4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[saprano]

I thought all their engineers came from japan. Nice to put a face to videogasm i see everyday.

He went to sharp? Yuck. I know they own half of pioneer but still. I rather panasonic like most did in japan. All of pioneers products has turned into toys because of sharp.

Anyway, the 70" OLED was a wish. Nothing good ever last does it? Crap has no problem though.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Nice to put a face to videogasm i see everyday....

It's an old pic.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Lossless compression techniques can usually reduce uncompressed video by 2x or 3x.

you can't reduce by a multiple, just a fraction

A can be 2x or 3x bigger than B but B will be 1/2X, 2/3X smaller than A

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No, it is not a ‘con job’.
It is just a descriptor used by professionals in advanced imaging technology in order to communicate the quality of the compression as it relates to the uncompressed source, for example ‘visually lossless’ as opposed to ‘high quality’ compression as opposed to ‘good quality’ compression as opposed to ‘poor’ compression.

If it makes you feel any better, think of it as extremely high quality compression in order to maintain no motion artifacts or other pictorial artifacts with that compressed data. For instance, in the uncompressed 1920x1080 world as described on the prior page (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps), a real world example of extremely high quality compression (‘visually lossless’, ‘almost transparent’, whatever) would be that of viewing footage compressed by MPEG4 SStp codec at 880 Mbps via an HDCAM SR tape. That, by the way, would still need about 400 GB/hr of space.

you miss my point. Let me try again, Lossless literaly means without loss, can we agree with that? If I take a bar of iron and I remove an atom, I think we can both agree that no one will see the difference, actually we can remove quite a few atoms and neither eye site nor a balance will tell the difference. Now let me ask you this, we take a clip (let’s say 10 seconds), original and compressed (visually lossless), we go frame by frame where the mathematical differences lie (i.e. where there is true loss) between the two. Now we playback one of the clips at normal speed, will the person be able to say if it was A or B? If the answer is Yes than obviously visually it is not lossless, there is a loss tthat is visible. That is why I call it a con job. It is not because we can’t see the difference but that a) we don’t care about it and b) the guy won’t now better.

Obviously there is bigger losses and smaller losses, more important losses and less important ones. But just that even if they are small and unimportant (i.e. one pixel at one corner) it will still be a visual loss

The reason why ‘4K’ is desirable is because we (humans) see in a higher resolution than 1920x1080...
Anthony, I don’t want to engage in a ‘debate’ with you

No problem on that. I agree with you 100% 4k is important, but I want good 4k. To give an example you can DL/stream 1080p but it does not look good, because of all the losses, it is practically no better than good SD.

My point was not that 4k is not needed, but simply if we assume that a pixel difference in 1080p can’t be seen (i.e. visually lossless in the true definition of the word) than 4K would not be needed since we would be assuming 1080p is beyond human resolution.

p.s. I was using Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well you do realize that working engineers unlike ‘forum engineers’ ….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ir#post5790903

have multiple industry-influencing projects on their plate all at the same time, for instance having contributed to a best practice and procedure guide for other aspects of the industry…..
http://3net.com/news/view/23/for-dow...uction-guide/1

The spec for 4kBD will get completed and approved in due course .

Don't know why you still dislike the guy. What happened in the past is done.

What he says about 4K makes alot of sense imo. I think he has a fair argument.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by saprano

Don't know why you still dislike the guy. What happened in the past is done.

What he says about 4K makes alot of sense imo. I think he has a fair argument.

The time line is 2017 - 2020 for UHD to come out thats a long time

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

you miss my point. Let me try again....

Yes, I think I do understand you and I ‘feel’ for your concern. That’s the reason why I’ve said to also think of ‘visually lossless’ as ‘almost transparent’ or ‘extremely good compression’. But I, nor anyone I know of, uses the term in the spirit of coning themselves or anyone else. It is used to convey the idea of a very high degree of transparency to the source.

Think of it this way. Just about anyone, with 20/20 vision (corrected or uncorrected), expert or simply ‘Joe6Pack’ should be able to tell the difference between a true 2K source and a true 4K source when seated at the proper distance in a ‘blinded’ test. With the 1920 x 1080 example I mentioned above, it would be very difficult for either group (expert or not) to differentiate the RAW from the MPEG4 SStp codec at 880 Mbps, unless the material was constantly, extremely challenging and they were looking very, very carefully….ergo, that’s why some people use the term ‘visually lossless’.

P.S.
Anthony, please don’t ‘try again’, as you’ve already worn me out. I don’t want to turn this into a tutorial on video compression or a referendum on the semantics, thereof. I wave the white flag.

[Raphdude]

Penton-Man,

Very interesting, all your info, which is why I think 3D will turn out to be a fad at the end of the day as it was in the 50's. I think 4K or upconverting to
4K will be my next blu-ray player or next gen tv purchase.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yes, I think I do understand you and I ‘feel’ for your concern. That’s the reason why I’ve said to also think of ‘visually lossless’ as ‘almost transparent’ or ‘extremely good compression’. But I, nor anyone I know of, uses the term in the spirit of coning themselves or anyone else. It is used to convey the idea of a very high degree of transparency to the source.

Think of it this way. Just about anyone, with 20/20 vision (corrected or uncorrected), expert or simply ‘Joe6Pack’ should be able to tell the difference between a true 2K source and a true 4K source when seated at the proper distance in a ‘blinded’ test. With the 1920 x 1080 example I mentioned above, it would be very difficult for either group (expert or not) to differentiate the RAW from the MPEG4 SStp codec at 880 Mbps, unless the material was constantly, extremely challenging and they were looking very, very carefully….ergo, that’s why some people use the term ‘visually lossless’.

P.S.
Anthony, please don’t ‘try again’, as you’ve already worn me out. I don’t want to turn this into a tutorial on video compression or a referendum on the semantics, thereof. I wave the white flag.

last post on the subject, I did not mean it as an insult to anyone, but you do understand how "visualy lossless" conveys something that is not true.

As for 4K I agree, just look back, I am not saprano, I think it will add quite a bit. But I would also love true lossless video because that is the only way to know what you are getting.

[saprano]

You're not saprano? The hell is that suppose to mean?

Does it mean you don't take whatever bullshit the CE industry try's to shove down your throat?

Does it mean you do your own research and don't take what someone says on a forum as face value? Likewise with these manufacture "demos"?

Does it mean your smarter than that to believe a 4x pixel increase will magically be the holy grail of PQ over 1080p without taking other things into consideration?

Please tell me you are. And don't ever use me as an example for anything, i will embarrass you.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

last post on the subject, I did not mean it as an insult to anyone, but you do understand how "visualy lossless" conveys something that is not true.

No problem, I think perhaps the real cause as to how this term affects you, as compared to me, is that when I use that descriptor, I’m speaking more from the standpoint of the professional cinematic and post production background/domain where more powerful codecs and far larger storage solutions are being utilized for which the real-world effect of the *degradation* if you will, in going from a RAW source to a ‘visually lossless’ is not quite the same as you might see at a consumer level with other implementations.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As for 4K I agree, just look back, I am not saprano, I think it will add quite a bit. But I would also love true lossless video because that is the only way to know what you are getting.

As Toxa has said, Sap is of a certain mindset…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...id#post5756348

Thusly, we have today another “manufacturer demo” ….http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-...3d-impressions

Additional demos and reviews from early adopters of smaller 4K display sizes will come in the future with time, so that enthusiasts who choose to experience increased picture quality and at the same time a more immersive movie watching experience - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post5750337

will have the opportunity to do so . As to the lossless vs. lossy thing, SMPTE has a Montreal/Quebec chapter (thereabouts, I think) and you might be able to follow their events and perhaps sometime catch a presentation pertaining to more information on this topic.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Raphdude

Penton-Man,

Very interesting, all your info, which is why I think 3D will turn out to be a fad at the end of the day as it was in the 50's. I think 4K or upconverting to
4K will be my next blu-ray player or next gen tv purchase.

I don't. I think 3d will still make it. There is a world of difference between 50's 3d and current tech. It may be niche (worse case scenario) but it will make money in my opinion.

[ranma]

Sony today release new video processing chips
http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/c.../cxd4736gb.pdf

hyped as "the database-type super-resolution"

It seems upscale 1080p video sources to 4K on the fly.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Raphdude

Penton-Man,
Very interesting, all your info, which is why I think 3D will turn out to be a fad at the end of the day as it was in the 50's. I think 4K or upconverting to
4K will be my next blu-ray player or next gen tv purchase.

Well, I don’t want to derail this thread into the 3D realm, for if you want to do that, there are plenty of other threads on this forum to discuss the merits of 3D, like for instance, the thread on the *signature 3D movie of the year*, if you will, Hugo….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...go#post5828815

But just to comment once on your observation, I can’t speak much to 3D in the ‘50s as that was before my time and all I can do is relate to you what pioneers (who were considered expert at the time and have multiple patents to prove it, of the caliber here…http://www.international3dsociety.co...iety/HOME.html)

have told me about that era. Apparently, back then, they had about 50 or so 3D motion pictures of both bad and good quality which were released. The *brightness issue* didn’t exist back then as for one thing, screens were smaller and theaters had two projectors…one for each eye. But they had their own particular problems for it was beyond most theater’s ability to get the two projectors to run as one. Anyway, personally, I care as much about 3D in the ‘50s as I care about hunting for dinosaur fossils. Flash forward to today as to what present audiences can see and expect…

Expect 3D acquisition as well as exhibition to become more refined over time with advances in technology as well as educating filmmakers as to the art and science of making ‘good 3D’. Many of the *hurdles* which may inhibit some people from jumping on the 3D bandwagon right now, will eventually be overcome.

For instance, more than one manufacturer is actively involved in R & D of laser projectors which should eliminate the *theatrical darkness* some people complain about. SMPTE, as we speak, is working on standards for higher frame rates for 3D, which will at least allow Peter J. and Jim C.’s experimental filmmaking to come to fruition at the theatrical level and we’ll see firsthand how/if higher frame rates relate to mass audience’s motion perception, flicker visibility and temporal fidelity for the benefit of making stereoscopic *more realistic* and lessening the tendency for some viewers to get eyestrain with prolonged 3D viewing, as some sensitive viewers still apparently, are bothered with. On a consumer level, autostereoscopic (glasses-free) 3D displays are coming.

Point is…everyone is actively working to making 3D better, and that’s not just applicable to filmmaking, but also broadcasting, and even on a nobler scale…teaching and medicine.

It all takes time....be it 3D or 4K. And consumers interested in these sorts of advanced imaging formats (i.e. Beyond HD) just have to decide for themselves when to jump on the bandwagon.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by saprano

You're not saprano? The hell is that suppose to mean?

Simply that I never took an anti 4k position

Does it mean you don't take whatever bullshit the CE industry try's to shove down your throat?

Does it mean you do your own research and don't take what someone says on a forum as face value? Likewise with these manufacture "demos"?

Does it mean your smarter than that to believe a 4x pixel increase will magically be the holy grail of PQ over 1080p without taking other things into consideration?

Please tell me you are. And don't ever use me as an example for anything, i will embarrass you.

It means that over a dozen years ago I bought an SVGA projector, than I moved up to XGA, WXGA (720p) and 1080p which is the resolution I have now, I have seen the major benefits from each of those small jumps in resolution as well as from DVD to BD and I am not dumb enough to assume that magically it won’t be better when I do go to 4k, when 1080p pixels are so obviously apparent on a proper display.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by SpartanIre

Regarding 4K and Higher resolutions, I found the following articles through HDGuru.com interesting:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...?tag=cnetRiver

That article is stupid

says 4K good for theaters but not good for our home theater. I guess we don't want to recreate the field of view and quality of real theaters and the theatrical experience in our home theaters.. I thought that was the name of the game

I remember when people said a 35" 4:3 TV was too big.

And talking about a CinemaScope movie here which is a format that benefits the wider and more "Scope" the screen has.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

That article is stupid

says 4K good for theaters but not good for our home theater. I guess we don't want to recreate the size and quality of real theaters and the theatrical experience in our home theaters.. I thought that was the name of the game

I read it more as a practical guide for those hearing the buzz phrase du jour, "4K", and fretting that their investments in 1080p and Blu-ray are now obsolete. What I took away from that piece is that unless your monitor is 80 inches and above, and you're watching at a 'reasonable' viewing distance, your eyes are physically incapable of resolving the difference in pixel count. Resolution isn't the only factor contributing to an exceptional quality picture...the human eye is both our friend and enemy in that regard.

True, his language was too broadly "debunking" and "dismissive", but I thought he made some valid points about the practical limits of human vision vis-à-vis video in a typical home setting. He was at least careful not to claim that someone with a 100" plus home theatre wouldn't see any benefit from 4K components and content.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

I remember when people said a 35" 4:3 TV was too big.

And I do too Deciazulado, which is why I agree that what we currently consider a 'normal' screen size will problably seem 'quaint' in a few years. I mean, these days I have 46" monitor in my bedroom - something I would have once drooled over as my principle display. Average expectations aren't average anymore.

But I'm a pragmatist too. If 1080p Blu-ray got ahead of the content, representing enormous technical challenges and expense for restoration and remastering of catalogues, which is why high quality Blu-rays of vintage titles like Demetrius and the Gladiators have been slow to come, if at all, then I can only imagine how much of a niche-within-a-niche 4K will become for the home market...at least for the forseeable future. Will studios even be willing to touch anything that started life on film unless it has "Oz", or "Blade", or "Hur" or "Arabia" in the title?

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

And talking about a CinemaScope movie here which is a format that benefits the wider and more "Scope" the screen has.

[Show spoiler]

I'm a huge 'Scope fan from way back. But even I can admit that sure, it was BIG, and often breathtaking in its field of view, but it wasn't terribly sharp. With 4K and above scanning, we're already at the outer limits of what's actually in those vintage 'Scope OCNs and IPs. When downsampled to 1080p Blu-ray for the viewing environments most of us routinely use, they still look dandy, but at some point, an increased resolution harvest and display will just be overkill.

As they used to say in the music industry, "there's nothing left in the grooves."

However, for native 4K content, with 4K workflow, output on 4K systems, via 100" plus displays...well, that's another story. And that's not stupid. It's the future.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, we’ve just got to break him in easy then . Sap, in the meantime, get this monitor as a toy to play with at home…http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1265617565
I think you can pick up one of these suckers for about $800 - $900 now. Not bad really.

Originally Posted by saprano

Nice resolution. I'll be upgrading my computer soon so i could get that along with it. Maby.
Don't know what your expecting me to find though. Tee-hee.

Ask Tom Lowe, prior to your downloading a 2560x1440 copy of this video…
http://vimeo.com/33110953

[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.

[Clark Kent]

I think the commercial reality of a 4k consumer format in the next five years is a pipe dream, speaking honestly. There is so little demand for it and the potential market is so small that it's not economically feasible at the moment.