4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by GenPion

They weren't exactly the same product nor were they produced exactly the same way. So there was no way something like that would happen.

exactly, his whole point made no sense.

I don't know which came first, though.

very complex question and depends what one means.


a long time ago there was the DVD forum (the group in charge of DVD). And it was going no where. A few companies working on trying to get HD and larger capacity disks got together in 2002 and started the Blu-ray Disk Founders to work on a new disk format for HD (later renamed BDA) to work together on this new format. In 2004 (?) some of the BDF members started launching PVRs that were called BD but those PVRs are incompatible with todays BD disks (they used a cartridged disk, only supported MPEG-2...). When that happened the DVD forum woke up and realized hey could not stop HD disks so they threw together their own HD disk format. HD-DVD launched Q1 2006 and the new BD movie play back format in the summer of 2006.

So it all depends how one takes it
BD was first if we go with people seriously working on the format and it having a name
BD was first if one includes those PVRs that are a different format but had the same name
HDDVD was first if we are discussing when the movie playback format launched.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Well, it didn't take long for another of my predictions to come true:-

http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-31MU97

It's possibly only a matter of time till they do their premium televisions in true 17:9, along with other manufacturers. By the time the full 4K Blu-Ray spec is finalised I wouldn't be surprised to find that full 17:9 4K was in the spec. It would be a good selling point for the 2016 line of televisions.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

exactly, his whole point made no sense.

Whatever. I know they weren't the exact same thing, otherwise you'd be able to play HD-DVDs on your Blu-Ray players, but when you put it simply, they were both HD video on a disc. So I still say the whole format war was ridiculous.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

Whatever. I know they weren't the exact same thing, otherwise you'd be able to play HD-DVDs on your Blu-Ray players, but when you put it simply, they were both HD video on a disc. So I still say the whole format war was ridiculous.

agree it was ridiculous but greed does that, but what you are saying is even more ridiculous. You can't patent "HD video on a disc" and then decide to stop any other "HD video on a disc" format.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Well, it didn't take long for another of my predictions to come true:-

http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-31MU97

It's possibly only a matter of time till they do their premium televisions in true 17:9, along with other manufacturers. By the time the full 4K Blu-Ray spec is finalised I wouldn't be surprised to find that full 17:9 4K was in the spec. It would be a good selling point for the 2016 line of televisions.

I doubt 21:9 anamorphic will be included in the UHD specs. They would have to do further processing beyond the DCI-P3 graded DCP masters already created for theatrical release. The digital cinema specs do not call for 2.39:1 anamorphic imaging with a de-squeeze Cinemascope or Panavision lens in front of the projector as in the days of 35mm film being spooled through anyway, just matted versions that have been pixel cropped.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-31MU97

It's possibly only a matter of time till they do their premium televisions in true 17:9, along with other manufacturers. By the time the full 4K Blu-Ray spec is finalised I wouldn't be surprised to find that full 17:9 4K was in the spec. It would be a good selling point for the 2016 line of televisions.

Computer monitors with a resolution of 4096x2160 have been around for several years and at 31" with a cost of over 1000 pounds that is not aimed at consumers. It would be a lot easier for Hollywood movies to switch to 16:9 than to get consumer displays to switch to an aspect ratio of 1.89. There was never a good reason for Hollywood to use a different aspect ratio and they simply did it so they could say that movies had a higher resolution than HDTV.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Computer monitors with a resolution of 4096x2160 have been around for several years and at 31" with a cost of over 1000 pounds that is not aimed at consumers. It would be a lot easier for Hollywood movies to switch to 16:9 than to get consumer displays to switch to an aspect ratio of 1.89. There was never a good reason for Hollywood to use a different aspect ratio and they simply did it so they could say that movies had a higher resolution than HDTV.

well originally wide screen was used to say the movie theatres had more picture (because you would get the 4:3 P&S at home). But I agree with you. TV standards can't change (way too many TVs out there) while cinema standards can easily be changed

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Well, it didn't take long for another of my predictions to come true:-

http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-31MU97

It's possibly only a matter of time till they do their premium televisions in true 17:9, along with other manufacturers. By the time the full 4K Blu-Ray spec is finalised I wouldn't be surprised to find that full 17:9 4K was in the spec. It would be a good selling point for the 2016 line of televisions.

This will be great for people using it to edit films and to work on photographs. Seems really cool and has good specs. I think it's funny how the layout page demonstrates horrible banding on the "normal HD" mode vs. 4K, where it looks crystal clear. I guess that in itself indicates it's something they know bothers professionals in terms of working on film projects.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree it was ridiculous but greed does that, but what you are saying is even more ridiculous. You can't patent "HD video on a disc" and then decide to stop any other "HD video on a disc" format.

I don't really believe that that could/should have happened, I was just thinking out loud.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I doubt 21:9 anamorphic will be included in the UHD specs. They would have to do further processing beyond the DCI-P3 graded DCP masters already created for theatrical release. The digital cinema specs do not call for 2.39:1 anamorphic imaging with a de-squeeze Cinemascope or Panavision lens in front of the projector as in the days of 35mm film being spooled through anyway, just matted versions that have been pixel cropped.

I was on about 17:9. NOT 21:9.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Computer monitors with a resolution of 4096x2160 have been around for several years and at 31" with a cost of over 1000 pounds that is not aimed at consumers. It would be a lot easier for Hollywood movies to switch to 16:9 than to get consumer displays to switch to an aspect ratio of 1.89. There was never a good reason for Hollywood to use a different aspect ratio and they simply did it so they could say that movies had a higher resolution than HDTV.

Indeed they have. However with monitors like this, they are now coming into the price range of well healed consumers and semi-pro videographers (maybe those with a scarlet tucked in their back pocket!).

You seem to agree about one of my central points, why the silly difference between professional (17:9) and consumer (16:9). To me the difference seems to be designed in and for no other reason than to differentiate professional from consumer. The downside for the consumer is that in transcoding from 17:9 to 16:9 it is not a pixel for pixel process and we lose something in the process.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Assuming the bolded part is true, can't you see the contradiction in your statement. 6K>4K so if you want everything the film can offer you need more than "about 6K" and definitely more than 4K.

Tops out as in nothing left and 6-4 is not a ton more detail and way more work.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Tops out as in nothing left and 6-4 is not a ton more detail and way more work.

it does not matter if there is nothing left past 6k but if anything is left (no matter how small) past 4k that is something that is stolen from my experience of the film and I want it since I am paying to experience the foilm and not just sit on my lazy ass and waste a few hours. As for "way more work", not sure what you mean but the way I see it, my lazy ass is doing the same work on my reclined seat watching the film no matter what resolution the image is on the screen.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Indeed they have. However with monitors like this, they are now coming into the price range of well healed consumers and semi-pro videographers (maybe those with a scarlet tucked in their back pocket!).

it does not matter. even if the price was exactly the same the vast majority of people would not buy them. the TV they buy is not used for one job only, that is why the 21:9 displays never sold in any numbers. when the guy uses the display for many more hours of TV shows why would the choice be driven by movies?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

it does not matter if there is nothing left past 6k but if anything is left (no matter how small) past 4k that is something that is stolen from my experience of the film and I want it since I am paying to experience the foilm and not just sit on my lazy ass and waste a few hours. As for "way more work", not sure what you mean but the way I see it, my lazy ass is doing the same work on my reclined seat watching the film no matter what resolution the image is on the screen.

You are reading into the numbers way too much, 4k is perfect for 35mm
You have to realise not all 35mm stocks are the same.
Some will top out at 2k detail 4k is just the right amount of information, will there be some high frequency info past 4k on some stocks?
Yeah maybe, but 6K is overkill nothing left at all.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

You are reading into the numbers way too much, 4k is perfect for 35mm
You have to realise not all 35mm stocks are the same.
Some will top out at 2k detail 4k is just the right amount of information, will there be some high frequency info past 4k on some stocks?
Yeah maybe, but 6K is overkill nothing left at all.

6k is only really useful in 35mm scanning for oversampling purposes. The best 4k transfers will have started with 6k scans using the latest technology.

[hajiketobu]

Will we have 16k resolution on 4tb laser discs by 2030?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

6k is only really useful in 35mm scanning for oversampling purposes. The best 4k transfers will have started with 6k scans using the latest technology.

That would be my point

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

You are reading into the numbers way too much, 4k is perfect for 35mm
You have to realise not all 35mm stocks are the same.
Some will top out at 2k detail 4k is just the right amount of information, will there be some high frequency info past 4k on some stocks?
Yeah maybe, but 6K is overkill nothing left at all.

I get what you are saying. What you are missing is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth at once. If something has no more detail then 2K obviously something above 4K is not needed, but that does not negate that if some films have 6k worth of detail (which you keep on saying) 4k does not couver all the detail that is there and it will be nice to be able to see all 6k worth of detail even if it is in an 8k package. Why would it be overkill in any way, shape or form if the detail is there?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I get what you are saying. What you are missing is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth at once. If something has no more detail then 2K obviously something above 4K is not needed, but that does not negate that if some films have 6k worth of detail (which you keep on saying) 4k does not couver all the detail that is there and it will be nice to be able to see all 6k worth of detail even if it is in an 8k package. Why would it be overkill in any way, shape or form if the detail is there?

No overkill is exactly what it is, not everything on film was meant to be seen.
It's analogue vs digital, one can never be directly corresponded to the other