4K 3D Movies Not Included in Ultra HD Blu-ray Format ?

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They can't build in support for something that doesn't exist. Panasonic's slides about the UHD BD spec make it quite clear that UHD 3D is not part of it (IIRC there isn't even an HEVC profile for 3D yet) so if/when they do it then a new player and new display will be required, just as with 3D BD.

I should think that 3D BD will be supported on the players though, it makes no sense to leave it out because it'll only cost pennies more to include it on whatever BD decoding silicon they put in the UHD players.

I hope they do that as standard, it'd certainly help the format. The cynic in me says they'll save it as an optional extra that costs them little to add in, but allows them to make an extra 20 - 40 bucks in pure profit on a slightly higher-spec model.

Whether it's possible to fit a 4k 3D movie on a disc or not, it should now be possible to fit a HFR 2k 3D movie on a disc. They could've included a spec for that.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

I hope they do that as standard, it'd certainly help the format. The cynic in me says they'll save it as an optional extra that costs them little to add in, but allows them to make an extra 20 - 40 bucks in pure profit on a slightly higher-spec model.

Sure, because money. But I hope we don't get several models from the same manufacturers right away because that'll give the customer more of an opportunity to dilly dally (trust me on this!), and that's not what UHD BD needs right out of the gate. What it needs is for the players to be top-notch bits of kit with no corners being cut re: legacy BD playback, and the diversifying can come later.

It's no co-inkydink that Panny's supposed UHD prototype looked exactly like the BDT700, because that player is about as 4K as a standard BD deck could get without playing actual 4K content, e.g. it's got 2160p60 capable HDMI outputs for no particular reason - unless they used it as a dry run for the actual UHD BD decks... http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer...-bdt700eb.html

[bailey1987]

All the manufacturer's could do with releasing their flagship models at launch, these will be full spec and not replaced for well over a year. Any models released after would be just being cheaper models lacking features. It just ends all agro most people on here will only need the player to spin the disc anyway so it won't be too much of a problem what they do as long as the players can just send out the entire signal for the decoding to be done elsewhere.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

I'm less trying to say something than I am asking something; namely, I'm asking for clarification of your original post (the one beginning "simple mathematics"). I literally don't understand your point so my question was a way of trying to summarize my (mis)understanding of what I thought you to be saying and ask a clarifying/summarizing question.

Perhaps I misunderstood you to be referring to the longer amount of time it will take to write a compression codec for this greater amount of data when--as radagast's post says--what you were perhaps instead referring to is just the greater amount of data (and the larger amount of space it would take to store a larger amount of data using the same codec?).

I didn't think 1080 3D required a different codec? My understanding is that frame packing, side-by-side and top/bottom--the way the data is presented/organized--is what enabled 1080 3D, not a new, more efficient codec. Why couldn't that be done here? Or are you saying it could be but it would just illicit complaints because it would require multiple BD for one 4k 3D movie?

I understand from Richard Paul that the issue is HEVC development. And I also now understand that HEVC developers can't write a codec for a format that doesn't yet have a spec (4k 3D). So I guess what I'm saying/bit*hing about is why can't/couldn't the BDA codify the 4k 3D spec contemporaneous with 4k BD such that the Whole Enchilada could launch at the same time. If the answer is "it's so much more data," then you see the circular issue/conundrum I'm trying to describe.

If the argument is that it would delay 2D 4k BD, I think the argument could also be made that it stymies 4k 3D BD adoption to roll it out some 12 to 18 months after 4k BD. I'm literally right now in the midst of speculating how long this is all gonna take . . . should I sell my 82" Mitsu DLP sooner rather than later especially since I'm moving again soon . . . but if I buy a 4k display now will it play HDMI-nice with 4k BD much less 4k 3D . . . if the format even gets codified are the studios going to even support 4k 3D BD . . . blah blah blah. I just wish this all were easier (I know, I know--'welcome to the hobby.').

No, you completely missed my point. To put it simply if 4K 3D is added or not to HEVC it would be meaningless for home distribution which is why I never discussed HVEC.

To put it simply if 200 GB+ disks were being introduced with 4K maybe it could be interesting with HVEC depending on how well HVEC does but with a 100GB being the max capacity that todays tech can master for disk capacity either it would need to be so overly compressed (to fit the film on the disk) that upscaled 2K 3D will be as good (if not better) and so it is worthless or more or less every film will need to be split on two+ disks which is something that consumers would not want (could you imagine the flak a studio would get from many people if 45 minutes into a 90 minute film someone needed to get up and change the disk?) and so studios would not use it.


Pie in the sky is all good on forums but people need to be realistic and things need to conform with what technology can offer.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

Whether it's possible to fit a 4k 3D movie on a disc or not, it should now be possible to fit a HFR 2k 3D movie on a disc. They could've included a spec for that.

agree, but why would it matter?

what I mean is

4K film with fancy* 1080p extras makes sense and the person that buys the 4k film will have a 4k BD player so it makes sense to assume the device can handle fancy 1080p

4K film with fancy* 1080P 3D extras just sounds odd to me and the guy might have a 4K TV but not a 3D TV and so would not care for 3D extras.

fancy 1080P 3D film does not make sense because the guy might have an old 3D BD player that can't handle the fancy 1080P 3D film.


* by fancy I mean some of the new specs that are added with 4K be it HEVC or HFR......

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

No, you completely missed my point. To put it simply if 4K 3D is added or not to HEVC it would be meaningless for home distribution which is why I never discussed HVEC.

To put it simply if 200 GB+ disks were being introduced with 4K maybe it could be interesting with HVEC depending on how well HVEC does but with a 100GB being the max capacity that todays tech can master for disk capacity either it would need to be so overly compressed (to fit the film on the disk) that upscaled 2K 3D will be as good (if not better) and so it is worthless or more or less every film will need to be split on two+ disks which is something that consumers would not want (could you imagine the flak a studio would get from many people if 45 minutes into a 90 minute film someone needed to get up and change the disk?) and so studios would not use it.


Pie in the sky is all good on forums but people need to be realistic and things need to conform with what technology can offer.

I think I covered that I speculatively got part of your point ("Why couldn't that [use of the existing codec for 4k 3D] be done here? Or are you saying it could be but it would just illicit complaints because it would require multiple BD for one 4k 3D movie?"). Indeed, I now understand you're opining that consumers wouldn't accept movies spread over multiple discs.

But I'm not so sure. Setting aside that I date back to the LD era, I am in the admitted likely minority who would prefer to have a 4k 3D Tintin BD spread over two discs, or even a flipper, if that meant that the 4k 3D BD spec would be available simultaneous with the launch of the 4k BD format for whichever studios chose to issue 4k 3D discs. If that meant averting BS HDMI revisions and additional/replacement equipment purchases after the initial 4k BD player and AVR purchase, I'd accept that--not jumping for joy but that's better IMO than how 1080 3D BD was handled. (They should just leave the DVD, UV and Digital Copy and even the 2D BD out of the package though please.)

[sonyfanboy]

I hope there will be a 4K player available that has dual hdmi outs for older av receivers that don't support 4k and backwards compatible with 3D Blu ray content.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

But I'm not so sure. Setting aside that I date back to the LD era, I am in the admitted likely minority who would prefer to have a 4k 3D Tintin BD spread over two discs, or even a flipper, if that meant that the 4k 3D BD spec would be available simultaneous with the launch of the 4k BD format for whichever studios chose to issue 4k 3D discs.

I agree with you and I would be OK changing disks every 15 minutes if it meant having a better presentation, but we are a very small minority.

Just look at the LOTR EE threads here (on a site that should skew towards people that want quality) and see how many people/posts complained about being forced to get off their butt to switch disk after 2h and that NL should have lowered the quality just to fit on one disk.

[dvdmike]

First you get the content, then you get the format, then you get the discs.


No content no point