This simply could not be any worthier: the chief keywords here being South Africa; apartheid; multiculturalism. And lesbians. A richly textured 12-part epic might be constructed around that tidy grouping, but author Shamim Sarif gave us a single award-winning novel instead, based on her grandmother's recollections of 1950s Cape Town. Less agreeably, and most unusually for a writer, she has also been given free hand to script and direct her own movie adaptation. Really bad move.Fiercely independent Amina (played by the Indian-American Sheetal Sheth) literally wears the trousers as owner of a Cape Town café in 1952. She's always getting into trouble with the police for serving "blecks". She's also something of a pariah within her own prejudiced immigrant community for speaking out against the subjugation of women. One day her counterpart turns up. Miriam (Indian-Canadian Lisa Ray) is a subservient housewife, mother and shopkeeper, married to racist, chauvinist pig Omar (Parvin Dabas), who in turn is having an affair with his sister-in-law Farah (Natalie Becker) under poor Miriam's nose. Amira is smitten. The lady's ripe for turning. But will she ever persuade Miriam to shrug off her shackles and find true love? Never mind the world, this will probably end up a film unseen for the most part, but that doesn't automatically make it some kind of ghettoised gem. Like Sarif's other lesbian drama I Can't Think Straight (also featuring Sheth and Ray) this is queer cinema by default only, too mimsy and soapy a concoction to be regarded as anything other than a daytime TV movie.If the direction is flatter than a chapatti, the performances are mostly amateur hour, with cringeworthy dialogue clamouring to be heard above an hysterical din of a score; tremulous strings and fussily tinkling pianos drowning each and every soft focus scene in caramelised gloop. It's certainly a huge letdown after opening the film with Nina Simone's gorgeous rendition of 'I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free' - all-purpose protest song and knowing shout-out to the singer's significant gay fan base.The leading ladies frantically bat their lashes at one another, but with so little chemistry between them they'd produce more sparks trying to light a cigarette with a dodgy disposable. Miriam's sexual awakening during a driving lesson is also unconvincing. "You didn't come to give me a driving lesson, did you?" Miriam hotly accuses Amina. "So why did you come?" This exchange, after they've already snogged.Most damagingly, for a film set during an era when flouting racial and gender conventions could land you on Robben Island for years, there is absolutely zero sense of danger. It's as if Sarif is so confident audiences are already up to speed with the politics (or with her novel), that she hasn't bothered with the important stuff: atmospherics, a feel for the time and place.The real drama, it seems, is going on elsewhere: a subplot involving the café's mixed-race, middle-aged co-owner Jacob (David Dennis) secretly romancing Madeleine (Grethe Fox), a white postmistress. But largely, what we're left with is a pair of total babes brushing lips. The only threat for this glamorous pair would appear to be smudged cosmetics.
From a worldwide perspective regional coding may be seen as a failure. A huge percentage of players outside of North America can be easily modified (and are even sold pre-modified by mainstream stores such as Amazon.co.uk) to ignore the regional codes on a disc. This, coupled with the fact that almost all televisions in Europe and Australasia are capable of displaying NTSC video (at the very least, in black and white), means that consumers in these regions have a huge choice of discs. Contrary to popular belief, this practice is not illegal and in some countries that strongly support free trade it is encouraged.
With Vidcastive, 4K video is finally an affordable reality for hidden cameras. The high-quality video outperforms typical 1080p cameras but makes this unit a little more expensive on average.
Clocks are some of the most popular disguises for a hidden cam, so we had to include one on our list. We like the Waymoon clock camera's 4K video resolution, mobile app, and wide-angle lens, making it one of the more full-featured hidden cams we found during our research.
When choosing hidden cameras for this review, we set up some basic rules: they must cost less than $75 and record video in 1080p resolution or higher. While some of the cameras have night vision and Wi-Fi to enable mobile device controls, these features weren't a requirement.
The revolutionary technology of pixel-shifting has injected a lot of controversy and confusion into the world of 4K projectors. People are concerned about what is true or genuine 4K and what is fake or "faux-K." What is the difference, and is it anything to worry about? In the end, as we go about categorizing and defining these products, the practical question is what makes a 4K projector 4K?A Bit of HistoryBack in the day, the native resolution of a projector was a big deal, and rightly so. There was a massive visible difference in picture quality between SVGA and XGA, and between WXGA and Full HD 1080p. When comparing these projectors there were obvious differences in detail and image sharpness. Visible pixelation (the screendoor effect) on lower resolution projectors was supremely annoying and desperately to be avoided. Anyone in the projector biz could tell at a glance just from looking at pictures on the screen what the native resolution of the projector was. So we all grew up KNOWING that the "native" resolution of the chips was directly related to ultimate picture quality on the screen. That was then. This is now. In our new reality of 4K resolution and pixel shifting technologies, there is ZERO correlation between native resolution (the number of physical pixels on the chip) and the actual resolution of the picture you see on the screen. The chip's physical resolution, at least in the home theater world, has become irrelevant.The revolution began with JVC's introduction of pixel shifting in 2013. This was a radical new approach to getting substantially higher picture resolution out of native 1920 x 1080 D-ILA chips. Epson followed using pixel shifting on 1920 x 1080 3LCD chips. Then Texas Instruments released an 0.66" 4K UHD chip with a physical mirror matrix of 2716 x 1528 which uses two-phase pixel shifting to create 8.3 million pixels, which is 4K UHD. They followed that with an 0.47" DLP 4K UHD chip which has a physical mirror matrix of 1920 x 1080. It uses four-phase pixel shifting to create 8.3 million pixels.To no surprise, this has fueled a lot of controversy over what is "true 4K" and what is often disparagingly referred to as "faux-4K" or simply "faux-K." This term is widely used by industry personnel, reviewers, and consumers alike. It often connotes that there is something inauthentic and undesirable about the pixel shifting technologies and the 4K projectors that use them. In reality, pixel shifting has produced rapid advances in picture resolution at prices far lower than you must pay for projectors that have native resolution 4K chips. It is a terrific technology that is hard not to love once you see it. And the simple fact is this: we can no longer glance at an image on the screen and know the physical resolution the chips in the projector like we could before. Today there are 4K projectors using chips in various physical resolution formats -- 1920 x 1080, 2716 x 1528, 3840 x 2160, and 4096 x 2160. And they are all capable of producing impressive 4K resolution pictures. Even the current JVC and Epson models that use two-phase pixel shifting on 1080p chips can produce pictures that come a lot closer to replicating a full 4K picture than one might imagine possible--sometimes they can even beat the 4K UHD DLP chips in the subjective impression of image sharpness.To illustrate the misleading nature of the term faux-K, let's do some side by side comparisons of six different 4K projectors, five of which are using a variation of pixel-shifting, and one using native 4K chips...
This is a different comparison entirely. The ViewSonic PX727-4K has the 0.47" DLP chip with a 1920 x 1080 mirror matrix, generating a 4K picture (8.3 million pixels) via four-phase pixel shift. Meanwhile, the Epson HC 4000 uses 3LCD chips with the same 1920 x 1080 pixel matrix, but it has only a two-phase pixel shift. So it does not produce 8.3 million pixels, and Epson has never represented that it did -- they market this class of projectors as 4K-enhanced. So the HC 4000 paints two slightly offset 1920 x 1080 images per frame while the PX727-4K paints four. In theory the PX727-4K should produce a sharper picture in terms of image detail, and it does.So, what differences do we see? When viewing the Epson HC 4000 from our close-up distance of 12 inches from a 5-foot wide screen, there is no distinct pixel definition. The two-phase shift in this implementation tends to blur any hint of a discrete pixel matrix. In this regard it is extremely similar to the PX727-4K. When viewed very close up they look not quite perfectly identical as far as the indistinct pixel array is concerned, but they are pretty darned similar.Now, let's back up to a more practical viewing distance. This time we will stand 5 feet from our 5-foot wide screen (1.0x the screen width). Can we see any difference in image sharpness and detail? Yes, the PX727-4K is the sharper of the two. And this is true no matter if you are displaying a native 4K video signal, or if you are displaying regular HD 1080p and having the projectors upscale it. It is not surprising that the PX727-4K can deliver more 4K detail from a 4K signal, but it is surprising (to me anyway) that it can even upscale HD 1080p with a higher apparent level of precision. This four-phase pixel shift is remarkably potent as far as rendering detail is concerned.HOWEVER. And this is a huge however - the Epson HC 4000 is much higher in contrast with much more solid black levels than the PX727-4K. And as we know, high contrast makes a picture look sharper. So when we back up from the screen to a viewing distance of 1.5x the screen width and put on some 4K HDR material, the Epson 4000 actually appears to be a bit sharper than the PX727-4K. This is due to a combination of factors - as you move back from the screen the advantage the PX727-4K has in rendering fine detail becomes less visible so contrast becomes a more dominant factor in your overall perception of the picture's sharpness. So as your move back your perception flips and the Epson 4000 looks like the sharper of the two projectors.The point at which this occurs depends on the contrast of the subject matter, but with the 4K HDR movie Lucy it appears to happen at a viewing distance of about 1.3x the screen width (with my 20/20 vision). In point of fact, the effect is somewhat of a hybrid, with some elements in the picture looking sharper on the PX727-4K, and other elements looking sharper (or at least as sharp and more three-dimensional) on the Epson 4000. In this no-man's land, where the latent competitive strengths of both projectors are visible simultaneously in the same picture. In the end, this comparison illustrates that contrast is a huge mitigating factor that can outweigh the perception of image detail, sharpness, and clarity. Small differences in image detail which are obvious when examined close up become insignificant or even invisible when you sit back to enjoy a movie in a typical theater set up. Meanwhile, contrast is of utmost importance. 2b1af7f3a8