4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by Crazy People

The difference between 1080p and 4k on a 42" screen or less.... is basically zero. We cannot perceive the quality increase because our eyes cannot tell the difference.

That's a load of crap because I have seen it for myself. I trust my eyes more than any article that theorizes the subject. For one thing, it would depend how close you are to the 42'' 4K TV. The closer the better.

[raj1402]

4k content for 2hr movie will be around 500gb so 10 bluray for a single movie?

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by raj1402

4k content for 2hr movie will be around 500gb so 10 bluray for a single movie?

Not even close. 4k is only 4x as high as 1080p. Even without a new codec only 200 gigs would be nessesary

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Crazy People

Really? People prefered VHS To DVD? Never knew anybody like that. Must be an outlier. You could see the difference between VHS to DVD. You can slightly see the difference between DVD to Blu-ray. The difference between Blu-ray to 4K is even smaller.

Yet there were lots of my friends that got bellicose when I talked about DVDs and were adamant their VHSes were good enough and DVD wasn't needed. (Probably some unconscious reaction people get that puts them in the defensive when they think they're being told they wasted their money on an obsolete format) (They all now have DVD of course). Same happened with BDs.

To me the difference between VHSs (480i), LDs (480i) and DVDs (480i) was relatively small. While the difference between a BD (1080p) sourced from a true 2K master at 1:1 (which means cropping 3% instead of downrrezing 0.96x) or from >4k scans done correctly and a DVD is much more. If people don't see it that much, they're watching them within fields of view probably narrower than they should be. (Or the BDs are just reaching ~720p quality)

[Steedeel]

Bluray was an incredible upgrade. Obvious from the very first movie i watched. The grain structure was natural looking for a start. On some dvd's the grain took on a life of its own with odd movement and freezing quite common. I know you still get that occasionally on blu but nowhere near as much or as bad.

I am confident 4k will be very apparent, even before any upgrades to my home cinema.

Wrote on my pc with no smartphone or tablet in sight!

[raj1402]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Not even close. 4k is only 4x as high as 1080p. Even without a new codec only 200 gigs would be nessesary

what format does digital project file used in theatres? is it DI itself?
one of my friend who is a distributor said he got 750gb file (15 BD disk for 3hr movie)?

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

That's a load of crap because I have seen it for myself. I trust my eyes more than any article that theorizes the subject. For one thing, it would depend how close you are to the 42'' 4K TV. The closer the better.

Some people can't grasp that their physical limitations don't apply to everybody else. There is a reason some people where glasses or contacts and some don't.

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Some people can't grasp that their physical limitations don't apply to everybody else. There is a reason some people where glasses or contacts and some don't.

It's funny how some people think they see in 1080p

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

It's funny how some people think they see in 1080p

Haha, Now if I could only add some more ears, a few higher and a few lower

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

It's funny how some people think they see in 1080p

Maybe they are like Steven Austin?

[vargo]

Originally Posted by raj1402

4k content for 2hr movie will be around 500gb so 10 bluray for a single movie?

Compressed? No.

For a given visual quality, the relationship between resolution and bitrate isn't linear. 4x the pixels doesnt require 4x the bitrate, more like 2-3x.

And if you factor in the increased compression from future codecs such as HEVC and even the generation beyond that, compressed 4k is feasible on for example a minor update to Bluray. Something about 100GB should suffice.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The 3D aspect of this is meaningless. I bought a new 55" TV this year and it happens to be 3D, but I don't watch any 3D on it - I don't even have any glasses. My brother bought a 55" and he did happen to get 5 pairs of glasses and he says he enjoys the 3D, but there are only two real tests:
- how many people bought the TV because it had 3D?
- how many 3D Blu-rays are being sold?
Furthermore only 20% of dollars was spent on 3D screens, which of course means that 80% wasn't. I'd say that's a pretty poor showing.

As far as large screen sizes are concerned, look at the last sentence. Only 1 in 6 panels sold were above 50". That's less than 17%. Even though I'm the one who argued that houses are getting smaller and apartments are gaining window space and losing wall space, so they can't handle large screens, even I would have thought that large screen share was greater than 17%.

you are missing some key points

1) in a long and bad recession 17% market share is good for a luxury item.

2) the article mentioned TV sales, and TV does not include FP sales and every FP will be used for 50+" image so the % of displays >50" will actually be much higher. my guess 2 and even 3x as high once FP is factored in

3) this % would be important if everyone has 1 TV and we assume a fair sample (no reason not to suppose the latter part but the first is obviously wrong) but the reality is that most people tend to have multiple sets and those sets will tend to be different sizes. In Sept. Canada went digital OTA, my dad replaced his old EDTV in the kitchen with an HDTV that was <50" does that tell anyone what he has? no because the TV in the Den did not need replacing and it was 60". My guess everyone with at least one display that is over 50" will also have one display that is under 50". So % of TV sold will always tend to up-play smaller sets (i.e. if Joe buys a big screen, then obviously Joe has a big screen , he is calculated as a big screen owner and the conversation is moot, but if Joe buys a small screen, none of us can know if Joe has a big screen or not at home already.)

4) space and size owned are two different topics. Even if we had a correct ratio of households with >50" and<50" that still would not tell us if the person could have a larger screen or not in their home which is the discussion when you say they can't have a big screen. There are many reasons to buy smaller then what you can (how much money a person has to spend, what they consider important, how knowledgeable they are......)


PS also you quoted the article but yet you missed the most important part in your zeal to support your point "the fact that sales of big screen TVs, 50 inches or bigger, increased more than 32%"

which shows that even though houses are not getting bigger TVs are. And in a discussion of the future that growth is much more important than the size of TV they have today. Let’s face it in order to have a 4k display that will mean they will need to buy a new one.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Every time new technology is pused I always have to hear whinners say what they have is good enough. "I just upgraded why are they pushing new stuff waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa." When DVD was pushed I heard this nonsense up until 2005 that VHS was good enough for them. With Blu-Ray I heard that DVD was good enough. When 3D came out we still hear 2D is good enough Im just sick of this nonsense.

Fact is 4k does enhance the experiance when played on TVs large enough. For people who want to watch there movies on the largest screen they can fit that added detail really enhances the experiance. NEVER SETTLE FOR GOOD ENOUGH. NEVER

agree, it bugs the hell out of me as well. I am smart enough to decide when I am ready to jump into something new, it just makes sense that tech will continue advancing and I will decide when (if ever) it is ripe for me. I don’t get people that are angry at that. If they don’t want or can’t afford something, it is simple “just don’t buy it”. Should car manufacturers stop new car models every year just because most people don’t buy a car every year? I think part of it is people being obtuse. They see ex[pensive new tech (i.e. 30k for a new projector) and say “I can’t afford it” add the sour grapes and you get “the tech is good enough why do we need better now” or “it is too soon”. But they fail to realise that if that new “high end” device did not come out this year but in two or three years when they are ready to upgrade that it would be the same price and they won’t be able to upgrade to the same level. (to explain if BD did not come out in 2006 but in 2011/12 BD players would now be 1000$ instead of under 100$ so the guy buying a new BD player for 100$ now benefits from it having launched in 2006 and all of us that payed more for having it earlier)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Crazy People

The difference between 1080p and 4k on a 42" screen or less.... is basically zero. We cannot perceive the quality increase because our eyes cannot tell the difference.

so can you tell me how many studies you have run to reach such a conclusion. Also why should people be forced to watch something on such a small screen? If you want to watch a movie properly it is on a big screen and what it looks like on a big screen is all that matters. And lastly "basically" zero means that it is not zero, so why shouldn't the person with a 42" screen be allowed to have something better if he wishes it because you decided that it is "basically" zero?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Crazy People

You are correct. We are looking at the majority of televisions on the market not being able to show a difference between 1080p and 4k.

obviously the majority of TVs on the market are 1080p there are very few 4k displays available and even less owned (Since most have yet to hit the market and they are extremely expensive). So how do you want a 1080p TV (or even a 720p TV) to be able to show what 4k will look like?

The average television size being sold is 38".

average size being sold is immaterial since people will always have smaller TVs, when are you living in the 90’s where TVs are in the 30's the average main screen that is owned now is in the 50’s and insiders think that it will be in the 60’s by 2015 http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/01/average_tv_size.html

let me ask you this, a guy has an 80” a 40” and a 30” TV does it matter that the average size of his TVs is 50” does it matter that he has a 30” or that the middle TV is 40” no, what he watches when he cares about what he is watching is his 80” and that is the one he wants the image to look better on.

And of the fraction of TV's that will be able to show the changes in resolution, the difference will be a smaller gap then VHS to DVD or DVD to Blu-ray. Add in people who don't care, and the market for this is tiny.

for someone that does not care you sure have a lot to say.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Some people can't grasp that their physical limitations don't apply to everybody else. There is a reason some people where glasses or contacts and some don't.

I don't think it is physical but mental limitations. Let's be honest, how easy is it to see real 4k in one's home? These are people that are either too dumb to realize "how can I know I won't appreciate the difference" or that want to convince themselves that they can't so that they won't feel compelled to upgrade again.

[saprano]

or that want to convince themselves that they can't so that they won't feel compelled to upgrade again.

You know the upgrade to 4K isn't going to be free right?

Absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that way. Not to say anybody in this thread is. And i still stand by my thoughts that while, yes, 4K will be an upgrade from 1080p, it wont be a 480 to 1080 difference. It will definitely be noticeable. Just not draw dropping noticeable. Do the maths yourselves.

All the demo's i've see from 4K shows live video. Its easy to make live video look good. Not to mention for demo purposes. The real test for me would be a 2K bluray mastered to its fullest potential vs a 4K bluray.

Forget broadcast, thats never going to happen. At least no time soon. And if it did the differences would be even less or zero thanks to the compression rape these cable providers do.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by saprano

You know the upgrade to 4K isn't going to be free right?

Absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that way. Not to say anybody in this thread is. And i still stand by my thoughts that while, yes, 4K will be an upgrade from 1080p, it wont be a 480 to 1080 difference. It will definitely be noticeable. Just not draw dropping noticeable. Do the maths yourselves.

All the demo's i've see from 4K shows live video. Its easy to make live video look good. Not to mention for demo purposes. The real test for me would be a 2K bluray mastered to its fullest potential vs a 4K bluray.

Forget broadcast, thats never going to happen. At least no time soon. And if it did the differences would be even less or zero thanks to the compression rape these cable providers do.

I think for any 4k (or ~2000 line) system to be viable there will need to be broadcasts in that format. With the HEVC codec it will probably be feasible for 2000 line video to be transmitted in a single 40Mbs transponder which is what DBS uses. It could be a big selling point for Dish or DirecTV (versus cable) to offer a few 4k channels. I can't see it completely replacing our current HDTV broadcasts, not in the next 20 years or so anyways. There just isn't enough bandwidth.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, it bugs the hell out of me as well. I am smart enough to decide when I am ready to jump into something new, it just makes sense that tech will continue advancing and I will decide when (if ever) it is ripe for me. I don’t get people that are angry at that. If they don’t want or can’t afford something, it is simple “just don’t buy it”. Should car manufacturers stop new car models every year just because most people don’t buy a car every year? I think part of it is people being obtuse. They see ex[pensive new tech (i.e. 30k for a new projector) and say “I can’t afford it” add the sour grapes and you get “the tech is good enough why do we need better now” or “it is too soon”. But they fail to realise that if that new “high end” device did not come out this year but in two or three years when they are ready to upgrade that it would be the same price and they won’t be able to upgrade to the same level. (to explain if BD did not come out in 2006 but in 2011/12 BD players would now be 1000$ instead of under 100$ so the guy buying a new BD player for 100$ now benefits from it having launched in 2006 and all of us that payed more for having it earlier)

Unless I win the lottery of something I don't expect to own a 4k television for at least 5 years. However Im exciting the tech is coming. The sooner it comes out the sooner competition can bring prices to an affordable level. The sooner a 4k format hits the market the fewer movies that have to be double dipped which actually saves money in the long run. Business's constantly trying to get consumers the latest thing has propelled economic growth and has dramatically improved our lives.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by saprano

You know the upgrade to 4K isn't going to be free right?

obviously, what is your point?

that someone else can't want it because you don't want to spend to get the benefit? Why should anyone care if someone else thinks the upgrade will be too expensive?

plus it misses the obvious in 2006 going from DVD to BD meant a 1000$ BD player, today that upgrade will be less than 100$ for a BD player. Maybe today with no displays and no media 4k sounds expensive for you, but how do you that in 10 years when you want to replace that equipment you are enjoying today that there will even be a price difference worth mentioning?