4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

That 128Gb disc confuses me no end

The yields for commercially replicated TL pre-recorded media will be low enough (they already cost 3x as much as the DL 66GB just for adding one more layer on top), so adding another layer into the mix would probably be monstrously expensive in terms of commercial replication costs.

(BTW the fourth BDXL layer is 28GB and not 33GB because of the increased layer depth, i.e. making the fourth one any denser causes read errors, even if it is only another 5GB. Even you must be able to appreciate that these discs have to conform to a set physical size?)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The yields for commercially replicated TL pre-recorded media will be low enough (they already cost 3x as much as the DL 66GB just for adding one more layer on top), so adding another layer into the mix would probably be monstrously expensive in terms of commercial replication costs.

(BTW the fourth BDXL layer is 28GB and not 33GB because of the layer depth, i.e. making the fourth one any denser causes read errors, even if it is only another 5GB. Even you must be able to appreciate that these discs have to conform to a set physical size?)

66 is more than enough, mind you I wish more studios went two disc with extras on a straight BD

[Geoff D]

Thing is mike they have to consider the long game, part of the reason why 100GB will be so important is not just the quality (especially for a long movie) but the usability, like the presence of extra languages. Some companies love to stack up the alternative language options so they can produce one single disc for the worldwide market, so they're faced with a choice: hobble the UHD presentation to squeeze on all them funny-soundin' foreign tracks (cheaper but may do more harm than good to UHD's rep) or go with the quality and make separate discs for separate territories which will keep the prices high (in terms of production costs and at retail) and will keep the average punter at arm's length.

I'd like to see a separate disc for extras too but more often than not there's just not enough content to bother doing a separate disc for. I think it'll be the same as with 3D BD: 4K discs will be barebones apart from the occasional 4K extra (like the shorts we get on 3D flicks), and the pack-in regular 2D Blu-ray will carry the bulk of the extras.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thing is mike they have to consider the long game, part of the reason why 100GB will be so important is not just the quality (especially for a long movie) but the usability, like the presence of extra languages. Some companies love to stack up the alternative language options so they can produce one single disc for the worldwide market, so they're faced with a choice: hobble the UHD presentation to squeeze on all them funny-soundin' foreign tracks (cheaper but may do more harm than good to UHD's rep) or go with the quality and make separate discs for separate territories which will keep the prices high (in terms of production costs and at retail) and will keep the average punter at arm's length.

I'd like to see a separate disc for extras too but more often than not there's just not enough content to bother doing a separate disc for. I think it'll be the same as with 3D BD: 4K discs will be barebones apart from the occasional 4K extra (like the shorts we get on 3D flicks), and the pack-in regular 2D Blu-ray will carry the bulk of the extras.

Yeah I get that, but I doubt much of the launch will be many of the higher capacity discs.
And I am not sure in the days of streaming and certain BD companies encoding with Lego, I am not sure many bar us crazy few will notice.
Even more due to the lack of 4k content in the Fox discs.
Don't get me wrong I want "superbit" discs on a 128gb disc with 4k/6k shot films all day long, but I do not see that happening much.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Yeah I get that, but I doubt much of the launch will be many of the higher capacity discs.
And I am not sure in the days of streaming and certain BD companies encoding with Lego, I am not sure many bar us crazy few will notice.
Even more due to the lack of 4k content in the Fox discs.
Don't get me wrong I want "superbit" discs on a 128gb disc with 4k/6k shot films all day long, but I do not see that happening much.

Yeah. One the one hand us crazy few seem to be the only people remotely interested in UHD BD so it follows that if the quality is compromised first off then it really could be stillborn, on the other hand the Lego encoding/can't-be-bothered-to-paint-out-huge-scratches companies don't seem to be doing too bad for themselves, so if the UHD encoding is less than stellar who'll really care?

With that in mind there's one way to guarantee the success of the new format: issue them with new custom artwork that looks like a monkey drew it AND a slipcase.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah. One the one hand us crazy few seem to be the only people remotely interested in UHD BD so it follows that if the quality is compromised first off then it really could be stillborn, on the other hand the Lego encoding/can't-be-bothered-to-paint-out-huge-scratches companies don't seem to be doing too bad for themselves, so if the UHD encoding is less than stellar who'll really care?

With that in mind there's one way to guarantee the success of the new format: issue them with new custom artwork that looks like a monkey drew it AND a slipcase.

Who would do such a thing???
Plus only you and I do not have a heart attack when people remaster in 2k and not 4k.
I have faith there will be demo discs, but I doubt from Fox and there won't be many.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

An upconvert is an upconvert! You can't get UHD from an HD source! You can't get HD from a SD source. Upconversion is a fallacy in every sense of the word. It is like putting a 2.3L ecoboost engine in a 5.0 mustang body. At the end of the day you are still driving a 4 cylinder! Putting a .38 special cartridge into a .357 magnum revolver doesn't magically give you magnum power. The 158gr. bullet is still going to be going no faster than 850fps or about 400fps slower than a .357 magnum loaded with the same bullet. I don't like 480i sources on bluray or 576i pal.

If the master is 2k it needs to be advertised as such. If it was remastered in 4K that is a different story.

You are viewing it far too superficially. The reality is that the new format goes a lot deeper than simple resolution. An upconvert is NOT an upconvert.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by doctor_who

You are viewing it far too superficially. The reality is that the new format goes a lot deeper than simple resolution. An upconvert is NOT an upconvert.

And they are upscaled if anything, plus the 2k fox movies won't be upscaled to 4k I bet.
More they will be in 4k but at a high nitrate.
If they upscale like the crap Samsung "4k' HDD movirs, then they will be more like 28 days later

[raygendreau]

“4K resolution isn't required for physical discs to bear the Ultra HD Blu-ray logo” (Ron Martin)

read:http://www.consumerelectronicsdaily.com/featured

“2.2.3.3.1 Primary video stream Primary video stream is MPEG-4 AVC video stream or HEVC video stream. The video formats shown in Table 2-3 can be used for Primary video streams. “

Table 2-3 Primary Video Resolution HEVC (Main 10, High Tier, Level 5.1) 1920x1080, 3840x2160

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Do...per_150724.pdf

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

“4K resolution isn't required for physical discs to bear the Ultra HD Blu-ray logo” (Ron Martin)

read:http://www.consumerelectronicsdaily.com/featured

That's a given, since only one of the Fox UHD movies coming out at launch is in 4K.

It's been pretty obvious to me for some time the the primary component of UHD BD is HDR and that 4K resolution is merely an optional feature.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

“4K resolution isn't required for physical discs to bear the Ultra HD Blu-ray logo” (Ron Martin)

read:http://www.consumerelectronicsdaily.com/featured

“2.2.3.3.1 Primary video stream Primary video stream is MPEG-4 AVC video stream or HEVC video stream. The video formats shown in Table 2-3 can be used for Primary video streams. “

Table 2-3 Primary Video Resolution HEVC (Main 10, High Tier, Level 5.1) 1920x1080, 3840x2160

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Do...per_150724.pdf

We've known that 1080p is part of the UHD Blu-ray spec for a while now.

[raygendreau]

The point is that native 4K is not required for a UHD BR to carry the Ultra HD Logo, but if a content provider, Fox for example, clearly states that the physical media is 4K, it seems likely that it would be native 4K. Otherwise, they should not put "4K" on the packaging or media.

This is one of the issues the UHD Alliance is attempting to resolve.

"The alliance doesn’t know yet what the logos will say, “and that’s part of the consumer testing,” Basse said. “We’re testing logos that include ‘UHD’ and ‘Ultra HD’ and ‘4K’ and what have you. But we’re also testing other names that don’t refer to UHD or 4K.” The alliance hasn’t yet trademarked any logos or other nomenclature “because our testing isn’t finalized,” he said. “We hope to get that done soon.”

[Geoff D]

Sure, that was something picked up by people when Fox showed that Kingsman cover mockup. 'UHD' can cover whatever they want it to cover, but if it sez 4K and it's not 4K then there's gonna be a problem, not with us informed internet types but when johnny newcomer gets the disc and sees its "only" 1080p he's not gonna be best pleased.

Yes, I *know* there's all that other good stuff that johnny can enjoy (P3, HDR, the wider colour volume that is brought to the table by that combination which can greatly benefit any resolution) but he won't see it that way, you know what people are like with their numbers: if it sez one thing and they're getting another then they gets angry.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, that was something picked up by people when Fox showed that Kingsman cover mockup. 'UHD' can cover whatever they want it to cover, but if it sez 4K and it's not 4K then there's gonna be a problem, not with us informed internet types but when johnny newcomer gets the disc and sees its "only" 1080p he's not gonna be best pleased.

Yes, I *know* there's all that other good stuff that johnny can enjoy (P3, HDR, the wider colour volume that is brought to the table by that combination which can greatly benefit any resolution) but he won't see it that way, you know what people are like with their numbers: if it sez one thing and they're getting another then they gets angry.

I also wonder if there could also be legal issues if they state 4K on the cover when it's really not.

[42041]

So wait... actual 2K (ie, 2048x___) isn't allowed by the UHD spec?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by 42041

So wait... actual 2K (ie, 2048x___) isn't allowed by the UHD spec?

Correct. Wrong aspect ratio, just like DCI 4k.

[Dex Robinson]

""The alliance doesn’t know yet what the logos will say, “and that’s part of the consumer testing,” Basse said. “We’re testing logos that include ‘UHD’ and ‘Ultra HD’ and ‘4K’ and what have you. But we’re also testing other names that don’t refer to UHD or 4K.” The alliance hasn’t yet trademarked any logos or other nomenclature “because our testing isn’t finalized,” he said. “We hope to get that done soon.”

Good Grief.

If that had been written two years ago, I'd understand.

But it's dated two weeks ago! Testing logos and names...and they "hope to get that done soon?

Could they possibly go any slower?

We all figured that 2015 was a write-off. Frankly, I'm losing confidence in 2016 at the rate these guys are moving.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

""The alliance doesn’t know yet what the logos will say, “and that’s part of the consumer testing,” Basse said. “We’re testing logos that include ‘UHD’ and ‘Ultra HD’ and ‘4K’ and what have you. But we’re also testing other names that don’t refer to UHD or 4K.” The alliance hasn’t yet trademarked any logos or other nomenclature “because our testing isn’t finalized,” he said. “We hope to get that done soon.”

Good Grief.

If that had been written two years ago, I'd understand.

But it's dated two weeks ago! Testing logos and names...and they "hope to get that done soon?

Could they possibly go any slower?

We all figured that 2015 was a write-off. Frankly, I'm losing confidence in 2016 at the rate these guys are moving.

They're probably going slowly because not all the studios are super enthusiastic about UHD Blu-ray because they really don't give two s--ts about A/V quality... it's all about internet delivery no matter what because that spells total control and total monetary gains. Without content this format is sunk anyway.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

AVF had a chat with one of the BDA bods: https://www.avforums.com/article/the...-blu-ray.11917

Nothing too earth-shattering -

Any idea when Steve Withers plans to post this interview with the UHD Alliance? "There's an interview coming soon that I did with the president of the Ultra HD Alliance where he goes into this in some detail."

https://www.avforums.com/threads/the...#post-22621704

I'm wondering if he can add anything to the 9 September interview.

Also how do members feel about the "several hundred consumers primarily in the Los Angeles area" that are being used to determine the "premium experience" for what is likely to be a micro niche videophile product?

I wonder what selection criteria was used and whether any videophiles were included in the group?

[dvdboy]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...p#post11283278

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be reading from this, other than I "misspoke" 'Indigo Ultra' as 'Indigo Blue'.

Having 'seen' both products at IBC, my question(s) remain:

1. How do you make the most of the multi-tranfer rate model? I didn't see the Ateme encoder, but I'm assuming it doesn't know how to manage the bitrates depending how the files are laid out on the disc.
2. How involved in the spec were the companies making the final authoring products? Neither authoring tool seemed to have a 'good' way of handling some of the new 'spec' items.

I'm assuming, this might become a feature in the spec that is never fully utilised (like metadata in Blu-ray, it can do so much more than "PS3 Thumb" but no players support it...)

I think the biggest thing I noted was the amount removed from the UHD BD spec more than anything else:

• Standard Def content is out, so discs will either contain upscaled content, or will always contain a standard Blu-ray.
• Non Film Frame Rates for AVC content is gone - if you want to do 1080p25/50/59.94/60 you'll have to use HEVC
• I believe Picture in Picture is out...
• I *think* multi-angle is gone as well
• Text based subtitles are gone.

Things like PIP and Multi-Angle were probably only present on 1% of discs created, but to me it seems like UHD BD is always intended to be simple "Movie Only" discs, either because the Studios don't want to spend money on VAM or because they see it as an 'add in' disc, or because they know the disc space will need to be optimised for the feature presentation.