Is Redray going to replace Blu-ray?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Let me put that another way ... The benefits of upping the res are subject to diminishing returns....

Then pair it with more refined display technology too…
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/video...itors_displays

[blonde_devil]

something will replace bluray but what it will be is anyone's guess as new technologies seem to appear and then disappear just as fast. i was holding out buying a bluray player because the next big thing was getting ready to be released and was going to make bluray obsolete -that was about 5 years ago and never happened. it is possible redray will but it comes down to pricing and promotion. there are still a ton of people buying dvd movies isntead of bluray because they don't see the need to upgrade - same thing will apply here. i think cost is going to be the big factor. they talk about how movie ticket sales are down because people are staying home instead and renting/buying the movies when the come out. part of it is comfort but when you would rather watch a movie on a 40-80 inch tv instead of in a theatre, the resolution isn't going to be the main factor for you. selling the better quality is fine but if the cost is too high, people in general won't get behind it.

and people are right, eventually we will look at 1080 and shake our heads wondering how we ever watched something so fuzzy. that is just how technology goes.

[stratford]

When here in the UK a good few people claim to still have monochrome TVs, and many more still use downloads of dubious legality and quality, who is going to buy redray or any thing else?

[Steedeel]

I don't know a single person who has a black and white TV. Oh, and I am from UK and would def buy redray or 4k discs.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Sure, but think about the details in the present case. How about subtleties of actors' facial expressions in medium shots and other stuff the director expects you to see but which is lost when the image is effectively downrezzed to 720x480? I noticed this often back in the SD era. Except in close-ups, some of the acting disappeared between the scan lines. Intolerable!

My point was that this situation happens much much less often for 4K over BD-quality versions of most feature films. Typically (but not always) the director never meant for you to see info present on the negative but which gets lost at 1080p, and in any case that stuff is (usually) much less important than the stuff you lose on the step down to DVD.

I think it has to do with the way shots are composed assuming a certain apparent image size for the audience. I've seen a handful of films shot on 65mm where the BD version does look “too low-res” in the sense that, to judge from the composition of some shots, the audience is clearly expected to have a massive picture in front of them (> 3 PHs) with lots of fine detail clearly visible. My fav. example: the closing sequences of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

Yes and no, let's assume that "that this situation happens much much less often for 4K over BD-quality versions of most feature films", there is a world of difference between "less often" and never. If someone does not care for quality, why would they care all the imes they could not see the detail on DVD but can on BD, if someone cares about quality why wouldn't they care for the times still remaining? Also how do you know how often it will happen.

Befgore BD came out I had over 3000 DVDs, I thought, "hey HD is good and I would want new films on BD but I will try and keep my old films on DVD" but after watching BD , especially after a while, DVD became unacceptably bad, once I knew what I was missing wuith DVD there was no going back so Istopped watching my DVDs and I am reburying the films I am interested in on BD. Maybe that won't happen with 4k, but I will definitely not be betting against it.

As for shots and all that, don't forget that every year there are new films, even if one assumes, which I guess that it is true, that some older films won't benefit with 4k either because of the way they are shot of just because they got filmed/manipulated with <=2k resolution so the extra detail is not, with every passing year the shots will expect better detail.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Why isn't there a rush for the first few rows of 4K-equipped theatres? Odd thing, people still seem to be moving towards the centre and back, where they can enjoy a not-too-large image, the poor b*stards.

you are missing a few things,

first of all SMPTE has a max view angle of 30 degrees, THX has 26 (in order to pass) and 36 is the recommended

So basically what that means is that if a theatre follows the THX recommendation the last seat in the back will be at around 1.5 screen width, if it is built at THX/SMPTE it would be roughly 2x screen width (just under for SMPTE and just above for THX.


If someone is sitting in the back row he might be a bit further than 2 screen widths but possibly also 1.5 screen widths and if someone is sitting in the middle, that would mean ~ half those numbers. Most people don't sit anywhere near that close at home now. Also , there are other issues with sitting in the first row of a theatre (that is a small fraction of screen width), the audio will be a bit messed up (bad surround experience), theatres have a large slope and the video is usually created for a (3/4)/(1/4) basically that the most important stuff usually happens in the top part of the film and since a theatre will have a sloped room the front seats are usually also way too low. so someone sitting in the middle or the back is not the same as someone watching a 4' screen (which is measured diagonally so the width will be much smaller) from 10' away

[AngelGraves13]

I think Sony will be releasing a new type of violet-laser system with 500gb (single layer) and 1TB (dual layer) discs. They've been working on this tech for a few years now.

It would make sense for Sony to wait for HEVC (H.265) to be standardized and use it for encoding 4K content on disc, but they might jump the gun and release the first wave of discs with AVC (H.264) just to get to market, and then later on down the line begin releasing HEVC content.

So...what should they call it? Violet-ray? UV-ray? Gamma-ray? Ideas?

[COLD_COBRA_]

People will probably laugh at 100 million. But that's how many ps3s will likely be sold in ps3s lifetime. That's an extra 100 million players. The new xbox and ps4 won't have whatevers after blu-ray. The PS4 will have the blu-ray player, and so will the xbox most likely.

I know it's only 100 million or so extra players, but a redray player or whatever 4k player won't have the benefit of gaming consoles having the drive like dvd and blu-ray did. The consoles after ps4 and xbox720 probably won't be out until 2025 or so.

Besides, I only want to upgrade at 24k, and then 96k.

[Brightstar]

4k will be the last format !! there are only a handfull of films that are shot on 70mm which is 8k

[spawningblue]

Any other format after Bluray will be a niche format. Bluray will be the last disc format that goes wide, then it will be streaming which won't for another 10 years at the earliest.

Bluray has had enough trouble convincing people to switch from DVD as the differences weren't as upfront as VHS to DVD, many average movie watchers still haven't. You think people are going to now go out and re buy their Blurays for 4k, where the differences will be even more minimal, especially if you don't have a large TV. At best 4k can hope to be as big as laserdisc, and even then I seriously doubt it as with laserdisc you didn't need a huge TV to notice the difference. I love Groundhog Day but do I really need to pay $30 to see it in 4k, probably not. The 4k format will attract the hardcore videophiles, but I doubt you will see the discs taking up much store space, and other then the big films, I doubt you will see a lot of Blurays getting transferred to 4k.

How many Blurays have lazy transfers, are those companies all of a sudden going to care for the small market of videophiles and put money into their transfers? Are companies like Scream, Scorpion, Code Red, ect. going to spend the money to make 4k transfers? It's just not going to happen.

Bluray will be the last big disc format, you can count on it. 2k is more then enough for the average movie watcher.

And let me just add I'm not saying I'll never switch over to 4k, when the price is right I'm sure I will, but I'm not the average movie watcher. That begin said, I won't be replacing all my movies like I did with Bluray. Where as DVD had many full screen or non-anamorphic transfers, Bluray has pretty much put out the films how they were meant to be seen. A little extra colour and detail isn't going to convince me replace my 1000+ collection. For films like Star Wars and Jaws, yes, for films like Groundhog Day or Animal House, probably not.

And Sony is pushing this now because they want other companies to jump on so they can collect profits form every unit they sell. Once it's out for a year or two you will see Sony forgetting about it and looking for the next best thing. Sony likes to rush out tech out then move on to something else. How many catalog titles have they released on Bluray again? They'll put out their big titles and that'll be it for titles pre 2013.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by wormraper

everything will ALWAYS be replaced. come to grips with that and collect what you want, when you want.

If they keep it up, I will stop collecting what I want, when I want. I just want to own my movies so I can rewatch them mutiple times. I don't feel like purchasing my collection over and over because these media formats keep becoming obsolete.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

If you are in need of quick, easy-to-comprehend reassurance….the simple answer is –

No.

You don't know for sure. People might go gaga over Redray and be like, "Oh, Redray looks so amazing!! I can't even watch Blu-ray anymore" just like they way people here claim they can't watch DVDs anymore even though 10 years ago, people were very happy with the format's quality.

[Penton-Man]

Umm, sorry, I was distracted staring over to the left. What were you saying?

[cvm]

Originally Posted by spawningblue

Any other format after Bluray will be a niche format. Bluray will be the last disc format that goes wide, then it will be streaming which won't for another 10 years at the earliest.

Bluray has had enough trouble convincing people to switch from DVD as the differences weren't as upfront as VHS to DVD, many average movie watchers still haven't. You think people are going to now go out and re buy their Blurays for 4k, where the differences will be even more minimal, especially if you don't have a large TV. At best 4k can hope to be as big as laserdisc, and even then I seriously doubt it as with laserdisc you didn't need a huge TV to notice the difference. I love Groundhog Day but do I really need to pay $30 to see it in 4k, probably not. The 4k format will attract the hardcore videophiles, but I doubt you will see the discs taking up much store space, and other then the big films, I doubt you will see a lot of Blurays getting transferred to 4k.

How many Blurays have lazy transfers, are those companies all of a sudden going to care for the small market of videophiles and put money into their transfers? Are companies like Scream, Scorpion, Code Red, ect. going to spend the money to make 4k transfers? It's just not going to happen.

Bluray will be the last big disc format, you can count on it. 2k is more then enough for the average movie watcher.

And let me just add I'm not saying I'll never switch over to 4k, when the price is right I'm sure I will, but I'm not the average movie watcher. That begin said, I won't be replacing all my movies like I did with Bluray. Where as DVD had many full screen or non-anamorphic transfers, Bluray has pretty much put out the films how they were meant to be seen. A little extra colour and detail isn't going to convince me replace my 1000+ collection. For films like Star Wars and Jaws, yes, for films like Groundhog Day or Animal House, probably not.

And Sony is pushing this now because they want other companies to jump on so they can collect profits form every unit they sell. Once it's out for a year or two you will see Sony forgetting about it and looking for the next best thing. Sony likes to rush out tech out then move on to something else. How many catalog titles have they released on Bluray again? They'll put out their big titles and that'll be it for titles pre 2013.

Well said. I agree that people who haven't bought into blu-ray will not go for this. Most blu-ray collectors are in no way ready to ditch the format.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

That's because you are looking at only one aspect of it - detail.

You don't have to have a "large" screen to appreciate the superiority of 4K native content. For example, there is an entirely different spectrum of color/color depth that 4K would deliver.

But is that something inherent to 4K, or could they build 1080p screens that display color better than current ones, as well as those high-end 4K screens? I ask because I just saw an ad for this new computer monitor that supposedly displays colors much better than existing ones (see youtube vid below for more info). Maybe since they were already putting so much money into building new 4K screens, they decided to use the best possible color reproduction technology available, better than normal HD displays.

LG IPS ColorPrime Monitor - Expert Review - YouTube

[sukraj]

Originally Posted by cvm

Well said. I agree that people who haven't bought into blu-ray will not go for this. Most blu-ray collectors are in no way ready to ditch the format.

I wont ditch the format.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

But is that something inherent to 4K, or could they build 1080p screens that display color better than current ones, as well as those high-end 4K screens?...

They not only “could”….they already have, and it’s been in use for awhile with motion picture people. The monitor supports not only the Rec. 709 primary but also SMPTE C, P3, EBU and custom primaries.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professio...200-video.html

The whole issue is just not as simple as building one.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

They not only “could”….they already have, and it’s been in use for awhile with motion picture people. The monitor supports not only the Rec. 709 primary but also SMPTE C, P3, EBU and custom primaries.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professio...200-video.html

The whole issue is just not as simple as building one.

What do you mean "not as simple as building one"? If it's true that it's possible to build 1080p monitors that display colors just as well as the prototype 4K monitors, then my point was just that better color resolution isn't really a good argument for why people will want to adopt 4K (I would imagine by the time 4K monitors are widely available to consumers, 1080p monitors with better color resolution will be widely available too). Remember that I was responding to pro-bassoonist's comment 'You don't have to have a "large" screen to appreciate the superiority of 4K native content. For example, there is an entirely different spectrum of color/color depth that 4K would deliver.'

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

What do you mean "not as simple as building one"? If it's true that it's possible to build 1080p monitors that display colors just as well as the prototype 4K monitors, then my point was just that better color resolution isn't really a good argument for why people will want to adopt 4K (I would imagine by the time 4K monitors are widely available to consumers, 1080p monitors with better color resolution will be widely available too). Remember that I was responding to pro-bassoonist's comment 'You don't have to have a "large" screen to appreciate the superiority of 4K native content. For example, there is an entirely different spectrum of color/color depth that 4K would deliver.'

because you have to realize you always start with content. It is like talking up scaling, yes it can make things smoother but it can't really add any detail. Same here, to put it simply the content has a colour value for each pixel the job of the display is to properly show that colour. Some displays might have a wider gamut and some might have cool algorithms to "make it better" but without the content having better colours it is mostly meaningless and a gimmick.

Now with computer monitors it might be a bit different but for a video format there is a fixed colour space, so only a new format can add to it.

Also the eye consists of rods and cones, we have way more rods and they are used to determine brightness (dark/light), there are different types of cones and they are used to determine chroma (redish, greenish, blueish....) so colour is a function of both (i.e. dark blue, light green...) Because of this fact when colour first appeared on media like TV, in order to save bandwidth it was decided we need less resolution in hues than we do in brightness. so when we talk 1080p we are really talking 1080x1920 pixel shades of brightness (at least in theory), the chroma is limited to 540x860 pixels (i.e. for every 4 pixels-2x2 of brightness you can only have one chroma) so even if the colour space stays at 4,2,0 the higher resolution will mean better colour image


for example
[img]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_chroma_subsampling_ratios.svg[/quote]

if the top right image is what those group of 8 pixels should look like the 4,2,0 might be what you actually see on your screen beside that value (might since the way the chroma subsampe is taken can be different from one device to the next).
On the other hand with 4k (4,2,0) the U+V will be the same as in the first one but the Y will be 4x as defined.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

What do you mean "not as simple as building one"?

See Anthony P’s response.
Saved me some typing time.