This guy has got to be a work. I ain’t buying it!

"Why couldn't 16k holograms be a thing 12-13 years ago..?" ~ kid from 2033

You can't really upscale a digital video that was originally recorded at a lower resolution. (However, some films recorded on analog film stock had a much greater resolution than what could be reproduced on home media at the time, which is how some TV shows and movies can be remastered and released in modern day HD or 4k formats. They simply go back to the original film stock and digitize it using modern technology)

Back in the early days of youtube, the technology was much different. Affordable video technology was barely beyond VHS, and was just starting to enter the miniDV era with SD resolution. Most people had flip phones *without* even a still photo camera.

Technology has leaped forward quite a bit in the past 15-20 years.

Back around 2004, Sony released the *first* consumer HD camera, which was almost $4,000 at the time. That would be about $5,200 in 2020 dollars.

Today, you can get a cheap tablet or smart phone for under $200 with at least one built-in HD camera. Frankly, that's amazing.

Tell me aboot it, all that low quality homemade pr0n I made is an eyesore these days. I guess the memories get me thru it though.

Here we go again. OP has posted several similar threads in the past. The above quote is from one of his prior threads.

Well, people weren't streaming video much then. How many people wished they could watch a Youtube video more than a few years old anyway? Seeing the poor video quality of old home videos adds nostalgia. However, I'm grateful now that 4K is the norm.

I do have some concerns over the future of movies, particular those shot on film. From what I understand, 35mm film is roughly the equivalent of native 2k video, which is blu-ray quality. If 8k televisions are already being pushed to market, how will movies keep up in the long run? Even the modest selection of older films on 4k DVD seem to have a doctored look to them, and the industry is already moving on.

Because in 2003 most computers couldn't handle processing videos in 4k. Heck, even today many YouTubers still post in 1080 in order to help make file sizes more manageable. Since most YT is watched over a phone or tablet 4k is not necessary. Using a 2002/2003 computer the entire processor would be consumed for days trying to render a 4k video. Honestly, it couldn't even start since no computer had enough RAM to feed the processor the 4k content for rendering.

I can't even imagine trying to upload a 4k video back in 2003.... potentially over a dial-up connection. A 10-minute video in 1080 is usually around 2 gigs - so even that was unimaginable with upload speeds in the 100k/sec range (and dial-up was uploading at around 12k/sec)

next.... the computer. I bought a Gateway laptop in 1999 for $3000 - it had a 4 gig hard drive. Sooooo that entire hard drive couldn't store a single 5-minute video in 4k.

Finally... you have your media cards... back in 2003 a 64 Meg card was expensive. i don't remember exactly the cost but it cost more than a 128G card costs today (depending on speed). So that card could only hold a few seconds of 4k content... and ... this is big... most 4K cameras require writes speeds of around 60meg/sec (at the absolute MINUMUM - higher-end cameras need 150 meg/sec). So the card would need to have the ability to write nearly 100% of its capacity in less than 1 second.... and then it would be full.

soo... those are a few reasons why

Same reason as when you were upset about it 6 months ago:

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/why-can-t-every-single-youtube-video-be-4k

Burn!!!!