Real 4k disks - what do you think the rollout timeline will be?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sounds like sci-fi.

Not that I agree with him because I believe external panels will still handily dominate the mainstream consumer viewing experience even 20 years from now but, be that as it may, non sci-fi wise , there has been even more amazing (and honorable) technological advances as was noted prior to FDA approval, with a YouTube clip from last December for illustrative purposes - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...us#post6848325

And about 6 weeks after that post ^ winning FDA approval as noted by NBC Nightly News http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly...16422#50816422 as to its relevancy , and I’m told, making front page news on The New York Times the same day, also on GMA...https://gma.yahoo.com/video/gma-firs...080000991.html

**b.t.w., for anyone interested, there is convenient parking in the underground garage of the USC Eye Institute but, get there before 10:00 A.M.; otherwise, you’ll probably have to park elsewhere and walk.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well then varg, if that’s the case, for practical relevancy to the whole matter at hand, perhaps someone should start an opinion thread on whether streamed (downloading being only a temporary solution to delivery) 4K content will show any real PQ superiority to 1080p Blu-ray.

For example, there is actually some controversy among experts in the D-Cinema community as to whether a 2K DCP with maxed out bit rate (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...um#post7820790 ) employed will look superior to a 4K DCP with frugally encoded bit rates.

The difference in a movie theatre is that with 2K and a large screen, you get the "screen-door" effect, especially with brightly lit scenes. You don't get that with 4K (or certainly not as much) no matter how crappy the bit rate is.

And why would they encode a 4K DCP with a frugally encoded bit rate in the first place? As long as it fits on the hard disk, the only issue is the amount of time it takes to upload the DCP, right?

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sounds like sci-fi.

If you went back in time to the heyday of CRT televisions and predicted that TVs would be flat, almost frameless, hang on the wall, and 42" would be a common size, lots of people would say that was sci-fi.

They would say that about many technologies in our lives - a device in your pocket that can communicate worldwide, store your music library, take photos and video? And affordable enough that most western teenagers have one? That is crazy talk.

In technology, some things change slowly and evolve predictably. But other things just come out of nowhere and change the landscape. With TVs and display devices in general, I think some kind of paradigm shift is inevitable within our lifetime.

If a TV in 20 years time was just an improved version of what we have today - thinner, smaller bezel, higher res, better colors...I would find that quite dull and disappointing. I do agree that there will always be a huge market for 'large screen' experiences, but what I am saying is that it will not necessarily have to come from a large physical screen on your wall.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by vargo

If you went back in time to the heyday of CRT televisions and predicted that TVs would be flat, almost frameless, hang on the wall, and 42" would be a common size, lots of people would say that was sci-fi.

They would say that about many technologies in our lives - a device in your pocket that can communicate worldwide, store your music library, take photos and video? And affordable enough that most western teenagers have one? That is crazy talk.

In technology, some things change slowly and evolve predictably. But other things just come out of nowhere and change the landscape. With TVs and display devices in general, I think some kind of paradigm shift is inevitable within our lifetime.

If a TV in 20 years time was just an improved version of what we have today - thinner, smaller bezel, higher res, better colors...I would find that quite dull and disappointing. I do agree that there will always be a huge market for 'large screen' experiences, but what I am saying is that it will not necessarily have to come from a large physical screen on your wall.

I will just be happy that they are still around.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by vargo

If you went back in time to the heyday of CRT televisions and predicted that TVs would be flat, almost frameless, hang on the wall, and 42" would be a common size, lots of people would say that was sci-fi.

Actually there was a TV for on the wall mounting made in the 60,'s, it was just the CRT (short neck, I do not remember the deflection angle), the CRT bezel was just a little larger than the CRT. The display could be rotated and tilted. The electronics was housed in a separate case.

You do realize that most of our transportation is done with technology invented in the 1800's (reciprocating engines). You most likely are using loudspeakers with voice coils and cones, another invention of the 1800's. In the 70's many of us A/Vphiles (tech types) thought most speakers by the 90's would be using other technologies to move the air. Here we are in 2013 and voice coil/cone speakers still dominate.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You do realize that most of our transportation is done with technology invented in the 1800's (reciprocating engines). You most likely are using loudspeakers with voice coils and cones, another invention of the 1800's. In the 70's many of us A/Vphiles (tech types) thought most speakers by the 90's would be using other technologies to move the air. Here we are in 2013 and voice coil/cone speakers still dominate.

I clearly said that some things evolve very slowly and predictably. So I don't know why you are giving me an example of something that has not changed much as though you are 'refuting' my post....

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The difference in a movie theatre is that with 2K and a large screen, you get the "screen-door" effect, especially with brightly lit scenes. You don't get that with 4K (or certainly not as much) no matter how crappy the bit rate is...

True, at least depending upon how close you sit to the screen but, keep in mind you’re trading one *evil* (screen-door effect, stairstep jaggies, etc.) for another *evil* (softening due to bit starvation), if frugal bit rates were to be employed in the later situation.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

...And why would they encode a 4K DCP with a frugally encoded bit rate in the first place? As long as it fits on the hard disk, the only issue is the amount of time it takes to upload the DCP, right?

That’s not a small issue, where time = money in any field/profession. For more, see the last paragraph here - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...er#post7684634

Plus, the smaller the total GB of the movie, the less costly it is to store it long term, and, for instance, replicate it (time factored in again), for something such as a repertory showing several years after the first run exhibition.

If all of the above factors were considered irrelevant then in order to automatically ensure maximal picture quality of all the imagery on the largest of theatrical screens one would be seeing near maximum constant encoding bit rate for 4K DCP (and a resultant file size of roughly 230 GBytes (image only) for just a 2hr. long feature), which we’re not seeing in practice with the deliverables. On the contrary, it seems DCP file sizes of the features themselves have been getting smaller over time.

However, if saving money any which way you can is of some priority, then when you carefully consider the pieces of the entire process, there are subtle incentives to make DCPs as small as possible. Question is how small before astute audiences can notice a decrease in quality? That’s a tough call because you would have to have seen how sharp the original material (the DCDM’s .tiff files) was. Hopefully, the JPEG2000 encoding rates are high enough to remain visually lossless to the original content on the biggest of D-Cinema screens and audiences are getting close to what the filmmakers saw in the D.I. suites….as intended.

[Jimmy Smith]

2015 at the earliest. Probably much later just due to the economy. The economy will soon take a huge downturn that will probably put home video innovations on hold for a while so though 4k home video will eventually come I don't think its right around the corner

[ronjones]

The statement from the BDA, as reported on CNET a few months ago, said (in part):

"The task force, which is comprised of representatives from BDA member studios, consumer electronics manufacturers and media technology companies, looks forward to sharing with and receiving input from content creators, and is expected to make specification and technology recommendations to the Blu-ray Disc Association board of directors later this year.”

If by "specification and technology recommendations" they mean that a proposed technical specification will be presented to the BDA board of directors by the end of 2013, then we can expect to see the approved spec. by early 2014 and the first BD 4K players and 4K discs in the 2nd half of 2014, probably just in time for next year's holiday shopping season.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ronjones

The statement from the BDA, as reported on CNET a few months ago, said (in part):

"The task force, which is comprised of representatives from BDA member studios, consumer electronics manufacturers and media technology companies, looks forward to sharing with and receiving input from content creators, and is expected to make specification and technology recommendations to the Blu-ray Disc Association board of directors later this year.”

If by "specification and technology recommendations" they mean that a proposed technical specification will be presented to the BDA board of directors by the end of 2013, then we can expect to see the approved spec. by early 2014 and the first BD 4K players and 4K discs in the 2nd half of 2014, probably just in time for next year's holiday shopping season.

Most long term readers of the 4K threads are familiar with the reporting of the ‘official statement’ by the BDA.

Member #Darren, would like to know what you, personally, think. So Ron, can we assume your guess is 2014 for the debut of 4K Blu-ray movies?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Not that I agree with him because I believe external panels will still handily dominate the mainstream consumer viewing experience even 20 years from now but

agree, I think people like him are more interested with what can be done than does it make sense. I don't know how people can be believe that glasses or tablets...... are the future. Don't get me wrong, I can imagine a future where we all have such glasses (or tablets, or smartphones or smart watches....)for "personal" use but they forget that humans are a social animal. there is a reason theatres still exist (even though we could have all had individual small TVs a long time ago) and bars still exist (even though we could all buy beer cheaper and drink by ourselves), there is a reason people have tables that can fit more than one person (or even their family), there is a reason people buy couches and not individual chairs , there is a reason that even if people buy a TV for each bedroom they still have a "big" in an other room where they can watch together, there is a reason people get together for a sports party or a movie night or a show/event get together..... And that won't stop even if the perfect personal use display becomes available.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The difference in a movie theatre is that with 2K and a large screen, you get the "screen-door" effect, especially with brightly lit scenes. You don't get that with 4K (or certainly not as much) no matter how crappy the bit rate is.

screen door effect has nothing to do with pixel count. Now obviously with more pixels it is even more important to have less space between them (i.e. the definition of SDE) , but if the technology exists it can be equally used with less pixels as with more.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by vargo

If you went back in time to the heyday of CRT televisions and predicted that TVs would be flat, almost frameless, hang on the wall, and 42" would be a common size, lots of people would say that was sci-fi.

They would say that about many technologies in our lives - a device in your pocket that can communicate worldwide, store your music library, take photos and video? And affordable enough that most western teenagers have one? That is crazy talk.

In technology, some things change slowly and evolve predictably. But other things just come out of nowhere and change the landscape. With TVs and display devices in general, I think some kind of paradigm shift is inevitable within our lifetime.

If a TV in 20 years time was just an improved version of what we have today - thinner, smaller bezel, higher res, better colors...I would find that quite dull and disappointing. I do agree that there will always be a huge market for 'large screen' experiences, but what I am saying is that it will not necessarily have to come from a large physical screen on your wall.

things change, and not always as expected, but that is technology, not people.

There is a reason we don't all fly around in our flying cars, and it is not because we can't make vehicles that fly (there ate planes and helicopters and balloons out there) or that they can't be made cheap enough (if mass produced). But because human nature makes it impossible: If someone falls asleep while driving he can drive into a ditch or something like that and he might just be hurt, turn it into flying vehicle and now he crashes and he definitely kills himself; You have the dummy in the car that runs out of gas (or the motor is not well maintained) and the car stops all of a sudden, he can easily move it to the side of the road, but if it happens in the air, now the vehicle falls like a stone and you have a lethal crash; and what about driving in traffic, can you imagine someone cutting you off in the air....?

You also take a very narrow view of the world. Yes todays TVs and Cellphones might have looked like sci-fi back in the 60's but radiotelephony first appeared in the 40's, they were big and clunky so mostly used as car phones and very limited in calling capabilities since the towers were few and far between and only in given areas. But wealthy people did have them. And screening rooms existed long before TVs were invented, yes it was mostly by people in the movie industry and the incredibly rich since you needed to get film reels to play on your projector, but it has not changed all that much now I have BDs that are easy to buy and a digital projector, the only difference is that now guys like me with no contacts can afford to watch those films at home.

Will home entertainment be different in 20 years? I hope so and I hope it is better (maybe ultra small LED projectors that have good brightness and image quality, maybe electronic wall paper, but I doubt it will be VR glasses, just because VR are not a social experience and 20 years from now friends will want to get together to watch the super bowl or other sporting events.


Thursday I got a call from one of my sisters (she lives a couple of hours away) and she said that her husband and her will be going to party one hour past my place and that they will spend the night at a hotel there, but when they told the kids her 13 year old asked that since I was on the way if they could come for a visit and spend the night here. When I got home Friday after work I had a surprise, the 15 and 17 year old decided to come as well. I don't think it was because I am the greatest uncle ever, but it is more fun to watch a film, munch on popcorn and drink a smoothie with people you like then at home by yourself.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't know how people can be believe that glasses or tablets...... are the future.

Agree. One never knows what the buying public at large will embrace in regards to technology advances. Two of my pet peeves are in autos: My 1963 Chrysler had pushbutton control of the automatic transmission, here we are in 2013 and automatic transmission control is still being done with large, space consuming levers, knobs and/or consoles. In 1982 Chrysler Imperial had a very nice looking VFD for the driver. Today, most are still using big, ugly gauges with needle pointers. We still have these very antiquated devices because folks just do not like the newer ones.

Some folks like to point out that Blu-ray is only capturing ≈ 25-30% of the disc market. Knowing the buying public I am surprised it is doing this well.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but I doubt it will be VR glasses, just because VR are not a social experience and 20 years from now friends will want to get together to watch the super bowl or other sporting events.

That does not need to be true. If everybody in your home has VR glasses, there is no reason you cannot sit together to watch the same 'show'.

An augmented reality television could appear as a virtual display, positioned at a fixed location on your wall, just the same as your TV. If you turn your head away you no longer see it, because you are not looking at the place on the wall where you have designated your TV to be. Anybody in your home wearing the glasses could see the TV in the same position, if they chose to.

That would simply be a software option, if you wanted to retain the tradition feel of a TV (ie fixed in space rather than fixed in your field of view). It is one of the many possibilities afforded by head tracking and augmented reality.

A very crude example of this is already possible with Oculus Rift, there is a virtual theatre program.

Oculus Rift Virtual Cinema showing new trailer (as requested) - YouTube

Of course this is not augmented reality (is it full VR) and the current unit is far too crude for massmarket appeal. But I can imagine what 20 years of iterations will do for the technology.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by vargo

That does not need to be true. If everybody in your home has VR glasses, there is no reason you cannot sit together to watch the same 'show'.

but the experience is not the same. When you are using VRG there is no need for everyone to be together.

An augmented reality television could appear as a virtual display, positioned at a fixed location on your wall, just the same as your TV. If you turn your head away you no longer see it, because you are not looking at the place on the wall where you have designated your TV to be. Anybody in your home wearing the glasses could see the TV in the same position, if they chose to.

but it is not about the position of the display. If anything that would be a + for VRG, since there is no need for anyone to have the crappy seats and everyone will be in the 100% sweet spot

That would simply be a software option, if you wanted to retain the tradition feel of a TV (ie fixed in space rather than fixed in your field of view). It is one of the many possibilities afforded by head tracking and augmented reality.

A very crude example of this is already possible with Oculus Rift, there is a virtual theatre program.
Oculus Rift Virtual Cinema showing new trailer (as requested) - YouTube
Of course this is not augmented reality (is it full VR) and the current unit is far too crude for massmarket appeal. But I can imagine what 20 years of iterations will do for the technology.

but when you see something with others you don't want it to feel like you are the last person in the world so you are all by yourself in a large theatre. You seem to not grasp the simple concept that watching something can sometimes be a private/individualistic activity and for that VRG are great since they can help shut out the world. But that at other times you want the social aspect and for that you need a real big screen that is shared.

It is like someone looking at a "typical" family and saying "a small portable table for one is the future" because the mom ate at 4:00PM because at 4:30 she had to drive the first kid to Hockey and on the way back pick up kid #2 that stayed after school because of extracurricular activities , at around 5 as soon as she gets back with kid #2 (that has to eat fast) she leaves with kid#3 (that just finished eating)to bring him to his game in the opposite direction from kid 1. When she finally gets home she picks up kid #2 to bring them for gymnastics, and picks up kid #1 that finished his game and brings him home to eat. Meanwhile somewhere in all of that the dad got home and ate because he will be leaving to pick up #3 and #2. What is missing is that there are other, more important 9even if not more frequent), times when they do all get a chance to eat together.

It is the same here. When I built my HT, I was single, now we are 2.5 (my dad spends part of the year at my place), but there are 10 theatre seats in it, I also have little mats/pillows for people lying on the floor and some stools that I move from the bar to the HT when needed. Why? simply because two seats would be enough for most of the time but big get together with friends or family mean that I need more place. On Friday, I said that my sister brought her kids to stay with me for the night, but when I found out, I also called my other two sisters and so there were 15 people that had supper at my place (9 kids in the dinning room and 6 adults in the kitchen) and 15 people that watched Epic and then when my other two sisters and their families left there were 5 people that watched X-Men.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but when you see something with others you don't want it to feel like you are the last person in the world so you are all by yourself in a large theatre. You seem to not grasp the simple concept that watching something can sometimes be a private/individualistic activity and for that VRG are great since they can help shut out the world. But that at other times you want the social aspect and for that you need a real big screen that is shared.

An augmented reality system does not need to shut the user off from the world. It superimposes images on your normal view - hence the term augmented reality.

Think google glass form-factor (ie geeky looking glasses) but with a different display technology.

The Oculus Rift demo above was an example of virtual reality (VR not AR) and I specifically stated that. But imagine something similar, with just the screen, placed exactly onto your wall at whatever size was appropriate, and all the surroundings are just your room as viewed normally. That is the concept of a virtual television in AR. I should have explained it beforehand but I assumed everybody posting in a technology section would be familiar with the concept.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by vargo

An augmented reality system does not need to shut the user off from the world. It superimposes images on your normal view - hence the term augmented reality.

Think google glass form-factor (ie geeky looking glasses) but with a different display technology.

The Oculus Rift demo above was an example of virtual reality (VR not AR) and I specifically stated that. But imagine something similar, with just the screen, placed exactly onto your wall at whatever size was appropriate, and all the surroundings are just your room as viewed normally. That is the concept of a virtual television in AR. I should have explained it but I assumed everybody posting in a technology section would be familiar with the concept.

As long as there is a big screen that would be great Vargo. I need the immersion that a big screen provides. Can't be doing with all this tablet and smartphone crap.

[HulonPateJr]

Originally Posted by vargo

It's looking increasingly unlikely there will be another physical format.

Revenue from physical formats goes down every year, revenue from digital delivery goes up. According to the recent DEG report, revenue from digital was 36% of total revenue in the first half of 2013.

Revenue from physical media will fall to under 50% of total revenue within three years and under 30% by 2020. Its an ever shrinking market and launching another format to take a small piece of that shrinking market would be pointless.

4K is not going to be the cash-cow that the industry hoped for anyway.

Also note it keeps being reported that the Cable industry is making another push to plus charge high usage users on top of a standard cable rate. Which in tern would freeze out Netflix and other digital distribution sites if the Premium is too high. Also the next game systems will be only downloads and can not be re-sold either. Computers are also being commonly produced with out Cd rom drives. With content being offered from cloud or a controlled media streamed content.

There are arguments on both sides to say if a new format will or will not be introduced to the public. If the public will embrace this new format. I like the idea of 4K and the Seiki people seem to pushing to make the 4K TV market cheaper and less profitable for Sony and the other big companies. I really think that 4k will be a specialty ultra high end market. I can see the TV market getting much cheaper with generic 50'' TVs already being sold this year in 2013 for 400$. Seems that with the bottom dropping out perhaps this is the biggest indication of new Super High Definition just on the horizon. With next level 3D TVs on the way as well.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by HulonPateJr

Also note it keeps being reported that the Cable industry is making another push to plus charge high usage users on top of a standard cable rate. Which in tern would freeze out Netflix and other digital distribution sites if the Premium is too high. Also the next game systems will be only downloads and can not be re-sold either. Computers are also being commonly produced with out Cd rom drives. With content being offered from cloud or a controlled media streamed content.

There are arguments on both sides to say if a new format will or will not be introduced to the public. If the public will embrace this new format. I like the idea of 4K and the Seiki people seem to pushing to make the 4K TV market cheaper and less profitable for Sony and the other big companies. I really think that 4k will be a specialty ultra high end market. I can see the TV market getting much cheaper with generic 50'' TVs already being sold this year in 2013 for 400$. Seems that with the bottom dropping out perhaps this is the biggest indication of new Super High Definition just on the horizon. With next level 3D TVs on the way as well.

The next gen game systems are not download only.
Netflix and the like will find a way around the cable problem.