4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

On a bandwidth throughput note, 10-bit 4:2:2 with scalable wide color gamut for movie content (traditional frame rate) is actually doable even with early HDMI 2.0 (10.2 Gbps) interface.

Indeed, I wouldn't have bought my Sony 4K if that weren't the case. But I've got a lingering suspicion that they'll stick with 4:2:0, unless you know something we don't on that front, hint hint...

I try to be patient with Sap as one has to understand that he is currently dealing with two simultaneous tragedies in his life….
1. The near death of film acquisition, printer lights (rather than DI) and
2. The death of plasma TV production.

Heh. There's no need for him to take it out on the rest of us.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...Heh. There's no need for him to take it out on the rest of us.

You listening Sap? When I think of “brainwashing”, I think of forcing



someone who hates soccer (and French accents) to watch the following compilation over and over again for hours/days without food or bathroom privileges.

Sony bring ‘Microtising’ to the beautiful game with Olivier Giroud - YouTube

Then, after a little respite, repeat the conditioning with the only change in the program being the addition of one more ‘4K’ to another stud.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Indeed, I wouldn't have bought my Sony 4K if that weren't the case. But I've got a lingering suspicion that they'll stick with 4:2:0,

I will neither confirm nor deny that.

In previous response, since there seems to be much confusion (unlike with you ) about the so called “HDMI 2.0 Lite” across the internet, I was taking the opportunity to clarify to all early adopting 4K tv owners/readers, what even the limited (total TMDS throughput of 10.2 Gbps) HDMI 2.0 is capable of with movie content.

[Richard Paul]

It was a few months ago but on a different forum a few people talked with Ron Martin, a spokesman for the BDA, about chroma subsampling and he told them that it was almost certain that 4:2:0 would be used.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In previous response, since there seems to be much confusion (unlike with you ) about the so called “HDMI 2.0 Lite” across the internet, I was taking the opportunity to clarify to all early adopting 4K tv owners/readers, what even the limited (total TMDS throughput of 10.2 Gbps) HDMI 2.0 is capable of with movie content.

With 24 fps video even 12-bit 4:2:2 can be delivered at 4K resolution so HDMI 1.4 bandwidth isn't a problem for movies. In theory the only thing that will matter, at least to the studios, is HDCP 2.2.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

It was a few months ago but on a different forum a few people talked with Ron Martin...

For cripes sake Richard, you send me to a thread with steve1971 spouting off about Sony and his known dislike (on this forum) for 4K. Look Stevie, Sony had a bad week…

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press...nsumer-refunds
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0J920720141125 ....so you can give it a break.

I do admit I’m rather intrigued with James Freeman . Do you know how knowledgeable he really is with D-Cinema?...other than just listing the DCP file sizes. Sounds like he actually might be a step above what they have over there (the AVS employed social media writers/reporters).

What I mean is does he know and can he elaborate a bit further on what I said a few months back in regards to “the 4K layer essentially robs bits from the 2K layer of the DCP” here…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...bs#post9578785

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

With 24 fps video even 12-bit 4:2:2 can be delivered at 4K resolution so HDMI 1.4 bandwidth isn't a problem for movies. In theory the only thing that will matter, at least to the studios, is HDCP 2.2.

So, that begs the question to all early adopters and those considering imminent purchase of a 4K tv this Holiday season with current chipsets (HDMI 2.0 [‘Lite’] and obviously HDCP 2.2 support)…..

Would the BDA leave all you millions of 2014 4K tv owners out in the cold by the spec requiring ‘full’ HDMI 2.0 (18 Gbps) support in order to transmit the 4K signal for Blu-ray movies as warned on the last page of that thread which you linked?.... http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-la...2015-a-15.html

In other words, is everyone with current HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 safe and good to go?

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I do admit I’m rather intrigued with James Freeman . Do you know how knowledgeable he really is with D-Cinema?...other than just listing the DCP file sizes. Sounds like he actually might be a step above what they have over there (the AVS employed social media writers/reporters).

What I mean is does he know and can he elaborate a bit further on what I said a few months back in regards to “the 4K layer essentially robs bits from the 2K layer of the DCP” here…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...bs#post9578785

I have read only a few of his posts but I will give that a guess. Since a 4K enhancement layer can be larger than the 2K layer than even if the file size was doubled you could have lower quality 2K video from a 4K DCP than if you had half that file size to use for a 2K DCP. Also that is based on the optimistic idea that a 4K DCP would be given double the file size and in the real world that seems to be rare.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, that begs the question to all early adopters and those considering imminent purchase of a 4K tv this Holiday season with current chipsets (HDMI 2.0 [‘Lite’] and obviously HDCP 2.2 support)…..

Would the BDA leave all you millions of 2014 4K tv owners out in the cold by the spec requiring ‘full’ HDMI 2.0 (18 Gbps) support in order to transmit the 4K signal for Blu-ray movies as warned on the last page of that thread which you linked?.... http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-la...2015-a-15.html

In other words, is everyone with current HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 safe and good to go?

As long as the 4K TV is compatible with HDCP 2.2 than 10.2 Gbps bandwidth should be plenty for 24 fps video.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Tok

So why can't some of the improvements be used to create a better BD spec without the resolution increase.

Depends.

If changes have no impact on players or playback then they can (like bonus view and BDlive early on) but if they do (or might) have an impact then there is little value of adding something that won't work with all the players. No one wants to go out and buy a BD, bring it home and because their player is a bit old the disk won't work.

So it is much easier to say "you need a 4k player for your 4k disk to work."

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by saprano

Anyone not brainwashed by 4K has been wanting the same thing. I think you know the answer to that already.

I disagree with that. Since I think it is only people that don't comprehend the ramifications that "want that".

Let me put it this way.

Dolby Atmos that has no impact on being able to watch the film has been added to the normal BD specs, same with D-box earlier in BD's life. But you can't add any of the stuff discussed as coming with 4k without having an impact on the player (that is by definition or like Atmos it would be added to the BD specs). The guy complaining about buying a 4K BD player will be the same guy that complains about having to buy a new BD player. And if someone is OK with buying a 4k player he can use the 4k player to downscale it to 1080 to watch on his TV.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Some BD players already have support for Deep Colour which will output more than 8-bit colour, but the content on the disc is still only 8-bit.

If 10-bit was to be encoded on current Blu-ray's, they would have to use the High 10 Profile of AVC, this will require the AVC decoder within the player to be updated, whether a firmware update could provide this, or it would require new silicon, I do not know. As long as the player supports Deep Colour, that information could be passed to the display.

but isn't that the point? what some BD players can do is immaterial the only thing that matters is what can all BD players do and even within that small circle of "some players" it is useless if it needs new silicon to play the disk and even with new FW it is an issue since most people don't have all their machines running the latest FW (not to mention the question of if and when such FW becomes available)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

As long as the 4K TV is compatible with HDCP 2.2 than 10.2 Gbps bandwidth should be plenty for 24 fps video.

That bears repeating to 4K tv owners (and those contemplating imminent purchases) as well as informing those newer members of Blu-ray.com of some of the consumer electronics companies who make up the BDA…. http://blu-raydisc.com/en/AboutBlu-r...Companies.aspx

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Dolby Atmos that has no impact on being able to watch the film has been added to the normal BD specs, same with D-box earlier in BD's life. But you can't add any of the stuff discussed as coming with 4k without having an impact on the player (that is by definition or like Atmos it would be added to the BD specs). The guy complaining about buying a 4K BD player will be the same guy that complains about having to buy a new BD player. And if someone is OK with buying a 4k player he can use the 4k player to downscale it to 1080 to watch on his TV.

While I think 4K resolution is worth the cost for a new video format I think the argument is that they wish that an option existed for improving other areas of video quality without having to pay the costs related to 4K resolution (decoder, processing, bit rate, etc...). Let's say that we were in some kind of mirror universe where the only difference is that the next version of Blu-ray would support 8K resolution. If you wanted any improvements in video quality beyond Blu-ray you would have to pay the costs related to 8K resolution even though the majority of movies are finished in 2K resolution. Given that situation it would seem absurd and while the real world situation is not that bad the CE companies do focus way too much on resolution.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

While I think 4K resolution is worth the cost for a new video format I think the argument is that they wish that an option existed for improving other areas of video quality without having to pay the costs related to 4K resolution (decoder, processing, bit rate, etc...). Let's say that we were in some kind of mirror universe where the only difference is that the next version of Blu-ray would support 8K resolution. If you wanted any improvements in video quality beyond Blu-ray you would have to pay the costs related to 8K resolution even though the majority of movies are finished in 2K resolution. Given that situation it would seem absurd and while the real world situation is not that bad the CE companies do focus way too much on resolution.

With how low 4K TVs are already dropping I doubt that there would be a huge price difference between a 4K TV and a 1080p TV capable of the other improved areas of video quality (if such a TV existed). The fact that 7" tablets frequently come with 1080p screens shows that resolution is not what makes screens expensive.

Additionally the extra processing power required to decode a 4K video at this point is also not expensive. My PC (which is worth less than $300) can decode 4K video, so a specialized processor built specifically for that should be even cheaper.

It's possible that 4K players will launch at high prices, but that's just because companies will charge what they think consumers will pay. Whether the new technology is 4K or if it was just improved 1080p it would be targeted to people who want a top-of-the-line home theater experience and are willing to pay for it.

Plenty of movies won't benefit from 4K resolution, but will benefit from the other improvements. Using 4K resolution for those movies won't do any harm and will add little expense.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

Additionally the extra processing power required to decode a 4K video at this point is also not expensive. My PC (which is worth less than $300) can decode 4K video, so a specialized processor built specifically for that should be even cheaper.

No current consumer CPU can reliably decode HEVC with a resolution of 4K at 60 fps and a bit rate of 100 Mbps. While HEVC hardware decoders will be cheaper than software decoding they would be expensive and will most likely make up a large portion of the cost of building a 4K Blu-ray player. Also a video format is a balance of capability and cost so any cost that goes to 4K resolution makes it less likely that others features will be included (which is likely one of the reasons that HDR got the axe). The CE companies want a video format with a reasonable price so they can use it to promote 4K TVs and my fear is that they are going to cut more than a few corners with 4K Blu-ray to make that happen.

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

Plenty of movies won't benefit from 4K resolution, but will benefit from the other improvements. Using 4K resolution for those movies won't do any harm and will add little expense.

That sounds good as long as there are other improvements that make it worth the cost.

[AK65]

Is there any danger that studio execs will think too good of a spec would hurt them at the box office so they'll tank it on purpose?

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by AK65

Is there any danger that studio execs will think too good of a spec would hurt them at the box office so they'll tank it on purpose?

It is hard to know what the studios really think about video quality. For example the Movielabs specification for next generation video sounds great but the video requirements were forgotten (support for 12-bit video, HDR, and frame rates up to 120 fps) and it seems like only the copy protection requirements will be part of 4K Blu-ray.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Really needed an upgrade in the TV department so just bit the bullet and bought the LG Electronics 49UB8500 49-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz 3D Smart LED TV. Mainly got it for its ability to play 3D and figured the 4K was just a good way to future proof.

I have a somewhat unrelated question though. I know 4K movies and shows are really scarce at the moment but if I were to say download a movie trailer that is 4K resolution and put it on my harddrive and connect it to the TV would I still be able to get the 4K resolution through a USB?

[Mansinthe]

if it doesnt come with hdmi 2.2? or 2.1 ? its not really future proof.

4K resolution and put it on my harddrive and connect it to the TV would I still be able to get the 4K resolution through a USB?

that depents of on the bitrate of that trailer and if the usb port is able to provide that speed.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by RedIsNotBlue

I know 4K movies and shows are really scarce at the moment...

In case you’re unaware (and this being the Holiday gifting season), there is an alternative while you wait on 4K Blu-ray… 200+ 4K movies…. http://store.sony.com/sony-4k-ultra-...ternet-Players

[RedIsNotBlue]

Originally Posted by Mansinthe

if it doesnt come with hdmi 2.2? or 2.1 ? its not really future proof.



that depents of on the bitrate of that trailer and if the usb port is able to provide that speed.

Lol. I'm not thinking THAT far ahead. I meant future proof as in the near future. Hell even 4K isn't future proof considering they are at some point going to have 8K HDTV's right?

Hmmm I see. Understandable about the USB. I guess I have a lot more homework to do with the technical aspects. It is Blu-ray all over again. Lol.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In case you’re unaware (and this being the Holiday gifting season), there is an alternative while you wait on 4K Blu-ray… 200+ 4K movies…. http://store.sony.com/sony-4k-ultra-...ternet-Players

Yeah I know streaming is pretty much the only option right now. I will pass on that though I am not starved for 4K content to pay that much. Don't you also really need a REALLY solid internet connection to get 4K resolution? At least when it comes to streaming feature length films that is...