4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Remember, the bitrate is NOT constant, it's variable. Blu-ray goes up to 48 Mb/s (or about 54 Mb/s for actual user data rate) but it doesn't max it out for every second of every movie, that belies the whole point of the compression that they use! So just because the very first portion of a UHD layer is capped at 109 Mb/s (about 122 Mb/s) doesn't mean it will use every last bit of it anyway.

And some discs may not be two-zoned anyway if the content simply doesn't call for it, so using the DTR @ up to 109 Mb/s will be plenty. As Mike alluded to in another post, these will probably be like 3D discs in that they won't have lots of extra language tracks or extra features, they'll be given over to the movie presentation first and foremost so let's not start worrying about the bitrate just yet.

[m3racer123]

So http://www.uhdbdinnumbers.com/ is wrong in saying "Ultra HD Blu-ray can stream video up to a maximum of 108/128 Mbps for 66Gb and 100Gb discs"?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by m3racer123

So http://www.uhdbdinnumbers.com/ is wrong in saying "Ultra HD Blu-ray can stream video up to a maximum of 108/128 Mbps for 66Gb and 100Gb discs"?

If this is true about bitrate and the location of data on the disc's surface, then you would think this issue would apply to regular BD-25 and BD-50 ROM's too.

[Robert Zohn]

From the specs I have been able to confirm from Philips, which is the only manufacturer that has given me the most detailed specs, they claim a maximum bitrate of 100Mbps and it's 100Mbps on all disc sizes.

Here's my BDP7501 .pdf data sheet with all of the specs I could confirm as accurate.

-Robert

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

From the specs I have been able to confirm from Philips, which is the only manufacturer that has given me the most detailed specs, they claim a maximum bitrate of 100Mbps and it's 100Mbps on all disc sizes.

Here's my BDP7501 .pdf data sheet with all of the specs I could confirm as accurate.

-Robert

So, no Dolby Vision support that we know of yet?

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

From the specs I have been able to confirm from Philips, which is the only manufacturer that has given me the most detailed specs, they claim a maximum bitrate of 100Mbps and it's 100Mbps on all disc sizes.

Here's my BDP7501 .pdf data sheet with all of the specs I could confirm as accurate.

-Robert

is that $399 price point confirmed yet, or are you setting that as a an upper limit?

[Robert Zohn]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

So, no Dolby Vision support that we know of yet?

Originally Posted by spectre08

is that $399 price point confirmed yet, or are you setting that as a an upper limit?

You are correct, no Dolby Vision support announced, but the hardware is capable. So all Funai/Philips would need to do is license Dolby Vision and upgrade the firmware.

From what I am told $499 is MSRP and $399 is call UPP, which is the lowest price authorized dealers are permitted to sell the player for.

-Robert

[elwaylite]

Wonder what chip Philips is using?

My hypothesis is Sony and Oppo are waiting on the MT, Samsung and Panasonic have their own SoC's... Philips will be out before the MT it seems.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I wonder if it's on a BD-66 or BD-100 ROM.

Sony predicted that even with new triple layer production lines a BD-100 would cost 3 times more than a BD-66 so my guess is that the vast majority of initial titles will use BD-66.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If this is true about bitrate and the location of data on the disc's surface, then you would think this issue would apply to regular BD-25 and BD-50 ROM's too.

The AV bit rate didn't get high enough on Blu-ray for RPM to become a problem.

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

From the specs I have been able to confirm from Philips, which is the only manufacturer that has given me the most detailed specs, they claim a maximum bitrate of 100Mbps and it's 100Mbps on all disc sizes.

100 Mbps is the maximum HEVC bit rate for Ultra HD Blu-ray.

[Wiidesire]

A TL 100 GB blank disc would be perfect for data backup & a personal digital collection.
However only recently (~Mai 2015) DL 50 GB blank discs became affordable in Europe (~2€ per piece -> 40€/1TB) thanks to Primeon.
TL 100 GB blank discs can't reach the 5€ mark for me soon enough.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by m3racer123

So http://www.uhdbdinnumbers.com/ is wrong in saying "Ultra HD Blu-ray can stream video up to a maximum of 108/128 Mbps for 66Gb and 100Gb discs"?

Er....where have I said that that's not the case, their rounding up of the numbers aside?

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Both 66GB and 100GB discs support the exact same bitrates: up to 127.9 Mb/s for the High Transfer Rate (outer) zone of a disc and 109 Mb/s for the Low Transfer Rate (inner) zone.

I'm not pulling this out of the ether, nor am I some insider, I'm just using the two white papers issued by the BDA on July and September last year pertaining to the specs that I've posted, which are freely available for people to peruse on the interwebs.

[Geoff D]

Bitrate table from the August spec document. The figures in the fourth column relates to the data rate including all overheads, the third column is strictly for the transport stream itself and is what is most commonly referred to in reference to available A/V bitrate (e.g. regular Blu-ray is 48 Mb/s max for the TS but 54 Mb/s max for the whole thing). [edit] Note that the 'LTR zone' bitrate mentioned upthread isn't the same thing as the 'LTR Option' listed below. LTR Option is the lowest bitrate ceiling that can be used.

[d514]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's NOT true.

Both 66GB and 100GB discs support the exact same bitrates: up to 127.9 Mb/s for the High Transfer Rate (outer) zone of a disc and 109 Mb/s for the Low Transfer Rate (inner) zone.

However at the very inner portion of the disc (about 8%) the speed would exceed 5000 rpm when using the highest bitrate (think of how a runner in the inside lane is generally held to have an advantage) and could create more audible noise, so the bitrate of that 'LTR' zone is curtailed slightly to 'only' 109 Mb/s until the 'HTR' zone is able to take over. Make sense?

Remember, the bitrate is NOT constant, it's variable. Blu-ray goes up to 48 Mb/s (or about 54 Mb/s for actual user data rate) but it doesn't max it out for every second of every movie, that belies the whole point of the compression that they use! So just because the very first portion of a UHD layer is capped at 109 Mb/s (about 122 Mb/s) doesn't mean it will use every last bit of it anyway.

OK, maybe I mixed something up because of the 109/127 Mbit/s thing but the image you posted confirms that UHD on BD50 is inferior because BD66/100 can transfer up to 45 Mbit/s more.

I didn't know about the limitation of the first 8% of the layer. What a strange decision. Yes, the bitrate is variable but I can think of many movies which start with a lot of action. So they have to put ~2.5GB of trailers or something at the start of the disc to be able to use the full bitrate on the movie. Yes, 109 Mbit/s isn't bad but the 48 Mbit/s for Blu-ray also seemed to be a lot when then format was introduced. Now we have Blu-ray discs with Dolby Atmos tracks and other languages in DTS-HD and DD were the audio uses up almost half of the bitrate.

And this limitation of the first 8% applies to every layer, doesn't it? Maybe pressed discs can do this differently but when burning BD-R media with 50GB the first layer is always completely filled before the second layer is written. (This is different to DVD-R 8.5GB media, where the first layer doesn't have to be full. It just has to be larger than the second layer.) If the same applies to triple layer media then the second layer also has to be written completely before the third layer can be written. So about 2/3 into the movie the bitrate is limited again? Or can the switch to the third layer be made before the second layer is full?

[Geoff D]

Sure, I didn't say that the 50GB iteration wasn't "inferior", I was responding to your incorrect assertion about 66GB not having the same capability as 100GB. It's the 33GB layers in conjunction with increased speed which is where the difference lies compared to the 25GB layers used on current BD tech, ergo 66GB and 100GB really do have the same data transfer rates.

Yes, the 8% LTR zone applies to each layer IF the two-zone encode is implemented (as I keep saying, not everything will need that maximum data rate) but I still don't get what people don't get about it.

Folks keep thinking of the encoding as a very rigid, linear process but the bitrate is not constant and the video encode won't use all of that anyway as some of it must be given over to audio, so what's the problem? Bits are allocated where and when they're needed by the encoder, and given Blu-ray's diminishing returns past a certain level of bitrate (or just plain encoding expertise) then I can't see where that extra 19 Mb/s will make a HUGE difference to something that's already maxed out at 109 Mb/s, aside from adding a few extra audio tracks or a DV enhancement layer or something.

Don't get me wrongo: it's there if it's needed, but given the extra complexity for the encoding (as you say, the switch to a new layer will necessitate that the inner 8% be at the 109 Mb/s mark, so that will need to be monitored when encoding a movie across two or more layers) I can see them starting off with easier DTR (109 Mb/s) encodes to begin with.

[Fritz]

When a film is being encoded for Blu-ray do they alter the bit rate for certain sections of the film? In other words, say a scene like Sally being chased through the woods at night in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, where detail is somewhat crushed even on the negative. Do they throw everything they have at problematic places in the film?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fritz

When a film is being encoded for Blu-ray do they alter the bit rate for certain sections of the film? In other words, say a scene like Sally being chased through the woods at night in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, where detail is somewhat crushed even on the negative. Do they throw everything they have at problematic places in the film?

In a word: yes.

[Fritz]

Sweet. Thank you. Until I read these last few posts I figured it was just math.

"I have "x" amount in GBs of scans that need to fit on "x" amount of disc space....which means I need to compress it by "x" amount..." and then just let it rock.

[aronm]

I know it may be strange and different to someone now (maybe even that was discussed earlier in the thread) but I'm curious
Let's dream for a moment and go back in time.
The 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray standard is still in process of standardization (maybe different word fits here but never mind)
Somehow someone who is in the ITU, EBU, BDA or something similar company/organization is a very hardcore fan (in positive meaning) of past technology.
In short story let's assume that he also is in charge to make critical decisions to upcoming new format.
And now the cherry on the bottom of the cake
He pushed the long buried in history and critics format. He just cleaned him from dust and gave a new spirit with the help of today's technology and possibilities.
In alternate timeline of events now we have a new 4K Blu-ray but the discs have size of the LaserDisc. Of course they have 3 or 4 layers (just as now discussed 4K Blu-ray discs) But the capacity is whole lot better. We can fit Atmos or DTS counterpart and uncompressed 4K image with all the whistles and jingles (HDR, HFR) but in YCBCR 4:4:4. The bitrates are high above 100 Mbps per video and audio.
What do You think about that? The alternate 4K Bluray

[spectre08]

I wanna detour for a minute.

Is anybody else just as excited about FINALLY getting Youtube 4K streaming to their tv without a computer as I am?


Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the first crop of UHD blu-ray players are also the first devices that are going to stream 4K YouTube as far as I know.

[Geoff D]

No excitement here fella, it'll still be compressed to shit anyway. I mean, I use youtube all the time, don't get me wrong, but for lost music oddities rather than video streaming, save for the odd trailer.