4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Can anyone guess what two living organisms (at least some species of which) I’m thinking about that demonstrate saturated colors which lie outside the DCI P3 gamut?....and for that matter, way outside rec.709.

One flys and the other swims. They’re quite common actually.

Offhand, I think lacewing flies and some of the iridescent jellyfish. Just a wild stab at it. The flies have prismatic wings (as do some beetles), and the jellies are just impossible to categorize for color, which changes all the time.


The right answer is eagerly awaited...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

lacewing flies and some of the iridescent jellyfish.

Man, you’re way out of my league dog. I was humbly thinking about butterfly wings and some tropical fish.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by AK65

Why'd you ask for 4:2:0?

Why? Because I'm a realist. Because colour compression is still a big part of boiling this stuff down for consumer video. I think some (maybe even most?) people don't realise that even the full bandwidth of HDMI 2.0 only does 4:4:4 support for 8-bit 4K video, so we'll need another revision to the HDMI spec before 10 and 12-bit 4:4:4 4K can be considered a viable option for the home.

4:2:2 was still available, but given the 4:2:0 limitation of 50/60p material on HDMI 2.0 'lite' hardware and the question of leaving bandwidth available on the UHD discs for HDR implementation(s), they clearly decided to stick with the safe option. It's not all bad though, as the resolution of the colour component is still 4x higher with 4:2:0 4K than with 4:2:0 1080p and to my eyes it makes a significant difference.

I'm more excited about the increased bit depth to be honest. It'd be nice to say goodbye to banding, and although certain companies have done brilliantly to overcome the problem with 8-bit Blu-ray (like Sony and their SBMV oversampling) there are others out there who don't give a shit (like Lionsgate) and taking that sort of thing out of their hands - or making it harder to **** it up, at least - is a big step forward IMO.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm more excited about the increased bit depth to be honest. It'd be nice to say goodbye to banding, and although certain companies have done brilliantly to overcome the problem with 8-bit Blu-ray (like Sony and their SBMV oversampling) there are others out there who don't give a shit (like Lionsgate) and taking that sort of thing out of their hands - or making it harder to **** it up, at least - is a big step forward IMO.

Most banding issues I've seen is usually due to bitrate starvation. Those early Warner discs that thought 9Mbps VC-1 for certain scenes was ok (thanks HD DVD!) or digital downloads like a lot of crappy iTunes streams.


UHD BD seems to have more than enough bitrate allocation no matter the color depth.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Most banding issues I've seen is usually due to bitrate starvation. Those early Warner discs that thought 9Mbps VC-1 for certain scenes was ok (thanks HD DVD!) or digital downloads like a lot of crappy iTunes streams.


UHD BD seems to have more than enough bitrate allocation no matter the color depth.

Banding can occur not just due to low bitrate, its a mixture of limited colour depth, poor mastering/encoding and bitrate.

Banding is my main beef with current Blu-ray.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Banding can occur not just due to low bitrate, its a mixture of limited colour depth, poor mastering/encoding and bitrate.

Banding is my main beef with current Blu-ray.

On the majority of BDs I purchase it isn't an issue at all.


I've also seen banding that was purely display related.
Back in the day I always recommended SXRD projection over single chip DLP sets because the banding was so bad on the DLPs.

[Robert Zohn]

Sneak preview of Panasonic's Ultra HD Blu-ray player.



Enjoy!

-Robert

[Penton-Man]

Possible causes of banding….
a. source material (from acquisition to processing in post production), b. quality of the source delivered to the mastering personnel (files from the DI vs. HDCAM SR tape) c. conversion of the higher bit depth source material to 8bit, d. encoding (compression) and we all know who...and what format was great at setting the bar as low as possible for that e. the playback chain (Blu-ray player -> receiver -> TV, f. the display itself.

Did I forget any? Generally, it’s easier to identify in animation movies than non. Something which helped was SBMV - http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-conten...009/09/sbm.png

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

On the majority of BDs I purchase it isn't an issue at all.


I've also seen banding that was purely display related.
Back in the day I always recommended SXRD projection over single chip DLP sets because the banding was so bad on the DLPs.

That is true.

@ Penton, great points there.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, I always find it hilarious when people don't get such simple stuff. Since consumer video is always very lossyly compressed the supposed resolution is more or less meaning, there can be less detail in a higher resolution stream with a lot of loss then a lower resolution stream with a lot less loss.

Yes see the Buffy HD caps for an example.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

On the majority of BDs I purchase it isn't an issue at all.


I've also seen banding that was purely display related.
Back in the day I always recommended SXRD projection over single chip DLP sets because the banding was so bad on the DLPs.

Back in the day? I would still take the Sony sxrd units over any others out there

[Kris Deering]

Lionsgate titles still piss me off continually for banding. They consistently have issues with this regardless of the titles (from their big budget A titles to their indie stuff). I suffered thru Expendables 3 last week and the amount of banding was atrocious. Reminded me of a video stream via iTunes, not a high quality Blu-ray transfer. I cringe whenever a movie I want is distributed by Lionsgate.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is not necessarily true. the drives in most BD players manufactured after 2010 can handle the larger capacity disks. And some players definitely can handle them.

Some players I'm sure can but all of them certainly cannot and thus it would not conform to the current Blu-Ray standard established in 2005. Thus any high capacity disc even if it contained an AVC 1080p version that does conform to current Blu-ray standards couldn't be honestly marketed as compatible with present Blu-ray players unless it comes with a cumbersome list of models that support it

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Selaboc

That's a sweeping statement that I don't think is reasonable to make. There are many reasons why someone might not like 3D other than a dislike of new technology. While I have no particular problems with 3D one of my friends hates it because of the glasses - In order to see he needs to wear both his regular glasses *and* the 3D glasses, which he doesn't find comfortable at all (this is movie-theatre 3D, but due to his experiences in movie-theatres he's in no hurry to try a 3D TV). For another person I know, the 3D effect rarely works for them so they don't care for it because it literally does nothing for them. Whereas both of those people have no outstanding issues regarding 4k. Indeed most people I've every heard complain about 3D, "dislike [of] new technology" and "nostalgia for lower quality video" has never been a factor.

I mostly say that because there are so many who for no reason buy DVDs of movies even when the Blu-Ray version is virtually no extra cost

If blu-rays were significantly more expensive I would understand times are tough for some but why go out of your way to get a lower quality version which saves you no money? It makes no sense whatsoever. When I see someone with the DVD version of a new movie in their shopping basket I see a threat to the gene pool. Some just hate things that are different and unfortunately Ultra HD discs will probably be ignored by everyone who still buys DVDs of new movies.

But yeah I don't see any reason Ultra HD discs will do any better than 3D ones. If anything the difference between 3D and 2D is without a doubt more immediately obvious than the jump from 1080p to 2160p particularly on smaller televisions. Sure no glasses are required to see the improvement and even I'll admit that is a plus but I still see no reason that those who reject 3D will see Ultra HD as any better unless they are stereo blind

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Lionsgate titles still piss me off continually for banding. They consistently have issues with this regardless of the titles (from their big budget A titles to their indie stuff). I suffered thru Expendables 3 last week and the amount of banding was atrocious. Reminded me of a video stream via iTunes, not a high quality Blu-ray transfer. I cringe whenever a movie I want is distributed by Lionsgate.

Same here, I'm actually dreading the release of Mockingjay because all those dark, shadowy interiors will show it up something chronic. Fingers crossed that UHD BD will force them to re-evaluate their mastering practices in general because something is fundamentally 'off' with their encodes and has been for a while.

And in the UK it's gotten worse and worse lately, not from the big studios but many local distributors, the quality is moving backwards at an alarming rate; StudioCanal's version of Rush is one of the most appallingly bad examples for banding that I've ever seen.

It's not that 10-bit will automatically cure the problem, I know that, but it means that even with studios who don't know their ass from their elbow it should at least be less obvious.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I mostly say that because there are so many who for no reason buy DVDs of movies even when the Blu-Ray version is virtually no extra cost

If blu-rays were significantly more expensive I would understand times are tough for some but why go out of your way to get a lower quality version which saves you no money? It makes no sense whatsoever. When I see someone with the DVD version of a new movie in their shopping basket I see a threat to the gene pool. Some just hate things that are different and unfortunately Ultra HD discs will probably be ignored by everyone who still buys DVDs of new movies.

But yeah I don't see any reason Ultra HD discs will do any better than 3D ones. If anything the difference between 3D and 2D is without a doubt more immediately obvious than the jump from 1080p to 2160p particularly on smaller televisions. Sure no glasses are required to see the improvement and even I'll admit that is a plus but I still see no reason that those who reject 3D will see Ultra HD as any better unless they are stereo blind

Almost spit my drink out with the comment on the gene pool, love that. And I agree on 4K Blu-ray being a seriously hard sell for the masses. Techies will hopefully lap it up, but if the difference between Blu-ray and DVD isn't enough there is no way the difference between 4K and Blu-ray will be even remotely enough. And at what type of premium are we talking? As much as I think it won't happen the only way this could gain traction to me is pricing it exactly the same as Blu-ray right off the bat and essentially just eliminating Blu-ray altogether for this. Probably won't happen but I just don't think people are going to line up for this at all. TVs sure, but we saw how that worked with HD sets and SD content, people probably think their DVDs are 4K on their 4K TVs given their overall knowledge of this stuff and what they're fed from big box stores. And if streaming is the first example they'll get (which is most likely the case) it's over because that crap doesn't look as good or better than Blu-ray does now so why spend a premium on pre-recorded content?

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I suffered thru Expendables 3 last week and the amount of banding was atrocious. Reminded me of a video stream via iTunes, not a high quality Blu-ray transfer. I cringe whenever a movie I want is distributed by Lionsgate.

Expendables 3 had so much fast cutting, shaky cam junk in it that some banding made little difference in the viewing experience, IMHO. I am all for 4K but the style of the content has to be made to take advantage of the process. Someone started showing me Total Recall 2 via their Sony UHD player on their 4K projector setup and after several minutes I commented that this movie would be fine in 720 because there was so much camera movement.

That said, I sure would like to see what Maleficent would have looked like if it had been done in 4K. Too bad Disney did not do this BD with Dolby Atmos.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Almost spit my drink out with the comment on...

I likewise did as much when I read this comment…”The UHD Alliance was created with the consumer in mind; it provides information on premium Ultra-HD content and devices to deliver best-in-class home entertainment”…. http://www.samsung.com/de/news/produ...lity-standards

because, given history of past practices….

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Remember Life of Pi and World War Z *qualifying* as UHD….http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsun...eo-pack-review by Samsung despite the source format for the most part being 2.8K.

You see, ethically (what a content provider in good conscience should advertise as ‘4K’ or ‘UHD’) and visually, with satisfactory result, a content creator respectfully can get away with uprezing the vfx in ‘4K movies’ due to either the motion (panning) of the camera and/or the objects in the scene - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...fx#post9951507

But to upconvert a whole motion picture to 4K, from 2K-ish source material, and then present it to the unwary consumer as ‘UHD’ content, I don’t think that is such a fine practice.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

That said, I sure would like to see what Maleficent would have looked like if it had been done in 4K. Too bad Disney did not do this BD with Dolby Atmos.

Disney has gone from the best Blu-Ray studio to the worst. Even ignoring their dropping of 3D to force consumers onto their crappy streaming service they also seem content to give major new titles little to no real extras. Frozen made a billion and Disney still didn't think it was worth any decent supplemental material. So unfortunately I'm not anticipating much support from them for Ultra HD. Maybe they will release a couple titles and then drop the format when it doesn't sell a hundred billion copies

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I likewise did as much when I read this comment…”The UHD Alliance was created with the consumer in mind; it provides information on premium Ultra-HD content and devices to deliver best-in-class home entertainment”…. http://www.samsung.com/de/news/produ...lity-standards

because, given history of past practices….

You see, ethically (what a content provider in good conscience should advertise as ‘4K’ or ‘UHD’) and visually, with satisfactory result, a content creator respectfully can get away with uprezing the vfx in ‘4K movies’ due to either the motion (panning) of the camera and/or the objects in the scene - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...fx#post9951507

But to upconvert a whole motion picture to 4K, from 2K-ish source material, and then present it to the unwary consumer as ‘UHD’ content, I don’t think that is such a fine practice.

This in part comes down to the 28 days later question again, do we want the best presentation of a movie despite its resolution?
1080p (or lower) on a "4k" disc but with a healthy bitrate on a 300gb disc would be the closest we have gotten to transparent to the master no?
So say leave Avatar at 1080p but max the bitrate?