4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Note to Sap -

I think this event is in your neck of the woods (NYC)….http://www.engadget.com/expand/speakers/

And, IMO, the ticket prices are reasonable. Phil M. (President, COO of Sony Electronics) is a scheduled speaker, as is Spike Lee, etc.

[Penton-Man]

File this under *We know what consumers want*.

Comments from un-anonymous officials during one of the panel(s) of the recent SMPTE symposium in Hollywood…

“Steve Venuti of the HDMI Licensing organization said that consumers want resolution. He doesn’t see color bit depth and other elements that HDMI 2.0 enables being important to consumers. Sony’s Jamie Marsh concurred that better picture quality is what people want.”
http://philiplelyveld.com/?p=7690

Seems to me Mr. Venuti obviously didn’t view the HFR demo by the BBC at the last IBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2013/09/4k-crazy-at-ibc ), nor for that matter, the one by the EBU at the same venue. Nor, is aware of the results of an EBU study involving consumer-type viewers of HFR which revealed twice the picture quality improvement by increasing temporal resolution (HFR @120 fps) rather than simply increasing spatial resolution (from HD -> 4K).

And if Jamie is concurring with the *resolution only* philosophy, well then

b.t.w., for those unaware, the above linked blogger article doesn’t come from any run-of-the-mill random blogger, Phil can do ‘audio/video journalism’ quite easily, given his background and position…. http://philiplelyveld.com/?page_id=2

And the ETC is no run-of-the-mill testing facility as it has quite the pedigree… http://www.dcimovies.com/press/12-01-02.pdf

[Geoff D]

Well, I can't says I'd mind if they hobbled the colour of UHD to, say, Blu-ray standards, because then it'd play on my 1st gen 4K set (even at HFR) without trouble. Bwahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, I can't says I'd mind if they hobbled the colour of UHD to, say, Blu-ray standards, because then it'd play on my 1st gen 4K set (even at HFR) without trouble. Bwahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!

Not sure what the industry motivation is but I have been saying for awhile that us consumers will not see anything greater than 709, 8 bit, 4:2:0 . I sure would like to see original content from the Sony F65 camera with its large gamut on a top notch professional monitor.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, I think we'll be very lucky to get 10-bit video, let alone better colour subsampling or a wider colour gamut. All the average joe cares about is pixels, measurable numbers that can be easily quantified, which is backed up by Penton's post above.

And I understand that stuff mastered in Rec.2020 won't easily sample down to to Rec.709, so if they do choose 2020 for UHD then each piece of HD and UHD content will need grading separately, which may add to the industry's reticence to go with the better option for home viewing. Another sticking point is that it'll also disenfranchise the early adopters whose 4K tech is resolutely 709, unless they can find a foolproof way to downsample 2020 on the fly.

[saprano]

Don't get me started on the expanded color gamut needed for 4K. Increasing pixels is not enough. Yes the average joe doesn't care so make them care!

We can never have high quality things because of this. And now Panasonic leaves the plasma business. People really love their fake looking LCD's.

Why do i bother with this hobby.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, I can't says I'd mind if they hobbled the colour of UHD to, say, Blu-ray standards, because then it'd play on my 1st gen 4K set (even at HFR) without trouble. Bwahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!

There's a number of reasons why 2K plasma sets at the shootout a few months ago looked better than Sony's 4K set. Even the review in Home Theater Magazine where Thomas J Norton compared it with his kuro and the Samsung F8500. The Samsung was the sharpest. Nothing jumped out at him as being massively better than the two plasmas. It only had resolution going for it.

Why do you think that was??? Pixels aren't the only thing that make up a picture. It was behind in other important areas. Nevermind being an LCD.

Get it together people. Lets improve everything and not just the resolution. REC2020, 10 bit, 4:2:2 etc.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by saprano

Don't get me started on the expanded color gamut needed for 4K. Increasing pixels is not enough. Yes the average joe doesn't care so make them care!

We can never have high quality things because of this. And now Panasonic leaves the plasma business. People really love their fake looking LCD's.

Why do i bother with this hobby.

Well, I love my fake looking LCD TV. I don't care how good plasma is because screen retention is my mortal enemy, nor do I care about what shootout said what because I get a cracking picture from my extensively calibrated TV.

BTW I was half-joking with my comment above, I'd love to have better colour adopted as standard even if it does leave my 4K set trailing in its wake. But if they don't do it, then I'm all right, Jack.

[Penton-Man]

Other than the HFR demos by the BBC and EBU, I would say that the ‘hit’ picture quality demo at the last IBC in Amsterdam was the rugby match at the IntelSat booth. The experience was described by many attendees as having almost reminded them of what it felt like when they first saw HD in a production….in comparison to what had been the only choice at the time, SD.

So why so much unreserved praise about the picture quality of a demo from professionals for whom it takes something quite special to raise their tired eyebrows after walking the floor of a trade show for hours? (and maybe for some, a 'hard' night on the town of Amsterdam the night before).

Well….it was ‘4K’ that included all those other features (that apparently *are unimportant to consumers*), namely a 4:2:2 10-bit, 4K signal at 60 frames per second (actually 3840×2160, p59.94 for those precise number counters out there who are reading, but I think y’all get my point as to the value of not just increasing spatial resolution).

Intelsat - World's First Live Rugby Game in True 4K/UHD TV - YouTube

I’ve already laid out a roadmap for the future….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...hd#post8233176

Note to Mr. Venuti and Jamie, 8 million flower petals is ‘o-kay’ for advertising purposes….http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/50...-4k-commercial

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by saprano

Don't get me started on the expanded color gamut needed for 4K. Increasing pixels is not enough. Yes the average joe doesn't care so make them care!

We can never have high quality things because of this. And now Panasonic leaves the plasma business. People really love their fake looking LCD's.

Why do i bother with this hobby.

In 10 years plasma will be a thing of the past. It doesn't matter to alot of people about the blacks and picture quality. LCD has bigger screens and better colors. Thats what people want. Its a shame but true. OLED and 4K will be a mainstream.

[saprano]

Sigh. Better colors???? Dynamic and vivid and whatever other candy coated settings they have at default in stores doesn't make it better than plasmas. Plasmas can have those colors too. But they're wrong. Now if you want to talk about accuracy to the REC709 standard, BOTH plasma and LCD can be calibrated closely to it. Some do it better than others. You either match it or not.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, I love my fake looking LCD TV. I don't care how good plasma is because screen retention is my mortal enemy, nor do I care about what shootout said what because I get a cracking picture from my extensively calibrated TV.

BTW I was half-joking with my comment above, I'd love to have better colour adopted as standard even if it does leave my 4K set trailing in its wake. But if they don't do it, then I'm all right, Jack.

I don't mean to hurt any owners feelings. It's just that i don't like the look of them. Plasmas are more natural and real looking.

Burn in and image retention is not as bad as it use to be. Plasmas have gotten better at handling it. On my TV, which is years old, i don't have any of the settings on to prevent those things and i haven't had any problems. I don't worry about. That misinformation is another reason why people rather buy LCD's.

[saprano]

Netflix has 4K videos up if anyone want to try it out-

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1497720/ne...eaming-footage

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Note to Sap -

I think this event is in your neck of the woods (NYC)….http://www.engadget.com/expand/speakers/

And, IMO, the ticket prices are reasonable. Phil M. (President, COO of Sony Electronics) is a scheduled speaker, as is Spike Lee, etc.

That's a long list of people. Maby i should ask Spike Lee what he thinks about the bluray transfer of Do The Right Thing. Notably.......the color. Heh.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Netflix has 4K videos up if anyone want to try it out-
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1497720/ne...eaming-footage

I was alerted to Netflix's 4K streaming samples a day earlier and asked for any feedback on the streaming vs. optical media thread - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...st#post8328696.

Sap, I don’t have Netflix and I can’t get it at work. What I’m curious about is how much compression Netflix has done in order to stream it and that should be at least indirectly evident by comparing the 59.94 (the highest temporal sample) to some 4K movie content displayed from the Sony hockey puck ( http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-laun...ra-hd-tv-line/ ) …given equal acquisition (lensing, exposure, etc.) of the captured source.

Whatever the frame rate, for streaming 4K delivery, compression will be a critical determinate. Somewhere back on this thread I posted a pdf (authored by the head of media fundamentals and production at EBU who also happens to be SMPTE's vice president for standards) showing simulated differences between uncompressed 4K (3840x2160 p50) vs. 3840x2160 HEVC @10 Mbit/sec. vs. 3840x2160 HEVC @ 6Mbit/sec….and you know that Netflix isn’t streaming something quite as efficient as HEVC.

I like the way the Netflix experiment has brought exposure to 4K content delivery on the forums and other websites who have by now undoubtedly picked up on the offering, but I’m interested in how it really looks on 4K tv, even if the individual responses are simply anecdotal.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by saprano

I don't mean to hurt any owners feelings. It's just that i don't like the look of them. Plasmas are more natural and real looking.

Burn in and image retention is not as bad as it use to be. Plasmas have gotten better at handling it. On my TV, which is years old, i don't have any of the settings on to prevent those things and i haven't had any problems. I don't worry about. That misinformation is another reason why people rather buy LCD's.

I agree. I only have CRT and plasma monitors in my house and I've not had any burn-in with my 10+ year old CRT's or my plasma TV. Just don't leave the TV on for 24 hours a day and you'll be fine.

Heck, even my 1980 Sony Trinitron TV doesn't have burn in.

I really like plasma technology, but I am confident that Panasonic will make an OLED TV that has just as good if not better contrast/color than a plasma. The technology is capable of this, unlike LCD, because there is no backlight on an OLED TV.

It looks like Samsung already has:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ke55s9c-201310273395.htm

For yonks, the name of the game – at least for videophiles – has been: which new TV can beat the black level of Pioneer’s legendary Kuro plasmas, which we’d measured at 0.0031 cd/m2 back in 2008?

When we put up a full-field video black screen, we could not detect any light output at all from the KE-55S9C – this was confirmed objectively by our Klein K10-A meter which returned a reading of 0 cd/m2. Most LED LCDs these days can also do this by switching off their backlight totally, but what’s different about an OLED television is that it can maintain this absolute level of blacks even in the presence of lit pixels on other parts of the screen. The centre black patch in a 4×4 ANSI checkerboard pattern measured 0.0022 cd/m2 – we’re sure this figure would have been zero had we been able to prevent neighbouring white light from seeping into our meter’s sensor (the curved screen didn’t help!).

With blacks so deep, there ran a risk of shadow detail getting lost amidst all the darkness, but once we calibrated the KE55S9C using the 21-point greyscale strategy described earlier, we saw no evidence of this during our time spent with the set. If anything, the superb poker game sequence from the Blu-ray disc of Casino Royale proved the contrary: we could effortlessly make out both near-black detail (for example Bond’s peak lapel against his dinner jacket) and bright highlights (white-on-white waffle weave pattern on his evening shirt) within the same scene, which served as a testament to the unrivalled dynamic range of the OLED HDTV.

Unfortunately it seems like motion blur is still an issue.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

I don't mean to hurt any owners feelings. It's just that i don't like the look of them. Plasmas are more natural and real looking.

Having dealt with every display technology this blanket statement is patently untrue. I've seen plenty of really bad plasmas out there.

Burn in and image retention is not as bad as it use to be. Plasmas have gotten better at handling it. On my TV, which is years old, i don't have any of the settings on to prevent those things and i haven't had any problems. I don't worry about. That misinformation is another reason why people rather buy LCD's.

What about the additional heat and power usage? Not to mention the weight of a 60" plasma reminds me of those old CRTs I used to lug around.

If you want to compare the best of the best plasma to your average LCD you have a point. But there are plenty of top shelf LCDs that will give a plasma a run for the money any day.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by saprano

I don't mean to hurt any owners feelings. It's just that i don't like the look of them. Plasmas are more natural and real looking.

Burn in and image retention is not as bad as it use to be. Plasmas have gotten better at handling it. On my TV, which is years old, i don't have any of the settings on to prevent those things and i haven't had any problems. I don't worry about. That misinformation is another reason why people rather buy LCD's.

As usual, the public pick the crap option.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by saprano

Burn in and image retention is not as bad as it use to be. Plasmas have gotten better at handling it. On my TV, which is years old, i don't have any of the settings on to prevent those things and i haven't had any problems. I don't worry about. That misinformation is another reason why people rather buy LCD's.

Hmmm. For every person I've heard say that they've never had any retention ever ever EVER, there's another one who says their set (same make, same model) is chronic for it. Yes, settings play a part, but I've read forums posts from people who I know to be sensible with settings and whatnot and yet they still report retention issues.

I no longer want to buy a TV only to have to run it in for hundreds of hours and then manage it day-to-day depending on what I'm watching. AFAIC this is still a hit-or-miss issue with plasma (and could even be a problem with OLED) so I'll take LCD foibles over retention any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. FWIW, I have calibrated my LCD TV and set greyscale, gamma and colour as close to the industry-defined standards as possible (which is to say, very close indeed ).

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Having dealt with every display technology this blanket statement is patently untrue. I've seen plenty of really bad plasmas out there.

What about the additional heat and power usage? Not to mention the weight of a 60" plasma reminds me of those old CRTs I used to lug around.

If you want to compare the best of the best plasma to your average LCD you have a point. But there are plenty of top shelf LCDs that will give a plasma a run for the money any day.

For once, you and I are in total agreement.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Having dealt with every display technology this blanket statement is patently untrue. I've seen plenty of really bad plasmas out there.

A plasma that doesn't live up to it's potential is the fault of the manufacture. Even so a low end plasma still beats an LCD. An LCD, whether low or high end, can't escape the usual characteristics they have.

What about the additional heat and power usage? Not to mention the weight of a 60" plasma reminds me of those old CRTs I used to lug around.

Ahhh the power argument. I think these are so exaggerated. Yes LCD uses less, but we're talking dollars more extra for plasmas.......a year. Your AC, computer, or refrigerator uses way more power. Nobody complains about that.

And are you really talking about the weight of a 60" plasma in 2013? There's light thin plasmas all over the place.

If you want to compare the best of the best plasma to your average LCD you have a point. But there are plenty of top shelf LCDs that will give a plasma a run for the money any day.

Name them. And please don't say Sharp's elite LCD. Like i said above, it still suffers from LCD characteristics. Halo's, non uniformity, off angle degrade in PQ, light bleed from the backlight LED's on mixed content with dark and light. In turn its ANSI contrast performance is not as good as plasmas which their self emissive displays are superior at doing. It's a good TV and can produce a great picture if you can live with the issues, as many other LCD's have good PQ, But plasmas overall give a better picture.


@Geoff D

Some plasmas are good at image retention and burn in and some aren't. But as i mentioned it's not like it was years ago. They're better.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Panasonic...

This from Reuters….http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...pe=companyNews

Brings back memories from 1½ years ago….last paragraph - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...se#post5968868