4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Steedeel]

The only problem is at the moment streaming services such as Netflix seem to be reducing their bit rates, not improving them. They were already very low. There is talk of a new compression system (company) getting the HD feeds down to 1.8 mbps for HD. now, more than ever, 4k broadband seems more than 10 years away. As i predicted previously, current (in my opinion) poor standards seem to be getting even worse. It is my belief streaming will not improve much over the next 10 years regardless of codecs.

If people are going to accept lower than dvd quality streaming as the norm, i hold little hope for quality.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

(or, at least, upscaled 4k at home, so far)…

As apparently in my *industry-at-large* comment, I forgot to include the fact that 4k consumer/prosumer camcorders also have been introduced, which means there shortly will be potential for viewing native rather than just upscaled 4k in a home environment, I was kindly PMed this Press Release from a Blu-ray.com reader…

http://newsroom.jvc.com/2012/01/jvc-...der/#more-2074

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As apparently in my *industry-at-large* comment, I forgot to include the fact that 4k consumer/prosumer camcorders also have been introduced, which means there shortly will be potential for viewing native rather than just upscaled 4k in a home environment, I was kindly PMed this Press Release from a Blu-ray.com reader…

http://newsroom.jvc.com/2012/01/jvc-...der/#more-2074

That's rather impressive! I was also surprised that H.264 was being used as a codec. I thought a new codec was being used for 4k? Or is it a case similar to MPEG-2 where it is not as ideal for 1080p as compared to MPEG-4 but it still can produce a good quality image?

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by singhcr

That's rather impressive! I was also surprised that H.264 was being used as a codec. I thought a new codec was being used for 4k? Or is it a case similar to MPEG-2 where it is not as ideal for 1080p as compared to MPEG-4 but it still can produce a good quality image?

There is a new codec is the works, HEVC, but its yet to be finalized. Any future 4k systems will most likely utilize it.

MPEG-4/AVC is just flat out more efficient than MPEG-2, no matter the video resolution.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

...There is talk of a new compression system (company) getting the HD feeds down to 1.8 mbps for HD...

Man, that's depressing.

[Gradius2]

I have some 4K sample material using h.264 (captured with RED). At 20Mbps is pretty good considering the compression. But at 40Mbps is almost perfect, I have at 60Mbps as well, but 40Mbps is good enough, so h.265 is 50% less than h.264, that means 40Mbps will be at 20Mbps @ h.265 with same quality as h.264 @ 40.

h.265 final version has a target in jan or feb 2013.

As soon is done, you can expect to see native 4K blu-ray player.

You can see more here:
http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/co.../encoding.html

[saprano]

Is HEVC made by the same company that did MPEG?

[Gradius2]

MPEG is much more confuse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_..._Experts_Group

HEVC:
http://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

That's rather impressive! I was also surprised that H.264 was being used as a codec. I thought a new codec was being used for 4k? Or is it a case similar to MPEG-2 where it is not as ideal for 1080p as compared to MPEG-4 but it still can produce a good quality image?

At the very least, I think it’s a nice first step forward for a company to come out with an affordable handheld 4k camcorder as an accessory for those early adopting home theater enthusiasts who decide to purchase a 4k flat panel or 4k projector and desire to see 4k source now.

I would never think of speaking on behalf of JVC but, in terms of technical generality on how this will work (getting 4:2:0 8bit into one’s 4k display, despite the manufacturer), while current modern HDMI cables will indeed pass 4k, right now, there is no industry standard for outputting the 4k signal over HDMI from any playback device, i.e. in this case the camcorder of note.

So, I assume they’ve developed a converter box in order to accept several (most likely, 4) HDMI cables. Then, the converter box will output the 4k signal via a single HDMI cable into the home theater enthusiast’s 4k display. Geeks (or should I say their spouses ) will just have to be patient in dealing with the *spaghetti wire* factor of these early 4k solutions in order to exhibit native 4K video content.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Gradius2

I have some 4K sample material using h.264 (captured with RED). At 20Mbps is pretty good considering the compression. But at 40Mbps is almost perfect, I have at 60Mbps as well, but 40Mbps is good enough, so h.265 is 50% less than h.264, that means 40Mbps will be at 20Mbps @ h.265 with same quality as h.264 @ 40.

h.265 final version has a target in jan or feb 2013.

As soon is done, you can expect to see native 4K blu-ray player.

You can see more here:
http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/co.../encoding.html

Good to see some Mitsubishi input . Just goes to show that 4k is not Sony exclusive, nor Blu-ray exclusive, for that matter, and that all home delivery providers are talking about how to best bring it into consumers’ homes…

http://expo.nabshow.com/mynabshow201...ondetails.aspx

^ It seems Jean-Louis doesn't want to wait.

[Toxa]

interesting

[saprano]

What are you trying to say?

[Toxa]

nothing

[saprano]

Haha.

You got that from the DICE 2012 show with Tim Sweeney right?


Foget about 4K. 8K really has no place in the home. It'll be usless for our TV sizes. It's also funny how "The most resolution we need" is pretty close already with 1080p at 30 degrees.

[Toxa]

Originally Posted by saprano

Haha.

You got that from the DICE 2012 show with Tim Sweeney right?

indeed

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

...It's also funny how "The most resolution we need" is pretty close already with 1080p at 30 degrees.

Sap, I’ve got your number buddy , see the other 4K thread we have here on the forum.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by joie

I don't mind going to 4K, but why not give us lossless video? Wouldn't 1920x1080 make a good proving ground for that? Why aren't people trying to solve the problems of small disc capacity and low bandwidth first? To do 1920x1080 right, let alone 4K, we shouldn't be compressing video. So, let's do video right: uncompressed and lossless. Greater bandwidth and storage capacity will let us have that.

If you honestly believe that 1080p uncompressed will look better then a properly compressed 4k image you are out of your mind

The notion that higher compression always decreases quality is a silly myth. It certainly can decrease quality if its done excessively or improperly but if done correctly by compression artists who know what they are doing for transfers it doesn't have too at all.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The notion that higher compression always decreases quality is a silly myth. It certainly can decrease quality if its done excessively or improperly but if done correctly by compression artists who know what they are doing for transfers it doesn't have too at all.

it has too by definition, or else we would have a lossless compression. Let me explain, I will use #s in the argument to help with following it

1) uncompressed scene
2) compression artist compresses it
3) we have a compressed scene that is lossy- that means something in the scene is wrong compared to the original in 1)
4) a compression artist compresses it more. (does not matter if he starts from 1) or 3) just thatit is more compressed)
5) we have an ever more compressed copy than we did in 3
6) if there is no data loss between 3 & 5 that means that the data removed in step 4 (to have lower BW) could be removed losslessly from the scene
7) do you see the contradiction? either that means that in step 2 the guy did not do the job properly (removed data that makes a difference when data that does not make a difference could have been removed) and so it becomes trivial since the argument depends on a guy doing a better job will have a better result, or it means that 3 and 5 are both lossless compressions of 1, which contradicts our hypothesis that they are both lossy or 5 can't be lossless compared to 3(i.e. no loss in quality)

If the argument was the bitrate between a DTHD or DTS-MA does not matter since they are both lossless then you would be correct. Since they are both lossless. But unless there are big * it is not a myth but a truism
(I say big * because, for example, an experienced tech can get better results from very low bitrate AVC than low bitrate MPEG2. but here we are talking low level and none of them looks good to begin with.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by joie

No. To get lossless video at 1920x1080 requires advances in disc storage capacity and bandwidth.

Lossless video is a technological advance. It will come someday, so why not get started on it rather than avoiding the problem by giving us lossy 4K? First things first: lossless 2K is an easier problem to solve -- requiring less bandwidth and storage -- than lossless 4K, and it is a step along the path to a better home video experience.

Sorry, joie, not going to happen…unless of course your home is also a post house that requires high-bandwidth uncompressed material to work with in order to produce product for the end user. Care to venture a guess as to how much just 60 min. of uncompressed HD (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps) will need in terms of storage requirements?

About 670 GB.

And if you plan to have widespread distribution of your motion picture (even if it is an indie film), you’ve got to have a minimum running time of at least 80 odd minutes in order for all territories to buy and distribute the Blu-ray….at least for Sony Pictures, that is.

Engineers working in the business really do believe they have the ability to transcode visually, transparently the PQ of uncompressed material (what we like to term “visually lossless”) even to the most discerning movie watchers when good compression ratio solutions are utilized. So, ‘compression’ for use in exhibition, be it theatrical (DCPs for Digital Cinema) or home deliverables (Blu-ray), is the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

A more realistic hope would be that ‘4K’ be paired with a new display technology (OLED, crystal LED, etc.) in order to leverage the extra pixel resolution of ‘4K’ in order to give an overall better PQ to displays as small as 60–65”. In that regard, the nice thing about crystal LED displays is that they are very scalable. In other words, it won’t be substantially more expensive to the manufacturer (and thusly to the consumer) to fabricate larger crystal LED screen sizes in which the imaging effect of the extra ‘4K’ pixels will be more easily noticeable over current plasma and LCD 1080p displays now offered.

I think that would be a match made in heaven , i.e. 4K 60-65” OLED or crystal LED displays as the new norm/median size for consumers, rather than what currently be the most common HDTV size of….what is it, still 46”? Hmm, I wonder if anyone is working toward that goal as we speak.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

4K 60-65” crystal LED displays...

^ Just think, bigger….better looking…..and far more affordable that the professionally used 4K display shown here…

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/Broa..._srdl560.shtml