4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

My main gripe with 3D not being included with the initial spec is that Ultra HD was supposed to be the quick fix to a bad situation. I had just spent £2999 on a Pioneer Kuro the year before 3D came along, I refused to buy a new TV so I just decided to wait it out as 4K had been mentioned to be on the horizon as early as when the 3D Blu-ray spec came along. As such 3D won't be included in the spec which doesn't fix my current situation it will only adds to the problem. As such I won't be buying a new TV until they are Ultra HD 3D, and I mean Full Ultra HD 3D not 1080p 3D on a Ultra HD BD.

I will get a player though and enjoy 2D content, unless the price is astronomical.

A 4K TV already greatly improves 1080p 3D content though, especially passive 3D.

I'm not bothered in the least by being in a situation where the norm is that 2D content is in 4K and 3D version of the same content is in 1080p.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by spectre08

A 4K TV already greatly improves 1080p 3D content though, especially passive 3D.

I'm not bothered in the least by being in a situation where the norm is that 2D content is in 4K and 3D version of the same content is in 1080p.

All I can say is that 3D on my 4K TV does look better than 3D on my 1080p TV's as far as crosstalk and ghosting are concerned. There's none. From what I understand, nothing has been filmed in 4K 3D yet correct? Or maybe I'm wrong. I know that Vizio had dropped 3D on all Model TV's because they said they were eventually going to release glasses -less 3D on their 4K models. I don't know if that's ever going to happen or if it was just talk. Anyway, I'm happy with the 3D on my 4K TV.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by spectre08

A 4K TV already greatly improves 1080p 3D content though, especially passive 3D.

I'm not bothered in the least by being in a situation where the norm is that 2D content is in 4K and 3D version of the same content is in 1080p.

Some crazy rantings....

I wish Sony had good 3D sets. Their Passive 4K's have the worst viewing area before ghosting is everywhere. I dunno how many of you actually watch 3D 6 feet away from the set @ dead centre from the screen with Passive. I sit 7 feet away from a 65 at around 20 degrees off centre. That's enough for ghosting.

Havn't heard complaints about LG, Samsung's 4K 3D's other then the actual glasses.

Anyway, wether UHD & 3D clash down the road, ain't interested. I'll enjoy 4K more likely from Netflix. The whole notion of size matters with pixels is quite absurd actually when you can buy PC monitors that are 4K & 27"

Remember the screen door effect? Yeah that was when 720/1080i was the highest resolution which got bumped for 1080p. Since then, a little less complaining about that IMO. I see it on 1080p & I'm sure others here do as well. 4K doesn't get rid of that screen door effect but it sure helps eliminate it when trying to count 8.2m pixels on any size screen. 8K is probably the go-to resolution for entirely elimating that screen door effect.

8K would be a worthy upgrade from 1080p

4K will be the trial & error phase of the next medium of picture & sound on disc. It's a good "While we wait" format to release, patent, get all the specs, picture codecs, audio enhanced codecs rolling out while the new 8K media will be on something like Holographic Versatile Disc & maybe even true uncompressed video with 6TB per disc. (Which will need 4 of those for a 2 hour film)

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Bills posted a follow up:

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my...ts/072415_1345

He doesn't say much and its all just an assumption.

". . . My personal guess is that many of the early 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players will include backwards support for Blu-ray 3D and all the other stuff (DVD, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, etc).

The notion that "many" UHD BD players will include SA-CD and DVD-A support is curious. One could opine that the reason even format patent holder Sony (which never supported DVD-A) started dropping SA-CD support from their BD players circa 2012 was because of the 'race to the bottom' in BD player costs that began around that time. But Panasonic (which never supported SA-CD) dropped DVD-A support over eight years ago, after their DMP-BD10. Yamaha and Denon are the two other major players who ever supported the high rez music formats, and it's not my sense that those two manufs are going to be aggressively releasing UHD BD players.

The idea somehow manufs are basically all going to be making universal UHD BD players that support ALL of the legacy formats is a little strange. I suspect no one but OPPO will be doing universal players.

[Joce]

Originally Posted by Derb

Some crazy rantings....

I wish Sony had good 3D sets. Their Passive 4K's have the worst viewing area before ghosting is everywhere. I dunno how many of you actually watch 3D 6 feet away from the set @ dead centre from the screen with Passive. I sit 7 feet away from a 65 at around 20 degrees off centre. That's enough for ghosting.

Havn't heard complaints about LG, Samsung's 4K 3D's other then the actual glasses.

Anyway, wether UHD & 3D clash down the road, ain't interested. I'll enjoy 4K more likely from Netflix. The whole notion of size matters with pixels is quite absurd actually when you can buy PC monitors that are 4K & 27"

Remember the screen door effect? Yeah that was when 720/1080i was the highest resolution which got bumped for 1080p. Since then, a little less complaining about that IMO. I see it on 1080p & I'm sure others here do as well. 4K doesn't get rid of that screen door effect but it sure helps eliminate it when trying to count 8.2m pixels on any size screen. 8K is probably the go-to resolution for entirely elimating that screen door effect.

8K would be a worthy upgrade from 1080p

4K will be the trial & error phase of the next medium of picture & sound on disc. It's a good "While we wait" format to release, patent, get all the specs, picture codecs, audio enhanced codecs rolling out while the new 8K media will be on something like Holographic Versatile Disc & maybe even true uncompressed video with 6TB per disc. (Which will need 4 of those for a 2 hour film)

1) 8K will be useless unless you have a 85 inch TV or more at home, i doubt.

2) Not many films were shot on 70mm/8k, so most of the time the source will be upscaled

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Is there a reason banding is so obvious in nearly EVERY title from Lionsgate but it is rarely a problem with other studios? Do they not have the tools?

that has nothing to do with having (or not) the tools, Banding is a simple compression artifact, it happens when the bitrate is too limited (for what ever reason). In AVC(or any other codec used on BD up to now) things are either a pixels (1x1) or "blocks" (i.e. 8x8) so the encoder needs to decide do I go with blocks or pixels (that will mean 64 times as much data for the area) now if the BW is available, it will puck the latter, but if not it uses blocks and you get the banding where it should be gradients.

I am closer to the opinion right now that we should get the NATIVE format of the movie when it comes to resolution otherwise what is the point of even having 1080p in the UHD spec?

saves space and means less work for something trivial, so that 4k disk can have the same extras as the 2k BD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I hope Bill has a 'part 2' today, where he addresses the question we all want to know the answer to; the details of the copy protection to be used. Or maybe that's question not to be asked.

agree 100% it was the question I was most curious about, and then he asks several times about 4k 3D and other useless stuff that we already know the answer or that we all knew the answer would depend on the studio/CE.

Edit: Just thought that they must be including the XB1 and PS3/PS4s in that 90%. Still seems high though...

I would assume that would be obvious. There is no reason not to count them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yeah, that definitely seems a little exaggerated but it might not be totally off base. As of early 2014 BD household penetration was a little under forty percent. Could it have almost doubled in a year and a half?

Yeah, maybe. It could definitely be up over sixty.

where did you get that from?

at the end of 2013 according to DEG http://degonline.org/wp-content/uplo...ent-Report.pdf

penetration was

The number of Blu-ray homes continues to grow, with total household penetration of all Blu-ray compatible devices (including BD set-tops, PS3s and HTiBs) now at more than 72 million U.S. homes according to numbers compiled by the DEG with input from retail tracking sources.

and according to the US census
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
we are talking 115,610,216 housholds that would have put it at 62% penetration at the end of 2013

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by film11

One can also say that 4K would only be useful on TVs 55" or larger. I know someone with a 47" 4K set and he sees no difference in what he views. Nor did I.

I do hope you're right about 2:40 sets...but I don't see the industry changing the ratio in any large-scale way.

I see a significant difference between 4K and 1080P, but in your case you dont see a difference at all. Your blaming it on 4K not being a big enough of a jump, but I believe the reality is your simply experiencing diminishing returns. If you thought the jump from 1080 to 4K was small and not big enough, the jump from 4K to 8K will feel even smaller.

Why hasnt the entire industry moved to 2.40:1 yet?

I cant believe its 2015 and my TV still has black bars across the top and bottom when watching 90% of movies. Its a terrible waste at so many levels. On a larger TV set I imagine you could fit the screen area of two or three 24" monitors inside those black bars. Its incredibly wasteful.

Originally Posted by Derb

Some crazy rantings....

I wish Sony had good 3D sets. Their Passive 4K's have the worst viewing area before ghosting is everywhere. I dunno how many of you actually watch 3D 6 feet away from the set @ dead centre from the screen with Passive. I sit 7 feet away from a 65 at around 20 degrees off centre. That's enough for ghosting.


Havn't heard complaints about LG, Samsung's 4K 3D's other then the actual glasses.

Anyway, wether UHD & 3D clash down the road, ain't interested. I'll enjoy 4K more likely from Netflix. The whole notion of size matters with pixels is quite absurd actually when you can buy PC monitors that are 4K & 27"

Remember the screen door effect? Yeah that was when 720/1080i was the highest resolution which got bumped for 1080p. Since then, a little less complaining about that IMO. I see it on 1080p & I'm sure others here do as well. 4K doesn't get rid of that screen door effect but it sure helps eliminate it when trying to count 8.2m pixels on any size screen. 8K is probably the go-to resolution for entirely elimating that screen door effect.

8K would be a worthy upgrade from 1080p

4K will be the trial & error phase of the next medium of picture & sound on disc. It's a good "While we wait" format to release, patent, get all the specs, picture codecs, audio enhanced codecs rolling out while the new 8K media will be on something like Holographic Versatile Disc & maybe even true uncompressed video with 6TB per disc. (Which will need 4 of those for a 2 hour film)

Screen door effect? The only time I ever noticed the screendoor effect is when I had my old 720p projector blown up to 150" displaying a solid colored image. If 8K's biggest use is getting rid of the screendoor effect, I'll pass. And as Joce said, only a few dozen movies were actually filmed in 8K. So it would be incredibly wasteful.

I want the resolution race to stop at 4K. I think it will be beneficial to everyone. First off games will benefit from it. Too often the latest hardware gets stretched thin trying to accomodate some new, higher resolution. If we can stay at 4K for 15-20 years graphics can be used in places other then resolution.

Also cable and satellite providers can feel confident upgrading their hardware to support 4K knowing that 8K or something isnt right around the corner and they'll have to upgrade again.

Well, I'm glad I went for an active 3D Sony TV. I sampled Puss and Boots and the Avengers 3D and have only experienced minimal cross talk even at more extreme angles (45 degrees+). On my Sony TV you lose some color at around 33 degrees or more off center, but 3D holds up really well.

[smileyousonofab****]

I just purchased a 55 Samsung JU7100 4K Active 3d tv. Was curious if anyone knew which were the best picture settings for this model, or where i could find them. I'm watching LOTR Extended on Natural with Dynamic Contrast off, Auto Motion Plus off.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

8K/16K Virtual Reality. On the way to the Holodeck.http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...ing-use-789370

Wait for visuo-haptic AR…https://vimeo.com/128641909

And, following that, from ‘The Best Movie You Never Saw’…. http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/the-...w-strange-days

Different software possibilities …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v...utu.be&t=1m58s

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree 100% it was the question I was most curious about, and then he asks several times about 4k 3D and other useless stuff that we already know the answer or that we all knew the answer would depend on the studio/CE.

There’s a reason the columns are labeled “My 2 Cents”.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

where did you get that from?

I saw a Consumer Electronics Assc pdf that put it at 31% and I distinctly remember seeing 37% cited somewhere else but maybe that was a misread or something because I can't find that one anymore.

Originally Posted by bluearth

I cant believe its 2015 and my TV still has black bars across the top and bottom when watching 90% of movies.

I was tempted to respond here with something along the lines of 'I can't believe it's 2015 and people are still *****ing about black bars' but that wouldn't have been true.

I have no trouble believing that.

It's completely ridiculous that people are still *****ing about black bars but it's not at all hard to believe.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by octagon

I was tempted to respond here with something along the lines of 'I can't believe it's 2015 and people are still *****ing about black bars' but that wouldn't have been true.

I have no trouble believing that.

It's completely ridiculous that people are still *****ing about black bars but it's not at all hard to believe.

Looks like you completely missed my point.

The 2.40:1 aspect ratio took over film completely when, the 60s? And here we are in 2015 and 2.40:1 aspect ratio television sets are nowhere to be found. Its not the black bars that bother me as much as the fact home video technology is still 50 years behind Hollywood. The transition from 4:3 to 16:9 to 2.40:1 should have been fast and painless. As it is we're still stuck on phase 2 and some people (yourself) seem to be more then happy and satisfied about it.

[Geoff D]

It took over film completely? The hundreds of 1.78/1.85 movies in my collection (which is overwhelmingly weighted towards post-'90s films) would disagree. And these TVs are designed to receive broadcast TV (hence the name) for which 16:9 is the standard, so they can't just ignore that completely on an industry-wide scale no matter how much you'd like them to.

I've actually owned a 21:9 TV so don't think of me as someone who's completely against the idea of a 'scope TV, but in the long run it proved somewhat impractical. Widescreen movies looked awesome and 16:9 was fine but 4:3 looked like a postage stamp, and that in itself is the point of the 16:9 ratio: it's a compromise which means that 4:3 doesn't look too isolated, 2.35 just has smaller black bars (I watched letterboxed movies on a 14" 4:3 set when growing up, so don't talk to me about black bars taking up the screen! ) and 16:9 is juuuuust right.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It took over film completely? The hundreds of 1.78/1.85 movies in my collection (which is overwhelmingly weighted towards post-'90s films) would disagree. And these TVs are designed to receive broadcast TV (hence the name) for which 16:9 is the standard, so they can't just ignore that completely on an industry-wide scale no matter how much you'd like them to.

I've actually owned a 21:9 TV so don't think of me as someone who's completely against the idea of a 'scope TV, but in the long run it proved somewhat impractical. Widescreen movies looked awesome and 16:9 was fine but 4:3 looked like a postage stamp, and that in itself is the point of the 16:9 ratio: it's a compromise which means that 4:3 doesn't look too isolated, 2.35 just has smaller black bars (I watched letterboxed movies on a 14" 4:3 set when growing up, so don't talk to me about black bars taking up the screen! ) and 16:9 is juuuuust right.

I'd be curious to give 21:9 a go but like ya said it was impractical in the long run. I have 2 versions of Se7en. Open Matte & Close. I prefer the close matte. That director's intent is a whole other argument so I ain't interested in that & have no issues with 2.41 films on a 1.78 display.

If ones collection only had 2.41 BDs, I think it would be useful granted they canceled cable & Netflix.

[PenguinMaster]

21:9 TVs wouldn't make for larger screens in many set-ups. Where I have my TV I could easily fit a taller screen, but not a wider one. Therefore If I switched my 16:9 TV with a 21:9 one all the 21:9 content would be exactly the same size, but all the non 21:9 content would be smaller.

You'd have to have a pretty oddly shaped room for a 21:9 screen to use the space more efficiently than a 16:9 screen. And having empty space around your TV isn't any better than having black bars on your TV.

Even my local theater (which was built in 2013) uses 16:9 screens, there is rarely a space issue with making screens taller.

[bruceames]

I wouldn't want a 21:9. 16:9 is a perfect compromise between 4:3 and 2.35:1 (and I watch plenty of both) and besides most content these days is actually 16:9 when you factor in broadcast/cable viewing (with all the sports we watch especially).

On top of that most of us probably have more height to spare then width. Certainly the case with me. I'm maxed out with 65" with it hanging over my fireplace. If I went to 16:9 I'd lose valuable inches on height while gaining nothing on width.

[ProjectBlu]

Forget the Impending Doom of my wife noticing I bought Lord of the Rings a FIFTH time.... I'm more concerned about needing a new House because I just have no place to put a projection screen big enough to actually do a 4K image justice. At some point a 4K version of a movie will cost $5 more than the Blu-Ray - and I know I'll not be able to resist...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

Even my local theater (which was built in 2013) uses 16:9 screens, there is rarely a space issue with making screens taller.

When I lived in London my nearest multiplex only had taller screens, they didn't even bother to mask the image for a 2.35 movie so it looked like it had borders anyway, just like at home.