4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Of the three BDA approved HDR standards, it seems that Dolby Vision is the best, so... why not use the best?

Also, they supposedly need 100 GB discs for dual layered Dolby Vision to have enough data headroom. It can do up to 12 bit depth rather than 10 with extension data, so the color is improved over standard UHD Blu-ray video not just the dynamic range (perhaps the two aren't joined at the hip, so for some movies that are not right for HDR, they can still get a bump to 12 bit).

If DTS: X is late to the game or ends up being a no show due to various issues they're currently having getting their codec implemented without glitches, I'm okay with that, since Dolby Atmos is pretty f--kin' cool (and like current lossless codecs, is pretty much the same damn thing anyway)... and I doubt titles with Dolby Vision would be caught dead with DTS: X for audio.

Fox will be all DTS.

#bringbackPCM

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Fox will be all DTS.

#bringbackPCM

Not necessarily. They'll go with whatever is easiest and cheapest... and works. DTS is having difficulty with their consumer X codec implementation right now. The code for DSP chips may not roll out to manufacturers until next year as it stands.

And straight PCM doesn't allow for object audio, it's channel-based. Yes, the audio backbone is still PCM stems, but you have to pack it with something else when you include positional and size oriented metadata instructions, and it takes up too much room without compression of some sort.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Not necessarily. They'll go with whatever is easiest and cheapest... and works. DTS is having difficulty with their consumer X codec implementation right now.

And straight PCM doesn't allow for object audio, it's channel-based. Yes, the audio backbone is still PCM stems, but you have to pack it with something else when you include positional and size oriented metadata instructions, and it takes up too much room without compression of some sort.

Fox and Universal were joint owners of DTS at some point in the 90s I don't know if it holds true today though.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Not necessarily. They'll go with whatever is easiest and cheapest... and works. DTS is having difficulty with their consumer X codec implementation right now. The code may not roll out to manufacturers until next year as it stands.

And straight PCM doesn't allow for object audio, it's channel-based. Yes, the audio backbone is still PCM stems, but you have to pack it with something else when you include positional and size oriented metadata instructions, and it takes up too much room without compression of some sort.

I am calling it now Fox will be DTS, and nothing said that it has to be X at launch or object based.

And I am aware of the values of PCM, I just prefer it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Of the three BDA approved HDR standards, it seems that Dolby Vision is the best and most extensive, so... why not use the best?

Also, they supposedly need 100 GB discs for dual layered Dolby Vision to have enough data headroom. It can do up to 12 bit depth rather than 10 with extension data, so the color is improved over standard UHD Blu-ray video not just the dynamic range (perhaps the two aren't joined at the hip, so for some movies that are not right for HDR, they can still get a bump to 12 bit).

If DTS: X is late to the game or ends up being a no show due to various issues they're currently having getting their codec implemented without glitches, I'm okay with that, since Dolby Atmos is pretty f--kin' cool (and like current lossless codecs, is pretty much the same damn thing anyway)... and I doubt titles with Dolby Vision would be caught dead with DTS: X for audio.

Higher bit depth doesn't give you improved colour per se, it gives you improved gradations of colour within whatever gamut you're using. I highly doubt the UHD BD implementation of DV will be 12-bit anyway as Dolby backtracked on the specs a while back and said that 10-bit was still doable for their system, and besides, 12-bit isn't even mentioned in the UHD BD specs released so far.

Yeah, it's probably the best HDR system overall - especially for whiny early adopters like me who would be given a properly graded SDR base layer, huzzah! - but Sony have a bad habit of ploughing their own furrow, thinking it'll lead them to fortune and glory like the good old days (Walkman, Trinitron etc) but their choices of the last 20-odd years have invariably become expensive white elephants. I hope they haven't pointed the finger of doom at Dolby Vision!

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I am calling it now Fox will be DTS, and nothing said that it has to be X at launch or object based.

And I am aware of the values of PCM, I just prefer it.

I agree, also PCM can't be used if the disc is Java enabled.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I agree, also PCM can't be used if the disc is Java enabled.

That is a bonus in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Higher bit depth doesn't give you improved colour per se, it gives you improved gradations of colour within whatever gamut you're using. I highly doubt the UHD BD implementation of DV will be 12-bit anyway as Dolby backtracked on the specs a while back and said that 10-bit was still doable for their system, and besides, 12-bit isn't even mentioned in the UHD BD specs released so far.

Yeah, it's probably the best HDR system overall - especially for whiny early adopters like me who would be given a properly graded SDR base layer, huzzah! - but Sony have a bad habit of ploughing their own furrow, thinking it'll lead them to fortune and glory like the good old days (Walkman, Trinitron etc) but their choices of the last 20-odd years have invariably become expensive white elephants. I hope they haven't pointed the finger of doom at Dolby Vision!

I wager you won't tell the difference on launch sets/players between 10 and 12

[Geoff D]

Hah. Hell, we've only just started to get true 10-bit panels coming thru anyway (as opposed to 8-bit + Hi-FRC, which is close enough that some panel manufacturers call them 10-bit regardless) so the need for 12-bit software is a long way off, providing UHD BD even makes it that far, natch.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hah. Hell, we've only just started to get true 10-bit panels coming thru anyway (as opposed to 8-bit + Hi-FRC, which is close enough that some panel manufacturers call them 10-bit regardless) so the need for 12-bit software is a long way off, providing UHD BD even makes it that far, natch.

I need discs, streaming and downloads can suck it.
But I would be OK if 4k is the last disc format

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Fox and Universal were joint owners of DTS at some point in the 90s I don't know if it holds true today though.

I'm not sure about Fox, but at one time Universal and Spielberg had some holdings in DTS, but that was back in the 90's. I don't know about now.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Higher bit depth doesn't give you improved colour per se, it gives you improved gradations of colour within whatever gamut you're using. I highly doubt the UHD BD implementation of DV will be 12-bit anyway as Dolby backtracked on the specs a while back and said that 10-bit was still doable for their system, and besides, 12-bit isn't even mentioned in the UHD BD specs released so far.

Yeah, it's probably the best HDR system overall - especially for whiny early adopters like me who would be given a properly graded SDR base layer, huzzah! - but Sony have a bad habit of ploughing their own furrow, thinking it'll lead them to fortune and glory like the good old days (Walkman, Trinitron etc) but their choices of the last 20-odd years have invariably become expensive white elephants. I hope they haven't pointed the finger of doom at Dolby Vision!

Finer gradation of color is still better reproduction of color. Let's not play on semantics. And because 12 bit video is part of the second layer of Dolby Vision as are the extra dynamics data, it's backwards compatible with 10 bit and regular HDR. Why not have it included?

Displays that can handle Dolby Vision are covered and those that aren't get a basic 10 bit and HDR presentation. All of the HDR formats have to meet the base SMPTE specifications laid out by the BDA, so that every HDR set gets something out of a disc labeled as HDR graded.

I'd think it's a way, just like Rec. 2020, that the BDA and UHD Alliance are trying to be forward thinking... a little bit... even if they won't have all the goodies at once.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I thought there was more than one standard in the specs?
No HDR is better, it all stinks of emperors new clothes and a reason to buy over the lack of actual 4k on the Fox titles.

It depends on how a studio chooses to implement HDR. If you use it as a tool to reproduce a more professional range of camera dynamics from the original files or negatives, that's great... more detail in the darkest areas and the brightest areas of the image as was intended.

If HDR is just used to punch the brightness to eleven like the Dynamic setting on a TV at a store, then that is an abuse of the tool.

Just like DNR, just like sharpening.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Finer gradation of color is still better reproduction of color. Let's not play on semantics. And because 12 bit video is part of the second layer of Dolby Vision as are the extra dynamics data, it's backwards compatible with 10 bit and regular HDR. Why not have it included?

Displays that can handle Dolby Vision are covered and those that aren't get a basic 10 bit and HDR presentation. All of the HDR formats have to meet the base SMPTE specifications laid out by the BDA, so that every HDR set gets something out of a disc labeled as HDR graded.

I'd think it's a way, just like Rec. 2020, that the BDA and UHD Alliance are trying to be forward thinking... a little bit... even if they won't have all the goodies at once.

As I said, 12-bit isn't actually included in the UHD BD spec that we've seen so far. And regarding UHD BD bandwidth (100GB may be rarer than hen's teeth) & the preference for some to use a simpler single layer solution, Dolby have developed their own single layer version of DV which allows for "percieved 12-bit fidelity" encoded within a 10-bit profile (e.g. the versions of HEVC included within UHD BD) using tone mapping. They'll be using the dual layer 12-bit version for OTT services but it looks as if UHD BD will be using this single layer "perceived 12-bit" approach.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Fox and Universal were joint owners of DTS at some point in the 90s I don't know if it holds true today though.

Universal had a stake in what is now Datasat.
I think their Dolby Atmos Blu-rays should answer your question.

Fox never did, and was one of the first companies to support Dolby Digital on LaserDisc.

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I am calling it now Fox will be DTS, and nothing said that it has to be X at launch or object based.

Fox's theatrical slate is aggressively Atmos.


Why call it? Object based audio is an entirely different ball of wax than lossless compression and authoring. So far Dolby has shown their ready from mixing board to home. DTS has little to nothing, and they've already abandoned the race for ATSC 3.0 standards. Hopefully the people in charge are sick of DTS' s--- of waiting for Dolby to innovate and then introducing their own version that "goes to 11".

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I agree, also PCM can't be used if the disc is Java enabled.

?


Nope.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

?


Nope.

?

Are you sure?

It disappeared from Blu-ray once they went 2.0

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

?

Are you sure?

It disappeared from Blu-ray once they went 2.0

I think it's more because the authoring packages that use Dolby TrueHD & DTS-HD MA became standard.


Some labels still use PCM occasionally, overseas too.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Universal had a stake in what is now Datasat.
I think their Dolby Atmos Blu-rays should answer your question.

Fox never did, and was one of the first companies to support Dolby Digital on LaserDisc.

Fox's theatrical slate is aggressively Atmos.

Why call it? Object based audio is an entirely different ball of wax than lossless compression and authoring. So far Dolby has shown their ready from mixing board to home. DTS has little to nothing, and they've already abandoned the race for ATSC 3.0 standards. Hopefully the people in charge are sick of DTS' s--- of waiting for Dolby to innovate and then introducing their own version that "goes to 11".

History will repeat itself, DTS will come late to the game and steamroll Dolby. Anyone purchasing an Atmos-only processor better save up for the DTS:X processor they will inevitably have to buy in 2 years.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Ruined

History will repeat itself, DTS will come late to the game and steamroll Dolby. Anyone purchasing an Atmos-only processor better save up for the DTS:X processor they will inevitably have to buy in 2 years.

and then another one when DTS finally releases a layout.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

History will repeat itself, DTS will come late to the game and steamroll Dolby. Anyone purchasing an Atmos-only processor better save up for the DTS:X processor they will inevitably have to buy in 2 years.

Quoted for truth.