4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I'm not wanting scaling for 21:9 TVs, but an option to have an anamorphic encoding of sorts where all of the available pixels can be used for the movie only, and not wasted on the letterbox bars on the top and bottom of the image.

Anamorphic transfers would be nice but only appeal to those with 21:9 displays or projectors with a anamorphic lens. A niche market to be sure.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Anamorphic transfers would be nice but only appeal to those with 21:9 displays or projectors with a anamorphic lens. A niche market to be sure.

I think 21:9 is a niche withinn a niche, possibly within yet another niche if you believe those who believe Blu-Ray is a niche. I would be very happy if full 4K was offered. It would make sense for 4K Blu-Ray (as the true movie buffs format) to use the true movie format 4K.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

What ratio and resolution would be required to display a film in it's OAR with no pixels wasted on black bars?

I am assuming it is rhetorical, but just in case it is not, that is what makes this whole discussion assenine. There is no resolution (or AR really) that will do that because there is no single AR.

For example (to go with extremes) Abel Gance's Napoleon (1927) was shown using 3 1.33 projectors with one image next to the other and had an AR of 4.0 at the same time most other films were in 1.33 AR.

an other example is 70mm Imax, it has AR of 1.44, and for the Dark Knight you could buy the IMAX version which had some scenes in 1.44 while others (not shot in IMAX) where in 2.40 and the AR shifts while watching it (i.e. some scenes have vertical while others horizontal black bars.

PS. that is part of the reason 16:9 works, sine it is more or less in the middle.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The problem is that while it would improve things slightly on those who have 21:9 televisions it would be a negative for those with 16:9 ones since it would require 25% more compression with no improvement in resolution. For me 21:9 televisions seem absurd to me. 16:9 was picked because it was a nice half way point between cinemascope theaters and standard 4:3 movies of the past. A television that wide would be a nightmare when watching 4:3 programs like Gone with the Wind or Wizard of Oz. So I'm hoping that Ultra HD Blu-Rays keep the native 16:9 format of standard Blu-Rays myself

exactly. having the ability of a none square pixel has a high over head as well as being mostly useless (since it can't fit all AR's out there). For DVD it was a necessary evil because it did not have a native 16:9 resolution when they started working on it and so if it came out as 4:3 (for example) the TV would then mess it up even more (i.e. it would be a letter box in a pillar box and have bars all around)

like the second pic in


that is also why it was dropped in BD, there was no need for it be cause the disk AR matches the TV AR everything is 16:9

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I'm not wanting scaling for 21:9 TVs, but an option to have an anamorphic encoding of sorts where all of the available pixels can be used for the movie only, and not wasted on the letterbox bars on the top and bottom of the image.

but if you watch it on a normal 16:9 display it would then down scale it and stretch it so you end up messing it up even more. There is only an advantage if
1) the display is higher resolution (some of that higher resolution might be saved)
2) the display has none square pixels that have the same AR as the content (i.e. if someone has an anamorphic lens in front of their projector)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

I think 21:9 is a niche withinn a niche, possibly within yet another niche if you believe those who believe Blu-Ray is a niche. I would be very happy if full 4K was offered. It would make sense for 4K Blu-Ray (as the true movie buffs format) to use the true movie format 4K.

If the displays were true 4K and matched (why can't the industry get it's act together) I would agree with that, but if manipulation is needed (i.e. the display is 2160p) I think it is better if it is downscaled by professionals with professional equipment then the cheap component in a TV or player.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

I think 21:9 is a niche withinn a niche, possibly within yet another niche if you believe those who believe Blu-Ray is a niche. I would be very happy if full 4K was offered. It would make sense for 4K Blu-Ray (as the true movie buffs format) to use the true movie format 4K.

I don't get this need for 4096 horizontal resolution because having "true movie format 4K" doesn't matter if our 4K displays don't have "true movie format 4K" resolution. Which they don't. So we'd be having to scale the 17:9 image down to 16:9 which could introduce artefacts of its own. As Anthony said, I'd rather leave that sort of scaling to the professionals - although with that mind I have been disappointed with the poor scaling on certain Blu-rays lately. Transformers 4 is a prime offender, there's some really nasty shimmering and aliasing going in that movie and I'm amazed that so many reviewers have missed it.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't get this need for 4096 horizontal resolution because having "true movie format 4K" doesn't matter if our 4K displays don't have "true movie format 4K" resolution. Which they don't. So we'd be having to scale the 17:9 image down to 16:9 which could introduce artefacts of its own. As Anthony said, I'd rather leave that sort of scaling to the professionals - although with that mind I have been disappointed with the poor scaling on certain Blu-rays lately. Transformers 4 is a prime offender, there's some really nasty shimmering and aliasing going in that movie and I'm amazed that so many reviewers have missed it.

You sound like you already have a UHD screen, correct? I don't know how you could take the risk, I would love one but my Kuro looks great for one and for two I think it is pretty certain that HDR at what ever amount of nits they go for is right round the corner. I suspect, your set as far as the frame rate and the number of pixels that will be used, however, all the good stuff will require a new TV. I suspect that even at launch the nits will be higher on the new screens but still not maxed out. Even with a fortune I would have held off it's only a year.

Either way do Blu-ray's see any improvement on the uhd screen, do the mastered in 4K see any improvement with its higher gamut? Does the TV display any thing to say it's showing a higher gamut?

[Geoff D]

I bought it because it's a great TV, not so much because of the 4K aspect. That's just a bonus. Blu-ray looks phenomenal, no better than on a quality 1080p set but it looks great nonetheless. As for the Mi4K Blu-rays I see no difference with xv colour on or off; you've got to bear in mind that just because it's using a wider gamut, it doesn't mean that it will use every part of that gamut, i.e. every movie isn't turned into a riot of colour (just as UHD won't turn a grainy and soft-looking movie into a super-sharp visual extravaganza). The spectral analyses of certain Mi4K discs over at AVS revealed only a very limited increase in the saturation of things like reds, and I certainly can't tell the difference with the naked eye.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I bought it because it's a great TV, not so much because of the 4K aspect. That's just a bonus. Blu-ray looks phenomenal, no better than on a quality 1080p set but it looks great nonetheless. As for the Mi4K Blu-rays I see no difference with xv colour on or off; you've got to bear in mind that just because it's using a wider gamut, it doesn't mean that it will use every part of that gamut, i.e. every movie isn't turned into a riot of colour (just as UHD won't turn a grainy and soft-looking movie into a super-sharp visual extravaganza). The spectral analyses of certain Mi4K discs over at AVS revealed only a very limited increase in the saturation of things like reds, and I certainly can't tell the difference with the naked eye.

I'm glad I have heard that, if 4K wasn't announced when it was I may have ended up with a Sony Triluminous 4K TV just to see what the mastered in 4K discs looked like.

I watched a guy review one of the discs on YouTube, his TV was only a 1080p one, he said the same that there was no difference to the naked eye. At that point I had lost hope in 4K arriving this decade.

You say that the screen was not a wash in colour, this is something that I hope will happen once you add 12bit colour, 4:4:4 or 4:4:2, Rec. 2020 and High Dynamic Range to the mix. Has anyone actually seen anything mastered to these higher specs? Was it a wow moment? Or was it completely marginal?

I saw an 8K screen at The Gadget Show Live At Christmas in London's Excel Centre in 2012, it was 80" and looked great, however all it added was the extra pixels all other technical specifications were the HD standard Rec 709 and so on, although it looked a lot better than 1080p as it was so I can only imagine how good it would have looked with the advanced specification. It will have been using H.264 for the video codec as well.

Earlier this year I was in Curry's and I saw the Sony 4K Triluminos TV, I wanted it there and then, even though it was just extra pixels it looked good enough to buy, but I couldn't help but wonder what HDR, Rec. 2020, 12bit colour, 4:4:2 or 4:4:4 colour space and 60fps would do to better the image as it looked great. This TV will have been displaying images with the H.264 codec as well.

My point here is that regardless as to what we get give the difference will be good enough to buy one way or the other.

Can anyone comment on the advanced specification?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

...I think it is pretty certain that HDR at what ever amount of nits they go for is right round the corner.

For the record (as an example, March 2013 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ry#post7325076) although not normally prone to hyperbole, I’m a big proponent of HDR…since before promoting it became fashionable on other websites across the A/V internet but, I wouldn’t describe true HDR (significant consumer accessible content graded at ‘thousands’ of nits and then mapped to anything higher than the traditional 100 nits…be it 1000 nits, 600 nits, 400 nits…whatever) as being “right around the corner”.

Something more reasonable to expect on that timetable would be more and more TVs capable of HEVC 10-bit/HDCP 2.2 media processing, easy direct menu select for BT.1886 (to help more so with future Blu-rays rather than older Blu-ray movies in peoples’ collections) and, further on down the timeline, perhaps displays featuring the ability to load 3D LUTs directly into them.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I watched a guy review one of the discs on YouTube, his TV was only a 1080p one, he said the same that there was no difference to the naked eye. At that point I had lost hope in 4K arriving this decade.

It’s always been planned that OTT (streaming) visa-vie Netflix, Nuvola, etc. would first introduce/usher in 4K imagery to enthusiasts.

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Can anyone comment on the advanced specification?

To a limited degree, yes – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...al#post9732007

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For the record (as an example, March 2013 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ry#post7325076) although not normally prone to hyperbole, I’m a big proponent of HDR…since before promoting it became fashionable on other websites across the A/V internet but, I wouldn’t describe true HDR (significant consumer accessible content graded at ‘thousands’ of nits and then mapped to anything higher than the traditional 100 nits…be it 1000 nits, 600 nits, 400 nits…whatever) as being “right around the corner”.

Indeed. I think a few people aren't seeing the wood for the trees and are getting so caught up with possible specs that they don't realise the biggest enhancements are still years away from being deployed in a consumer-based format, which is why I'm so sanguine about my current 4K TV. We're not gonna get Rec.2020 with HDR and 12-bit 4:4:4 right out of the gate (4:4:4 in particular is a long way off), so my Rec.709 set with its 10-bit panel and 4:2:0 restrictions for 2160p60 content will be alright for a few years yet. As for HDR: after calibration my TV puts out 155 nits with the backlight on 2 (out of 10), so if some form of backwards compatibility with HDR was introduced then I'm confident it could hit 400 nits or so.

Something more reasonable to expect on that timetable would be more and more TVs capable of HEVC 10-bit/HDCP 2.2 media processing, easy direct menu select for BT.1886 (to help more so with future Blu-rays rather than older Blu-ray movies in peoples’ collections) and, further on down the timeline, perhaps displays featuring the ability to load 3D LUTs directly into them.

Gamma is something which isn't mentioned much in all these discussions but I'm glad you've broached it. What are BD releases generally mastered at, Penton? I keep seeing 2.4 mentioned but I'm guessing that there isn't a set standard for people to adhere to. And I take it that BT.1886 is being implemented now and will become more or less the standard for 4K BD?

[Tech-UK]

Gamma (known as EOTF) is one of those things that has never really been standardised until now, which is why BT.1886 is being pushed.

Gamma probably differs between Blu-ray's or more precisely, differs between films. Perhaps between 2.22 - 2.4.

As long as your display/PJ is calibrated to BT.1886, this should be fine when viewing any Blu-ray or next gen content, otherwise one would be constantly changing it, to suit each film.

Nice little document relating to BT.1886:

http://www.spectracal.com/Documents/BT.1886.pdf

[Geoff D]

The trouble with my TV (and pretty much all latter-day Sony LCD sets) is that they don't have a 10-point white balance or CMS in general, they only have a 2-point white balance so dialling in BT.1886 is damned near impossible with the TV's own controls. An outboard processor like a Lumagen is the answer of course, but I don't have another few grand laying around for a Lumagen and I can set the colour and greyscale very accurately with just the 2-pt control so I'd be spending all that money just for a BT.1886 setting.

But even though I can't use BT.1886 I'm not constantly changing the settings for each film because I don't know what gamma each disc has been mastered at to begin with (and I'm not sure many people do, hence my question to Penton). So my calibrated gamma averages out at 2.28, which I think is a nice compromise because it retains shadow detail that's crushed at 2.4 but it still comes out of black slowly enough to provide wonderfully rich blacks on the movies that have them.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...What are BD releases generally mastered at, Penton?

Percentage-wise, I’d say most Blu-rays in peoples’ collections were mastered on a 2.2 gamma Rec 709 system, but some facilities used 2.3 or 2.35 power-law gamma.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I keep seeing 2.4 mentioned but I'm guessing that there isn't a set standard for people to adhere to.

ITU adopted BT.1886 as the recommended gamma function for flat panels in HDTV studio production back in 2011 but its adoption by actual mastering facilities industry-wide has been as slow as a tortoise race. In fact, to this day, some operators make their BT.1886 mastered content a tad brighter than they normally would, knowing in the back of their minds that a lot of people out there will be viewing it on gamma 2.2 defaulted TVs.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And I take it that BT.1886 is being implemented now and will become more or less the standard

Much to the chagrin of Dolby who desire to kinda reinvent the wheel with their perceptual quantizer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Gamma probably differs between Blu-ray's or more precisely, differs between films. Perhaps between 2.22 - 2.4.

“Probably” is an understatement , see post above.

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

As long as your display/PJ is calibrated to BT.1886, this should be fine when viewing any Blu-ray or next gen content, otherwise one would be constantly changing it, to suit each film.

Good advice if the user has that accessibility. Of course, on the other hand, if one has a very critical eye, and Insider knowledge as to exactly what gamma a particular movie or show was mastered at and….most importantly, you get into the room with the remote before your wife comes in , as that sort of pre show fiddling I find drives her crazy, you can dial it in to exhibition perfection purty quickly.

Also, I rather like to watch live sports with 2.2 gamma in our family room. Best rule of thumb, in the end, always trust your eyes.

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Nice little document relating to BT.1886:
http://www.spectracal.com/Documents/BT.1886.pdf

I don’t know when that document was written but I do disagree with the statement “BT.1886 has rapidly been adopted by content producers”, unless one considers tortoise racing on par with NASCAR.

[Penton-Man]

For the sake of newbies, who don't know what the hell we're talking about with zee gamma thing, here is a visual illustration as to what changes in gamma can do to the look of imagery - see p. 30 (and further on) of your favorite stockbroker sleeping on the job, when he should be making me money!…
http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Imag...tt%20Cowan.pdf

[Geoff D]

That's not a bad document regarding certain video mastering sins, but if this forum is anything to go by then I'd say that a lot of people would prefer the cooler, brighter, overly-saturated and overly-sharpened image with the crushed blacks. How's that saying go? 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's not a bad document regarding certain video mastering sins, but if this forum is anything to go by then I'd say that a lot of people would prefer the cooler, brighter, overly-saturated and overly-sharpened image with the crushed blacks. How's that saying go? 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

As long as they’re watching Blu-ray media as opposed to the same content vis-à-vis an inherently inferior home delivery format….that’s a good step in the right direction.

Plus, we’re not talking brain surgery here, only entertainment, so -

Sheryl Crow - If It Makes You Happy - live - 2002 - lyrics - YouTube