4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jjdpw50

The public likes going to Walmart and spending $500 on a TV on Black Friday, not 1000s.

but what was that $500 BF TV 5 years ago and 10 years ago?

PS

here is what I mean

In 2004 http://bfads.net/Black-Friday/Best-Buy/2004?page=2

BB did not have a 500$ TV according to the site but had a

Maxent 42" Plasma EDTV $1,699.99
Advent 27" HD-Ready TV $349.99
as closest to 500$

in 2009 http://bfads.net/Black-Friday/Best-Buy/2009?page=8

Dynex 40" 1080p 60Hz LCD HDTV (DX-L40-10A) $499.99

and if we are looking at the prices of 2004

Samsung 46" 1080p 120Hz LED-Lit LCD TV Early Bird $1,599.99
Sony 32" 720p 60Hz LCD HDTV (KDL32L504) $377.99

in 2013 (last year, ads for this year are not out yet) http://bfads.net/Black-Friday/Best-Buy/2013?page=12


LG 55" 1080p 120Hz LED HDTV (55LN5100) $499.99
Samsung 60" 1080p 240Hz LED Smart 3D HDTV (UN60F7100AFXZA) $1,597.99
Insignia 46" 1080p 60Hz LED HDTV (NS-46D40SNA14) $329.99


at some point that bigger, better, 4K TV will be the "cheap" BF deal because that is how electronics work.

PPS I went with BB because in 2004 they don't have many stores (actually tried WM first but they did not have any TVs) and decided one store was good enough too prove the point

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Nah, I don't want a crappy Blu-ray Disc bundled in with my 4K disc!

Hah! We're gonna see threads in 8 years time titled '4K Blu-rays are 8 years old and 1080p Blu-rays still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?'.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I doubt we will see it. Ever since DVD (which only needed 1/2 a disk) flippers have been possible.

There are four major issues with them (the way I see it)

1) Aesthetics- a bit odd that we start with this, but it is more than just a fancy pic, but also now you are forcing someone to pay attention possibly in a relatively dark room) to that small writing around the center. I know I already , inadvertently, put in the disk the wrong side up)

2) no real advantage to consumers- if the players could read both sides there is an advantage since you doubled the capacity but if the user needs to get up and flip it (even worst with a disk changer) there is the same amount of work as changing disks

3) safe side- what is the first thing you teach a kid? don't touch the shiny side since even finger prints can cause playback issues, there is no safe side on a flipper (unless you don't care if one side is playable)

4) cost - the rest all have to do with why consumers hated them, but because flippers have a much higher fault rate the studio does not see the full benefit of one disk is better than two. That is why even with DVD where flippers were easy most packages had two disks instead of a flipper. If the cost difference was worthy it studios would have said "who cares about 1-3" consumers don't have a choice.


Also let's face it if we were going to see flippers we could have had 2D/3D on different sides of a BD, why would it be any more likely to see 2k/4k on different sides?

My guess like we do with 3D we will see a 2k and a 4k disk in the same package.

You raise valid points. But what's stopping the BDA from creating a Blu-ray player with dual-sided readers? Sure the player itself is going to be bulky, but why not?

And we're years into optical format technology, I'm sure it's not difficult to know which is the right side up. In fact, why even make it a problem? Do it in such a way we can insert the disc either side and play it normally. We've come a long way since CD-ROMs, it's whether or not we want to push the technology further.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I think a lot of people are also thinking that current Blu-ray movies are 50GB (because that's what the discs can hold) when most movies are actually 20-30GB. So logically at 4 times the resolution, but twice as efficient of codec most 4K movies should be 40-60GB.

Yup. The latest Blu-ray version of Star Trek Into Darkness looks utterly superb, and the AVC video encode itself for the 131-minute movie weighs in at just over 20GB. It's remarkable how compression techniques improve over time, and if HEVC isn't ready for prime time (though I'm sure Penton will put me right on that subject) then something like eyeIO's tweaked AVC with its claimed 50% efficiency increase could fill in (Sony are using it for their own 4K service, after all), and most 2-hour-ish 4K movies would fit on a BD50 (inc. audio) without complaint using that codec, never mind HEVC.

As for all the bleating over having to change discs on this new format for the longer movies, I say PFFFFFFFT, sirs. You wanna go watch a three hour movie on CAV laserdisc first, then get back to me about changing sides.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

why not? 25GB is in the BD spec but barely anyone uses it any more for content. Why not have a 2 layer disk for content that needs between 50 and 66? there is no cost to adding it to the spec.

Warners use BD25's a fair bit for their barebones catalogue releases, I've had recent ones with Get Carter and Point Blank.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Wman1996

Well, I probably won't be getting a 4K tv and 4K Blu-ray until about 2019-2020. The new technology will be so expensive.

It might not be as expensive as you think. With how similar the technology is I could easily see players launching for $200-$300 (instead of $1000 that Blu-ray launched at) and some 4K TVs are already under $500. I wouldn't be at all surprised by players under $100 and TVs under $300 by 2017.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by BozQ

You raise valid points. But what's stopping the BDA from creating a Blu-ray player with dual-sided readers? Sure the player itself is going to be bulky, but why not?

And we're years into optical format technology, I'm sure it's not difficult to know which is the right side up. In fact, why even make it a problem? Do it in such a way we can insert the disc either side and play it normally. We've come a long way since CD-ROMs, it's whether or not we want to push the technology further.

CD's could not have two sides the data layer is at 1.2mm deep (just over the label. For DVD it was easy, the data layer is at .6mm 1/2 way through the plastic so it is just two 1/2 as thick CDs glued together back to back, so you had two sides (and BD is at .1 so again could be made but would not work as nicely as DVD).

As for the players that can read both sides, I am not an engineer, but I agree and am guessing it should be possible (honestly I always wondered in the days of DVD why there was no changers that could read both sides), but I am guessing it would raise the cost of manufacturing (and so the final sales price of players). But all that does is solve #2

as for knowing which side is the right one, it has little to do with tech or how long the tech has been around but the environment you are in. In essence How much light hits the disk when you go to put it in (which in my cases is almost none)

[HDTV1080P]

I hope 4K Blu-ray players and movies arrive by the end of 2015, however there are normally delays when launching a new upgrade to a existing format. The year 2016 might be more realistic for a launch of a new 4K optical disc format.

[harpolini]

I wonder what the disc size will be? About to buy a blu-ray burner with BDXL compatibility (100GB discs). If 4K were going to be that size disc, I bet with proper software I would be able to play them.

But theoretically, wouldn't a 4K disc say for a 2 hour movie comes roughly 300gb for MPEG2, 800GB at Prores, and god knows how much RAW.

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by space blaster

I'm convinced this format will fail.

The only reason the 4K disc format is being finalized is to push new TV adoption and that just isn't going to happen. Ever since the TV sector finally took off with HDTV they were making huge profits but then prices (profits) started to fall, the industry has tried to do everything in their power to push more sales to an already saturated market. You could get a top tier 50" HDTV for $1,000 but they put out the 3D model and tried to charge 3,000 for it then 2,000 and finally gave up and sold them for $1,000 a year later. The same thing happen with TV that had apps. Why they thought a TV that could natively stream netflix would be worth an extra $1,000 is beyond me - especially since streaming boxes are about $100.

So now there's 4k. They want to get a physical media out there to convince people to start buying new TV's again. This too will fail. 55" 1080p watched from 8-10 feet away looks just as good as 4k. You either have to have a small room or get an even larger TV for this to matter. Yeah I've seen 4K displays at Best Buy and yes they look great. I love how it looks but when I'm looking at a display in a store my nose might as well be touching the screen because that's nothing like the viewing conditions at my house.

After making the mistake of early adopting HD-DVD, I will not be early adopting this format. If I'm wrong and the format survives then fine, I'll buy into it. If they have combo packs with 4k discs packed in I'll buy those instead of the regular versions as well (unless they are absurdly expensive). I won't be going out of my way to buy a brand new TV when my current one is really great and blu ray looks fantastic.

Oh and as for the SDTV channels? My wife watches SDTV all the time even though we have HD versions, it drives me nuts. Considering the standard content we watch is cable TV and it is usually 720p and my game systems don't even do 1080p, who cares? I can't imagine how crappy the 480p SDTV will look if my wife watched that on a 4k TV.

edit:
Oh yeah and I'm not in a huge hurry to upgrade my surround sound system again. Yeah, a 4k receiver will be required. Yet MORE hardware to buy.

Well said and I agree %100!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hah! We're gonna see threads in 8 years time titled '4K Blu-rays are 8 years old and 1080p Blu-rays still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?'.

True. People are not looking at the whole picture. It's no just movies where 4k could make a impact. I sometimes think people want all future pq improvements to cease and regress to VHS. (We are nearly there now with streaming lol)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by space blaster

After making the mistake of early adopting HD-DVD, I will not be early adopting this format...

My condolences as to your past poor purchasing decision but, that’ll teach you to read and believe other less informed consumer forums/websites on the internet, which I’m told continue to make naïve comments about such topics as D-Cinema and even rudimentary things like the phases of UHD.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...if HEVC isn't ready for prime time (though I'm sure Penton will put me right on that subject)

Not to correct but to enlighten regarding another aspect…one big challenge is dialing in the encoding parameters to provide exceptional quality at what content producers will consider to be an acceptable encoding time in the early life of HEVC. Not saying this will happen, but potentially, it could lead to some variability in the 4K picture quality from studio to studio.

Which gives hope for 4K screenshot scientists.

[David M]

Originally Posted by AudioWarrior

Whether or not they do come out with new discs that can hold more data, they still can use those BDXL 128GB discs right now if they wanted too!

No, they couldn't. BDXL is specified as a recordable format, not a pressed one.

I imagine some of the work done on BDXL will translate across to the manufacture of pressed discs, though.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by harpolini

I wonder what the disc size will be? About to buy a blu-ray burner with BDXL compatibility (100GB discs). If 4K were going to be that size disc, I bet with proper software I would be able to play them.

But theoretically, wouldn't a 4K disc say for a 2 hour movie comes roughly 300gb for MPEG2, 800GB at Prores, and god knows how much RAW.

Why would a 4K 2 hour movie be 300 GBs? 2K for a 2 hour movie runs about 30 GBs and 4K is 4 times the resolution of 2K so that would make a 2 hour movie with AVC MPEG-4 about 120 GBs.

[Stefan1]

I dont understand...havnt there already been 4k movies? taxi driver? the new texas chainsaw massacre transfer, there has been 4k out for a year or two now!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Stefan1

I dont understand...havnt there already been 4k movies? taxi driver? the new texas chainsaw massacre transfer, there has been 4k out for a year or two now!

No, they were mastered in 4K but still bluray resolution (looked great). This is the real deal. 4k on a disc!

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Stefan1

I dont understand...havnt there already been 4k movies? taxi driver? the new texas chainsaw massacre transfer, there has been 4k out for a year or two now!

Please research before posting facepalm

[Carlanga]

Originally Posted by jjdpw50

...

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...

I disagree w both you :P
THe average buyer in WM, will go out of their way to buy a Funai or whatever random invented brand 40" 720 30hz tv that consumes 5X as much power w shitty panel display for $75 on BF this year… Maybe in 10 yrs you will see good quality tvs on WM BF

Crazy Wal-Mart Black Friday fight for TV - YouTube

[octagon]

Originally Posted by mredman

Anyone else think this will likely be the death blow to DVD. That Blu Ray will be become the dominant format and 4K will be niche. It sure looks like with 2 premium HD formats. DVD will be going the way out and Blu Ray can finally be the dominant one.

I wouldn't expect 4K BDs to have much impact on DVD market share. If anything, 4K BDs would probably cannibalize BD sales leaving DVD relatively unaffected.

[jjdpw50]

^ you're right, $500 was too much for WM, sorry about that.

Best Buy even had that $200 42" Sharp recently on BF I think.