Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[mywhitenoise]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So, despite your huge bluray collection, you are looking forward to films on smartphones and smartwatches?

Take a look at my gallery. I have a Popcorn Hour that is directly connected to my receiver. I download 1080p files around 15 - 20GB a movie, and the difference between a digital file and a blu-ray is negligible (audio isn't HD, though). It's only going to improve over time.

[bhampton]

I've been experimenting with non blu ray formats a bit... iTunes, Vudu, Streaming, Broadcast,... And, I'm certain I've been spoiled by Blu. Nothing else delivers the same level of quality.

I can find Blu Rays that I want for $5 just about any day now. And, while some things are still only on DVD... the selection of Blu is going up fast.

I'll hold on to some DVDs for upconverting if I can't get them replaced but otherwise I think I'm going nearly BR exclusive.

Like that Skinhead O'Conner song ... "Nothing Compares to Blu"

-Brian

Edit - I'm open to the fact that 4K may be indeed "better" but .. I will have to wait for a few projector generations before I upgrade. (First model was over 20K ... next year 10K,.. next year it may be 7K ...) Whenever I do get a 4K projector my BR collection will look amazing on it unconverted. I imagine it will be a long time before I'm buying 4K content.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I've been experimenting with non blu ray formats a bit... iTunes, Vudu, Streaming, Broadcast,... And, I'm certain I've been spoiled by Blu. Nothing else delivers the same level of quality.

I can find Blu Rays that I want for $5 just about any day now. And, while some things are still only on DVD... the selection of Blu is going up fast.

I'll hold on to some DVDs for upconverting if I can't get them replaced but otherwise I think I'm going nearly BR exclusive.

Like that Skinhead O'Conner song ... "Nothing Compares to Blu"

-Brian

Edit - I'm open to the fact that 4K may be indeed "better" but .. I will have to wait for a few projector generations before I upgrade. (First model was over 20K ... next year 10K,.. next year it may be 7K ...) Whenever I do get a 4K projector my BR collection will look amazing on it unconverted. I imagine it will be a long time before I'm buying 4K content.

Yep, blu is true!

[Kristian Idol]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Skinhead O'Conner

Ha, I've been calling her that ever since she first shaved her noggin! (And you have to pronounce it "Skin-HAYD", right?)

Happy Sinead O'Connor ->

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by retablo

Technically not. 35mm maxes out at around 4-5K resolution (with the exception of IMAX and 70mm), so the only films that will benefit form 8K are new films and ones mentioned above. There could be technology, however, that will up-res 35mm or 1080p-shot films to give them more pixels so they will benefit form higher resolutions.

It is called upscaling. It really only increases pixel density though. A handful of films would no doubt benefit from 8k, but I think it will be mostly future productions that benefit from 4k and 8k. All techs I have seen in consumer products besides upscaling have generally produced unnaturally images to my eyes (eshift for example).

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I hope you didn't teach English or writing because your paragraph needs a lot of copy editing.

Your implication is that the Federal government is responsible for educating students. But aside from setting some standards and doing some funding, the Federal government has nothing to do with it - schools are run locally. That's how schools in the south can get away with teaching Creationism as science.

While I agree that there's too much "teaching to the test" in order to pass the flood of standardized tests, I believe it's possible to do both in the classroom: teach to the test AND teach students how to think. There are plenty of great schools in this country. In New York City, there's Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant and the Bronx High School of Science, all of which are public high schools that do a great job, but there are also great schools throughout the country. There's a site that rates high schools, but I don't remember the URL.

Having said that, there are also plenty of lousy schools and many of those lousy schools are expensive private schools.

If you demand more of kids, they'll accomplish more. One of the problems is that parents just want their kids to be happy and teachers are completely frustrated with the generally poor pay and disrespect for the profession in this country.

Another problem is that we're essentially still teaching kids the same way we did a hundred years ago: a classroom with desks with up to 40 kids staring at a teacher giving a lecture. And rather than teaching how different subject matter interacts, we still teach each subject separately as if they have no relationship to each other.

It seems to me that a teacher has to make the case to students that they have a choice: they can do the minimal work they can get away with and have a life working in WalMart or McDonald's (if even those jobs are available) or they can work their butts off in order to get a scholarship to a decent college (since no one who isn't rich can afford college anymore, especially a private college) which is the only path to a decent life in the U.S. and even that's difficult unless one majors in a field in which there are still plenty of jobs available (like engineering).

As for big business, they most certainly do not want sheep. They want creative, dynamic, aggressive people who contribute to "shareholder value". I've been an executive at three major conglomerates and I've consulted at many others. The only people who get hired these days are people who have the potential to add to the bottom line. And the government wants people to be smart enough to create new businesses and be job creators because GNP is not going to increase without that and because most new jobs are coming from smaller companies.

But I used there instead of their so they must be right.

[KRW1]

Steeldeel, I hope you've been watching the news today and saw the feature about 'superjumbo' TVs. Despite people thinking 50" sets are big now, the future will be 80" - 130" sets as thin as tiles. Give it a 5-10 years. The trend is definitely bigger. Smartphones and the like are complimentary screens, not replacements.

As for having movies on a hard drive at home. Please, the idea of a hard drive is already antiquated as we're all moving towards online storage for almost everything. I imagine I'll be buying discs long after hard drives for home use are obsolete.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Steeldeel, I hope you've been watching the news today and saw the feature about 'superjumbo' TVs. Despite people thinking 50" sets are big now, the future will be 80" - 130" sets as thin as tiles. Give it a 5-10 years. The trend is definitely bigger. Smartphones and the like are complimentary screens, not replacements.

As for having movies on a hard drive at home. Please, the idea of a hard drive is already antiquated as we're all moving towards online storage for almost everything. I imagine I'll be buying discs long after hard drives for home use are obsolete.

Hope so friend

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by sc1957

Of course, to use a screen that size, you've got to have a house that has a room where you can fit such a thing. Almost no one I know lives in a house like that.

lol, let's do some math

if we assume 16:9
80" ~ 40" x 70" or just under 3.5'x6'
130"~ 64" x 114 " or just under 5.5' x 9.5'


I can't imagine height is an issue (well maybe the 130" TV if you are a Hobbit, but even the 80" would not be an issue there)

Is the issue the width? do the people you know not have a room with a 6' length of wall (or even 10' for that reason) without a door or window making it "unusable"?


The reality is most likely that almost everyone you know has a house that can have an 80"+ screen in at least one room. But you (like most) have bought into the travesty that people should be sitting way too far from a screen that is way too small. What I mean is THX recommends (for theatres that want THX certification) that the distance between the screen and the farthest seat in the theatre be no more than 26%, that makes it a bit less than 1.5 screen width. So a room that is 6'x9' and 4' ceilings would be big enough for an 80" screen.


For some reason when most people go to the theatre they are smart enough to not sit in the back, because it is too far away and the image will fill up less of their vision and they will miss some details, but when it comes to home all that reason flies out the door because ever since they were young their parents said something like "don't sit too close to the TV or you will ruin your eyes" and it is ingrained in their subconscious that they need to be way too far from a small screen when at home.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...For some reason when most people go to the theatre they are smart enough to not sit in the back, because it is too far away and the image will fill up less of their vision and they will miss some details, but when it comes to home all that reason flies out the door because ever since they were young their parents said something like "don't sit too close to the TV or you will ruin your eyes" and it is ingrained in their subconscious that they need to be way too far from a small screen when at home.

Adults proved wrong…and kids proved right - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...na#post8143848

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by sc1957

Of course, to use a screen that size, you've got to have a house that has a room where you can fit such a thing. Almost no one I know lives in a house like that.

Anthony P has put it more elegantly than me, but everyone lives in a house with a wall. The system they showed on TV was a prototype, it looked like tiles. You wouldn't have it at 130" all the time, but you'd put it on the wall, same as a mirror, and watch it at whatever size you want, and then blow it up to 130" for movies. I don't think TVs in their current form can go much bigger than 80" without being ludicrous in most living rooms but a discreet system like that would fit in nearly everyone's house. It's definitely coming. TVs aren't getting smaller.

My living room is tiny, but I've managed to get a 120" projector screen in there.

[Tok]

The only need for 8K is much like now for 4K for the home. The CE industry is desperate to kick start sales so they are trying to make you feel like if you don't have it your running with ancient technology.

If 4K is going to be delivered by streaming and downloads like the studios want then does anyone really believe it is going to be a significant upgrade? Look 1080p streams and downloads from Netflix and other providers still pale in comparison to high bit-rate BDs.

Look 4K and 8K for the large commercial venues I entirely support. For home theater projectors only the largest screens remotely need them.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pixler

I bought a lot of movies of DVD and then Blu-Ray came along and I was sold on this technology so I started re-buying movies I once had on DVD so I can get them on Blu-Ray. Now we have 4K technology but I'm not buying into it, at least not yet. Blu-Ray is good enough for me. I'm not going to keep re-buying movies everytime a new technology comes out. I might upgrade later down the road but it's too soon for a new format to come out. Blu-Ray is still new, it hasn't been around for very long. Technology needs to slow down. I just hope 4K doesn't phase out Blu-Ray any time soon.

Their not gonna force me to buy no stinkin 4K tv cause I don’t need it! And …. they can have my 1080p Blu-rays when they take them from my cold, dead hands! (Credit Charlton H. for the thought).

P.S.
My optometrist tells me that I see 20/25 with my current glasses but he could get me to 20/20 (or better) with a new pair. Well, I don’t need no stinkin new glasses cause I’m doin just fine right now, thank you very much . Let all the other sheep in the waiting room put out a few hundred dollars for better vision. In fact, I may just go on the primo eyeglasses forum on the internet and preach the *good enough for me* philosophy.

[Josh5890]

Well, I love my discs so if blu-ray is the last non digital format then I'm stuck there.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

The only need for 8K is much like now for 4K for the home. The CE industry is desperate to kick start sales so they are trying to make you feel like if you don't have it your running with ancient technology.

If 4K is going to be delivered by streaming and downloads like the studios want then does anyone really believe it is going to be a significant upgrade? Look 1080p streams and downloads from Netflix and other providers still pale in comparison to high bit-rate BDs.

Look 4K and 8K for the large commercial venues I entirely support. For home theater projectors only the largest screens remotely need them.

Streaming looks nothing like 1080p in my opinion. More like up scaled dvd but with slightly better colours. 4k might closely resemble 1080p! Yippee!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

...all this 4k/ultra HD/etc etc will be download only...and least that's what seems to be trending...

So you either disagree with the reporting….or with the assertions made by an ‘official’ spokesman for the BDA - http://www.techradar.com/news/video/...closer-1180129

Opinions rule

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So you either disagree with the reporting….or with the assertions made by an ‘official’ spokesman for the BDA - http://www.techradar.com/news/video/...closer-1180129

Opinions rule

I'm all for no format war if people want to adopt the tech. But in realistic terms, the BD was made better because of the competition from the HD DVD camp.

Remember the initially spec was still focused on MPEG2 for BD. HD DVD supported the newer more efficient video codecs. Heck if Toshiba would have given in on the new physical disc structure the format war may have been avoided and the merged format may have been known as HD DVD.

We really don't know if 100GB discs with HEVC is going to be sufficient for quality UHD presentations especially considering many proponents keep bringing up the possibility of 10-bit color. Although the higher capacity discs are good news, I just don't believe without a larger physical space that 10-bit color is going to happen on UHD BD.

[jag2007]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So you either disagree with the reporting….or with the assertions made by an ‘official’ spokesman for the BDA - http://www.techradar.com/news/video/...closer-1180129

Opinions rule

dagum! 32channel of audio

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Tok

...Although the higher capacity discs are good news, I just don't believe without a larger physical space that 10-bit color is going to happen on UHD BD.

With HEVC, 10-bit quantization doesn’t incur any real significant bit rate cost over 8-bit in that if higher bit depth isn’t offered with 4K Blu-rays, it has little to do with 100-ish GB sized discs being the limiting factor. Hell, we’re not talking about 12-bits in the XYZ(DCP).

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Tok

We really don't know if 100GB discs with HEVC is going to be sufficient for quality UHD presentations especially considering many proponents keep bringing up the possibility of 10-bit color. Although the higher capacity discs are good news, I just don't believe without a larger physical space that 10-bit color is going to happen on UHD BD.

The Sony FMP-X1 has the following on their site:

Movies downloaded from the Video Unlimited 4K service can be stored on the media player’s 2TB3 built-in hard drive. Store dozens of your favorite 4K Ultra HD movies, TV shows and short-form videos (approx. 45 full-length feature films3), or add even more space for movies and personal videos with an external drive (sold separately).

That would mean about 44.5GB per movie. They do not say but one would assume these are encoded with H.264. So it will be interesting to see what 100GB BD encoded with H.265 brings to the table.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

The Sony FMP-X1 has the following on their site:

That would mean about 44.5GB per movie. They do not say but one would assume these are encoded with H.264. So it will be interesting to see what 100GB BD encoded with H.265 brings to the table.

That does indeed mean 40-50GB per movie, and that's with a tweaked version of AVC, let alone HEVC. So all this fretting over the mooted 100GB capacity of BD 4K is a storm in a teacup IMO. It might mean that extras will have to go on a separate disc, or very long movies may well need splitting, but these are not great hardships to bear. (And the extras thing is where the combo with a regular BD will come in very handy, just as it does with many barebones 3D discs.)