4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Many of which are still upconverted 2k.

I meant the movies available on their 4K Unlimited service. If I rent or buy a movie there, then at least I don't have to check IMDb to see if it's the real deal. Besides, they do seem to be more inclined to do 4K masters on their new releases than other studios, as well as remaster older titles in 4K. I wonder when Sony is going to speak up on UHD BD. I don't think they've said a peep, or have they?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I meant the movies available on their 4K Unlimited service. If I rent or buy a movie there, then at least I don't have to check IMDb to see if it's the real deal. Besides, they do seem to be more inclined to do 4K masters on their new releases than other studios, as well as remaster older titles in 4K. I wonder when Sony is going to speak up on UHD BD. I don't think they've said a peep, or have they?

I can't imagine there will be much movement until CES. UHD Blu-ray has pretty much been delayed until 2016.

Hell, Sony hasn't even come out with a receiver with Atmos or X decoding.

[PeterTHX]

No audio specs announced yet for the Fox titles?

All of them received a Dolby Atmos mix theatrically and are gimped to 7.1 on Blu-ray. Hoping they will fix that.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No audio specs announced yet for the Fox titles?

All of them received a Dolby Atmos mix theatrically and are gimped to 7.1 on Blu-ray. Hoping they will fix that.

I think it's safe to say you'll be seeing a lot more immersive titles once UHD Blu-ray debuts. That's why the regular Blu-ray's have been gimped.

[Teazle]

Always figured it'd be delayed, but at least we finally have more info.

Re: upconverts from 2K, BIG thumbs down.

[bobbydrugar]

What you didn't see that coming. Why worry about quality when you have the only options available to cater to the rabid early adopter. When there are only like a dozen or so films to choose from the beta testers will buy all of them and discuss how not from 4k masters are hurting the format and I can't wait till better encodes are made and I'm sure there will be a re-release down the road etc, etc. Meanwhile the average (see majority) consumer will sit back listen to all of this and only hear that this tech is not that good and will stick with what they already have. Then the studios will look at the sales and say well that is a dead end not worth pursuing lets release more DVD's. Then the Hardware manufacturers will abandon this to move onto the next big thing to try to move units. and the Cycle continues. None of these offenders of consumer trust will ever admit culpability and I think much to their inevitable downfall eventually the consumer will simply no longer have any faith in these studios and manufacturers and they will fail.

Oh well circle of life
T

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Seeing this gets me excited, but I kinda have mixed feelings about buying day one. The emphasis now is on HDR, and my 2013 Sony set won't take advantage of it. If HDR is the main difference-maker, then I may sit tight until I upgrade my 4K TV. Just a resolution bump doesn't make much difference in PQ, in most cases.

Just to rub salt into the wound, Sony have announced that they'll be upgrading the firmware for more of their 2015 4K sets to be HDR compatible, even the ones without the X-tended Dynamic Range feature of the higher end sets. Whether it's just a simple compatibility mode or will actually enable a pseudo-HDR output mapped to the specific talents of the TV is unclear, but it still takes the piss that even the 'basic' 2015 models will get this while the 2013/2014 models, even the premium ones, can go spit. I *know* I shouldn't be surprised and so butthurt that older tech is left behind (shock horror!), but it still irks me that it all changed so completely within one product generation. Bobby knows best.

I'm not sure it was even worth putting HDCP 2.2 on those first few 4K TV product ranges, as we're gonna get such a small benefit from the SDR/Rec.709 converted 4K output (which you've seen for yourself on the Sony 4K media player) it's just not worth paying that premium for versus the normal Blu-ray edition, which will look fabulous upscaled anyway.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Just to rub salt into the wound, Sony have announced that they'll be upgrading the firmware for more of their 2015 4K sets to be HDR compatible, even the ones without the X-tended Dynamic Range feature of the higher end sets. Whether it's just a simple compatibility mode or will actually enable a pseudo-HDR output mapped to the specific talents of the TV is unclear, but it still takes the piss that even the 'basic' 2015 models will get this while the 2013/2014 models, even the premium ones, can go spit. I *know* I shouldn't be surprised and so butthurt that older tech is left behind (shock horror!), but it still irks me that it all changed so completely within one product generation. Bobby knows best.

I'm not sure it was even worth putting HDCP 2.2 on those first few 4K TV product ranges, as we're gonna get such a small benefit from the SDR/Rec.709 converted 4K output (which you've seen for yourself on the Sony 4K media player) it's just not worth paying that premium for versus the normal Blu-ray edition, which will look fabulous upscaled anyway.

I'm not gonna upgrade again for a couple of years and what with several hundred unwatched BD's as it is, I'm in no hurry to buy into UHD BD. Guess I'll just have to live with my Blu-rays looking fabulous upscaled to 4K for the time being.

[Brightstar]

Samsung launches first the world’s first 4K Blu-ray player

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...blu-ray-player

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/...y-disc-player/

[Teazle]

The more I think about it the dumber these Fox upconverts seem to me. One of the big lessons from 3D was: don't try to fake it. Audiences will take note, however unconsciously. Fake 3D seriously helped compromise what was supposed to be a premium experience (& product).

Now here they go repeating the same mistakes with fake 4K out of the gate. Nice going, nincompoops.

[KRW1]

Am I wrong in thinking that even if a film is 2k, there are going to be improvements offered by 4k beyond resolution?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Am I wrong in thinking that even if a film is 2k, there are going to be improvements offered by 4k beyond resolution?

You're not wrong, there are several other benefits. But part of the reason for adopting the UHD moniker over 4K was that the UHD ecosystem (sorry Dex) could include things like HDR @ 1080p and not necessarily be expressly tied in to 4K resolution. But if Fox are going to actually mention 4K so heavily in their branding (I noticed no 4K logo on the Samsung player though) then it would kinda make sense that the source material was actually 4K to begin with, instead of 2K upscales.

Heck, I still think a fair bit of filtration is carried out to Blu-ray titles (if only to smooth over the scaling down to 1080p) so it's possible that without that filtration and with a tight upscale to 4K plus WCG, 10-bit depth and HDR on top then the 2K 'UHD' stuff could still look seriously saucy. But it still won't please consumers to hear that it's not actually genuine 4K material, [edit] so dropping the 4K labeling and putting 2K stuff on there as 1080p would probably be the smarter way to go.

[Kris Deering]

1080p with all the other goodies would look fantastic and I'm all for it if that is what the master gives us. True 4K masters with all the goodies is even better. Give me the true master, don't try and sell me an upscale that isn't needed, my player can do that (and probably just as well or better).

[bobbydrugar]

Just in case some clarification is needed. the move down from 2k to 1080P is not as great as it sounds in that the 2k designation is for Horizontal pixel count where as 1080P is a Vertical Pixel count. therefore 2K actually means 2048X1080 and 1080P is 1920X1080 so there are really only about 128 horizontal lines. so not really that big of a difference.

T

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bobbydrugar

Just in case some clarification is needed. the move down from 2k to 1080P is not as great as it sounds in that the 2k designation is for Horizontal pixel count where as 1080P is a Vertical Pixel count. therefore 2K actually means 2048X1080 and 1080P is 1920X1080 so there are really only about 128 horizontal lines. so not really that big of a difference.

T

True enough Mr T. They can either scale or crop the 2K master, cropping will preserve a 1:1 pixel relationship but you'll lose the intended aspect ratio (e.g. 2.39 'scope would become about 2.23), or you can scale which leaves the entire image intact but can have quite obvious artefacts (aliasing etc) if not done right. To avoid those artefacts I think the masters are pre-filtered first which sucks out more detail anyway, but they'd rather have a softer image without artefacts than a sharper one with stair-stepped edges.

[bobbydrugar]

Great post Geoff. I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page as I have seen some people see the 2K and think wow that twice as good as 1080.

T

[Geoff D]

Gimme dat 2K!!!! It's twice as nice!!

[djesteban]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

They will not. Current drives are for recordable BDXL media. These are stamped and are somewhat different in spec. Very possible that no one will be allowed to create UHD Blu-ray computer drives outside of a set top unit.

And you know that... how? Got any source on that?

In my case, if that's true, I'll pass on 4k blu-ray. I dump all my blu-ray movies in mkv format for usability and back-up purpose. Way faster to browse a digital movie library then looking for my discs. Also I don't need to wait for stupid menus, warning and such. I basically never use my BD after I've ripped them... they end up in a giant cardboard box.

[Jimmy Smith]

Figured it would be delayed to 2016. What I don't get about most of the titles is not only are they 2k upconversions but many were in 3D something Ultra HD lacks. Thus not only are they not much of an upgrade they are a huge downgrade

I will hold out for Kingsman I haven't picked up that title so I will hold out for the Ultra HD release. I need to see Maze Runner to see if its any good

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Figured it would be delayed to 2016. What I don't get about most of the titles is not only are they 2k upconversions but many were in 3D something Ultra HD lacks. Thus not only are they not much of an upgrade they are a huge downgrade

I will hold out for Kingsman I haven't picked up that title so I will hold out for the Ultra HD release. I need to see Maze Runner to see if its any good

For one thing, there are no True 4k 3D titles. They're all 2k, so studios are in no hurry to adopt a frame packed 4k 3D codec.

There is room in the specs. for 1080p with all the extra goodies, so that's probably how they'll produce 3D titles.