4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by reanimator

So am I following this right? UHD-BD should be a 1:1 copy of the studio master, should have no copy protection at all, and should only cost $9.99? Seriously?

I think you completely misread that.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The 66GB discs are supposed to be two 33GB layers, are they not?

In any case, the 33GB layers were proposed by Sony and Panasonic as an addition to the current Blu-ray spec back in 2010 which would (apparently) only have required a firmware update to make the players compatible, and would not have required extensive retooling of BD production lines because only the raw media itself (which is manufactured off-site) was changing, from 25GB layers to 33GB, and it was using the same double-layer pressing.

Fast forward five years, and with the addition of a third layer for the 100GB UHD discs, that makes things a little more complicated admittedly. It may prove to be the case that most early UHD releases are 66GB while we wait for the 100GB manufacturing capacity to get going (if the format lasts that long ) but that'll be absolutely fine for the average 2-hour feature. If Sony make Lawrence of Arabia a UHD BD launch title then I wouldn't be surprised to see the film split across two discs, maybe a 66GB and a 50GB, with the extras disc from the regular Blu-ray in there too.

As cheap as studio home video departments are getting, I would bet that very, very few long movies will be split to two UHD discs even if that means a hit on the video quality.

That said, with the premium price expected for UHD Blu-ray (I wouldn't doubt they'll push Laserdisc territory in some instances) I would DEMAND that each and every title be treated with the utmost quality assurance.

No more Universal type junk catalog releases, 8 bit Rec 709 masters upconverted, etc. etc. That would be unacceptable.

Audio should be Dolby Atmos or DTS: X on a bulk of the titles (outside of older classics like Casablanca and Citizen Kane that would not warrant a 3D mix)

If UHD Blu-ray is to be the pinnacle of consumer media and be niche priced, then it better perform as such.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by reanimator

So am I following this right? UHD-BD should be a 1:1 copy of the studio master, should have no copy protection at all, and should only cost $9.99? Seriously?

Unfortunately no. I have argued for a while that UHD Blu-ray should be true 17:9 DCI 4K Blu-Ray so that the Blu-ray copy would a 1:1 pixel map of the studio master. For an enthusiast format this would have made sense. We will be getting a 16:9 conversion unless someone has a Damascene conversion.

Copy protection...yes, obviously. Online authentication... No, don't want that.

$9.99... That's not going to happen. It's a premium product, they will ask a premium price.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

As cheap as studio home video departments are getting, I would bet that very, very few long movies will be split to two UHD discs even if that means a hit on the video quality.

That said, with the premium price expected for UHD Blu-ray (I wouldn't doubt they'll push Laserdisc territory in some instances) I would DEMAND that each and every title be treated with the utmost quality assurance.

No more Universal type junk catalog releases, 8 bit Rec 709 masters upconverted, etc. etc. That would be unacceptable.

Audio should be Dolby Atmos or DTS: X on a bulk of the titles (outside of older classics like Casablanca and Citizen Kane that would not warrant a 3D mix)

If UHD Blu-ray is to be the pinnacle of consumer media and be niche priced, then it better perform as such.

Splitting discs isn't about being cheap, it's about serving the film properly with the resources at hand. If Lawrence was split over, say, 116GB of disc space (with the break coming at the intermission) that would certainly allow for a more optimal presentation than a 100GB triple layer disc, no? Especially once your mandatory space-guzzling Atmos/X upmix has been figured into the equation.

If you're afraid that the average joe will react in horror at having to get up to change discs, we're way past that because it's obvious that the average joe will not be going anywhere near UHD BD, so I'd hope that the UHD BD cognoscenti will be more enlightened. I watched my CAV Star Wars laserdiscs not too long ago which have six side changes, so changing one disc is nothing to me.

And no, I'm not advocating that every film EVER be split in two (or more!) parts, but if the 100GB discs aren't ready for primetime then taking a long movie like Lawrence and splitting it at the natural break point wouldn't be the end of the world, and could possibly provide more room to groove.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Splitting discs isn't about being cheap, it's about serving the film properly with the resources at hand. If Lawrence was split over, say, 116GB of disc space (with the break coming at the intermission) that would certainly allow for a more optimal presentation than a 100GB triple layer disc, no? Especially once your mandatory space-guzzling Atmos/X upmix has been figured into the equation.

If you're afraid that the average joe will react in horror at having to get up to change discs, we're way past that because it's obvious that the average joe will not be going anywhere near UHD BD, so I'd hope that the UHD BD cognoscenti will be more enlightened. I watched my CAV Star Wars laserdiscs not too long ago which have six side changes, so changing one disc is nothing to me.

And no, I'm not advocating that every film EVER be split in two (or more!) parts, but if the 100GB discs aren't ready for primetime then taking a long movie like Lawrence and splitting it at the natural break point wouldn't be the end of the world, and could possibly provide more room to groove.

Actually, I said that studios are getting cheaper and THEY would not want to stamp more discs than the minimum requirement even if quality suffered. I didn't say they shouldn't.

For the higher price, I would absolutely want the very best.

[Geoff D]

Ah, gotcha. It might still be cheaper to press two dual-layer discs than one triple-layer though, due to potentially lower yields for the latter.

[bailey1987]

They may bring back flipper discs, you know the dual sided ones.

[Coenskubrick]

No.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I think the studios did everything they could to support Blu-ray and to get people to switch. Everything they could within reason of course. What they can't do is pull the plug on a format that still has the majority of sales. I don't think their shareholders would like that. You can only go so far to force a format down people's throats. Most consumers don't want it, and the studios don't care. DVD's are cheaper to produce anyway.

I remember back in 2011 (or was it 2012), that Disney delayed the DVD-only release of POTC: at World's End, by 30 days, in order to maximize Blu-ray combo sales. If there is going to be any phasing out of DVD, delaying it would be the place to start. But the market wasn't ready for that then and even now, since Disney (nor anyone else) has tried that on a blockbuster movie ever since.

I still think to this day that the format war with HD DVD hurt Blu-ray.

I think Blu-ray would have gotten a strong footing from the outset and would have made better inroads from the get-go if there had been no HD DVD. The format war caused a number of people to sit on the sidelines who I don't think ever really jumped in as a result and just went other routes for movies and/or just stayed with DVD. Of course, I am not talking real enthusiasts and videophiles - but some of the "moderates" who might have been open to buying an HD physical format and then decided, "ah screw it all." Then in late 2008 you have the huge financial crash and massive layoffs that just put a further dampening on Blu-ray's potential momentum after the format war that kept people with DVD and other (cheaper) sources.

The tech reporting was also strongly in favor and biased for HD DVD and Toshiba. I remember once it was known Blu-ray "won" in 2008 you had a number of so-called tech writers and people saying that the format would be dead within five years anyway as a result of downloading and streaming not to mention they hated seeing Sony win.

Anyway, all of this allowed DVD to remain strong and never really lose a ton of footing.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I still think to this day that the format war with HD DVD hurt Blu-ray....

I guess we should give credit where credit is due with an acknowledged tip of the hat.

In this modern day case, to help with mitigating a potential HDR format war, anyone know which particular board members (Fox, Disney, Warner, Sony, Dolby, DTS, Hitachi, Intel, LG, Mitsubishi, Oracle, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Technicolor) actually proposed the open standard SMPTE EOTF (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ar#post9754213) to the BDA for the HDR parameter of Ultra HD Blu-ray?

Two of them lead the charge.

[Geoff D]

I'll have a go: Samsung and Sony?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll have a go: Samsung and Sony?

Half correct.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I still think to this day that the format war with HD DVD hurt Blu-ray.

I think Blu-ray would have gotten a strong footing from the outset and would have made better inroads from the get-go if there had been no HD DVD. The format war caused a number of people to sit on the sidelines who I don't think ever really jumped in as a result and just went other routes for movies and/or just stayed with DVD. Of course, I am not talking real enthusiasts and videophiles - but some of the "moderates" who might have been open to buying an HD physical format and then decided, "ah screw it all." Then in late 2008 you have the huge financial crash and massive layoffs that just put a further dampening on Blu-ray's potential momentum after the format war that kept people with DVD and other (cheaper) sources.

The tech reporting was also strongly in favor and biased for HD DVD and Toshiba. I remember once it was known Blu-ray "won" in 2008 you had a number of so-called tech writers and people saying that the format would be dead within five years anyway as a result of downloading and streaming not to mention they hated seeing Sony win.

Anyway, all of this allowed DVD to remain strong and never really lose a ton of footing.

I don't know. Blu-ray was enjoying triple digit growth for several years, starting right after the format war ended. And during the worst part of the recession too. All that time gaining chunks of market from DVD. Then the last few years market share growth against DVD slowed down by half and now has slowed to a complete stop (both formats are declining at a nearly equal rate).

So if you're going to put the "blame" for Blu-ray's failure to become the de facto standard, then blame streaming or digital, not HD DVD, or the recession (since growth really slowed and stopped after the recession was largely over). Also keep in mind that physical media had already peaked and started it's decline during the format war. Nothing was going to change that. Blu-ray was borne into a declining market. Another thing is the smartphone revolution and time hogs like Facebook or Twitter and other diversions that make physical media less appealing and necessary for most people.

[raygendreau]

Re the leaked proposals covering DBEF, and on line authentication for title key download before first play discussed in earlier posts: There is a Movielabs document that is referred to several times, which served as the benchmark for the proposals.

An excerpt: “Connection

The system shall allow the content provider to hold back the delivery of
License keys to the device until the street date”. [AACS 2.0 Enhanced]

Systems supporting copy or move” [Digital Bridge]” shall require the license to be reprovisioned through an on line process that is performed using keys not Present on client devices after a copy or move”

Movielabs Specification for Enhanced Content Protection 1.0 is a 2013 document. The leaked proposals are from 2014, so the question is what has transpired since the proposals were leaked? I think part of the answer can be found in the update to the 2013 document, Movielabs Specification for Enhanced Content Protection 1.1 dated Feb. 2015. The excerpt from the 2013 document has not changed in the 2015 document. The 2015 document includes more information on copy protection which is now more robust.

Reading the cover letter, it is obvious that the new 1.1 specification was developed as a result of work done since the dates of the proposals (Feb to April of 2014). All the major studios support Movielabs and AACS.

The cover letter:
http://www.movielabs.com/ngvideo/Mov...%20Feb2015.pdf

The 2013 document:
http://www.movielabs.com/ngvideo/Mov...ion%20v1.0.pdf

The Feb 2015 document:
http://www.movielabs.com/ngvideo/Mov...ion%20v1.1.pdf

This article discusses the 2013 Movielabs specification:
http://www.screenplaysmag.com/2014/0...d-service-roi/

[raygendreau]

My last post included the Movielabs cover letter which also referred to this specification:

http://www.movielabs.com/ngvideo/Mov...deo%20v1.0.pdf

There was no 2015 update to that spec.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

The Feb 2015 document:
http://www.movielabs.com/ngvideo/Mov...ion%20v1.1.pdf

Thanks for those links.

The issue quoted below is a studio issue not a consumer one. The studios need to do a better job at controlling their supply chain. Basically, the studios want to punish the consumer because of an inside job.

Pre Release Day Availability of Rips
With content released on discs, often pristine, pirated copies are available even before the release. This is enabled by the problems presented above, plus leaks in the physical supply chain.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll have a go: Samsung and Sony?

Nobody else willing to give it a shot and acknowledge the proponents of an Open Standard (which is a good thing)? MPEG provided the content to be tested.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

it is obvious that the new 1.1 specification was developed as a result of work done since the proposals were leaked Feb to April of 2014....

what makes you think the proposals were leaked Feb – April of 2014.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

All the major studios support Movielabs

Of course they do, not only that, the major studios fund MovieLabs, from over a year ago, a heads-up was given to their ongoing work -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...bs#post8794016

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

what makes you think the proposals were leaked Feb – April of 2014.

Yes. I rephrased it. I meant that the proposals that were leaked were dated between Feb. and April 2014.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Of course they do, not only that, the major studios fund MovieLabs, from over a year ago, a heads-up was given to their ongoing work -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...bs#post8794016

Support/fund; what's the difference?