4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

If a consumer 4K optical format becomes a reality in 4 years (around 2016), the studios already have 8K,6K, and 4K master scans of many films that can be used for the new 4K optical format.

If 8K displays in several years or decades becomes the norm maybe Ben-Hur, Wizard of Oz, and Gone with the Wind will end up getting a 16K scan from the original film negative.

Maybe in the far future walls in peoples new homes will be big enough to mount a 150+ inch flat screen. Have a 4K,8K, or 16K flat screen that is thin as a poster that rolls up and unrolls to fit on the wall.

It's simply called OLED, or at least it will be something similar to that if it's not going to work.
Sony already dropped it... Surprisingly enough... It's OK, it won't break.

But I do think that people's walls, no matter what size, will turn into interactive screens.
There was already a project somewhere, that has the whole room customizable in color and style/design and basically being your "digital desktop".
Much like simply having your Windows-desktop on your wall, with applications and gadgets and of course your media.
Except, although the plan was/is to use OLED, for logical and experimental purposes they used projections first.
Still awesome though. Just imagine having the ability to use your wall(s) as a screen for everything.
I think there was also a deal of voice-recognition or something... There was more to it than just walls being the screen...
I forgot where I saw it. It could have been a documentary on Discovery or something... something like that anyway...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

It's simply called OLED, or at least it will be something similar to that if it's not going to work.
Sony already dropped it... Surprisingly enough... It's OK, it won't break.

That is well-known, check out the award winning OLED professional monitor used for desktop applications in mastering and broadcast suites.

Problem is, given the current business model, consumer OLED is a bit too expensive to manufacture, in large sizes. Other consumer electronics companies seem to be taking up the slack so, they should fit the need....ergo, happiness all around. Both on the professional and consumer level.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

That is well-known, check out the award winning OLED professional monitor used for desktop applications in mastering and broadcast suites.

Problem is, given the current business model, consumer OLED is a bit too expensive to manufacture, in large sizes. Other consumer electronics companies seem to be taking up the slack so, they should fit the need....ergo, happiness all around. Both on the professional and consumer level.

Yes, I just hope they won't just drop it and solve any technical limitations.
If they stick to it, it usually comes to a point where it will be picked up by consumers.
They pulled it off with LED, and that's only a backlight-technology. OLED would be so much of an improvement.
Only, I just hope the general consumer won't go like "But LED is just the same. It gives the best contrast!" and all that... -_-
Cause that what they're basically taught now...

[peterraes]

when i look back a x months,i see comments like "it never gonna happen 4K.....no need for 4K....blu ray is just here....etc etc...
fact= the first 4K blu ray player is there,the new Sony wich upscales your blu ray disc,second...a 4K projektor is allready here...
it will happen,but ONLY if other companies start bringing out the players and projektors,now you might say,it is only "upscaled"...i seen a hour long demo and the difference is mindboggling compared to 1080P,BUT...it only makes sense for people with displays 90" as minimum,there is absolutely no point on annything less!
another big bonus with 4K is the fact that you can get the "new" THX specification= a 40° viewing angle!
i was watching the screen (104") from a distance of 11,5 feet,it was huge but it never strained during the 4K presentation.
i have a 90" screen at home,viewing angle is 33° and thats really about max for me with 1080P,the picture is superb,but i would trade it in right away for a 104" or more to get the 40° angle,and here comes 4K nicely into the picture.
it will be a market for the "real" home cinema fanatics,thats for sure and yes,it will be pricey cause of the limited runs of discs to manufacture,same was with laserdisc..a niche market.
annyways,over the next week i should be able to see "true" 4K as the dealer is about to get hold of some real 4K trailers,unfortenatly no full movie yet available...i just cant wait for it!

[Deciazulado]

The Deci specification is 60º+ for Scope films

[Flatnate]

I would agree in that I think 4K will enjoy a limited market. The nature of it appeals to videophiles with large displays over the average consumer with a moderate display size who only cares to stream Netflix.

However, one can just look at the increasing sales of projectors to see where this market will emerge, and in the end it will solidify the need for a physical format in the marketplace. Both good things. My only fear is that some studios will not fully embrace it, and it will see about the same amount of movie releases as D-Theater D-VHS did some years back. If eventually we could get Laserdisc type market penetration with 4K, I will be ecstatic, I can deal with that.

I really want this to succeed (I really want 8K projection at my local movie theater as well too).

[Damage Inc.]

^ In reply to that by peterraes:

I agree that the market is limited and the higher resolution would be of more use for a larger image or screen.

However, all us Blu-ray-lovers around here shouldn't be saying that "Blu-ray" or the content on these discs is all that perfect.
I know that it cán be close to perfect, but it's STILL limited in data and in resolution.
There might be all those 4k-scans and what not, but the best standard for home-video out here with us is still "only 1080p".
This new resolution might have been revolutionary for us, the consumers and the homevideo-environment.
But if you really look at it, it's only the beginning of High Definition, and also only the beginning of "the better and correct picture".
Because, sure, we've been taken closer to the way the original films look than ever.
But it definitely has room for improvement and to be even more accurate.
Yes, it also has to do with the transferring to Blu-ray that many times they just didn't do a good job on.

But even for these mistakes, I think having higher technical standards, would give the "bad transfers" a bigger margin.
I mean, there often have been BDs that have video that isn't up to HD-standards but are STILL better than the DVD.
Well, I think those "bad transfers" would come out even better if they'd be at higher resolutions and bitrates.
I'm not saying it's OK to sell bad transfers, I'm just saying, that everything can still go up, that 1080p is really not the final deal.
Like I probably said before, we have yet to come to a point to where the transfer is accurate enough and we don't have much to improve upon anymore.
So I do think this "4K content" will come and will be a very standard thing, maybe even content higher than that, in fact I'm pretty sure.
I just don't know how they could convince/market people to upgrade yet again, although it might be easier and easier.

But as for leaving the current BDs... Again, no, I don't think you should hold off.
If you're that worried about it, I suggest you just buy or keep the best transfers, so they will "last longer".
And as for upconverting 1080p to that "4k"... I don't know how "OK" that is.
Sure, it's to adapt to a larger screen or to a "4K"-screen, but I don't think it should be considered an improvement on the quality.
But just for what it is, an upconversion in size to adapt to the larger resolution screen.

I would love to see the screenshot-comparisons, like those "mouse over" ones, between 1080p and "2160p".
It really makes me wonder HOW it would look different. I can imagine, I'm not a stranger to photography, which comes in a lot higher resolutions.
But in video... I still really wonder.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The Deci specification is 60º+ for Scope films

Agreed, that is a good spec!

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I would love to see the screenshot-comparisons, like those "mouse over" ones, between 1080p and "2160p".
It really makes me wonder HOW it would look different. I can imagine, I'm not a stranger to photography, which comes in a lot higher resolutions.
But in video... I still really wonder.

Agreed, on the mouse-over thing. I would love to see a true 2K DCI JPEG-2000 frame out of a cinema DCP compared to the same Blu-Ray frame next to it. Assuming the images were not compressed when uploaded and my monitor was of high enough quality.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I would love to see the screenshot-comparisons, like those "mouse over" ones, between 1080p and "2160p".
It really makes me wonder HOW it would look different. I can imagine, I'm not a stranger to photography, which comes in a lot higher resolutions.
But in video... I still really wonder.

Well I don't have handy one of those ^^ but this is a comparison between a Nikon 4000dpi photographic film scanner (eq to "3.8K" in a movie film scanner) and a Hasselblad 8000dpi scanner ("7.6K") from the ScanDig site. The actual tested resolution capture capability of the scanners was 77 c/mm and 136 c/mm respectively which would record about 3700 lines and 6500 lines across the Super-35 format's 24mm width respectively. So you can see that even a 8K scan is bettah

http://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/H...ung_crop_1.gif



(this is scanned from this http://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/H...bild_crops.jpg "VistaVision" (35mm Still format) image)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The Deci specification is 60º+ for Scope films

agree

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by peterraes

i have a 90" screen at home,viewing angle is 33° and thats really about max for me with 1080P,the picture is superb,but i would trade it in right away for a 104" or more to get the 40° angle,and here comes 4K nicely into the picture.

exactly, it is all about being able to get closer to the right size/distance to fill your field of vision with a high quality image.

it will be a market for the "real" home cinema fanatics,thats for sure and yes,it will be pricey cause of the limited runs of discs to manufacture,same was with laserdisc..a niche market.

I don't know, obviously at first while it is niche it will be expensive, but I think prices will drop since I don't think it will always be niche. The issue with LD was that it was a play only format in a world where people wanted a record format even more. I think 4k BD (or whatever media) will most likely be a much easier sell to the masses, since chances are taht it won’t have other drawbacks (like LD or DVHS had).

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't know, obviously at first while it is niche it will be expensive, but I think prices will drop since I don't think it will always be niche. The issue with LD was that it was a play only format in a world where people wanted a record format even more. I think 4k BD (or whatever media) will most likely be a much easier sell to the masses, since chances are taht it won’t have other drawbacks (like LD or DVHS had).

Yes, but the switch would be very similar to from DVD to BD.
I mean, people had to buy new players, with the need of a new TV if you'd actually want to see the higher resolution.
BUT, the marketing was (and probably still is) really about the better quality and "High Definition".
So, like I said in my previous post, how can they get people convinced for higher quality once again?

I'm not disagreeing about the "4k" not being able to break though on the market, like I said, I think it WILL be a standard.
But... seeing how, to take advantage of it, you would need a new player and screen, I think it might be rather hard to convince people.
Getting it into houses is as easy as simply making them the default product on the market.
I mean, at one point the 4K-screen will be the only option like currently the most common thing is an HD-TV.
Just look at half a decade or longer ago, an HD-TV was something very special (and expensive) and many people probably called it "nonsense".
And we're contemplating if higher resolution for home-video would be a "niche" thing?...
With 720p and 1080p only being the beginnings of serious resolutions?...

Now, people of course don't look as deep into this stuff as people around here do.
So again, how could the market convince people to move to yet another and an even higher quality HD-format?
I'm sure the marketing-people are already thinking about that, "How to promote Higher Definition.", but what would give the incentive?
It's clear to us. Higher definition, more detail, more data, etc.
But to the general consumer it's like "OK, we had to move to HD, because it's thé thing to get,
it means absolutely perfect video and crystal-clear audio, period.".
In some years there will be this higher definition and they'll be like "What now?!".
What could anyone say to convince them it's a good thing?... It was already hard enough for current HD.
Now the people are convinced or even forced to believe it's better, HD is in, people go with it, many are amazed by it.
But how to get it out of their minds it's not good enough and there's something even better?
Sure, they finally believed HD was better, but the same people might have believed that DVD was "good enough" forever.

Additionally, like I've probably also said before, now there's also nothing like special features to promote.
I mean, all the on-the-fly picture-in-picture-stuff and things like that...
I'd almost think they would HAVE TO come up with more special features to promote/sell "higher definition".
It would be cool, I have no problem with that, as long as they come up with something proper and useful.
Not like BD Live and Digital Copies and junk like that...
But "higher definition" alone?... Yeah, I'm not sure if that would be so easy.


(Please keep in mind, I'm not one who thinks about this as a new format, as in a new disc.
I know it will probably be a case of larger BDs and maybe even the same players if that's possible, just with higher resolution video and screens.)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by peterraes

BUT...it only makes sense for people with displays 90" as minimum,there is absolutely no point on annything less!

Hardly, I must thank Apple for this (see 3rd paragraph), i.e. ‘the best feature’….
http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...,1728685.story

as it helps pave the way in the consumer consciousness for 4K TVs.

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Now the people are convinced or even forced to believe it's better, HD is in, people go with it, many are amazed by it.
But how to get it out of their minds it's not good enough and there's something even better?

At the end of the day, technology will keep progressing because the manufactures want to sell more products. Marketing and hype will drive people to want it when it becomes available. 4K TVs are visibly better than 1080p TVs. Most people won't buy it because the specs say 2160p, they will buy it because of the words "dazzling," "blew me away," "Much clearer than Blu-ray!" I know people describe Blu-ray in a similar way now, but they are comparing it to standard def. Personally, I think Blu-ray looks pretty ordinary and I can't wait for 4K to take over!

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

At the end of the day, technology will keep progressing because the manufactures want to sell more products. Marketing and hype will drive people to want it when it becomes available. 4K TVs are visibly better than 1080p TVs. Most people won't buy it because the specs say 2160p, they will buy it because of the words "dazzling," "blew me away," "Much clearer than Blu-ray!" I know people describe Blu-ray in a similar way now, but they are comparing it to standard def. Personally, I think Blu-ray looks pretty ordinary and I can't wait for 4K to take over!

Yes, but that's the whole point.
Also, the thing I meant was, first they had to make people believe that DVD isn't all that great, even though it was the premier homevideo-format,
the best quality you could get, cause it was on a shiny disc and it was digital with surround sound flying around your fayce,
and that Blu-ray contains HD-content and is the best thing out there.
Don't you think that people would be reluctant to go through that again and once again be like "Blu-ray/HD is good enough!",
but on top of that also be like "We've already upgraded and it's amazing now, no need for more again!"?
I'm not sure how "visibly better" it is, I'm sure you and me could see it, like people could see the difference between SD and HD.
But I doubt it's AS easy to see the difference.
And also that people mostly wouldn't be getting a gigantic screen to justify it and they'd settle for good old 1080p anyway.
Again, I'm not saying higher quality shouldn't be there and that it won't, I think it will be there.
I would really like to know what will drive people to fall for it.
Or are people really stupid enough to see a commercial going like "Now available in Quad High Def!"
and go like "Alright, if you say it's better, I'll get it." without any proof? :P
I mean... sure, I might never really have been a regular consumer, but I wasn't impressed by this "HD-phenomenon" until I saw screenshots.
And generally, people aren't going to look for proof such as screenshots, they have to be fed and brainwashed basically. :P
So yeah, how are they going to pull this one off, I wonder...

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hardly, I must thank Apple for this (see 3rd paragraph), i.e. ‘the best feature’….
http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...,1728685.story

as it helps pave the way in the consumer consciousness for 4K TVs.

But should we really be comparing a 9" screen to HDTV sizes?

And on the other forum people are now saying the new ipad will be sharper than 4K displays. The same people who are arguing with me that 4K is huge difference from 1080p

So now it's "4K TV'z rulez" to "ipad rulez, better than 4K TV'z"

The ppi in a tablet should not be compared to the ppi in an HDTV.

Now as i said on the other forum-

"Dare i play devils advocate; A 4K display will take a massive dump on the ipads retina display"

Tell me im wrong, penton.

[Penton-Man]

I think it’s GREAT that people are debating how sharp the resolution is of the new Ipad as compared to upcoming 4K flat panel displays and projectors used for *conventional* TV and movie watching. I’m not about to intervene. All I’ll say is that you can’t do direct ppi comparisons with tiny viewing screens to that of larger screen sizes (like, for instance, proclamations that 300 ppi is always better than 250 ppi - no matter what size the display is). It doesn’t work like that. The larger a display is, the further one will view it from, and thusly, the effective resolution is based upon angular resolution rather than the linear ppi resolution for the display. So, that is something which people should consider when they try to extrapolate ppi numbers from the modestly sized new IPad to conventional TV sizes on the order of 55”, 65”, etc. on up to screens for front projectors.

Believe it or not, there are higher pixel density (~ 2900 ppi) professional products useful and available (http://www.microoled.net/about-us/who-we-are) than that of Apple’s new Ipad but, most consumers have never heard about them and they’re for ‘displays’ on the order of 0.6 inches in size.

To take the idea to even further extreme, eye care professionals have a test for visual acuity called ‘PAM’ which, for some, is more accurate than the Snellen chart (that people are familiar with as reading from a distance on a Doctor’s wall), in which a miniaturized Snellen chart is projected directly on the patient’s retina and the eye professional can accurately quantify visual acuity in terms of 20/10, 20/20, 20/40, etc. that way. Those eye guys and gals actually make surgical decisions based on that PAM test.

The important thing is that Apple is paving the way to widespread consumer consciousness to the notion that there are benefits to effective higher resolutions than folks currently have now (1080p) at home, whether one desires to quantify resolution (and visual acuity) in terms of ppi, dpi, K’s, or cpd (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...pd#post5922985 )

The key point for this thread is that screen size is not the limiting factor…as long as one doesn’t see artifacts like pixels with ‘immersive viewing’. And as Deci and others have said, ‘immersive viewing’ is what serious home theater enthusiasts strive for as they try to replicate the theatrical experience.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Yes, but the switch would be very similar to from DVD to BD.
I mean, people had to buy new players, with the need of a new TV if you'd actually want to see the higher resolution.
BUT, the marketing was (and probably still is) really about the better quality and "High Definition".
So, like I said in my previous post, how can they get people convinced for higher quality once again?

I'm not disagreeing about the "4k" not being able to break though on the market, like I said, I think it WILL be a standard.
But... seeing how, to take advantage of it, you would need a new player and screen, I think it might be rather hard to convince people.
Getting it into houses is as easy as simply making them the default product on the market.
I mean, at one point the 4K-screen will be the only option like currently the most common thing is an HD-TV.
Just look at half a decade or longer ago, an HD-TV was something very special (and expensive) and many people probably called it "nonsense".
And we're contemplating if higher resolution for home-video would be a "niche" thing?...
With 720p and 1080p only being the beginnings of serious resolutions?...

Now, people of course don't look as deep into this stuff as people around here do.
So again, how could the market convince people to move to yet another and an even higher quality HD-format?
I'm sure the marketing-people are already thinking about that, "How to promote Higher Definition.", but what would give the incentive?
It's clear to us. Higher definition, more detail, more data, etc.
But to the general consumer it's like "OK, we had to move to HD, because it's thé thing to get,
it means absolutely perfect video and crystal-clear audio, period.".
In some years there will be this higher definition and they'll be like "What now?!".
What could anyone say to convince them it's a good thing?... It was already hard enough for current HD.
Now the people are convinced or even forced to believe it's better, HD is in, people go with it, many are amazed by it.
But how to get it out of their minds it's not good enough and there's something even better?
Sure, they finally believed HD was better, but the same people might have believed that DVD was "good enough" forever.

Additionally, like I've probably also said before, now there's also nothing like special features to promote.
I mean, all the on-the-fly picture-in-picture-stuff and things like that...
I'd almost think they would HAVE TO come up with more special features to promote/sell "higher definition".
It would be cool, I have no problem with that, as long as they come up with something proper and useful.
Not like BD Live and Digital Copies and junk like that...
But "higher definition" alone?... Yeah, I'm not sure if that would be so easy.


(Please keep in mind, I'm not one who thinks about this as a new format, as in a new disc.
I know it will probably be a case of larger BDs and maybe even the same players if that's possible, just with higher resolution video and screens.)

I think you are thinking of this too much, you are giving the answer but missing the forest for the trees.

Some people have no issue buying new equipment every year, others every 3-5 years, others when the urge gets to them and others when forced (stuff brakes, obsolescence....). But sooner or later everyone buys new stuff.

As prices drop more and more people will buy into it and as more and more people buy the prices will drop.

HDTVs hit the market at the end of the 90’s BD came out in 2006 and even today the world has not moved to 100% HD. Things don’t change instantaneously but take a long time.

3D,4K like HDTV and colour will take time to be mainstream, but it does not make sense to think it will always be niche.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think you are thinking of this too much, you are giving the answer but missing the forest for the trees.

Some people have no issue buying new equipment every year, others every 3-5 years, others when the urge gets to them and others when forced (stuff brakes, obsolescence....). But sooner or later everyone buys new stuff.

As prices drop more and more people will buy into it and as more and more people buy the prices will drop.

HDTVs hit the market at the end of the 90’s BD came out in 2006 and even today the world has not moved to 100% HD. Things don’t change instantaneously but take a long time.

3D,4K like HDTV and colour will take time to be mainstream, but it does not make sense to think it will always be niche.

Yes, but I also said somewhere that "getting people to buy this new stuff, is as simple as putting it in stores".
So I agree to that extent, I'm not saying it won't happen, they'll slowly move towards it anyway.

But still, I just meant, getting people to move towards it through marketing... I mean, they HAVE to do it.
They did it with HD and Blu-ray, I can't help but keep on wondering, how are they going to promote quality once again?...
Like I said, DVD was clear to people, it was a digital and more consistent format (compared to VHS), it would give you beautiful quality.
But then for about a decade, in people's minds, that was really the most amazing thing you could have for video.
So they had to basically talk people out of that mindset and convince them that Blu-ray with HD-content is the best thing.
Now... do that again, and I think people will be like "Now they're just trying to rip us off. It can not possibly be better.".
"It's a scam!"... That's what I think people will be like... "They're going to force new formats on us every 5 years!", and all that...
You see what I'm getting at? I'm afraid that every next higher quality format, will be accepted with more and more reluctance.
Then later, in maybe a couple of generations, it will be so normal to switch that it's just not a big deal anymore...
But in our lifetime, or at least at this time and state... I think it will be troublesome...

In the end, I do believe that, in some decades, resolutions of 1:1-equivalents to film and holographic images will be very normal.
It's just a case of how they will mold the consumer to move along with technology and the market.
Because thát, in the end, will determine how long it will take for us to get to that point.