4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[RiseDarthVader]

I'm more bothered by the DCPs I know of being compressed with JPEG2000 and having no lossless theatrical projection of 2K or 4K content. Having a 4K DCP of The Dark Knight compressed down to 80GB is ridiculous to me.

[PRO-630HD]

Penton-man what is the guesstimate for disc capacity of the forth coming 4K BD's?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sorry, joie, not going to happen…unless of course your home is also a post house that requires high-bandwidth uncompressed material to work with in order to produce product for the end user. Care to venture a guess as to how much just 60 min. of uncompressed HD (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps) will need in terms of storage requirements?

About 670 GB.

Just to defend Joie a bit, he did say lossless and not uncompressed. There should be a significant difference between the two, kind of like what happens between DTS-HD MA/DTHD and uncompressed sound

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by joie

What about pixel size? Consider that a 32-inch 1980x1028 display has smaller pixels than, say, a 46-inch 1980x1028.

what is 1980x1028, do you mean 1920x1080?

Can we have larger displays with smaller pixels?

do you mean a 32" 1080p TV compared to a 46" 4k TV, than why not, don't we have that today if you compare a smaller 720p TV to a larger 1080p TV?

Could a cluster of those smaller pixels on a larger display show more than what is shown by the one pixel they could replace?

obviously, again, compare a smaller 720p TV to a larger 1080p TV. Now if your question is can someone sit so far away so that they can't see the difference? yes, but than a better question is if the guy can't make out the difference isn't he sitting too far and missing out on the experience of the film.

[jamesslater]

It sounds like you're talking about pixel density, i.e. pixel count / screen size. So, a 50" 3840x2160 (aka 4k) screen will have 2x the pixel density (in pixels per inch or PPI) of a 50" 1920x1080 screen.

(Another way of looking at it: a grid of 2x2 pixels on a 3840x2160 display will occupy the same physical space as 1 pixel on the same-sized 1920x1080 display.)

[riverbelow]

4K is going to be niche and new release.

There is no way troll 2 is going to be released in 4k. There is no way theres something about mary is going to be released in 4k. Hell, there is no way Memento is going to be released in 4k.

On the other hand, ben hur, taxi driver, Godfather, Gladiator, Star wars, titanic, indiana jones and new release movies filmed in 4k cameras could be shipped easily. Only the most bankable movies will be considered for early era 4k.

This theory is for if 4k is coming within a few years - sitting along side mainstream 1080p releases. And you are naiive if you think that with blu-ray 1080p being the "norm" that 4k won't be charged up the bum in the realms of 3D currently. Expect to pay 25-40$ for 4k blu

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

Penton-man what is the guesstimate for disc capacity of the forth coming 4K BD's?

Good question.
Not nearly as much as some people speculate; although it would be good to have some extra breathing room. The spec will be what BDA membership can agree upon.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Just to defend Joie a bit, he did say lossless and not uncompressed....

No problem in defending joie, as he seems like an okay guy. But, I read the word “uncompressed” in post #459? on the last page. I guess the confusion arises in differences in the nomenclature we’re using here.

‘Uncompressed’ to me, means the captured raw data, the 1920x1080 example of which I already posted above, trying to point out that raw high definition video is BIG, i.e. about 670 GB/hr or 1.48 Gbps serial data. Therefore we have video…

‘compression’….which exploits the limitations of the human visual system.

The way I think and speak about the terms and interaction of video ‘compression’, ‘lossless’ and ‘lossy’ is that there are two classes of imagery compression, i.e. lossless and lossy. In the medical and computer worlds, the compression systems must be lossless. As to how that relates to the medical domain, most people here probably don’t care or appreciate much about that. The compression systems for computer data also have to be lossless otherwise you can’t recover the computer data perfectly…as far as I know.

In the cinematic or television exhibition world, which is governed by bandwidth and storage economies, lossy compression is used for data. In the category of ‘lossy compression’, in essence there are two subclasses, you have what engineers refer to as ‘visually lossless’ (i.e. characterized by low compression factors) and lossy compression of variable PQ (i.e. characterized by medium to high compression factors).

[richieb1971]

Sorry to chime in.

I thought compression helped with disc size capacity but increased processing load. If the processor coped the results would be identical.

eg. By having zero compression you would need a much bigger disc, but the processing load would be decreased since the processor wouldn't need to de-compress the numbers, it would just run it through a decoder. Similar to red book audio.

So by that logic 4k would need a better processor if you required to fit it on 50gb discs. But a processor like the PS3's should handle it still.

[_1080p_]

It's about time to see 4k digital content in cinemas. But I doubt there are many home theaters that will benefit from 4k bd content. I assume that some 30% of home users do not sit close enough to their screens to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p content, and even more don't have screens large enough to benefit.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No problem in defending joie, as he seems like an okay guy. But, I read the word “uncompressed” in post #459? on the last page. I guess the confusion arises in differences in the nomenclature we’re using here.

OK, but in my defence the post you quoted and answered was only about lossless

‘Uncompressed’ to me, means the captured raw data, the 1920x1080 example of which I already posted above, trying to point out that raw high definition video is BIG, i.e. about 670 GB/hr or 1.48 Gbps serial data. Therefore we have video…

agree, and agreed the first time, I was just pointing out that lossless would not make a difference in image quality but should mean a much smaller bitrates and capacity. Just as the same way that lossless audio makes sense over uncompressed

In the cinematic or television exhibition world, which is governed by bandwidth and storage economies, lossy compression is used for data. In the category of ‘lossy compression’, in essence there are two subclasses, you have what engineers refer to as ‘visually lossless’ (i.e. characterized by low compression factors) and lossy compression of variable PQ (i.e. characterized by medium to high compression factors).

agree, but isn't that just a con job? Let's be honest our visual system has three limiting characteristics, size (something is too small to see), wavelength (can't see IR or UV and some people can't tell the difference between different colours and we can all be tricked on colours) and speed (something is too fast to be seen). In the video words all those three are fixed. size is fixed by #of pixels and display size, colours are fixed by the digital values and speed by the frequency of shooting (i.e. film tends to be 24 frames a second). You see if we assume a pixel in 1080p is way too small to be seen, why do we need 4k? so it is not visually lossless because of size. Is it do to colour? When then why do we have so many colours defined in the first place, and what happens if one person is a bit less colour blind than an other? So it is not because of colour. Is it because an error might only be 1/24th of a second and so it will be too fast? No, that is why displays tend to be 60+ and now the better ones are over 240 MHz, 24 MHz is at the lower thresh hold of fluidity. Why is it “visually lossless”? because the assumption is that if I see it (which I will see because in speed, size and colour my visual system will perceive it) I might not notice paying attention elsewhere on screen) and even if I do I won’t know better since I can't compare it to what it should be.

[lobosrul]

I wonder if you guys realize that lossless video is NOT the exact same thing as saying uncompressed video. Lossless compression techniques can usually reduce uncompressed video by 2x or 3x. The problem is you won't ever know how exactly how much smaller a lossless encode will end up.

Originally Posted by riverbelow

4K is going to be niche and new release.

There is no way troll 2 is going to be released in 4k. There is no way theres something about mary is going to be released in 4k. Hell, there is no way Memento is going to be released in 4k.

On the other hand, ben hur, taxi driver, Godfather, Gladiator, Star wars, titanic, indiana jones and new release movies filmed in 4k cameras could be shipped easily. Only the most bankable movies will be considered for early era 4k.

Taxi Driver and The Godfather would be lousy candidates for a 4k release. Movies filmed "spherically" in the 1970's are not going to show any more detail at resolutions above 2k. And I do realize they already have 4k restorations so it would be easy.

Ben Hur (70mm Ultra-Panavision) would be a perfect candidate. For all the other movies you listed, I would have to see it to believe there's anything to be gained by going over 2k. With all the Star Was fanboys out there though it will probably be released at 4k one day (maybe as the "Special Commemorative 100th Home Video Release Edition").

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by saprano

Haha.

You got that from the DICE 2012 show with Tim Sweeney right?


Foget about 4K. 8K really has no place in the home. It'll be usless for our TV sizes. It's also funny how "The most resolution we need" is pretty close already with 1080p at 30 degrees.

I really hope 8K makes its way in to the commercial cinema world. If IMAX is scrapping the 70mm film projectors and is serious about putting digital in those massive traditional IMAX theaters; then 8K coupled with the Kodak laser projection technology seems like the only adequate replacement.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...agree, but isn't that just a con job?...

No, it is not a ‘con job’.
It is just a descriptor used by professionals in advanced imaging technology in order to communicate the quality of the compression as it relates to the uncompressed source, for example ‘visually lossless’ as opposed to ‘high quality’ compression as opposed to ‘good quality’ compression as opposed to ‘poor’ compression.

If it makes you feel any better, think of it as extremely high quality compression in order to maintain no motion artifacts or other pictorial artifacts with that compressed data. For instance, in the uncompressed 1920x1080 world as described on the prior page (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps), a real world example of extremely high quality compression (‘visually lossless’, ‘almost transparent’, whatever) would be that of viewing footage compressed by MPEG4 SStp codec at 880 Mbps via an HDCAM SR tape. That, by the way, would still need about 400 GB/hr of space.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

You see if we assume a pixel in 1080p is way too small to be seen, why do we need 4k?....

The reason why ‘4K’ is desirable is because we (humans) see in a higher resolution than 1920x1080. Although the posted JPEGs are difficult to convey that concept, a real world example of this fact is to view this little ‘4K’ device in action –
http://www.trustedreviews.com/panaso...reen_TV_review

As an aside, all the links in the 4K chain are nicely coming together to aid in production. In the future, don’t be surprised to see some desktop-sized '4K' monitors on-set to take advantage of this technology which was demoed at the recent Tech Retreat I attended….
http://3droundabout.com/2012/02/6193...es-system.html

Anthony, I don’t want to engage in a ‘debate’ with you like is being done on the UV thread, because despite the fact that I have firsthand visual experience in advanced imaging technology and what I type is accurate, I feel intimidated by the fact that I think, if the not founder, you must be one of the Grand Champions of this course …http://www.shopgreatcourses.com/tgc/....aspx?cid=4294

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

Penton-man what is the guesstimate for disc capacity of the forth coming 4K BD's?

I read that with HEVC than can use the current 50gig BD to put 4K movies on; which i think is completely dumb to even think about. I don't care how efficient it is 200gig or more would be better.

Doesn't matter anyway. By the time they complete a 4K BD spec, and have actual 4K movies, im probably going to have a new hobby. I would rather have native 4K than upscaling our movies.

But i see the oncoming 4K displays being like 3D displays. People who don't care for them (me) are going to eventually have one in their homes because when the time comes to pick up a new TV thats the only choice they're going to have.

Unless manufacturers continue releasing 2K displays long after.

I see no need to change my current TV until i can buy a 70" OLED. Preferably made by pioneer.

[Toxa]

saprano 4k hater

[Brightstar]

you will need a flux capacitor to run a 4k tv plus it will take more then ten years for the disks to come out too

[Steedeel]

Well....two years anyway.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

By the time they complete a 4K BD spec, and have actual 4K movies...

Well you do realize that working engineers unlike ‘forum engineers’ ….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ir#post5790903

have multiple industry-influencing projects on their plate all at the same time, for instance having contributed to a best practice and procedure guide for other aspects of the industry…..
http://3net.com/news/view/23/for-dow...uction-guide/1

The spec for 4kBD will get completed and approved in due course .

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

I see no need to change my current TV until i can buy a 70" OLED. Preferably made by pioneer.

Good luck with that. Their primo display engineers (like for instance, Josh K…. http://www.imagingscience.com/personnel.php) went elsewhere, like to Sharp.