4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Selaboc]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I would hate having more exclusives!

What they also need to do is:

1) Get rid of the awful, bloated Java software that loads and reacts so slowly.

2) Stop locking the functions of our remotes.

3) End all these friggin' layers of previews at the beginning of the discs.

4) You should put the disc in and have it load right to the menu... hit play... and the screen fades to black and the movie starts. All this other junk just pisses people off and makes them want to crack the encryption to rip the discs just to get rid of the extraneous B.S.

Agreed, especially on #4.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

http://www.digitalbits.com/columns/m...ts/010615_1530

More official info. So it seems like the disc spec is maxing out at 100 gigabytes. That seems a bit low and with a higher bitrate it will be difficult to fit a three hour plus movie on one disc and that's considering. I was hoping for 128 gigabyte capacity to fit larger films without needing to compromise the bitrate

A three hour 24p movie @ 65 Mb/s average bit rate would be about 85 GB, that leaves plenty of room on a 100 GB platter for whatever lossless audio they would use. Incidentally, a two hour movie at the same bit rate would be roughly 57 GB so again, there's plenty of space left for the audio on a 66 GB disc.

People have got to get it into their heads that HEVC is not some form of witchcraft, it's simply the latest and greatest compression codec. This stuff doesn't stand still; AVC and VC-1 were co-opted for high def media because they represented a big step up over MPEG-2 which itself was a massive improvement over MPEG-1, and HEVC presents a similar step-up with a much more adaptive block structure and huge efficiency savings.

As for not getting four hours on a disc without sacrificing bit rate, 'twas ever thus with both DVD and BD for the simple reason that not all films are four (or more) hours long - so why build in all that room as standard even though it'll hardly ever be used? They'd be throwing money away. So people will once again have to put up with swapping discs for very long features, to which I say what I've always said: get over it.

Glad to see Bill Hunt's not shitting all over UHD BD as I thought he might, given all the 4K doom and gloom to have emanated from his site in recent months. It's not really new news, given that this thread's as good a place as any to get the skinny on how UHD BD is developing, but it's nice to see it in (digital) print all the same.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

128 GBs would've been nice, but there will always be exceptions in film history. The 4½ hour Gettysburg would be a struggle to fit even on a 128 gig disc with a maxed out bit rate. Then you have the juggernaut over them all, Shoah with its massive 9½ hours.

I don't think 128 gigs would cover all movies much less television season sets but I think it would help and since its been available as part of the BD-XL spec I thought it would be natural for it to be supported by Ultra HD Blu-Ray. I'm hoping the first players are compatible with 128 gig discs so that titles can eventually use them even if the first titles don't use them yet

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I don't think 128 gigs would cover all movies much less television season sets but I think it would help and since its been available as part of the BD-XL spec I thought it would be natural for it to be supported by Ultra HD Blu-Ray. I'm hoping the first players are compatible with 128 gig discs so that titles can eventually use them even if the first titles don't use them yet

It may also be that 128 GB discs, on current disc manufacturing lines, are BD-R's or BD-RW's only and not a stamped type of disc.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Glad to see Bill Hunt's not shitting all over UHD BD as I thought he might, given all the 4K doom and gloom to have emanated from his site in recent months...

Are you surprised though? Given what we spoke about last autumn..

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ll bet you one thing though, when a 4K Blu-ray Science Fiction movie hits the shelves, after Bill giving a perfunctory comment on how 4KBD is a niche format…and/or won’t last long…and the 4K upgrade for that particular science fiction flick being a mild but noticeable improvement and therefore may be worthwhile for true fans of that film (you know the qualified spiel) - - sure as heck once he’s finished with the qualifiers, he’ll be working it hard for sales through his website as well as in lead-ups to the actual review...despite what he sees and emphasizes in editorials as inherent problems with the 4K BD format in general.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not really new news, given that this thread's as good a place as any to get the skinny on how UHD BD is developing, but it's nice to see it in (digital) print all the same.

True and at least the current article is not encumbered with several factual 4K UHD errors like that of Bill’s other previous 4K blogger piece, which was linked to on our forum last Sept.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

How far away do you sit from your screen?

On my mere 100 inch screen at a 7.5 foot viewing distance (from the beginning of the chair), 1080p definitely shows it's faults, and I'm not comfortable pushing the seats any farther back, else I defeat the purpose of having a big screen.

No, there's something wrong somewhere. I'm about 8-10 feet away from a 144" screen and I'm fooled into thinking I'm watching 35mm most of the time (caveat, unless it's an especially bad transfer). I expect to be bowled over by 4k at that sort of size.

The only time I notice pixel structure is if there's an uncomfortable level of Edge Enhancement but I seem to come across that less and less these days.

DVD/Netflix is almost unwatchable, however, even at 'Super HD' - it's not the level of detail, its' the movement and motion blur. Looks like LCD and takes you right out of the movie.

DVD just looks a mess.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

OLED has a tough hill to climb. Yields are still unacceptable and many have switched gears to Quantum Dots and other, cheaper LCD panel improvements.

And the hill will get even steeper with the impending availability of HDR content to be shown on capable LCDs with ott (over the top) services. HDR content won’t be difficult to commoditize because as I explained months ago, with a plugin, most notably Dolby’s at the current time, it’s not really a big deal to produce an HDR master with a color grading system.

On the other hand, the jury is still out though as to whether prices can/will get down low enough to commoditize OLED monitors (which I like very much), or whether they will remain an option only for the more economically privileged. Was anyone else pushing OLED panels at CES other than LG, or do they remain the sole survivor in developing and promoting the tech for consumer availability?

With HDR, one of my main reservations is concerning catalog motion pictures, specifically the temptation for some content owners to willy-nilly regrade them in HDR without studio transparency to information regarding the involvement of the Director (or his proxy) in the process. It would be reassuring if the studios noted somewhere on the HDR regrades in writing rather than *corporate speak*, that so-and-so was actively involved in the new color corrected version because although HDR has the potential to be a very significant jump in image quality esp. in combination with 4K rez, the tradeoff is that in showing so much information on the image, the filmmaker may not have actually wanted some things in the frame to be comparatively more visible to the audience to begin with, as they could distract from the storytelling or something else in the frame.

Thusly, HDR regrades should be made in close collaboration with the filmmaker (preferably he/she being physically present in the color correction suite) rather than placing that *reimagining* of the motion picture burden solely on the shoulders of the technologist in order to quickly get product out the door.

[Penton-Man]

^ P.S.
All that said, with totally new motion pictures, the issue of filmmaker consent/involvement shouldn’t be an issue at all as the HDR grading is essentially the ‘hero grade’ from the get-go as explained on another thread in the tech forum… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...o#post10119354

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Are you surprised though? Given what we spoke about last autumn..

I know I know, I had that in the back of my mind when typing out that post. As soon as there's product ready to shift he'll be hard at it, and the tone of that editorial was already somewhat conciliatory.

[Zeekomkommer]

Originally Posted by Nightopian

With the 4K bluray format supporting 60fps, does that mean we may see The Hobbit in 48fps being ported over?

I might hold off from buying the boxset this year if thats the case...

It depends if WB wants to release it like that. I don't see why they won't though. Besides, 4K TV's and probably the BD too are too pricey for me.... Is it possible to download a 4K HFR Hobbit film and play that on my 1080p TV? Or would that be too much to handle for the TV? Not to forget, how large should the download be to come close to actual 4K? It can't possibly be 100GB right... That's just too much to download...

Oh I'm such a n00b, forgive me for that please. I know some about it and about the camera's the filmmakers use but not yet everything.

As for HFR, I think Cameron might be on the right track to use 24FPS and 48FPS for the Avatar sequels. I read somewhere that it could be projected in HFR only that the 24FPS shots are doubled. So by shooting in 24FPS instead of HFR the sets won't look 'fake' as they do in The Hobbit (i.e. made of synthetic material which needs to represent real material). So I can see that working out for Cameron but it's still a bit odd.... Or is there another thread here about that which I can read to get to know more about it? Spitting the site now though, I might find it myself

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Zeekomkommer

It depends if WB wants to release it like that. I don't see why they won't though. Besides, 4K TV's and probably the BD too are too pricey for me.... Is it possible to download a 4K HFR Hobbit film and play that on my 1080p TV? Or would that be too much to handle for the TV? Not to forget, how large should the download be to come close to actual 4K? It can't possibly be 100GB right... That's just too much to download...

Oh I'm such a n00b, forgive me for that please. I know some about it and about the camera's the filmmakers use but not yet everything.

As for HFR, I think Cameron might be on the right track to use 24FPS and 48FPS for the Avatar sequels. I read somewhere that it could be projected in HFR only that the 24FPS shots are doubled. So by shooting in 24FPS instead of HFR the sets won't look 'fake' as they do in The Hobbit (i.e. made of synthetic material which needs to represent real material). So I can see that working out for Cameron but it's still a bit odd.... Or is there another thread here about that which I can read to get to know more about it? Spitting the site now though, I might find it myself

48 fps will probably be supported, but if WB decides to release it that way...it will have to be 2D for the time being. There is no HFR 3D 4k spec in place... nor is there one for regular 4k 3D for that matter.

I do think 48 fps material will also have a downconverted 24 fps version available as well. Not everyone likes the look.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

IIRC Paramount and Universal exclusively backed HD DVD at one point or another, so it wouldn't be a huge surprise that they'd want to upset the apple cart again. But Sony, man......

This quote from an analyst in the BBC article linked above about sums it up for me:

"There's an enthusiast market for the very best in video and audio material, and disks will be a very good way to deliver that content," says Mr Mercer.

"If the industry can get its act together and bring the standard to market soon, then it has potential. But the window is beginning to close as the momentum is very much towards video on-demand over the net."

I agree they should get their act together sooner rather than later, but won't the majority of people go for 1080p or 4K streaming anyway? Won't the enthusiasts wait for 4KBD?

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Won't the enthusiasts wait for 4KBD?

I know I will. I've already entered a sort of buying moratorium. TOOTSIE, BIG CHILL and HARD DAYS NIGHT would normally have been day one purchases for me. But they all have 4K masters, and I have to believe will be made available in UltraHD Bluray.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by reanimator

I know I will. I've already entered a sort of buying moratorium. TOOTSIE, BIG CHILL and HARD DAYS NIGHT would normally have been day one purchases for me. But they all have 4K masters, and I have to believe will be made available in UltraHD Bluray.

It will be years before they show up on Blu-ray in 4k. However, if you can wait that long... more for me. If they do start to show up, it will be even longer than it was for regular Blu-ray. I can see Universal catalog titles, except those directed by Spielberg, being just as junky too (probably DVD master upconverts).

Sadly, catalog titles are doing a pittance on Blu-ray, so studios will be even more gun shy about releasing them at their very, very best on Ultra HD Blu-ray. I can only see the very biggest classics getting re-released this way.

[Nightopian]

I have a feeling they won't re-release titles in the 4K format which are already on Bluray now. Maybe with certain big blockbuster money makers or boxsets they might...but I think they will just focus on movies which are released at that time. That's just my prediction going by how long it has taken to get movies to Bluray right now. And I don't think they wanna piss people off more who invested money getting their favourite movie on DVD only to have to re-buy it later on Bluray...buying it again on 4K will do peoples heads in.

I can see them also releasing several versions of new movies as well. DVD, Bluray, Bluray 3D, 4K Bluray, 4K 3D Bluray (eventually).

I just hope people don't start getting confused...because we'll all need new players for the 4K stuff...both stand alone and for your PC.

[KRW1]

I hope they re-release a few, like Alien, Apocalypse Now, 2001 and so on. They'd be day one purchases for me. I've a sneaky feeling Star Wars is going to feature heavily in the initial line up, both the new film and the current trilogies. How many players would an unmolested original trilogy shift? Quite a few, I'd wager.

I've been rebuying films since the days of VHS so it doesn't bother me too much.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zeekomkommer

.... Is it possible to download a 4K HFR Hobbit film

Even if it were, it would be an upconvert as The Hobbit was finished in 2K. This link contains specs on the DCDM and the DPX format masters as well as a hyperlink to any and all DCPs (all 2K) which theater operators received.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by KRW1

I hope they re-release a few, like Alien, Apocalypse Now, 2001 and so on. They'd be day one purchases for me. I've a sneaky feeling Star Wars is going to feature heavily in the initial line up, both the new film and the current trilogies. How many players would an unmolested original trilogy shift? Quite a few, I'd wager.

I've been rebuying films since the days of VHS so it doesn't bother me too much.

The new ones maybe... the catalog Star Wars titles no.

Often studios make very odd choices for their debut title releases because there isn't a certain size of install base for the bean counters. Big name titles usually won't show up until there are enough customers to justify the costs... and yet the customers don't show up until there are a good selection of titles.

It's the ol' chicken and the egg syndrome all over again. The industry never... ever learns.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...With HDR, one of my main reservations is concerning catalog motion pictures, specifically the temptation for some content owners to willy-nilly regrade them in HDR without studio transparency to information regarding the involvement of the Director (or his proxy) in the process. It would be reassuring if the studios noted somewhere on the HDR regrades in writing rather than *corporate speak*, that so-and-so was actively involved in the new color corrected version because although HDR has the potential to be a very significant jump in image quality esp. in combination with 4K rez, the tradeoff is that in showing so much information on the image, the filmmaker may not have actually wanted some things in the frame to be comparatively more visible to the audience to begin with, as they could distract from the storytelling or something else in the frame.

Thusly, HDR regrades should be made in close collaboration with the filmmaker (preferably he/she being physically present in the color correction suite) rather than placing that *reimagining* of the motion picture burden solely on the shoulders of the technologist in order to quickly get product out the door.

For example, was Ang Lee actively involved in the HDR remastered version of Life of Pi?....as shown at CES 2015 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarch...r-uhd-js9-tvs/