An exception to this is - YouTube channel “Primitive Technology”. It’s beautiful, it’s successful and this is what content should be. Unadulterated. Why isn’t media like this anymore? There was a thread about Disney’s camera techonogy in the 50’s and it was so well produced (see my comment history). People spoke with clear enunciation and intent. The world has become a chaotic mess and the only thing I want to do is meditate and get the away from constant bombardment of my senses. I don’t want HDR. I want good content, I don’t care about the material qualities (although 4K moon video makes sense because resolution is the content in this case).
Nothing ever is. Lighting, camera angle, framing (wide shot or close-up), color temperature, camera movement (handheld, dolly ), and focus are some of the things that influence how the viewer feels. Music is one the more overt elements, but nothing is unadulterated, even the sound mixing is an editorial choice - are the bird chirps audible underneath the hammering of the stone chisel?
For example this famous recent action sport movie / advert has just the sound design, no music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHrwcQQ38bA
It is sound design obviously, but it's interesting that they put that much energy into recreating the feeling of being there through the audio without music.
I feel there is a trend of these videos with just sound design or raw sound, rather than the usual epic music.
Larger apertures are even better, e.g.:
(from a 11" telescope).
Namely in this 4k version hosted directly at NASA:
As for showing it on the web? Well generally unless you have a 4K monitor you won't see it at the full video resolution. It does look pretty crisp and stunning at 4K.
Ah this is a common misconception actually! I think that the chroma resolution in video is often less than the pixel resolution, so a pixel resolution higher than your screen resolution can still be useful to get the extra colour data.
Anyway, a high-resolution source could look better than a low-resolution source when displayed on a display with the same resolution as the low-resolution source for a number of reasons, perhaps the most obvious being that the high-resolution source might be of higher bandwidth.
If you have a 2k screen, you may think there's no point watching a 4k video instead of a 2k video. Well there is even if you ignore bitrate - because the 4k video when resized to 2k will contain more colour information than the 2k video shown at 2k.
> A display that has enough pixels to show the pixel resolution of the source should be able to resolve all the (subsampled) chroma information as well, should it not?
Yes, but the point is that a display that does not have enough pixels to show the resolution of the source, will be able to show colour per-pixel in the 4k video, rather than colour per-every-other-pixel as it would in the 2k video.
(Chroma subsampling is not this simple in practice.)
With equal bitrates and high-quality encoders the difference should be smaller, or even turn towards preferring 1080p depending on the bitrate.
I believe this should get you to Mare Orientale:
This is still a browser, but it shows the gravity field similar to the video (not as good), and it's closer to something a scientist might use.
In this case, the zoom might matter more then anything else...
But my point is I could also film a 4K video of the moon out of my window using an iPhone, and it wouldn't actually be very high quality. Being 4K doesn't actually tell you anything about the quality of the content whatsoever.
I agree it’s not precise and I also agree it’s not a generally very useful way to talk about resolution, but I think the authors were looking for a way to convey high resolution and quality while using terms anyone might have heard and have a rough understanding of.
There's also a 360 photo from the 2014 Chinese lunar mission https://www.360cities.net/image/change-3-lunar-panorama-tcam...
Not street view, but google has surface maps for some solar system objects https://www.google.com/maps/space/moon