4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[vargo]

Originally Posted by joliefan

The thing is if 4k is the same as what we get in the cinema then whats the point ? First i cant fit a tv thats 84 ince in my house and even if i did it whould cost a bomb.

The problem is that you are looking at your TV of today, and then scaling it up in order to imagine what a 84" screen will be like, and what it will cost.

Go back in time 20 years and ask someone if they could fit a 42" TV in their home. They will look at their CRT and scale it up to imagine what a 42" will be like - it will be gigantic and weigh several hundred lbs. And only millionaires will be able to afford them.

The same will be true in 20 years time, 84" will be common size. Imagine a TV that is part of your wall. It disappears when not in use - maybe it is a transparent OLED, maybe some kind of laser projector. Maybe it is something that beams an image directly onto your eyeball so what you see appears to be a 84" TV on your wall, even if nothing is actually there.

Its not sci-fi, all these things and more are being worked on. We are an information consuming society, so the display is one of the most important pieces of technology for us. There is huge amount of money and research being put into displays and I have no doubt they will look very different in the not too distant future.

[superapplekid]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Many variables come into play in the answering of your question…
How old (and high-end) is your current display?

Has it been professionally calibrated recently (as some models drift over time) by a respected ISF calibrator in the field?

Can you easily visualize the global green (actually cyan/teal) tint and the indisputably reduced white level alterations of FOTR extended edition Blu-ray when comparing it to the theatrical edition?

The primary disadvantage of 8 bit color depth physical home media software movies is the presence, from time to time, of an artifact best known to consumers as “banding”. This used to be a far more frequent problem back when a certain major studio was routinely bit-starving their titles while using the VC-1 codec for compression and luckily, these days, banding is now more of a rarity but, it still can be identified on some new titles. SPHE has largely eliminated this banding problem since instituting, on the production of all titles, the use of SBMV, which is a dithering solution that produces superior color gradient quality. You can verify the SBMV logo on the back of the Sony Blu-ray cases. See pic on bottom right for the graphic thinking behind the solution….http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-conten...009/09/sbm.png

If you’ve been a longtime HD movie physical media hobbyist and have never seen banding on a fairly large sample collection of movies, don’t feel badly though, as there is a well known online-archivist who has failed multiple times in indentifying some scenes having blatantly obvious banding involving more than one HD (8 bit) movie.

I am currently using an Epson 7500UB. It hasn't been professionally calibrated, but it looks very accurate out of the box (new bulb helps) with only the occasional color issues (I noticed Inception looked 'off' frequently). I could certainly read up more about color accuracy and mess around with it, but I am also aware that LED lighting offers better color reproduction in general, which is especially evident in skin tones. My concern was primarily if there is an advantage between switching to a more accurate picture display or changing your video library to one with higher bit-rate colors when 4K inevitably comes. I am not worried about my color accuracy at the moment, but more curious about what a new format could actually offer.

Honestly, if banding is the only issue, then no, I wouldn't imagine upgrading the color bit-rate would make a huge impact for me. Since switching to projectors I am only just now noticing banding, and it isn't generally a serious issue. It is another compression artifact that my eyes are inevitably on the lookout for now, but I don't think it's ever been bad enough to detract in any way, and if it has it was certainly the fault of the mastering and not bluray as a medium.

Haven't compared FOTR blu-ray, although I imagine I would notice those things pretty quickly (I am at least sensitive to tinting). Thanks for the info.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by superapplekid

Honestly, if banding is the only issue...

Banding isn’t the only issue but, it is a significant one when talking about 8 bit color depth vs. 10 bit and the advantages/disadvantages thereof.

A 10 bit source fed into a true 10 bit panel will also show increased color accuracy. How much of an impact that has upon you personally is subjective and difficult for me to explain or quantify on an individual basis.

Your best bet would be to attend an industry show like NAB and see actual displays which are up and running. This year it is April 14-19 in Vegas.

[srinivas1015]

Is this how 4k is going to look? I know that the following is a production photo and that motion will look different, no filters have been added etc. But imgagine this level of quality with the filters added and everything. It will be quite a leap from 1080p

[Show spoiler]

[endy]

Originally Posted by vargo

The problem is that you are looking at your TV of today, and then scaling it up in order to imagine what a 84" screen will be like, and what it will cost.

Go back in time 20 years and ask someone if they could fit a 42" TV in their home. They will look at their CRT and scale it up to imagine what a 42" will be like - it will be gigantic and weigh several hundred lbs. And only millionaires will be able to afford them.

The same will be true in 20 years time, 84" will be common size. Imagine a TV that is part of your wall. It disappears when not in use - maybe it is a transparent OLED, maybe some kind of laser projector. Maybe it is something that beams an image directly onto your eyeball so what you see appears to be a 84" TV on your wall, even if nothing is actually there.

Its not sci-fi, all these things and more are being worked on. We are an information consuming society, so the display is one of the most important pieces of technology for us. There is huge amount of money and research being put into displays and I have no doubt they will look very different in the not too distant future.

except that some TVs were much bigger than 42'' 20 years ago. rear project tvs weren't terribly common, but a lot of people had them, and a lot of pizzerias, bars, etc had them too. also projection systems also existed. thus someone from the 80s would have no trouble picturing a large 42+ TV, because he most likely has seen one.

84 inch tvs no doubt will exist in 20 years, as they exist today. but i doubt very much that they will become common place as you start to run against home usage scenarios, specifically how large a TV viewing area is. many homes do not have 20x20 giant "family rooms" and a 100 inch TV would be total overkill.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by endy

except that some TVs were much bigger than 42'' 20 years ago. rear project tvs weren't terribly common, but a lot of people had them, and a lot of pizzerias, bars, etc had them too. also projection systems also existed. thus someone from the 80s would have no trouble picturing a large 42+ TV, because he most likely has seen one.

Its called an analogy.

84 inch tvs no doubt will exist in 20 years, as they exist today. but i doubt very much that they will become common place as you start to run against home usage scenarios, specifically how large a TV viewing area is. many homes do not have 20x20 giant "family rooms" and a 100 inch TV would be total overkill.

Clearly the analogy went completely over your head.

You are the guy in the 80s or 90s looking at his 25" CRT and saying that he could never fit a 42" or 50" in this living room. You're that guy. You're looking at the current form-factor of a TV and then assuming that in 20 years time it will be the same. A physical device that sits on your wall, dominates the room, and 'takes up' 100" of wall space.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by vargo

Its called an analogy.



Clearly the analogy went completely over your head.

You are the guy in the 80s or 90s looking at his 25" CRT and saying that he could never fit a 42" or 50" in this living room. You're that guy. You're looking at the current form-factor of a TV and then assuming that in 20 years time it will be the same. A physical device that sits on your wall, dominates the room, and 'takes up' 100" of wall space.

Another thing with having a 84inch tv is you have to sit way far back to see it. I read some where that they should be viewed 25 feet away.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by joliefan

Another thing with having a 84inch tv is you have to sit way far back to see it. I read some where that they should be viewed 25 feet away.

Not according to this

[Brightstar]

Now i understand thank you

[Deciazulado]

To recreate the theatrical experience the way I've watched movies on a theater (~2PH) starting with STAR WARS in a D-150 theater, at the normal sitting distance in a home of ~9feet, you need a ~54" x 129" Scope shaped screen (140" diagonal), or for Flat 1.85 movies (100" wide) a 16:9 ~115" diagonal. According to the table you need a 69" diagonal 1.78 screen or larger to see the full benefits of 1080 at ~9 feet. Anything that brings the full emotional cinema experience closer to home is welcomed.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by vargo

Its called an analogy.

Clearly the analogy went completely over your head.

You are the guy in the 80s or 90s looking at his 25" CRT and saying that he could never fit a 42" or 50" in this living room. You're that guy. You're looking at the current form-factor of a TV and then assuming that in 20 years time it will be the same. A physical device that sits on your wall, dominates the room, and 'takes up' 100" of wall space.

It's because your analogy fails.

TVs these days are barely bigger than their listed size. They can't shrink much. About all they can do is find a way to "hide", and that has no impact on whether a TV would fit into a given space or not.

*EDIT* I would consider it more likely we'd grow into holodecks than TVs will become 80+" standard.

[spice1dank]

hey just seen a video of that lg 84 inch 4k tv so does this mean all my blu rays and tv and blu ray player will have to be replaced in the next 4 years

[millerwill]

OK guys, I'm new to this forum and have just read through it (whew!). I'm glad to see that Christian Bale's resolution chart was re-published above, for I think much of the disagreement about whether or not 4K will be useful is simply based on how close you sit to your display. For tv's, e.g., </= 60" diag, I doubt that it will be very useful; but for a large screen and projector setup, it may very well be.

E.g., if your viewing distance is >/= 2 screen widths (SWs), you will not likely see any benefit beyond a 1080p display. But if you sit < 1.5 SW--and certainly as close as 1 SW--you should see a definite enhancement with 4K. Personally, I sit ~ 11 ft from a 10.7ft wide screen for 16x9, that expands to 12ft wide for 2.35. I'm on the list for the Sony1000, and very much looking forward to it, and thus very much interested in the advent of a 4K blu-ray player!

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

It's because your analogy fails.

TVs these days are barely bigger than their listed size. They can't shrink much. About all they can do is find a way to "hide", and that has no impact on whether a TV would fit into a given space or not.

*EDIT* I would consider it more likely we'd grow into holodecks than TVs will become 80+" standard.

Of course TVs can shrink. Clearly you didn't read my post.

I will say it again, you are thinking of an 80" TV as a physical device with 80" diagonal that hangs on your walls. Your imagination is stuck in the present.

In the future your living room 'display' could be every flat surface in the room. It could be any flat surface in any room.

It could be something that rolls down like a shutter. It could be a transparent made-to-measure film that covers your entire wall and essentially disappears when not in use. It could be a tiny box that tracks your eyes and paints an image directly onto your retina via laser. It could be a super light HMD that you wear 24/7 in the same way that people nowadays carry their phone 24/7.

What you see might appear to be 84" or 100" or whatever arbitrary size you want to talk about. When we get to the stage of retinal projection I am absolutely confident that the benefit of resolutions above 1080p will become hugely apparent.

My analogy did not fail, you just failed to understand it.

[snooloui]

It did fail because you're talking about technology that is many years from the mainstream market whereas this technology is available now. Plus I don't really like the sound of having my eyes painted

Anyway I don't think anyone has to worry about Blu-ray becoming obsolete quickly. Studios have invested too much cash to simply dump it for technology which offers an improvement most people won't notice.

[endy]

Originally Posted by vargo

Its called an analogy.



Clearly the analogy went completely over your head.

You are the guy in the 80s or 90s looking at his 25" CRT and saying that he could never fit a 42" or 50" in this living room. You're that guy. You're looking at the current form-factor of a TV and then assuming that in 20 years time it will be the same. A physical device that sits on your wall, dominates the room, and 'takes up' 100" of wall space.

apparently my first reply got deleted for being too honest, so i will respond again. i had a 55 in the 90s first of all. you just don't understand economics at all. wall projection technology exists, but very few use it. in 20 years some people will have 100+ screens, but it will not be common, as most people will not be miraculously living in larger homes. retinal systems in 20 years? that's ridiculous. clearly your analogy is a failure, as many other posters have mentioned. just give up.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by endy

apparently my first reply got deleted for being too honest, so i will respond again. i had a 55 in the 90s first of all. you just don't understand economics at all. wall projection technology exists, but very few use it. in 20 years some people will have 100+ screens, but it will not be common, as most people will not be miraculously living in larger homes. retinal systems in 20 years? that's ridiculous. clearly your analogy is a failure, as many other posters have mentioned. just give up.

You must be under 20 if you think there will not be technology in 20 years that seems 'ridiculous' today.

iPhone launched in 2007. Go back 20 years - 1987. Tell someone back then about a device thats 10mm thick, very light, holds thousands of songs, plays videos, makes calls, connects to a worldwide network of infomation, can track your position anywhere in the world to within a few m and has the same power as an 1987-era super computer. And it will be a mass-market device, housewives will have one.

Someone lacking imagination or understanding of technological history would have said the same thing as you just have. Thats impossible! Ridiculous! You have been watching too much Star Trek! Nothing like that can come along in 20 years, maybe 100!

Clearly young people today have no idea how far technology can progress in just a few decades.

[snooloui]

Originally Posted by vargo

Clearly young people today have no idea how far technology can progress in just a few decades.

It's no good making stupid generalisations. Regardless of that, you can't possibly suggest that most people will have huge TV screens by then. People will still live in similarly sized homes. Whilst technology has improved, housing hasn't really and people are still leaving in the same houses as 100 years ago. Unless you also believe that people will be living in a virtual reality world where anything is possible

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by vargo

It could be something that rolls down like a shutter....

The rollable concept has already been proven, at least on a small scale with a lower resolution…

Sony develops a rollable OLED screen - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by snooloui

Anyway I don't think anyone has to worry about Blu-ray becoming obsolete quickly...

Well, you’d never know it, as I’m told that many forums now have active threads which are preoccupied with discussing the notion of exactly when Blu-ray will cease to exist (at least on a grand, mainstream scale for *new* movies) giving way to other types of non-physical media viewing options and that Blu-ray will eventually enter (or already has?) its twilight time of becoming the last physical media offered to consumers. This preoccupation with discussing when something will end (on enthusiasts’ boards) and how there may be nothing again like it coming afterwards in terms of quality (audio/video) all seems rather negativistic to me…almost begging for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the future, you may have no interest in purchasing something on the order of a 65” 4k display. (b.t.w., keep in mind, some folks are naturally blessed with 20/15 vision in both eyes or may have achieved that visual acuity thru optimal Lasik result – which, at least for that particular population, would shift those lines on the pictured graph upwards a bit).

Anyway, what I’m getting at is that a vote for 4kBD is a vote for the added longevity of physical media (Blu-ray), in general….something vocal naysayers of the technology (4k) should be aware of.