4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I think the commercial reality of a 4k consumer format in the next five years is a pipe dream, speaking honestly. There is so little demand for it and the potential market is so small that it's not economically feasible at the moment.

+1

I think blu-ray is the end of the road for the physical media home market.

To use a title of a movie: it's as good as it gets.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I think the commercial reality of a 4k consumer format in the next five years is a pipe dream, speaking honestly. There is so little demand for it and the potential market is so small that it's not economically feasible at the moment.

Originally Posted by benbess

+1

I think blu-ray is the end of the road for the physical media home market.

To use a title of a movie: it's as good as it gets.

While I agree in general, the hardware industry is always pushing for something new so that people update their equipment. That's why there's a big push for 3D right now and why we're going to see OLED. If they think they can make us upgrade to 4K players or 4K TVs, we'll see them try even if these formats are rejected by consumers. Sony will be the leader since they own both hardware and content. If the incremental costs to the studios are small, it could work. If there are multiple incompatible formats, it will fail big time. They might not go back and remaster old films again, but there's plenty of new films mastered in 4K to support the Sony 4K digital theatrical projector and other 4K projectors.

[HDTV1080P]

A new 4K optical format might not be marketed to the mainstream consumer, but a niche product with around 2 million people using it. The 4K movies could be priced at $40-$80+ each. The Laserdisc format from 1978-2000 was a niche optical 480i format before DVD launched in 1997. In the mid 90’s around 2 million people used the Laserdisc format and studios supported it.

4K displays and 4K players could in 10-15 years become the next big mainstream new product if prices were around the current levels that 1080P equipment currently is. Or it might be just a niche product with 2 million people using 4K if prices remain high.

Maybe under ideal conditions Blu-ray could replace the DVD format as the format used by the mainstream while at the same time a new 4K format becomes the format for those that want high-end video.

[saprano]

I don't have a "anti 4K" position.

Just because i don't believe every last word about 4K doesn't mean i hate it. But i guess it's human nature when one doesn't follow everyone else something has to be wrong with the person.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by saprano

Haha.
You got that from the DICE 2012 show with Tim Sweeney right?
Foget about 4K. 8K really has no place in the home. It'll be usless for our TV sizes. It's also funny how "The most resolution we need" is pretty close already with 1080p at 30 degrees.

I disagree. Just hold up an iPhone or a magazine page next to your TV. I can clearly see the shortcomings of 1080p on a 32" set. Unlike 3D, 4k is something I will benefit from. I already have the welcome mat out.

[saprano]

An iphone is massively small compared to a TV. The ipad3 is rumored to have a resolution of 2048×1536, but these type of devices need that resolution more than TV's since we're holding them inches from our face.

Roll out the welcome mat if you wan't. I'll join you. I didn't say i would never buy a 4K display. But lets be realistic about this stuff.

[saprano]

Heh. Just thought of something.

I can imagine apple marketing the ipad3 as "more resolution than bluray." That would be pretty funny. But the ipad3 doesn't come in sizes of 40 to 80 inches, so that wouldn't really work.

I can see these companies wanting to get 4K displays out quickly from that marketing perspective though.

Which makes me realise that sony didn't even announce any 4K displays at CES. I would think they would have something besides their projector. Sharp and LG have 4K displays coming this year........Supposedly.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by saprano

An iphone is massively small compared to a TV. The ipad3 is rumored to have a resolution of 2048×1536, but these type of devices need that resolution more than TV's since we're holding them inches from our face.

Roll out the welcome mat if you wan't. I'll join you. I didn't say i would never buy a 4K display. But lets be realistic about this stuff.

The PPI Post

It was about pixel density such as pixels per inch (PPI) - how many pixles do we have per in^2. "a 21.5 inch (54.61 cm) screen with a 1920×1080 resolution (in which wp = 1920, hp = 1080 and di = 21.5), we get 102.46 PPI; for a typical 10.1 inch netbook screen with a 1024×600 resolution (in which wp = 1024, hp = 600 and di = 10.1), we get 117.5 PPI." (Wiki). The iPhone 4: 326 PPI (gsmarena.com)

The new iPad
The 9.7" display has a resolution of 2048x1536 which is 3,145,728 pixels at 264 PPI. This is 65.92% more then 1080p which is only 1,920x1,080 or 2,073,600 pixels. Jason Snell of Macworld notes: "Pictures reveal small details that simply weren't there before. A photo that looks just fine on an iPad looks inarguably better on the new iPad. It's the same image, but all of a sudden, there's much more information there - small textures and tiny details that were previously omitted" (Macworld, May 2012, p38).

Caculating PPI using a² + b² = c²
If you know the Pythagorean theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2, you are all set.

Now let:
dp = diagonal resolution in pixels
wp = width resolution in pixels
hp = height resolution in pixels
di = diagonal size of TV in inches

diagonal resolution:
dp = (wp^2 + hp^2)^1/2

Now calculate PPI since we got dp:
PPI = dp/di.

Back to Vewing Distance

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

..The ipad3 is rumored to have a resolution of 2048×1536....

Funny you just mentioned that, as coincidentally posted from two days ago….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post5842705

One should expect a similar trend of higher resolution finding its way into tablets from other major manufacturers sooner rather than later.

[saprano]

Oh wow. lol.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Which makes me realise that sony didn't even announce any 4K displays at CES. I would think they would have something besides their projector. Sharp and LG have 4K displays coming this year........Supposedly.

Just because a consumer version is not available now to the public, does not mean that SONY does not believe in the concept…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ly#post5810475

Here's the BIG picture with the above linked monitor in place -
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...olutions.shtml

[saprano]

I know about ppi. I was talking about what we actually see depending on how large, and the distance from a screen.

Sometimes our eyes don't care about specs and numbers if you get what i mean.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by saprano

An iphone is massively small compared to a TV. The ipad3 is rumored to have a resolution of 2048×1536, but these type of devices need that resolution more than TV's since we're holding them inches from our face.

You are missing the point, a proper display for watching movies needs it more. Yes, maybe the guy watching his 20" TV from 20' away might not get much benefit from 4k, but that is not proper. THX recommends that the farthest seat for a theatre be no farther than 36 degrees away, that means ~1.5x screen width and for a 16:9 that means ~1.34x the diagonal. And that is for the furthest one should be from the screen. Movies are made for people sitting much closer than that, since everyone in the theatre will be much closer than that. On the other hand an iphone’s screen is what 3” wide (tall)? That would mean it needs to be used at less than 4.5” away. An ipad would be a bit better (sorry I don’t have one of those to measure the screen) but it too will probably not be used at a proper distance.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by joie

This may not be the right thread, but I am curious: What do people with projectors see when they get close to the screen? Pixels? Are there ever any jaggies?

not sure what you are asking.

Another thing: A lot of people rave about "grain," pro and con, but can we really see grain with 1080p? Is it possible that the "grain" is digital noise? I remember developing/printing B&W stills and, if I remember correctly, grain was a lot more distinct than what is being called "grain" on 1080p. In fact, 35 mm film enlarged to hi-def display sizes, even 32", has a grain that looks distinctly differen than the "grain" people seem to be seeing with 1080p. I remember focusing an enlarger on the grain, even when enlarging 35 mm to 6x8 inches (on an 8x10 sheet with 1" white border all the way around), even with a "fine grain" film like Kodak's Pan-X.

yes and no, a digital image is digital, that is to say it is made up by rectangular (square) pixels. when the scanner scans the film print it creates values for each pixel depending on what is in the image at tha location, those pixels look different because they are influenced by the scanned grain in the original image. Is normal grain (on film) box shaped? no, but a diagonal line won't look like stairs either on film. In order to get something that looks similar to FG in a digital you would need a lot more resolution (each pixel to be a fraction of the size of the FG itself.

PS there can also be other digital noise.

[richieb1971]

Originally Posted by joie

This may not be the right thread, but I am curious: What do people with projectors see when they get close to the screen? Pixels? Are there ever any jaggies?

Another thing: A lot of people rave about "grain," pro and con, but can we really see grain with 1080p? Is it possible that the "grain" is digital noise? I remember developing/printing B&W stills and, if I remember correctly, grain was a lot more distinct than what is being called "grain" on 1080p. In fact, 35 mm film enlarged to hi-def display sizes, even 32", has a grain that looks distinctly differen than the "grain" people seem to be seeing with 1080p. I remember focusing an enlarger on the grain, even when enlarging 35 mm to 6x8 inches (on an 8x10 sheet with 1" white border all the way around), even with a "fine grain" film like Kodak's Pan-X.

Sorry if this is the inappropriate thread for these questions, but there seem to be some knowledgeable people here.

You don't see jaggies. You see the makeup of the image like you would if you zoomed into a picture.

[Toxa]

Originally Posted by saprano

I don't have a "anti 4K" position.

Just because i don't believe every last word about 4K doesn't mean i hate it. But i guess it's human nature when one doesn't follow everyone else something has to be wrong with the person.

The Future is now

[Penton-Man]

^ show-off.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by joie

Another thing: A lot of people rave about "grain," pro and con, but can we really see grain with 1080p? Is it possible that the "grain" is digital noise?...

It can be difficult to differentiate.
In as much as you are seeing ‘grain’ in 1080p, not all grain looks the same but, in general, grain appears more dimensional (even in 2D) than does telecine-originated or video noise caused by cinematographers pushing the limits of whatever digital camera they’ve used. Also, grain varies in size and appears to swirl, whereas video noise tends to be smaller, uniform in size, moves with more pace and appears to scintillate, rather than swirl, if you will.

Regarding grain, one important thing which may not be evident to some (esp. old photochemical archivists who have not maintained their skill set by not staying current in the digital world) is that not only does scanning 35mm film source at 4K (with eventual release in 1080p) add more detail and create less tendency for aliasing artifacts in the Blu-ray incarnation – than does scanning at 2K, but it also greatly aids in grain management compared to that of scanning 35mm in 2K for Blu-ray.

And by ‘grain management’, I mean, 4K scanning greatly helps in allowing ‘better’ DNR (when necessary) be performed by the operator as compared to that with operators at intuitions or facilities which routinely scan film source at 2K. Think of it like using a stainless steel scalpel to cut something, rather than an old dull rusty pen knife.

[Deciazulado]

35mm size Still cameras are coming out with 8K sensors made by someone...


http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr...2/img_04_l.jpg


http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr...1/img_01_l.jpg <- photo of my BD/DVD collection

[Penton-Man]

Sweet …and from a guy who has not only kept his Digital skills current, but also can wrangle the celluloid with the best of ‘em.

Big collection!