4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

So, finally, someone takes a shot at describing the Device Bound digital bridge option:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing...bridge-sharing

He, like you (and Richard) won't be invited to any future BDA Christmas parties, but I love the fact that you guys have guts....compared to the typical reporter-types.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I forgot about VCD. Still, I wonder why DVD didn't come out sooner. I'm sure there are reasons.

As with the high def formats there were competing propositions which all took time to whittle down into one unified format (although there was still that ill-fated DIVX rental version), and MPEG-2 itself wasn't formalized until July 1995 according to wiki.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As with the high def formats there were competing propositions which all took time to whittle down into one unified format (although there was still that ill-fated DIVX rental version), and MPEG-2 itself wasn't formalized until July 1995 according to wiki.

I was about to mention MPEG2 wasn't ready for prime time yet. They rolled it out with DirectTV and people complained about the artifacting. I remember some LaserDisc hardcore predicting DVDs would be unwatchable because of it (water, fog, anything busy, etc).


People also wonder why BD wasn't sooner: MPEG4 AVC wasn't ready yet either...surprised everyone's forgotten about the MPEG2 and later VC-1 discs that were there at the beginning (I never thought the MPEG2 BDs were that bad).

[Geoff D]

Yep. The very first demo DVDs that I saw (I can still remember coming across a demo in a department store, I was like "holy shit guys, this is DVD!" to which my friends replied: "meh") had terrible artefacting.

And then, as now with UHD BD, there were supply problems with the larger capacity discs to begin with. Not so much in the US, but Europe had a chronic shortage of dual-layer lines which was leading to a lot of flipper discs with the movie split into two. Thankfully the format gained so much traction so quickly that the problem was soon rectified, however the problem with UHD BD is that it's going to be such a niche format that no-one wants to front the bill for the 100GB lines, but without said lines then it won't be able to reach the heights necessary to really make it such a huge step up over BD to begin with. Chicken and the egg etc etc.

Single-layer HDR solutions should be okay but as Penton said, it will have grave implications for any dual-layer HDR systems. (Edit: those aren't the same layers as disc layers, in case anyone was wondering )

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

no-one wants to front the bill for the 100GB lines

I can't help but call bullshit on the 100Gb lines, the price jump between 66Gb and 100Gb is astronomical and makes next to no sense, BDXL lines should be able to replicate the 100Gb discs and for that matter hit 128Gb whilst at it.

Disc capacity and production cost is a red line for me here there has to be someone that can see sense and has brought up the same issues I have with the BDA, it's BDXL that's throwing the spanner into the works.

I know the Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc's have a faster read speed but still it's all a bit fishy.

[Geoff D]

You can call bullshit all you want but you're coming at this from completely the wrong angle. As people have already said, BDXL is a recording format, NOT a mass replication format. Those BDXL lines are designed to produce blank discs with the appropriate dyes for end-user recording, and not to replicate specific disc ISOs on pressed, finished media. And given how niche BDXL is, I highly doubt the lines have anything like the 100,000 units per day capacity that's mandated for the retail UHD Blu-ray lines. Apples and oranges.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep. The very first demo DVDs that I saw (I can still remember coming across a demo in a department store, I was like "holy shit guys, this is DVD!" to which my friends replied: "meh") had terrible artefacting.

And then, as now with UHD BD, there were supply problems with the larger capacity discs to begin with. Not so much in the US, but Europe had a chronic shortage of dual-layer lines which was leading to a lot of flipper discs with the movie split into two. Thankfully the format gained so much traction so quickly that the problem was soon rectified, however the problem with UHD BD is that it's going to be such a niche format that no-one wants to front the bill for the 100GB lines, but without said lines then it won't be able to reach the heights necessary to really make it such a huge step up over BD to begin with. Chicken and the egg etc etc.

Single-layer HDR solutions should be okay but as Penton said, it will have grave implications for any dual-layer HDR systems. (Edit: those aren't the same layers as disc layers, in case anyone was wondering )

Yeah, the first time I saw DVD, I couldnt believe how vivid reds were compared to the orange of VHS lol.

[Brightstar]

why does 4k have 2 disks size's ? one is 50GB and the there 100GB

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

why does 4k have 2 disks size's ? one is 50GB and the there 100GB

It depends on the file size of the movie (a short film vs a longer film) and the extra content they want to add to said movie.

UHD Blu-ray has 66 GB and 100 GB discs. The 100 GB discs will allow for higher bitrates, longer movies, and more easily support HDR video content.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

why does 4k have 2 disks size's ? one is 50GB and the there 100GB

It's no different than standard BD which has two disc sizes too; 25GB and 50GB.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It depends on the file size of the movie (a short film vs a longer film) and the extra content they want to add to said movie.

UHD Blu-ray has 66 GB and 100 GB discs. The 100 GB discs will allow for higher bitrates, longer movies, and more easily support HDR video content.

Lord of the rings on one disk finally

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Lord of the rings on one disk finally

Not necessarily... if they want the best video quality for super long, extended movies like LOTR.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Not necessarily... if they want the best video quality for super long, extended movies like LOTR.

I mean FOTR EE on one disk not the whole trilogy

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

I mean FOTR EE on one disk not the whole trilogy

That's what I meant too. Each Extended Cut should get two discs (even on UHD Blu-ray) in order to get the best video quality possible.

More video data still needs more storage space and H.265 isn't quite as efficient as they say it is.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

That's what I meant too. Each Extended Cut should get two discs (even on UHD Blu-ray) in order to get the best video quality possible.

More video data still needs more storage space and H.265 isn't quite as efficient as they say it is.

That's a shame but i understand what you mean

[bruceames]

Are they going to release the initial discs with all the bells and whistles (HDR, 10 bit color, etc), even though practically none of today's TV support them yet? I don't want to have to double dip later.

[Geoff D]

Even if HDR material isn't ready to go, there's no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't have 10-bit P3 right out of the gate.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even if HDR material isn't ready to go, there's no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't have 10-bit P3 right out of the gate.

Isn't Netflix supposed to debut HDR material later this year? I would cringe knowing that Netflix is one up on UHD BD in any PQ regard.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I can't help but call bullshit on the 100Gb lines, the price jump between 66Gb and 100Gb is astronomical and makes next to no sense, BDXL lines should be able to replicate the 100Gb discs and for that matter hit 128Gb whilst at it.

Disc capacity and production cost is a red line for me here there has to be someone that can see sense and has brought up the same issues I have with the BDA, it's BDXL that's throwing the spanner into the works.

I know the Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc's have a faster read speed but still it's all a bit fishy.

There is no bullshit involved, successive layers significantly increases the manufacturing complexity and reduces yields. Even BD-50 was a huge technical challenge, most replicators had terrible yields in the early days.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by vargo

There is no bullshit involved, successive layers significantly increases the manufacturing complexity and reduces yields. Even BD-50 was a huge technical challenge, most replicators had terrible yields in the early days.

The BDA even touted triple (75GB) and quad (100GB) layers for standard Blu-ray back in the day but due to issues with the complexity and yields it never came to fruition.