4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

They don't but back when 4:3 televisions were the old standard most shows and video games tended to be in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio and not 1.78:1. That changed as the shift to 1.78:1 was being planned. If industry eventually changed the aspect ratio once again I wouldn't be surprise to see the two eventually follow suit.

but why would anyone assume the TV industry would change AR?

the 16:9 AR was chosen by the TV industry because it made (In their opinion) the most sense. It is a compromise between wider ARs and taller ARs. The issue with 2.4 is that it is almost twice as wide as the narrower ARs i.e. 2.66 is 2x 1.33 and so almost half the screen is wasted.

wider then 16:9 existed in the film industry a long time before the TV industry moved from 4:3 to 16:9 to me it is obvious that if they wanted wider they would have gone that way a few years back.

It also misses the obvious that the film industry can use multiple ARs easily, but the TV industry cannot (i.e. TVs in homes are a fixed AR, the broadcast signal can only be in fixed resolutions/AR...... so it changing is highly unlikely because a lot of equipment needs to be changed.

[Dex Robinson]

15 years ago, aspect ratio discussions were usually pretty exasperating.

Today, they are just plain funny.

I've learned to smile and enjoy the increasingly "out there" opinions.

On the main Blu-ray forum, there was a thread a week or two ago from a guy who suggested studios needed to do more to accomodate 16:9 TV screens. He seemed to think there should be a move to 16:9 productions so we wouldn't have to tolerate black bars on our sets. Now we have a guy who thinks the sets should be changed to accomodate 2:40:1 productions which, in his mind, completely took over film production in the 1960's.

Honestly, folks, how can you NOT be amused .

Most of us stopped watching black bars and started watching pictures years ago. I think they could make my TV set any aspect ratio they wanted and I wouldn't notice...I'd just watch the picture and not notice the empty space.

Rather than fight the black bar crowd, we should embrace them. They are God's gift to home theater fans...the court jesters and comic relief of the audio/video world.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

They are God's gift to home theater fans...the court jesters and comic relief of the audio/video world.

This is MY laugh for the day!!! Spot on!

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by bluearth

21:9 should be much more immersive then 16:9 when it comes to sports, games, and movies.

16:9 is wider than the field of view (FOV) of the human eye and the issue of aspect ratio has been discussed on threads about 5K resolution computer monitors. The marketing used decades ago to make wider and wider movie formats was just marketing and it wasn't based on FOV and resolution.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

Rather than fight the black bar crowd, we should embrace them. They are God's gift to home theater fans...the court jesters and comic relief of the audio/video world.

I found the screen fillers a lot more amusing before HBO decided to reframe The Wire. Prior to that I pretty much looked them as harmless relics of an argument that had long since been won but that one kind of stung.

[hajiketobu]

While all you talking about 21:9 TVs and the benefits of the 16:9 format, i am rooting for the comeback of 4:3 to watch IMAX movies like Interstellar in its originally aspect ratio.

But I think in the future it will be irrelevant what aspect ratio your TV is - you could just make your own aspect ratio. If displays in the future will be flexible or out of glass like in these videos from Microsoft and Corning, then the only limit would be the walls in your room. If you have a tall room, you could go for 4:3 aspect ratio and if you move the screen to the basement with a low ceiling you could make the screen 21:9. Or there simply will be no aspect ratio, if the movies were filmed 360° in Virtual Reality.

Microsoft 2025.mp4 - YouTube

La vida en el 2020 - YouTube

[Derb]

I'm still waiting for Letterbox 2000 aspect ratio TVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82j_Qfp_VA

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

16:9 is wider than the field of view (FOV) of the human eye and the issue of aspect ratio has been discussed on threads about 5K resolution computer monitors. The marketing used decades ago to make wider and wider movie formats was just marketing and it wasn't based on FOV and resolution.

Perhaps scope aspect ratios were not based in science, however aesthetically it is a pleasing aspect ratio. Since movies are essentially an aesthetic experience, this is all the science that is required. My preferred AR for movies is 2.4:1.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Perhaps scope aspect ratios were not based in science, however aesthetically it is a pleasing aspect ratio. Since movies are essentially an aesthetic experience, this is all the science that is required. My preferred AR for movies is 2.4:1.

When you go front projection with a scope screen/CIH, it really puts movie aspect ratios in perspective (they way they were really intended) and you see how cool scope is. Movies have always been intended to be viewed at the same height; only the width is to vary (of course, there are exceptions with a few films and IMAX, etc.). You cannot experience this on a 1:78 panel. Kindergarten Cop is not supposed to be as wide and taller than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

When you go front projection with a scope screen/CIH, it really puts movie aspect ratios in perspective (they way they were really intended) and you see how cool scope is. Movies have always been intended to be viewed at the same height; only the width is to vary (of course, there are exceptions with a few films and IMAX, etc.). You cannot experience this on a 1:78 panel. Kindergarten Cop is not supposed to be as wide and taller than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

That might've been true back when movie palaces were a thing, but it's insanely rare these days to find a cinema auditorium where the room is designed so that 2.40 is the screen's largest ratio. Like, viva la revolucion for 2.40 or whatever, but the fact is that today's infrastructure in cinemas has 16:9 taking up the most real-estate, and thus the higher pixel count with a DCP.

[blurayjunkie]

Any new information on when 4K Blu-Rays will hit the market?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by blurayjunkie

Any new information on when 4K Blu-Rays will hit the market?

Not a peep.

As I mentioned before, this new HEVC Advance licensing and patent pool scheme may put up a bit of a stumbling block until the studios and content providers can either kill it by brute force or make them come up with a more reasonable fee structure.

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by blurayjunkie

Any new information on when 4K Blu-Rays will hit the market?

Nope. "Before the end of the year" is still all that's been said, and all eyes are on IFA in early September for further information. Bizarre that we know so little about something that's supposedly about to launch in a few months, but...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

That might've been true back when movie palaces were a thing, but it's insanely rare these days to find a cinema auditorium where the room is designed so that 2.40 is the screen's largest ratio. Like, viva la revolucion for 2.40 or whatever, but the fact is that today's infrastructure in cinemas has 16:9 taking up the most real-estate, and thus the higher pixel count with a DCP.

Heh. I saw two movies at the cinema today. Ant-Man, 1.85, was on a 'scope screen with blank space at the sides, while Rogue Nation, 2.40, was on a 1.85 screen with borders top and bottom. (No masking applied in either case.) Typical.

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Heh. I saw two movies at the cinema today. Ant-Man, 1.85, was on a 'scope screen with blank space at the sides, while Rogue Nation, 2.40, was on a 1.85 screen with borders top and bottom. (No masking applied in either case.) Typical.

That's terrible. Thankfully, that doesn't happen much in L.A. TC in the ChIMAX tomorrow night.

[Geoff D]

Such is life at the multiplex.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Perhaps scope aspect ratios were not based in science, however aesthetically it is a pleasing aspect ratio. Since movies are essentially an aesthetic experience, this is all the science that is required. My preferred AR for movies is 2.4:1.

I could see how someone might prefer it due to personal experiences (the movies that they have seen, the people they saw those movies with, the aspect ratio of the movie screens they viewed, etc...). In terms of aspect ratio though the FOV of the human eye becomes more important as the viewing angle increases. I think as resolution gradually increases for movies that it will make a difference in which aspect ratios are used.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Not a peep.

As I mentioned before, this new HEVC Advance licensing and patent pool scheme may put up a bit of a stumbling block until the studios and content providers can either kill it by brute force or make them come up with a more reasonable fee structure.

For video streaming companies I could see HEVC Advance making a difference since it will be a long term cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and that gives them a reason to look at alternatives. That will be less of an issue for Ultra HD Blu-ray and since the specification is completed I think the HEVC royalties won't be an issue for Ultra HD Blu-ray.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

While all you talking about 21:9 TVs and the benefits of the 16:9 format, i am rooting for the comeback of 4:3 to watch IMAX movies like Interstellar in its originally aspect ratio.

But I think in the future it will be irrelevant what aspect ratio your TV is - you could just make your own aspect ratio. If displays in the future will be flexible or out of glass like in these videos from Microsoft and Corning, then the only limit would be the walls in your room. If you have a tall room, you could go for 4:3 aspect ratio and if you move the screen to the basement with a low ceiling you could make the screen 21:9. Or there simply will be no aspect ratio, if the movies were filmed 360° in Virtual Reality.

Microsoft 2025.mp4 - YouTube
La vida en el 2020 - YouTube

There would be zero benefit to a 4:3 TV for IMAX material. 16x9 screens are rarely height limited in a room, width is always the issue. So unless you have some bizarre room where the width of a 16x9 display is limiting how tall the image could be, you would be gaining no height advantage with a 4x3 display.

As for your thoughts on limitations being the walls of your room, we are already there. In the projection world there are already a lot of projectors that have lens memories that permit you to change the image size with the push of a button. So go to your wall and figure out what the biggest screen you can put in for both height and width with no respect for aspect ratio and then setup the projector for one memory with the tallest 1.78 image and one memory with the widest 2.35 image and you're done. You will still have black bars with both, but they will most likely be smaller than you would have gotten had you decided to go with a fixed aspect ratio screen and used the other aspect.

[bailey1987]

Here's an interesting article its all assumptions but here it is
http://www.t3.com/news/sony-looks-to...u-ray-classics

We know Sony has a wealth of 4K content but it doesn't mean it will see the light of day.

[jono3000]

UltraHD Blu-ray licensing to commence August 24th 2015

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...nsing-Ultra-HD