' effect @120fps. I think 30fps max is best for films. More isn't always better

In fact, it varies from person to person.
A lot of people like the amazing feeling brought by 4K/120FPS.

[VidGuy]

I don't have anything to play 4k with, and my eyes aren't too good anymore anyway.

On my projector a 480p without noise and and good color contrast sometimes look better than 1080p upscale with compression artefacts.

[TheProjector1979]

Is there a preferred target compression ratio or file size? I have a few films I've up-scaled to 4K now that I'm happy to share but I usually rip/upscale at a higher quality as that works best for my media server and TV setup. As a result the files tend to be large (~30Gb). Would people still be interested?

[Amelia]

Is there a preferred target compression ratio or file size? I have a few films I've up-scaled to 4K now that I'm happy to share but I usually rip/upscale at a higher quality as that works best for my media server and TV setup. As a result the files tend to be large (~30Gb). Would people still be interested?

I would welcome that , but I would hope that anyone could clearly mark whether it is the AI-Model upscaling or the Native-Resolution by distribution channels.

[Skalman]

Is there a preferred target compression ratio or file size? I have a few films I've up-scaled to 4K now that I'm happy to share but I usually rip/upscale at a higher quality as that works best for my media server and TV setup. As a result the files tend to be large (~30Gb). Would people still be interested?

I'm interested but emule is not good for very large files. If you use h264 codec for 4k movies the files will be too large, a waste of space. For recoded hd/uhd I prefer modern codec, at least h265. Then 6-12GB is often enough for 4k movies. But if you use h265 or av1 codec I think many will complain about that.

[citronleaf]

I think 4K files should be at least 10 GB for a 2 hour movie. I do not have any technical reasons for that choice! It is based simply on finding smaller 4K encodes and not seeing any improvement over a good 1080p file. However, I must admit that I personally have pulled back on downloading many large files because of lack of storage space. So take my opinion with a grain (or a big hunk) of salt! I am not really the right audience.

Skalman is absolutely right that H265 is ideal for 4K. Movies on 4K disks are already coded in H265/HEVC anyway. Using H264 would be going backwards in quality and compression! (I am only familiar with AV1 from some YouTube videos.)

I think that if someone can not play H265 codec then they also may not be equipped for 4K playback in general? I mean, they could play a H264 file that was "4K" but their monitor/TV would not actually show 4K quality, just 1080p. So they might as well get a 1080p version instead. If they want the highest quality image, then they should upgrade the equipment too.

What I don't understand is the 480p files I find that are encoded in H265 to try to make them as small as possible! As far as I am concerned, 4K demands H265 and SD demands H264 (or older!). Flip a coin for 1080p.

Maybe some day we will get Internet speeds in TB/s, hard drives in the PB range... and files that are so efficiently compressed that a 2-hour 4K UHD movie with Atmos audio would only be about 700 KB. But not yet.