4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by KRW1

You can doubt whatever you like, it's coming. I didn't say everyone, I said you'd have the option. Big difference. And as for Broadcast/cable, I don't think I mentioned them at all.

4k isn't going to flop, it's already here. The process has started, every set manufactured will be 4k before long, if it isn't already. In a few years you simply wont have the option of purchasing a plain 1080p set in the same way you cant' buy an SD set new now and it's getting tricky to buy a 720p one.

You can argue against progress all you like but the idea that technology is going to stop improving and developing because you aren't ready for it is, well, at the very least ironic considering your stance on digital purchasing.

One word, content.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

One word, content.

Sounds familiar

[slick1ru2]

They have a high profit margin, the reason for the push now. It will be interesting to see the future. There are talks in the next couple years for broadcasters in Japan and Europe to start 4k OTA but there is grumbling of equipment costs.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

They have a high profit margin, the reason for the push now. It will be interesting to see the future. There are talks in the next couple years for broadcasters in Japan and Europe to start 4k OTA but there is grumbling of equipment costs.

The UK starts this year

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

The UK starts this year

How many TVs have been shipped? I read it was 1% of the TVs shipped last year, worldwide. So they are broadcasting to a few thousand? Interesting.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

How many TVs have been shipped? I read it was 1% of the TVs shipped last year, worldwide. So they are broadcasting to a few thousand? Interesting.

They did the same with 3D

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

One word, content.

You'll have to do better than that in a reality where HD completely took over despite millions of people still watching SD on it. If you think Netflix and the like aren't going to be pushing 4k at consumers then that's fine but you are completely and utterly wrong.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by KRW1

You'll have to do better than that in a reality where HD completely took over despite millions of people still watching SD on it. If you think Netflix and the like aren't going to be pushing 4k at consumers then that's fine but you are completely and utterly wrong.

HD took over because of a change in the broadcast OTA format. After which cable channels followed. And then came physical media. Guess what I'm saying here if you don't have that change of OTA yet driving the other content like before. Millions use their TV to watch TV. Still.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

They have a high profit margin, the reason for the push now. It will be interesting to see the future. There are talks in the next couple years for broadcasters in Japan and Europe to start 4k OTA but there is grumbling of equipment costs.

Sky are rumoured to have their 4K box ready for the spring.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Sky are rumoured to have their 4K box ready for the spring.

November I was told, but word is they are making it happen sooner.
Shame I don't use their movie package

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

HD took over because of a change in the broadcast OTA format. After which cable channels followed. And then came physical media. Guess what I'm saying here if you don't have that change of OTA yet driving the other content like before. Millions use their TV to watch TV. Still.

This was the old days before TVs came ready equipped with internet access I'm guessing, because that's where the initial 4k content is coming from.

Sort of like you said here

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Will you make this assumption that nothing's going to change in the future. That's the problem with your argument. look at the progress over the past 10 yeas. Back then we would be talking people having 3 Mb per second download speed or dialup, and now we have companiesclike Comcast where you can get 500 Mb per second download speed or Google's new high-speed Internet coming out. The thing of it is that it's all going to expand and change, it's not static. Not just 4k or8k will come out, other technologies will change too. And that's why I'm saying the state of today is not with the state of the future going to be, better and more efficient codecs, connection speeds and no caps, so most likely the argument won't hold about bandwidth and caps, because that's not going to be an issue for many in the future not to mention that it isn't an issue for many now.

"Not just 4k or 8k will come out, other technology will change too" Of course it will


I can see you arguing both ways in two threads so I'm out now. Complete waste of time.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by KRW1

This was the old days before TVs came ready equipped with internet access I'm guessing, because that's where the initial 4k content is coming from.

Way before. Had to use a DVI cable, pre HDMI. I was spending like $180/month on DirecTV and Voom. Voom was the first HD satellite company, had about 35 HD channels, most obscure. DirecTV at the time had like 4 HD Channels, it was the main eastern feed of the Premium,s HBO, etc. Got the locals in HD OTA, the antenna was part of the Voom install package. Spent like $100 for a DVI switch because my Hitachi 57S700 Ultravision only had 1 DVI input. This is also before BD so I had a very nice and expensive upresolution Samsung DVD-HD931. Looked like poop, the DVD and TV upresolution.

Anyway, its being driven by different sources now, I guess OTA isn't the big push. The studios, content providers, saw this as a gold mine and are going to keep pushing the envelope beyond the 40 years of SD TV.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by KRW1

This was the old days before TVs came ready equipped with internet access I'm guessing, because that's where the initial 4k content is coming from.

Sort of like you said here



"Not just 4k or 8k will come out, other technology will change too" Of course it will


I can see you arguing both ways in two threads so I'm out now. Complete waste of time.

One is multi-billion dollar industry. The other is too new to tell and by looking on the net I see lots of critics, including everyone from cinematographers to industry experts to actors that don't want the extra scrutiny. Apples and oranges at this moment, I think the jury is still out on 4k.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...nt-want-772636

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Of course we'll get 8k in the home. Not now, in a few years, but 4k is definitely just a step. There's no logical reason to believe that the worlds R&D departments are going to get together and decide 'oh well, we'd best stop there, no-one has the room for a 100" set'.

They'll find ways of making a 100" set fit in with whatever living arrangements the consumers of 2022 have. Be it fold up screens, see through window type screens or short throw projection, I've no idea; if I did, I wouldn't be here, I'd be coining it in somewhere making predictions and investments.

Don't get hung up on movies either, there are other reasons for 8k. If you don't think you will at least have the option of watching the Superbowl in 8k at home in 2025, I'll take that bet anyday.

As for the 'average consumer', of course they'll buy the sets in the same way the 'average consumer' today has no option other than to buy an HD large, widescreen flatscreen type of thing. It's like arguing in 1999 that the average consumer would still want to buy a square telly in 2012 because that's what they currently had.

You really foresee a future where the average consumer uses a 100" screen equipped with 8K resolution playback? Personally, I don't. I think that if the BDA actually tries to make a 8K format that it would probably flop. But then again, we are just now getting 4K (which is plenty for most content). Maybe you are right and someday, eventually, this will happen for the small number of films which would dramatically benefit. But even then people will need to have 100" plus HDTV's or large-scale projector setups to see the big benefit. As it stands right now, film releases can still be SCANNED and restored at 8K if they were made at that level of resolution but then be scaled to 4K Blu-ray, which will yield improvements in and of itself... so the major difference will literally just be on gigantic HDTV screens and it won't be a difference many/most consumers will care as much about.

Personally, I REALLY don't see that happening. That will be an even smaller niche that will only appeal to people able to devote a large room entirely to being a home theater. Which is currently a small percentage of home theater buyers and how many of them can even fit a 100" or so screen? And of those viewers/buyers, how many will want to upgrade for a small selection of films that will genuinely benefit from it?

I don't know... I already see 4K as being a "niche within a niche" format for mega film buffs and not the mainstream. I want to get a 4K display and the releases of favorite films in this upcoming format, but I also don't really see how they would succeed making yet another niche-within-a-niche format just a few years down the road.

The more likely scenario would be that select providers would allow "digital only" 8K (which might be badly compressed compared to 4K Blu-ray) and for a small percentage of manufactures to have a handful of HDTV options that allow "up-res" to 8K, just like the one debuted earlier this year -- but that a majority of buyers will not end up owning, IMO.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. I guess more mainstream buyers might invest in an 100" 8K HDTV if it is well marketed and sells for $500 or so. I doubt it will ever be that low, though.

Looking at it another way... the average consumer probably has no idea what 4K even is and what it means in terms of film presentation. That's why the BDA is calling the new format Ultra HD Blu-ray. What will they call an 8K disc? Super Ultra HD Blu-ray? Um... I don't know if this will work.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by GenPion

You really foresee a future where the average consumer uses a 100" screen equipped with 8K resolution playback? Personally, I don't. I think that if the BDA actually tries to make a 8K format that it would probably flop. But then again, we are just now getting 4K (which is plenty for most content). Maybe you are right and someday, eventually, this will happen for the small number of films which would dramatically benefit. But even then people will need to have 100" plus HDTV's or large-scale projector setups to see the big benefit. As it stands right now, film releases can still be SCANNED and restored at 8K if they were made at that level of resolution but then be scaled to 4K Blu-ray, which will yield improvements in and of itself... so the major difference will literally just be on gigantic HDTV screens and it won't be a difference many/most consumers will care as much about.

Personally, I REALLY don't see that happening. That will be an even smaller niche that will only appeal to people able to devote a large room entirely to being a home theater. Which is currently a small percentage of home theater buyers and how many of them can even fit a 100" or so screen? And of those viewers/buyers, how many will want to upgrade for a small selection of films that will genuinely benefit from it?

I don't know... I already see 4K as being a "niche within a niche" format for mega film buffs and not the mainstream. I want to get a 4K display and the releases of favorite films in this upcoming format, but I also don't really see how they would succeed making yet another niche-within-a-niche format just a few years down the road.

The more likely scenario would be that select providers would allow "digital only" 8K (which might be badly compressed compared to 4K Blu-ray) and for a small percentage of manufactures to have a handful of HDTV options that allow "up-res" to 8K, just like the one debuted earlier this year -- but that a majority of buyers will not end up owning, IMO.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. I guess more mainstream buyers might invest in an 100" 8K HDTV if it is well marketed and sells for $500 or so. I doubt it will ever be that low, though.

I didn't say anything anywhere about an 8k physical format. I think 4k is plenty for recorded film media (elsewhere there's a debate about how it compares to 70mm which needs no further comment), it's live events TV and the like that will drive 8k in the home. If film gets included, then great, but if it doesn't, no matter.

I am bang on, dead right about 8k being a home TV format in the coming years. Count on it, I'm never wrong. I said 3D in the home was dead on day 1, I said discs would still be here in five years time in 2008 - all of which were vigorously argued with for much the same reasons we see here.

As for the large set size, people absolutely don't want 100" black blocks in their living rooms. There are teams of people all over the world working on that right now, making them acceptable. You'll see clear screens, roll up screens, wall screens and all sorts. Again, before anyone gets it wrong again, I'm not saying everyone will rush out and buy one overnight.

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

One is multi-billion dollar industry. The other is too new to tell and by looking on the net I see lots of critics, including everyone from cinematographers to industry experts to actors that don't want the extra scrutiny. Apples and oranges at this moment, I think the jury is still out on 4k.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...nt-want-772636

Your link actually says the jury has returned and 4k is here to stay because they're designing lenses and filters to work alongside it. Elsewhere they talk about new tools and choice. Ain't no-one going backwards or standing still.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by KRW1

I am bang on, dead right about 8k being a home format in the coming years. Count on it, I'm never wrong. I said 3D in the home was dead on day 1, I said discs would still be here in five years time in 2008 - all of which were vigorously argued with for much the same reasons we see here.

Ummmm

50 titles avg have gotten released on 3D blu-ray in 12,13, and 14. No visible slowdown of content year-to-year. 3D blu-ray still sells. People are still integrating their systems with 3D capability. The current catalog of reviewed 3D titles is around 290. +50 each year is foreseeable.

So, no, you are not never wrong.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

Ummmm

50 titles avg have gotten released on 3D blu-ray in 12,13, and 14. No visible slowdown of content year-to-year. 3D blu-ray still sells. People are still integrating their systems with 3D capability. The current catalog of reviewed 3D titles is around 290. +50 each year is foreseeable.

So, no, you are not never wrong.

This was in the days when I was told that by now, every single film released would be in 3D and it would be the norm at home. You get more than 50 SACD releases a year. It's dead in the water, mate. I bought about 30 3D titles for £1 each when our Sony store closed. I've not been able to shift 'em for more than something like £1.50 a pop.

I'll concede that it's a niche market, to be sure, but it's far, far from the success it was supposed to be pre-Avatar. If someone had said back then that someone saying there were 290 reviews in total in 2015 and was counting it as successful, I'd have taken that as vindication I was right and would have worried about it no more.

It should, however, be an inspiration for anyone still worried about physical media. That 3D bluray (and SACD) still have loyal followings means BD won't be going anywhere for decades.

[GenPion]

I don't think it's fair to say 3D media is dead, but I agree with you that's it's a small niche format that didn't take off the way the studios hoped it would. Same for the TV manufactures. That's why some are not even including it in their future lines. That's the most concerning thing to me as I don't want it to eventually reach a point where it's too hard to get a 3D HDTV so home media support lessens. We already have Disney (almost) throwing in the towel in the US. Yet there are still a lot of great 3D titles each year and internationally it is showing no sign of going away on home media at all.

SACD is technically called a dead format from a lot of people... but it basically "died" and came back the same way vinyl has had a resurgence. It's not as popular as vinyl, granted, but it's doing well enough (as you indicated) for new titles to still come out.

I agree with you that Blu-ray is not going anywhere. Even with 4K UHD Blu-ray on the way a lot of titles will cap out at getting a Blu-ray edition and small labels will continue supporting the format.

As to your theory on 8K taking off with TV broadcasts, I find myself skeptical. Only a few providers/companies involved in broadcast television have shown an interest in 4K upgrades and it will take time for more to jump in on that. 8K would probably cost broadcasters even more and with a smaller audience it would be a harder sell. There was a lot of reluctance to HDTV standards because of the costs and I think this won't be any different in that regard. Except, this time, the move to 8K might never happen as I don't see as wide of an adoption of those filming practices for events such as the Super Bowl. Maybe I am wrong. I don't think it will happen.

[hajiketobu]

will 4K be pushed back for WWIII?

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

will 4K be pushed back for WWIII?

What are the chances of WWIII happening? On saying that how it hasn't happened is beyond me.

As for Ultra HD Blu-ray I'm still giddy as hell for it. I wouldn't mind another format war though. What harm could it do? They all say 4K will be niche either way.