True 4K Blu-ray - why I will mostly skip if released

[thelwig14]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

From Texas, eh?

I guarantee you that somewhere on the order of 99% of the total movie presentations that have been shown at your theater (assuming that it is a typical commercial theater in town rather than the giant screen theaters of the Houston Museum of Natural Science or Moody Gardens in Galveston) that if indeed your theater has a 4K projector system, then the ‘4K’ which you’ve been viewing was up-converted to 4K from the DCP. Note to Ruined…don’t have a stroke after realizing this.

Objectively, maybe 98 or 97%, depending upon how long your theater has had their 4K projector. So if you’re seeing a “very noticeable” difference, then thank the projector manufacturer, the projectionist and great eyesight…..not native 4K content supplied to your theater.

Like Joe, you are also mistaken about large size being the critical factor needed to fully appreciate 4K. I’ll refer to you fellow doctorial colleague Sean McCarthy, Ph.D (of Motorola [Google]) with his presentation at last April’s NAB starting at ~ the 34 min. mark of the brightcove link listed here as it relates to applied signal processing -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post7404949

Way too much misinformation to correct.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by thelwig14

Way too much misinformation to correct.

lol, fine , if that's too much to absorb, then take a serious stab at just one of which you’ve quoted, and by serious , I mean a rebuttal with specific details.

What are you going to tell us? e.g. 1. your theater is totally brand new, 2. opened this week, 3. uses a Christie 4K projector (rather than a Sony https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...me#post7546009 ) and 4. has only been showing Elysium (Image Format: 4096x1716 [4K Scope] – which b.t.w. has a 5.1 CCAP File size of 115GB) since it opened?

Ergo, 100% of your D-Cinema viewing experience has been true 4K? Yeah, fulfilling those criteria, then I would completely agree with you and say that you are one clever fellow as I hadn’t previously thought of that particular scenario. I mean seriously, out of the hundreds of feature films that have been distributed to Digital Cinemas over the years how many do you think even got 4K DCPs…much less were projected in 4K?

Meanwhile, please enlighten me on DCPs… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ci#post7820790

Or tell us specifically how you disagree with Sean McCarthy’s assertions. Let’s start with the 'fovea', since that seems to be of some interest on consumer forums now. Given your expertise and experience in vision science do you think that humans can have no ‘fovea’ at all….and hypothetically, if that were or were not possible, what would you estimate their highest visual acuity then to be?

b.t.w. Wikipedia won’t help you with this ^....and neither could Joe for that matter.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Let’s start with the 'fovea', since that seems to be of some interest on consumer forums now. Given your expertise and experience in vision science do you think that humans can have no ‘fovea’ at all….and hypothetically, if that were or were not possible, what would you estimate their highest visual acuity then to be?

b.t.w. Wikipedia won’t help you with this ^....and neither could Joe for that matter.

I'm curious what your estimate is? ..in pixel count.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Derb

I'm curious what your estimate is? ..in pixel count.
-----------------------------------------------------
If it ain't High-Def related you're wasting my time.

You’re trying to trip me up. Visual acuity aint measured in pixels.
http://www.icoph.org/dynamic/attachm...acuity1984.pdf

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Hi all,
So, with the advent of 4K there is the likely chance we will see physical media @ 4k in 2014 as the BDA has stated they are debating this as we speak. Personally, though, I am finding it hard to get excited about this tech. Reasons:

1) JOE KANE of Video Essentials/DVE fame, said outright in his testing you need a 120" screen before you even start to notice any real benefit of 4k over 2k (1080p) at normal viewing distances. This is an extremely trustworthy source who has been a video expert for a long time. Now, I actually have a 120" screen. But this is telling of how (little) improvement there will be with BD > BD 4k compared to say DVD > BD.

.

Ok, Ruined....first of all BD is not 2k resolution (your only partially right ...2k would render a 17:9 aspect ratio giving yo 2048x1080). Not saying this would make a great difference but hey, it's a difference ...is it noticeable by your average person is another question.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by prerich

Ok, Ruined....first of all BD is not 2k resolution (your only partially right ...2k would render a 17:9 aspect ratio giving yo 2048x1080). Not saying this would make a great difference but hey, it's a difference ...is it noticeable by your average person is another question.

Well UHD is technically not 4K either. They should just call it QuadHD.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’re trying to trip me up. Visual acuity aint measured in pixels.
http://www.icoph.org/dynamic/attachm...acuity1984.pdf

My bad.

Thanks for the PDF.

I read the Joe average Cane interview from widescreen review before it was labeled UHD. Technically, yeah it ain't 4K but the way I see it is 1,000MB ain't 1GB either. In other words, 4K is close enough IMO.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by prerich

Ok, Ruined....first of all BD is not 2k resolution (your only partially right ...2k would render a 17:9 aspect ratio giving yo 2048x1080). Not saying this would make a great difference but hey, it's a difference ...is it noticeable by your average person is another question.

If one is going to use 4K interchangeably with 2160p/UHD (as everyone does, despite the lower res) then that is no different than using 2K interchangeably with 1080p...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Ruined, show me some ‘balance’. I don’t care too much for negative campaigns against some/any pastime/hobby which may be of interest to others, but not to you, as it’s just like disparaging something like 3D if one has absolutely no interest in that format. Heck, if you really don’t like it, ignore it, but don’t go on a mission negatively criticizing some new technology.

...So…the evolution of this new consumer format, I find a lot more interesting than many other topics on consumer audio/video forums.

Kind of reminds me of the early days of Blu-ray with Ben ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....en#post7929866 ) which were quite intriguing. Anyway, my attitude is rather than being a negative contributor to a technological advancement, think of ways to improve it - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....te#post7325076

Rather than spending all your time thinking of reasons to condemn it.

Show me the things that make this tech worth the money for the average movie enthusiast and there won't be any reason to point out the problems with it. The problem is, there really isn't much in 4k resolution itself that will make a difference to 99% of video consumers and probably most video enthusiasts. It reminds me of DVD-Audio, sure it was technically better than CD but to most consumers and even most enthusiasts it was probably not significant enough to warrant buying all new stuff. Of course, you can spend your money on what you want, some people spend $20,000 for an 8ft/pair of speaker cables - I am not one of those people. I go for significant differences I can readily see and hear.

If the hardware companies came around and gave everyone free 4k displays, free 4k Blu-ray players, and free 4k discs/movies then all would be fine. But the reality is that you are talking about spending a bundle of money, probably even 5 years from now, to replace all of the above with 4k. AND, if it were the difference we saw from DVD to Blu-ray it would be worth it. But this resolution difference appears that it won't make a difference for all but larger front projection screens @ normal viewing distance.

So, in discussing the tech, I believe it is in a way a responsibility to discuss that with this tech it is worth using restraint and not just buying it because the number is bigger, as many did with the DVD-A audio discs that had a 48khz frequency response (played back on speakers that generally rolled off frequencies over 21khz and heard by ears that generally can't hear reliably above 21khz). A LOT of people bought gear for that tech because the number was bigger than CD's 22khz response + the promise of better sound, and the primary differences people heard was in the mastering and not in the frequency response. Was it a wise move in all cases even though it was an interesting tech to debate? Would everyone who bought in have made the same move if they had 100% of the facts ahead of time? Probably not... That is the purpose behind my discussions in this thread, not to condemn. Rather to discuss the value of this tech, or lack thereof, to the average enthusiast - specifically relating to a new 4k Blu-ray format vs 'classic' Blu-ray.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Show me the things that make this tech worth the money for the average movie enthusiast and there won't be any reason to point out the problems with it. The problem is, there really isn't much in 4k resolution itself that will make a difference to 99% of video consumers...

Well, honestly I doubt 99% of video consumers got much value out of 1080p vs. 720p TVs, based on their seating positions. Did that stop the introduction and mainstream adoption of full HD TVs?

Look, 4K tv prices are dropping faster than that which occurred with the introduction of HD displays (and I’m not just talking about the Chinese factor). You’re only considering the value of current pricing of current first gen sets.

Like I told you, there will come a day that 4K sets are as ubiquitous as full HD sets….and just as inexpensive, if not eventually cheaper. So, you can either lead, follow or get left behind dwelling upon the negative aspects of consumer 4K rather than thinking of ways to improve it, i.e. constructive criticism.

Originally Posted by Ruined

... That is the purpose behind my discussions in this thread, not to condemn. Rather to discuss the value of this tech, or lack thereof, to the average enthusiast - specifically relating to a new 4k Blu-ray format vs 'classic' Blu-ray.

Well, then you fooled me.

You like Blu-ray, right? Well, a vote for 4KBD is a vote for continued relevance of packaged media, in general, which is under considerable challenge these days… http://www.display-central.com/free-...y-or-are-they/

[Ruined]

I personally don't feel that Blu-ray 4K is needed to continue preserving optical disc, nor do I think that it will save optical disc if optical disc is dying.

Most people are content streaming 720p Netflix on a 1080p set, so I do not see where 4K will be a huge factor for most people - especially if it is no better than 2k on most screen sizes. In fact, Sony's "mastered in 4k" series may just be good enough for the average consumer that wants 4k content. Sure, its not true 4k but so what, let the marketing do the work.

In fact, a whole 4k new disc format may do the opposite and may end up cannibalizing "classic" Blu-ray due to the "Osborne effect." What if consumers stop buying 1080p Blu-ray discs in anticipation of 4k Blu-ray (which may be some time off still)? And then, what if 4k Blu-ray underwhelms or underperforms? Then you just succeeded in stalling sales of physical media. Again, if it was a guaranteed hit like 1080p was over 480i, its a good strategy. But, if it is a potential flop due to the lack of perceived difference and increased cost over regular Blu-ray, then you may end up doing more harm than help!

[Cbeck]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I personally don't feel that Blu-ray 4K is needed to continue preserving optical disc, nor do I think that it will save optical disc if optical disc is dying.

Most people are content streaming 720p Netflix on a 1080p set, so I do not see where 4K will be a huge factor for most people - especially if it is no better than 2k on most screen sizes. In fact, Sony's "mastered in 4k" series may just be good enough for the average consumer that wants 4k content. Sure, its not true 4k but so what, let the marketing do the work.

In fact, a whole 4k new disc format may do the opposite and may end up cannibalizing "classic" Blu-ray due to the "Osborne effect." What if consumers stop buying 1080p Blu-ray discs in anticipation of 4k Blu-ray (which may be some time off still)? And then, what if 4k Blu-ray underwhelms or underperforms? Then you just succeeded in stalling sales of physical media. Again, if it was a guaranteed hit like 1080p was over 480i, its a good strategy. But, if it is a potential flop due to the lack of perceived difference and increased cost over regular Blu-ray, then you may end up doing more harm than help!

I completely agree.
I think we are now past the age of one physical format overtaking another.
I also wonder even if 4k on disc were a viable option if studios would put master copies on discs for consumers to own (and copy).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Cbeck

...I also wonder even if 4k on disc were a viable option if studios would put master copies on discs for consumers to own (and copy).

No need to worry/wonder -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ry#post7958438

[Cbeck]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No need to worry/wonder -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ry#post7958438

Thanks for the info. The bottom line is I doubt there will be much interest from consumers in adopting another disc format and buying new players. It isn't 2006 anymore. People are moving on to streaming and downloading. When 4k tvs become the norm I expect downloading will be how people obtain most of the content. By that time there will be no need for a disc player at all.
The studios have not turned bluray into the cash cow it was supposed to be. It certainly isn't going to happen with a new disc format at a time consumers are making streaming and downloading a part of their lives, and it is only increasing.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Cbeck

Thanks for the info. The bottom line is I doubt there will be much interest from consumers in adopting another disc format and buying new players. It isn't 2006 anymore. People are moving on to streaming and downloading. When 4k tvs become the norm I expect downloading will be how people obtain most of the content. By that time there will be no need for a disc player at all.
The studios have not turned bluray into the cash cow it was supposed to be. It certainly isn't going to happen with a new disc format at a time consumers are making streaming and downloading a part of their lives, and it is only increasing.

The UHD Blu Ray player and disc will the Laser Disc of this era, which ultra niche.

[Tok]

It was a miracle LaserDisc lasted as long as it did. I have my doubts that UHD will be successful even with a disc format. The reality is that the screen size needed to appreciate it is extremely large for most homes.

I would rather see a new spec for BD that supported higher bit color depth and support for higher frame rates. That is something that most 1080p displays could support without requiring all new displays.

[Cbeck]

Originally Posted by Tok

It was a miracle LaserDisc lasted as long as it did. I have my doubts that UHD will be successful even with a disc format. The reality is that the screen size needed to appreciate it is extremely large for most homes.

I would rather see a new spec for BD that supported higher bit color depth and support for higher frame rates. That is something that most 1080p displays could support without requiring all new displays.

I would think you would see more color depth with 4k on any size screen. Just like with blu ray you can see a difference even on a small screen, but the larger you go the better it gets.

I am not sure what the market would be for 4k discs. Even companies like Criterion are offering extensive streaming of films now. Discs may survive as a collector's market, but I am not sure that would be enough to support 4k discs.

[Tok]

Look how they were able to add 3D to BD. I think they could easily update the spec to support a larger bit depth for 2D discs at least. My point there are many installed 1080p sets that could support the expanded color information without having having to replace them all for UHD.

[r32]

Originally Posted by Tok

Look how they were able to add 3D to BD. I think they could easily update the spec to support a larger bit depth for 2D discs at least. My point there are many installed 1080p sets that could support the expanded color information without having having to replace them all for UHD.

At least Panasonic(JP) did that!

36 bit MGVC Blu Ray

Novelty, novelty involved! Panasonic Corp., (thanks to their Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory research center's work on Studio Ghibli's recent digital disc releases) has taken advantage of this upcoming launch to push for MGVC (MASTER GRADE VIDEO CODING) on specific Blu-ray Disc player models. This is their own implementation of the MVC codec standard that seems to be very cool; using the additional data stream to superpose (interpolate) color information that makes up for the compression loss when is used the normal 8-bit encoding for each of the three signal components, coming from the 36-bit color digital master tape. ( http://www.phileweb.com/news/d-av/201304/10/32810.html ) It could be my preferred advancement to come from the efforts of consumer electronics companies to promote stereoscopic 3D vision technology.

Achieving 60Mbps of data transmission unified for a single stream picture view!

Although most won't benefit from this color depth on common 24-bit (8-bit per channel) panel TV sets, this is kind of further future-proofing the editions! Also, My Neighbor Totoro, Grave of the Fireflies, Kiki's Delivery Service & Only Yesterday are listed as already compatible and waiting to be played on those models.

source : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53399040


More information about MGVC (Sony doesn' t like it) :

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...Rb9JbvEg1LwuVA


There is only one Panasonic BDP DMR-BZT9300 in Japan is MGVC compatible ( best price JP¥238,000 )

One more reson we should stick to Studio Ghibli Japan version.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Ruined

It reminds me of DVD-Audio, sure it was technically better than CD but to most consumers and even most enthusiasts it was probably not significant enough to warrant buying all new stuff.

That was absolutely not the reason, or even near the top 10 reasons, why DVD-Audio didn't take off. Blu-ray new release titles are regularly seeing 50% market share, do you think that would have happened if there was still a format war with HD DVD ongoing? The answer to this question will be the biggest clue as to why DVD-A/SACD never took off as a viable mainstream format.

Players at launch were similarly priced to Blu-ray. You needed two players if you wanted to buy titles from all major labels, like HD DVD (Universal/Weinstein and for a short period of time Paramount) and Blu-ray (Sony/Fox/Disney/LGF). You had to have six sets of cables for EACH player if you wanted multichannel audio for both discs. Marketing was virtually non-existent.

No amount of improvements was going to cause the average consumer to consider these formats for even a moment, format wars kill formats and there was never any resolve to the DVD-A/SACD format war, we're STILL seeing titles released on both formats but at least now you can get a universal player that plays both those formats plus all BD discs including 3D. I got mine for $149 open box (BDP-62FD).

Nowadays there are just a trickle of titles, so it's unlikely someone will become a new adopter of either of them due to content - content is king. If major labels finally push audio on Blu-ray you'll definitely see a much greater chance of adoption due to - plays on all players, requires one single cable for connection, no competing format other than CD, players are only $49, etc.

Sorry for the tangent, but I absolutely disagree that DVD-A or SACD works in your analogy. The vast majority of people I know who enjoy these two formats love multi-channel surround sound, which CD doesn't do, so in hindsight - heck YES I would have bought in all over again.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Players at launch were similarly priced

Agree + IMO, the software (multi channel disc) was/is over priced.