4K Movies Releases

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by dib2

The thing to remember is that by the time 4K is available screen sizes will be much larger and you won't have to pay so much for that size of screen.

You will immediately notice the massive gap in color depth between 1080p and 4K. It remains to be seen, however, how good the 4K upscaling will be, as at least the first wave of new Blu-ray players will be used primarily for 4K upscaling as I don't foresee a lot of 4K content to be made available on the market in the next 2-3 years.

Pro-B

[Steedeel]

Zoe is starting to sound like slick. I suppose all the millions who play on their xbox and ps3 are just going to abandon their tvs in the future. Talking utter tripe. Only single people or young professionals are going to move into those apartments with so much glass. Families will always have a big display.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

You will immediately notice the massive gap in color depth between 1080p and 4K. It remains to be seen, however, how good the 4K upscaling will be, as at least the first wave of new Blu-ray players will be used primarily for 4K upscaling as I don't foresee a lot of 4K content to be made available on the market in the next 2-3 years.

Pro-B

Well, it's not like you've ever been wrong before.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Well, it's not like you've ever been wrong before.

What is this statement meat to convey?

Two years ago there was a demonstration at CES where there was a 4K prototype (TV) placed next to a 1080p display. The prototype was displaying 4K images (not film) and the difference in color reproduction was very obvious.

As far as 4K content on Blu-ray is concerned, I believe that I am very well informed as to what could possibly be on the market in the next 2-3 years.

And you don't need to be concerned about my record. It is excellent.

Pro-B

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

What is this statement meat to convey?

Two years ago there was a demonstration at CES where there was a 4K prototype (TV) placed next to a 1080p. The prototype was displaying 4K images (not film) and the difference in color reproduction was very obvious.

As far as 4K content on Blu-ray is concerned, I believe that I am very well informed as to what could possibly be on the marker in the next 2-3 years.

And you don't need to be concerned about my record. It is excellent.

Pro-B

There will never be 4k content on Blu-Ray. No Blu-Ray player can display 4k content and even if they could it would require 4x more disk capacity that Blu-Ray players can't read

Therefore if 4k content were to come to market it would essentially be a new format not Blu-Ray

I don't expect to ever see a 4k format either. I expect 4k home media to come via download only unfortunitly

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

What is this statement meat to convey?

Two years ago there was a demonstration at CES where there was a 4K prototype (TV) placed next to a 1080p. The prototype was displaying 4K images (not film) and the difference in color reproduction was very obvious.

As far as 4K content on Blu-ray is concerned, I believe that I am very well informed as to what could possibly be on the marker in the next 2-3 years.

And you don't need to be concerned about my record. It is excellent.

Pro-B

And there it is right there.

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

There will never be 4k content on Blu-Ray. No Blu-Ray player can display 4k content and even if they could it would require 4x more disk capacity that Blu-Ray players can't read

Therefore if 4k content were to come to market it would essentially be a new format not Blu-Ray

I don't expect to ever see a 4k format either. I expect 4k home media to come via download only unfortunitly

Blu-ray did not support 3D when it was released either. There is no reason why it can't adopt 4K.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

What is this statement meat to convey?

Two years ago there was a demonstration at CES where there was a 4K prototype (TV) placed next to a 1080p. The prototype was displaying 4K images (not film) and the difference in color reproduction was very obvious.

As far as 4K content on Blu-ray is concerned, I believe that I am very well informed as to what could possibly be on the marker in the next 2-3 years.

And you don't need to be concerned about my record. It is excellent.

Pro-B

This is what i was hoping would happen. I want to see other areas improve besides just adding pixels.

Good news to me.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

Blu-ray did not support 3D when it was released either. There is no reason why it can't adopt 4K.

The difference is 3D only requires 50% higher bitrate then 2D. Thus a BD-50 can still fit virtually any movie under 2.5 hours in 3D with lossless audio with no quality loss

4k requires 4x the bitrate of 1080p. Even in 2D it could only hold like an hour of play. How many movies are that short? Thus it would require higher capacity discs. If newer higher capacity discs are used why even call it Blu-Ray. It would essencially be a new format

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

There will never be 4k content on Blu-Ray. No Blu-Ray player can display 4k content and even if they could it would require 4x more disk capacity that Blu-Ray players can't read

Therefore if 4k content were to come to market it would essentially be a new format not Blu-Ray

I don't expect to ever see a 4k format either. I expect 4k home media to come via download only unfortunitly

Instead of discussing the new codec that has been created for 4K content and changes in Blu-ray's tech portfolio to accommodate it, why don't we do this:

You bookmark these two posts - the one where you claim that there will never be 4K content on Blu-ray and my post above - for future reference, and then when 4K content appears on the market, you bring them up to see whether I was only speculating.


Edit:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

If newer higher capacity discs are used why even call it Blu-Ray. It would essencially be a new format

Because it is still Blu-ray, with a different portfolio, not a different format. This is why it was essential that Blu-ray won the format war - its flexibility was/is crucial.

Anyhow...

Pro-B

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Because it is still Blu-ray, with a different portfolio, not a different format. This is why it was essential that Blu-ray won the format war - its flexibility was/is crucial.

Anyhow...

Pro-B

Thats like saying DVD and Blu-Ray are the same format because they are both discs. I say to avoid confusion its better to just call it a new format

Not Compatible with current players
Requires new discs
= New Format

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Thats like saying DVD and Blu-Ray are the same format because they are both discs. I say to avoid confusion its better to just call it a new format

Not Compatible with current players
Requires new discs
= New Format

It seems to me the only person that is confused here is you , and that is because you are obviously not well informed as to what has been done so far.

It will be called Blu-ray.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

It seems to me the only person that is confused here is you , and that is because you are obviously not well informed as to what has been done so far.

It will be called Blu-ray.

The only 4k Blu-Ray will be 1080p upconverted to 4k

With Blu-Ray they have to package it in different cases and market it in order to not confuse the general public and make sure it was seen as a new format over DVD. Yet the knuckle walkers in the general public still had a few who returned there Blu-Rays wondering why they wouldn't play in there DVD players

Why create a new format with new incompatible discs that not a single Blu-Ray player can read but call it the same thing. Thats probably the worst marketing decision in history. It makes no sense whatsoever. It won't happen.

But I doubt there will ever be a 4k physical format. I think all native 4k content will be entirely download

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The difference is 3D only requires 50% higher bitrate then 2D. Thus a BD-50 can still fit virtually any movie under 2.5 hours in 3D with lossless audio with no quality loss

4k requires 4x the bitrate of 1080p. Even in 2D it could only hold like an hour of play. How many movies are that short? Thus it would require higher capacity discs. If newer higher capacity discs are used why even call it Blu-Ray. It would essencially be a new format

Well I'm sure there would be a new codec to support 4K home video, that keeps the compression at the right level to fit it to the disc. AVC showed that we can go from 480i to 1080p with minimal increase in bitrate. I still anticipate a higher bitrate for 4K than 17-20, but not 4x. To say it "requires" any amount of increase in bit rate would be incorrect. I would expect a quad-layer Blu-ray, which still uses the same violet laser as regular Blu-ray, makes it great for backward compatibility for regular Blu-ray, and helps eliminates concerns over a new format. So there is reason for calling it Blu-ray. Existing players could read a 4 or 8 layer disc, just not a new video codec.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

Well I'm sure there would be a new codec to support 4K home video, that keeps the compression at the right level to fit it to the disc. AVC showed that we can go from 480i to 1080p with minimal increase in bitrate. I still anticipate a higher bitrate for 4K than 17-20, but not 4x. To say it "requires" any amount of increase in bit rate would be incorrect. I would expect a quad-layer Blu-ray, which still uses the same violet laser as regular Blu-ray, makes it great for backward compatibility for regular Blu-ray, and helps eliminates concerns over a new format. So there is reason for calling it Blu-ray. Existing players could read a 4 or 8 layer disc, just not a new video codec.

Existing players are all designed to read a maximum of two layers. 4 layer discs would not be compatible with current players

Also AVC and VC-1 are at most twice as efficient as MPEG-2. Blu-Rays compressed at similar bitrates to DVDs don't deliever video-wise. A better codec will help but that alone will not be enough to fit a full lenth 4k movie on one BD-50.

Thus again native 4k physical media would require a new format

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The difference is 3D only requires 50% higher bitrate then 2D. Thus a BD-50 can still fit virtually any movie under 2.5 hours in 3D with lossless audio with no quality loss

4k requires 4x the bitrate of 1080p. Even in 2D it could only hold like an hour of play. How many movies are that short? Thus it would require higher capacity discs. If newer higher capacity discs are used why even call it Blu-Ray. It would essencially be a new format

You could theoretically have a new "super-density" Blu-ray that would only work on newer players that would also be backwards compatible with older discs. That would, unfortunately, cause some consumer confusion, but no more than needing a BD player capable of 3D (or passing 3D) to play a 3D movie.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You could theoretically have a new "super-density" Blu-ray that would only work on newer players that would also be backwards compatible with older discs. That would, unfortunately, cause some consumer confusion, but no more than needing a BD player capable of 3D (or passing 3D) to play a 3D movie.

Blu-Ray 3D uses the same discs and codec as 2D Blu-Ray. A 4k format could not do this. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

But again why call it Blu-Ray?

It would make far more marketing sense to simply call it a new format given that it essentially would be. Calling it Blu-Ray would do nothing be create unessesary confusion for no reason whatsoever.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Zoe is starting to sound like slick. I suppose all the millions who play on their xbox and ps3 are just going to abandon their tvs in the future. Talking utter tripe. Only single people or young professionals are going to move into those apartments with so much glass. Families will always have a big display.

If you want to criticize my argument, use some facts. The FACT is that according to the NPD Group, an industry research organization, during the five-week winter retail holiday period ending December 24, only one in six flat panel TVs sold were above 50 inches. That's less than 17%. That's even less than I would have guessed. I would have guessed at least 40% would be above 50".

The thread had nothing to do with people abandoning their TVs. It had to do with whether people would buy very large screens (70", 80" and above) if 4K became an available consumer product. This was discussed because many argued that one would need a screen that large to perceive the improved quality that 4K provides at most viewing distances.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Bigger than the average person's TV. Bigger than the typical high-end home theater.

Most people don't even have big enough screens and sit close enough to justify having 1080p over 720p. In a world where 1080p is already overkill in most cases, 4K really isn't going to be justified in hardly any cases.

I don't really buy into this line of thinking. First, I know that HDTV channels look better on an SDTV than non-HD channels. Even if the source is higher quality than the display, one can notice the quality difference.

Second, it may be subjective as to what a "high end" home theater is but I know many people who have screens large enough to notice the difference. In reality though, it isn't about how big the screen is but how close you sit. If you sit closer than 1.6x the width, you will be able to notice the improvement over 1080p.

I couldn't see what distance I would have to sit to notice the difference on the chart because it didn't have my screen size on it (163" disagonal).

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

If you want to criticize my argument, use some facts. The FACT is that according to the NPD Group, an industry research organization, during the five-week winter retail holiday period ending December 24, only one in six flat panel TVs sold were above 50 inches. That's less than 17%. That's even less than I would have guessed. I would have guessed at least 40% would be above 50".

The thread had nothing to do with people abandoning their TVs. It had to do with whether people would buy very large screens (70", 80" and above) if 4K became an available consumer product. This was discussed because many argued that one would need a screen that large to perceive the improved quality that 4K provides at most viewing distances.

First off, I am guessing that is all flat panel TV sets, which would include 24" computer monitors that include a TV tuner. That isn't part of the normal primary home theater display group and would water down the results.

Second, why the hell would most people look for flat panel TV sets for displays 80" and above when the best deal in that range is for using a front projector.