4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by Redshaggydoo

Joining late and not with reading the entire post. Another odd move for Disney is locking the UK and other European releases for Ratatouille 3D. It was announced that Pixar planned on releasing Ratatouille and The Incredibles on 3D blu-Ray last year. So it appears that a planned North America launch has coincided with locked blu-Ray while not planned has coincided with region free.

Next; I have been shopping 4K 3D TVS the last few months. Even without 3D content the new TVs convert to 3D in vivid detail. Maybe the new TVs just convert on their own and it's sick so as long as the transfer is 8/4K the disc doesn't need to be in 3D format just change the TV settings to 3D.

Not sure what you watched converted by the TV but in my experience it fails to get anywhere near the 3D quality of a real 3D disc

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by jono3000

I'm continuing to buy them for now, who knows when they will get an Ultra HD release. When a title comes out on Ultra HD I will just sell the normal Blu-ray

That's my plan as well. Even if I don't get UHD Blu-ray right away (depending on price), anything that's available on UHD I won't buy on Blu-ray. But until we see what will be available on UHD Blu-ray I have no expectations so I'll continue to buy Blu-ray.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Redshaggydoo

Next; I have been shopping 4K 3D TVS the last few months. Even without 3D content the new TVs convert to 3D in vivid detail. Maybe the new TVs just convert on their own and it's sick so as long as the transfer is 8/4K the disc doesn't need to be in 3D format just change the TV settings to 3D.

Don't buy a 4k TV until, at a minimum, late in the year to make sure it can handle UHD Blu-ray's with at least minimal support.

[bailey1987]

My plan was to buy a new PC this Christmas(2015) that would have full 4K capability, there are monitors now however I would have to use displayport which is not a problem but the Ultra HD monitors available have HDMI ports so why not put 2.0 ones on them? There all 1.4 which is useless.

The monitors are becoming less of an issue and I hope by Christmas 2015 there will be a no brainer on the market, however the graphics cards are a problem, the ones that can allegedly push Ultra HD apparently can't do it well enough, what I want here is something like NVIDIA Purevideo HD at least then I know the card will play the trailers which I hope come to QuickTime trailers or a new service. All the current cards need to be in SLI mode to be able to push the pixels, I only really need the card to play videos it doesn't need to play games at Ultra HD but it must be perfect at 1080p 60fps, the monitor can scale the 1080p image to Ultra HD I only play simulations like Rollercoaster Tycoon and what not and the developers never put much graphical grunt behind those games.

So basically what I want between now and say November is a graphics card with NVIDIA Pure Video Ultra HD, what do you think the odds are on that happening?

If it all goes to pot for Christmas 2015 I will just end up with a top end 1080p PC but I can't justify buying a 1080p monitor when there is Ultra HD ones available so it may end up hooked up to an half arsed Ultra HD one which I will keep until Ultra HD is priced at disposable prices and then swap for a full fledged one.

Decisions, decisions.

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Don't buy a 4k TV until, at a minimum, late in the year to make sure it can handle UHD Blu-ray's with at least minimal support.

If it has HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 you will be fine

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by jono3000

If it has HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 you will be fine

There's more to it than that. It should be a 10 bit panel that can reproduce at least the DCI-P3 gamut with provisions for HDR.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

There's more to it than that. It should be a 10 bit panel that can reproduce at least the DCI-P3 gamut with provisions for HDR.

I have a feeling HDR will be sold like contrast ratio in other words launch models will be say 1,000 nits for wave two to be 2,000 and so on, which means for something like 10,000 nits which is the number I think Dolby Vision is we are talking 10 years away in other words around about when were all deciding whether or not to buy the launch 8K models that will be currently on the market lacking key features.

[Nightopian]

HDMI 1.4 can still output 4K video. It is limited to a maximum of 30fps though. Since all movies on DVD/Bluray etc are 24fps, it's perfectly fine.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Nightopian

HDMI 1.4 can still output 4K video. It is limited to a maximum of 30fps though. Since all movies on DVD/Bluray etc are 24fps, it's perfectly fine.

It won't work properly with Ultra HD discs, however. You also have to have HDCP 2.2 encryption support. That's very important. News out of CES only cemented that fact.

[Selaboc]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

That's just not true. Have you ever heard of a little shop called Amazon.com?

yes, and the vast majority of what they sell is also available to mainstream retail outlets even if not every retail store will have any particular item. The point that you seemed to miss is that the more niche/less mainstream something is the less likelyhood it is to be made in the first place. if it isn't made in the first place it won't be available on amazon or anywhere else. You want a nice wide selection of 4K titles availble online, you best hope that 4k isn't as niche as the poster I was replying to was hoping it will be.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It won't work properly with Ultra HD discs, however. You also have to have HDCP 2.2 encryption support. That's very important. News out of CES only cemented that fact.

Did they specifically say this? They said before ces they would make things backwards compatible

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Did they specifically say this? They said before ces they would make things backwards compatible

Backwards compatible to 1080p that is.

It's the HDCP 2.2 part that's required for full 4k support from Ultra HD discs and players because they will have much higher quality (10 bit, HDR, DCI-P3 up to Rec. 2020 color, higher frame rates, etc.) than 4k streaming services like Netflix and Amazon (McDonald's grade 4k - that is not being held to the HDCP 2.2 encryption requirement for the time being). Hollywood is insisting that content of this level is locked down even more.

Just be glad they said nothing about requiring a live internet connection and personal account in order to play said discs like Circuit City's DIVX scheme oh so many years ago when DVD first came on the stage.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Backwards compatible to 1080p that is.

It's the HDCP 2.2 part that's required for full 4k support from Ultra HD discs and players because they will have much higher quality (10 bit, HDR, DCI-P3 up to Rec. 2020 color, higher frame rates, etc.) than 4k streaming services like Netflix and Amazon (McDonald's grade 4k - that is not being held to the HDCP 2.2 encryption requirement for the time being). Hollywood is insisting that content of this level is locked down even more.

Just be glad they said nothing about requiring a live internet connection and personal account in order to play said discs like Circuit City's DIVX scheme oh so many years ago when DVD first came on the stage.

No they said in an interview with hcc that they will make it work in 4K with every 4k display

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Nightopian

HDMI 1.4 can still output 4K video. It is limited to a maximum of 30fps though. Since all movies on DVD/Bluray etc are 24fps, it's perfectly fine.

Oklahoma! Todd-AO version is 30fps (which is why it's 1080i on BD).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Oklahoma! Todd-AO version is 30fps (which is why it's 1080i on BD).

But that would work on 1.4

[Selaboc]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

But that would work on 1.4

I don't think that's the part he was responding to. Rather he was pointing out that the statement "Since all movies on DVD/Bluray etc are 24fps" isn't entirely true with a counter example of one that isn't 24fps.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Digital Bridge/Extension sounds like AACS managed copy since it would allow the disc to be copied to a hard drive. That would be a great feature but the studios have the tendency to get paranoid and back out of ideas like this.

exactly, it sounds like what has been around since BD launched (with hopefully a slightly better implementation) and we had this same paranoid posts before BD/HDDVD launched. That is why I find it laughable that people are over reacting with "I will only be able to play my 4k BD on the player I registered the disk".

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

exactly, it sounds like what has been around since BD launched (with hopefully a slightly better implementation) and we had this same paranoid posts before BD/HDDVD launched.

AACS managed copy never happened despite it being heavily promoted by the HD DVD promoters which is why I am skeptical about whether Digital Bridge/Extension is going to happen. I would love to be able to copy Ultra HD Blu-ray discs to a computer but the studios would have to agree to such a system.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

That is why I find it laughable that people are over reacting with "I will only be able to play my 4k BD on the player I registered the disk".

While I doubt that the worst will happen there is a long list of DRM features that can be seen in the Movielabs proposal for content protection.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

No they said in an interview with hcc that they will make it work in 4K with every 4k display

Thankfully most 4K displays thus far have either been sold with or upgraded to HDCP 2.2, which is why it's basically a non-issue for the BDA and the question quite rightly relates to how, say, P3 HDR material will work on a .709 SDR TV. Getting it working with other non-HDCP 2.2 4K gear like recievers, switchers, processors and so on is a whole different issue, but then that wasn't the question that HCC (probably) asked.

It makes a mockery of certain manufacturers' rather arrogant dismissal of HDCP 2.2 though. IIRC Yamaha and at least one other amp manufacturer ignored the writing on the wall when producing their recent ranges, fitting full-bandwidth 18 Gb/s 4K HDMI chips without HDCP 2.2, saying that 'full range is what people want' blah blah. Other folks like Onkyo chose to stick with the 10.2 GB/s silicon because it had HDCP 2.2 (for folks that don't know, this is due to a shortage of chips which do both, NOT a fundamental incompatibility).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thankfully most 4K displays thus far have either been sold with or upgraded to HDCP 2.2, which is why it's basically a non-issue for the BDA. Getting it working with other non-HDCP 2.2 4K gear like recievers, switchers, processors and so on is a whole different issue, but then that wasn't the question that HCC asked.

It makes a mockery of certain manufacturers' rather arrogant dismissal of HDCP 2.2 though. IIRC Yamaha and at least one other amp manufacturer ignored the writing on the wall when producing their recent ranges, fitting full-bandwidth 18 Gb/s 4K HDMI chips without HDCP 2.2, saying that 'full range is what people want' blah blah. Other folks like Onkyo chose to stick with the 10.2 GB/s silicon because it had HDCP 2.2 (for folks that don't know, this is due to a shortage of chips which do both, NOT a fundamental incompatibility).

The receivers in the chain will be the issue for a lot of people, but I am guessing there will be players with dual hdmi outputs.
It's a shame the new Mhl standard was not used instead for video.