"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

After all, what is the point of HD broadcasts if the bit rates are going to be tiny?

And yet you continue to talk up bandwidth-limited cable and satellite services over the theoretically-unlimited future potential of internet downloading/streaming. Online delivery at least can provide higher bit-rates; cable and satellite technology have no option but to deliver low bit-rates.

[Penton-Man]

So, today I get a PM which says “Ask and ye shall receive” , first quoting me here…https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5141889

And then linking me to AVS –http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1361140

Xy, good to see you’re alive and kicking, I had thought you fell off the Santa Monica Pier and got swept out to sea. If I had known it would have been that easy to get you back online posting those comparison things, I would have asked sooner. Truly, good to see you back and providing a nidus for discussion over there.

The irony in all of this is that I notice you’ve also gone to posting videos in motion for comparison, whereas we have taken a page out of your playbook and used still images for critical comparisons…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ml#post5259998

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by rickah88

It's not meant to garner any laughs...

Well, it does anyway and I like to laugh. Look at it the way I do, at least for now, stee brings out the best of your and doctorossi’s sense of humor.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

...I would be especially interested in Penton- Mans opinions.

Stee, if past history is an indicator of future behavior, then I think I or anyone else could offer you their opinion backed by a notary chiseled in stone by God him/herself and it wouldn’t change your thoughts on the matter….but I don’t mean to dissuade others from trying if they are so inclined to do so. Doc, Rick, and esp. AnthonyP are probably your huckleberries.

If Anthony joins in, better be loaded for bear.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Doc, Rick, and esp. AnthonyP are probably your huckleberries.

Still beats workin'.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

For modern commercial applications, is there any advantage in proceeding further along this metric? There's no over-sampling value in dynamic range, so once you can match film exposure and have a little latitude for adjustment, what's to be gained with higher dynamic values in a film scanner?

Firstly, for those who aren’t following, there is more information on film (35mm) than is simply harvested by the number of “k’s”… be it 4k, 6k or whatever. You see folks, when you’re talking scanning of film, the Holy Grail is to capture all the information….even in the lowlights and highlights.

“Modern commercial applications” aside, for a moment, I just brought up Vision3 because that is what many D.P. who still shoot feature motion pictures with film are using these days as their camera negative stock (or would like to use, if the production can afford it), but fact of the matter is, even before Vision3, there were film stocks which commonly boasted a film density of 3.0 or higher, thusly exceeding the dynamic range of the best of scanners, so this has been a long running (and little talked about or even recognized on consumer A/V forums) technical challenge which has finally been met by Scanity.

Now, to answer your direct query, yes, you are correct , it’s not similar to the value of oversampling with k’s to prevent aliasing...
(see p. 12 http://efilm.com/publish/2008/05/19/4K%20plus.pdf ).

Once all the current popular scanners can achieve the same density as the film stock, be it ‘old’ or ‘new’ like Vision3, there is no urgent need to upgrade that particular scanner parameter…..unless of course, camera negative dynamic range continues to improve with time and people continue to shoot with film.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Still beats workin'.

Fair enough. Just please don't channel David Lean online almost ever other day, for if someone brought that to this forum....that truly would get creepy.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

And yet you continue to talk up bandwidth-limited cable and satellite services over the theoretically-unlimited future potential of internet downloading/streaming. Online delivery at least can provide higher bit-rates; cable and satellite technology have no option but to deliver low bit-rates.

Thought we were not permitted to talk the future?

[Steedeel]

Too many clever remarks on here in my opinion.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Too many clever remarks on here in my opinion.

"Stupid is, as Stupid does" ~Forrest Gump

In this case we can, safely, say: Clever remarks is, as Clever remarks does".

[Blu-Ray Watcher]

Sony refusing to pay for 3D glasses starting next year:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...glasses-240837

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by rickah88

"Stupid is, as Stupid does" ~Forrest Gump

In this case we can, safely, say: Clever remarks is, as Clever remarks does".

Keyboard warrior in my opinion.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Watcher

Sony refusing to pay for 3D glasses starting next year:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...glasses-240837

IMO, it would be about time people should now be able to bring their own 3D glasses from prior movies and stop paying an additional price for the option. The recycling in the theater lobby-bin can stop, while having the option to buy a 3D pair @ the door if needed.

Been bringing my "Oakley 3D Gascan" glasses to every 3D movie and bringing home the theater-pair sealed in its plastic.
Must have at least 20 pair saved by now, intending to use them for guests when I eventually get a realD 3D projector for my Home-theater in the not-so-distant future.

My son always brings his own special 2D pair (same lens for each eye) when he goes to a 3D feature (trying to have quality time with the family) for a depth problem he has to deal with.

Paul

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Paul H

IMO, it would be about time people should now be able to bring their own 3D glasses from prior movies and stop paying an additional price for the option. The recycling in the theater lobby-bin can stop, while having the option to buy a 3D pair @ the door if needed.

Been bringing my "Oakley 3D Gascan" glasses to every 3D movie and bringing home the theater-pair sealed in its plastic.
Must have at least 20 pair saved by now, intending to use them for guests when I eventually get a realD 3D projector for my Home-theater in the not-so-distant future.

My son always brings his own special 2D pair (same lens for each eye) when he goes to a 3D feature (trying to have quality time with the family) for a depth problem he has to deal with.

Paul

I was under the impression the charge was for the 3D technology itself (screens etc..) I have been taking my own glasses for a while now.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Keyboard warrior in my opinion.

Opinions...doesn't everyone have those & something else...or something along those lines?

In any event, I was thinking the same thing. *rolling of the eyes*

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

And yet you continue to talk up bandwidth-limited cable and satellite services over the theoretically-unlimited future potential of internet downloading/streaming. Online delivery at least can provide higher bit-rates; cable and satellite technology have no option but to deliver low bit-rates.

this makes no sense what so ever. Think about it. For cable (let’s skip sat for now)There is one cable that comes from your cableco to your home. On that one cable there is possibly an analogue signal, digital cable data and internet data. It is the cable co that decides how much BW they will keep for their cable operations and how much for internet. There is one cable that leaves and gets split to your home and your neighbours home and the exact same content goes to both places (i.e. all the cable channels even if you don’t subscribe or watching them as well as the web pages you and he are DL). Why would you assume that he is more limited. Also, traditional cable (fixed time playback including PPV) is more efficient. Yes there could be channels no one watches (but then why would they be included) but the reality is that if 100 people are watching the same thing the data is only there once. Even with VOD your cable provider should be more efficient and so be able to offer something better. With a third party provider the content needs to pass through the gateway and will take up valuable BW real estate all the way to your home. If it is the cable provider they can have servers situated where your cable cable starts at the CO, so they would DL the movies to several distribution points and when you are streaming you won’t be affecting people a few blocks away (obviously you will affect your neighbour who is on the same cable)

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Thought we were not permitted to talk the future?

I wouldn't think of streaming to be limited to the quality that you see today nor would I worry too much about BD going away anytime soon. I still by CD's after 26 years though I am happy to purchase and download music as well as I can find above CD quality (24bit 96 or 192Khz vs CD at 16 bit 44.1Khz). I know online music initially was a step down from CD quality but you will find more and more music that is being sold above CD quality.

So why not the same for the future of online movie downloads and streaming?

Given my current home connection, I should be able to stream a full BD quality disc with DTS HDMA from a US server if the source server deliver it properly. If they sold "BD" ISO files at 50Gig, I would be able to purchase and download probably within 50 minutes. That being that case, I wouldn't mind if there were such a thing for sale which I could store and play from my home network.

Hopefully there will be one day linked to an account which would have a record of what I own. If my NAS were to crash or I updated and needed to pull a fresh copy, then I just go request it and can play in full BD quality.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Paul H

IMO, it would be about time people should now be able to bring their own 3D glasses from prior movies and stop paying an additional price for the option. The recycling in the theater lobby-bin can stop, while having the option to buy a 3D pair @ the door if needed.

Over on the 3D forums, I compared it to those cheap earphones the airlines used to charge you $6 for--
Nowadays, it's just taken for granted that everyone brings their own, so they don't even bother asking anymore, unless you have to ask.

With Disney and the sunglass-company tie-ins offering all range of fancy and non-fancy Real3D glasses, seems like the theater chains should start taking the fashion for granted, and offering them separately for those dim enough not to bring their own....Heck, we stopped buying popcorn from them.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by jdc115

I wouldn't think of streaming to be limited to the quality that you see today nor would I worry too much about BD going away anytime soon. I still by CD's after 26 years though I am happy to purchase and download music as well as I can find above CD quality (24bit 96 or 192Khz vs CD at 16 bit 44.1Khz). I know online music initially was a step down from CD quality but you will find more and more music that is being sold above CD quality.

So why not the same for the future of online movie downloads and streaming?

Given my current home connection, I should be able to stream a full BD quality disc with DTS HDMA from a US server if the source server deliver it properly. If they sold "BD" ISO files at 50Gig, I would be able to purchase and download probably within 50 minutes. That being that case, I wouldn't mind if there were such a thing for sale which I could store and play from my home network.

Hopefully there will be one day linked to an account which would have a record of what I own. If my NAS were to crash or I updated and needed to pull a fresh copy, then I just go request it and can play in full BD quality.

thanks for your comments jdc, i think the part about requesting in bluray quality is unlikely though. Although i am sure the usual suspects will jump down my throat for saying so.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

[/B]

thanks for your comments jdc, i think the part about requesting in bluray quality is unlikely though. Although i am sure the usual suspects will jump down my throat for saying so.

I do not know why it couldn't? MP3 was a big step backwards for music but were used due to storage and bandwidth back in the day but that is not longer an issue and the choice of what quality you want is often to the consumer. The US is large so getting the needed bandwidth everywhere is often an issue but that will not always be the case.

I sometimes buy SACDs and sometimes will buy 24bit/96 or 192khz FLAC files for music.

I would be happy if I had the choice to buy a Blu-ray or a 50GB digital copy equivalent of a Blu-ray that can be downloaded and I do not see why that wouldn't be done in the future. Blu-ray, high quality downloads and lower quality streaming can all co-exist.

Maybe it is hard to imagine downloading 25 to 50 GB for you?