4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Geoff D]

I know, I know, peoples can set their TVs however they like. But it kinda undermines all of this extra goodness that we're striving for when all some people are gonna do is simply whack up the colour, contrast and sharpness anyway (not to mention this craze for Darbee processing).

It just annoys me when we get bullshit like in the Godzilla thread from people saying it's too dark on their TV (but not on their uncle's TV!) when it's obvious that the gamma's screwed on their display.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I know, I know, peoples can set their TVs however they like. But it kinda undermines all of this extra goodness that we're striving for when all some people are gonna do is simply whack up the colour, contrast and sharpness anyway (not to mention this craze for Darbee processing).

It just annoys me when we get bullshit like in the Godzilla thread from people saying it's too dark on their TV (but not on their uncle's TV!) when it's obvious that the gamma's screwed on their display.

I feel your pain. When I was breaking in my new VT60 plasma TV, I was running my Bolt Blu-ray continuously and my sister commented that in most of the scenes Bolt's fur is not pure white so there must be something wrong with the display. After I broke it in, I used the Disney WOW disc (pretty handy disc, I must say) to calibrate my TV from the THX mode. I only had to adjust the color, contrast, and hue by roughly 3% to get it dialed in but even then Bolt's fur was still not completely white. I tried to explain that the point of a TV is not to display colors the way you want them to look, but to accurately show the nature of the content you are watching.

She didn't agree.

[Geoff D]

Yup. Folks are so conditioned to that default cool blue colour temperature that D65 + proper fL output simply looks wrong, being too dim and yellowy for people to handle.

But, as Cliff's signature says: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, accuracy isn't."

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yup. Folks are so conditioned to that default cool blue colour temperature that D65 + proper fL output simply looks wrong, being too dim and yellowy for people to handle.

But, as Cliff's signature says: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, accuracy isn't."

Man, I love my calibrated sets! I don't like the cooler blue color at all, warmer looks better to me plus it's accurate. I don't understand why people spend the money they do on nice HD displays only not to have it calibrated correctly to look it's best. Yes, it is a little dim at first but, you get used to it quick. Before I had my sets calibrated I thought that I did an ok job myself just eyeballing it, I was still off quite a bit. I already had it pretty dim but after calibration it was even dimmer and colors were warmer. Now, 3 years later, I wouldn't have it any other way. When I go to other people's houses their sets drive me nuts. Most of them haven't been calibrated so they're way too bright and way to blue!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

BT.1886

One area which needs work in the standards organizations in regards to implementing a possible future solution for color transcoding from Rec.709 to WCG (wide color gamut) colors is for HEVC (and even h.264, for that matter) to have an option for using a BT.1886 encoding curve, which to the best of my knowledge, currently, neither video codec does/has that capability.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...It just annoys me when we get bullshit like in the Godzilla thread from people saying it's too dark on their TV (but not on their uncle's TV!) when it's obvious that the gamma's screwed on their display.

Yeah, it’s not fair to blame the content when the problem really arises from how the TV is set up. Although….to a lesser degree, that sort of display mismatching conundrum even occurs in Hollywood post facilities.

In other words, in the color grading suite, due to the small screen size of color critical monitors, it is not uncommon for the colorist to be seated centered in front of one brand/type of monitor and the Director (or his designated proxy) to be seated directly in front of an adjacent client monitor and said Director will glance over to the colorist’s monitor and see that the images look different compared to what he’s seeing on his monitor…which causes consternation.

So, a great deal of time and effort these days involves calibration to match all displays in the mastering suite so the client doesn’t scratch his head as to ‘which’ monitor is *right* and what the hell’s going on here?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Man, I love my calibrated sets!...

You betcha….
http://www.homecinemaguru.com/can-we...en-you-betcha/

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yup. Folks are so conditioned to that default cool blue colour temperature that D65 + proper fL output simply looks wrong, being too dim and yellowy for people to handle.

But, as Cliff's signature says: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, accuracy isn't."

I especially understand that now when I started photography. I soon found out what daylight and tungsten balanced films are for.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yeah, it’s not fair to blame the content when the problem really arises from how the TV is set up. Although….to a lesser degree, that sort of display mismatching conundrum even occurs in Hollywood post facilities.

In other words, in the color grading suite, due to the small screen size of color critical monitors, it is not uncommon for the colorist to be seated centered in front of one brand/type of monitor and the Director (or his designated proxy) to be seated directly in front of an adjacent client monitor and said Director will glance over to the colorist’s monitor and see that the images look different compared to what he’s seeing on his monitor…which causes consternation.

So, a great deal of time and effort these days involves calibration to match all displays in the mastering suite so the client doesn’t scratch his head as to ‘which’ monitor is *right* and what the hell’s going on here?

That's pretty crazy if you ask me. Surely a colorist and director of all people would understand that different displays.... well.... display differently.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by singhcr

That's pretty crazy if you ask me. Surely a colorist and director of all people would understand that different displays.... well.... display differently.

How can the director tell when everything these days is a frikkin' TEAL?

[Canada]

I am asking for The Great Escape (High Def Digest) I know the video is bad but I only own the non anamorphic DVD. This got me thinking if we are going to make the leap to 4K or 2160p or whatever, the studio's that master the 4K Blu-rays better lay off the excessive DNR and only use it judiciously. (Aliens, Bridge on Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia.)

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Canada

I am asking for The Great Escape (High Def Digest) I know the video is bad but I only own the non anamorphic DVD. This got me thinking if we are going to make the leap to 4K or 2160p or whatever, the studio's that master the 4K Blu-rays better lay off the excessive DNR and only use it judiciously. (Aliens, Bridge on Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia.)

The Great Escape on 1080P Blu-Ray is not exactly overwhelming either. A 4K version I submit would only show more precise blurring! Pity.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

One area which needs work in the standards organizations in regards to implementing a possible future solution for color transcoding from Rec.709 to WCG (wide color gamut) colors is for HEVC (and even h.264, for that matter) to have an option for using a BT.1886 encoding curve, which to the best of my knowledge, currently, neither video codec does/has that capability.

Specifically, for clarity as to the omission see p.287 of the pdf on HEVC - http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.265-201304-I

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

One area which needs work in the standards organizations in regards to implementing a possible future solution for color transcoding from Rec.709 to WCG (wide color gamut) colors is for HEVC (and even h.264, for that matter) to have an option for using a BT.1886 encoding curve, which to the best of my knowledge, currently, neither video codec does/has that capability.

While the Dolby PQ requires 12-bit video encoding wouldn't it be a better encoding curve to use? I understand why BT.1886 was made (to improve on BT.709) but it seems to have poor timing since if a company is going to use a new encoding curve I don't see why they would pick BT.1886. Even if a company had no interest in HDR wouldn't the Dolby PQ still be better for low light video?

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Specifically, for clarity as to the omission see p.287 of the pdf on HEVC - http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.265-201304-I

I have never seen a proposal to add BT.1886 which would indicate that there is little interest in it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

I have never seen a proposal to add BT.1886 which would indicate that there is little interest in it.

It would be a good option to have as I described above. More than one color scientist (attending and speaking at SMPTE 2014 Tech Conference) thinks so.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

It would be a good option to have as I described above. More than one color scientist (attending and speaking at SMPTE 2014 Tech Conference) thinks so.

In theory BT.1886 could help with conversions since it is well defined but almost all HDTVs use BT.709 and they expect video to be delivered using BT.709. If BT.1886 had been proposed 20 years ago it would have been a great idea but today I think it is a bit late to propose a new encoding curve based on CRT displays. Still perhaps BT.1886 will get added to HEVC at a future meeting and I am hoping to eventually see Dolby PQ offered at a lower brightness level (since that would allow it to be used with 10-bit video).

[AK65]

Doesn't disk storage follow Moore's law (i.e. storage space doubles every 2 years)? It will have been 9 years since Blu Ray was released in 2006 when 4KBR is released in 2015 so storage at even 1 TB should be there. Apparently it's going to be a nailbiter to even get 100 GB?! What is going on?

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by AK65

Doesn't disk storage follow Moore's law (i.e. storage space doubles every 2 years)? It will have been 9 years since Blu Ray was released in 2006 when 4KBR is released in 2015 so storage at even 1 TB should be there. Apparently it's going to be a nailbiter to even get 100 GB?! What is going on?

Yes apparently a nail biter for 100Gb is what we are facing, however, 100Gb BDXL discs have been available for years now 125Gb even.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by AK65

Doesn't disk storage follow Moore's law (i.e. storage space doubles every 2 years)? It will have been 9 years since Blu Ray was released in 2006 when 4KBR is released in 2015 so storage at even 1 TB should be there. Apparently it's going to be a nailbiter to even get 100 GB?! What is going on?

Moore's law is about the number of transistors and doesn't relate to optical discs. Sony is planning to release a professional format in the future called the Archival Disc but it is much harder to make than Blu-ray and uses 6 layers to reach 300 GB. In comparison 4K Blu-ray is designed for consumer products and will most likely use 3 layers to reach 100 GB.

[AK65]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Moore's law is about the number of transistors and doesn't relate to optical discs. Sony is planning to release a professional format in the future called the Archival Disc but it is much harder to make than Blu-ray and uses 6 layers to reach 300 GB. In comparison 4K Blu-ray is designed for consumer products and will most likely use 3 layers to reach 100 GB.

There is a related Kryder's law. 9 years to only get 2X as much of a tech product just blows me away in a negative way.