4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Chevypower]

Of course 4K, well 3.8K (2160x3840) will take off. Can anyone imagine CES2020? No new products, it's the same old 1080p Blu-ray. I predict 2160p will become available within two years. Again for the theorists, I saw a 50'' 2160p TV from about 5-10 feet away, and it changed my perspective on 1080p from amazing to average.

[endy]

Originally Posted by vargo

You must be under 20 if you think there will not be technology in 20 years that seems 'ridiculous' today.

iPhone launched in 2007. Go back 20 years - 1987. Tell someone back then about a device thats 10mm thick, very light, holds thousands of songs, plays videos, makes calls, connects to a worldwide network of infomation, can track your position anywhere in the world to within a few m and has the same power as an 1987-era super computer. And it will be a mass-market device, housewives will have one.

Someone lacking imagination or understanding of technological history would have said the same thing as you just have. Thats impossible! Ridiculous! You have been watching too much Star Trek! Nothing like that can come along in 20 years, maybe 100!

Clearly young people today have no idea how far technology can progress in just a few decades.

i am probably older than you to be honest, and back in the mid 80s people were inventing many of the standards that would become cellular phones. internet already existed too. so no many people would predict that such technologies would become useful.

you are completely missing the point, like i said you have no sense of economics. you think because technology might exist it will become common place. you are the person in the 60s who thinks that we are all living on the moon by 1990. the technology already exists for what you are saying (aside from retinal scanning, which probably won't exist in 20 years, you clearly are a big sci-fi fan). the fact is, most people do not live in houses big enough to want a 100+ screen, on the wall or an actual TV. and the economics of that will not change in 20 years at all. some people will have it yes, but not most. technology exists today for many things (smart automated homes) but most people do not buy in for reasons of economics. look at how no one here agrees with your outlandish predictions. think about that.

[Steedeel]

Bendable screens could make larger displays a possibility in most homes. If in use it acts as a projection screen, say against/or actually built to fit the largest wall in the house. If not needed it is folded away and stored. what is far fetched about that? They are already working on such displays and once they become paper thin, well...you can imagine.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, you’d never know it, as I’m told that many forums now have active threads which are preoccupied with discussing the notion of exactly when Blu-ray will cease to exist (at least on a grand, mainstream scale for *new* movies) giving way to other types of non-physical media viewing options and that Blu-ray will eventually enter (or already has?) its twilight time of becoming the last physical media offered to consumers. This preoccupation with discussing when something will end (on enthusiasts’ boards) and how there may be nothing again like it coming afterwards in terms of quality (audio/video) all seems rather negativistic to me…almost begging for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the future, you may have no interest in purchasing something on the order of a 65” 4k display. (b.t.w., keep in mind, some folks are naturally blessed with 20/15 vision in both eyes or may have achieved that visual acuity thru optimal Lasik result – which, at least for that particular population, would shift those lines on the pictured graph upwards a bit).

Anyway, what I’m getting at is that a vote for 4kBD is a vote for the added longevity of physical media (Blu-ray), in general….something vocal naysayers of the technology (4k) should be aware of.

Penton-Man, i think the issue is (well certainly for me) to invest so much in a hobby, only to continue reading and hearing reports of trashy streams/downloads becoming mainstream is very unsettling. Its fine for people who maybe own a hundred or so discs. But for people who have taken the plunge with hundreds of discs and surround sound/amps etc..we want to be sure we can still buy our films in such good quality in the future. It doesn't help that some of the industry is talking about OTT services that only require a decent broadband connection. Or smart tv's with cable channels through the Internet that will be artefact city! If the industry wants me to buy a 65-80 inch Oled screen, they better make sure i am not watching streamed crap on it!

On another note, the more people that dismiss 4k, the bigger chance of low quality streams we face in the future. If 4k media came out tomorrow i would jump at it. 4k, 3d and normal bluray would all be guaranteed a place in my cabinet.

[Josh]

I doubt studios would be willing to distribute their films in 4k, especially since that would be the same resolution as their digital masters.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Josh

I doubt studios would be willing to distribute their films in 4k, especially since that would be the same resolution as their digital masters.

If they want to sell the idea of early releases for a premium fee before/same time as cinema they had better consider it.

[saprano]

Anway, what I'm getting at is that a vote for 4kBD is a vote for the added longevity of physical media (Blu-ray), in general. something vocal naysayers of the technology (4k) should be aware of.

Thats a perfect way to look at this. Really. This basically insures bluray isn't going anywhere and will be here for a long, long time. Thats a good thing.

For the record, im not a naysayer. Again, im just curious about how large of a difference there will be from 2K bluray. I know there will be one. But worth spending thousands of dollars again so soon? I mean look how close this guy VVVVVV had to be to noticed on a 50" set.

I will definitely be buying into the whole 4K market. 4K TV's, BD players, receivers, cables etc. I love this hobby, i have to. But depending on how soon its released, it won't be as fast as i bought into BD back in fall 2007.

(Wow, its only been 4 years. Im still a noob)

Originally Posted by hevypower

Of course 4K, well 3.8K (2160x3840) will take off. Can anyone imagine CES2020? No new products, it's the same old 1080p Blu-ray. I predict 2160p will become available within two years. Again for the theorists, I saw a 50'' 2160p TV from about 5-10 feet away, and it changed my perspective on 1080p from amazing to average.

I guess you should stop buying blurays now then.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Josh

I doubt studios would be willing to distribute their films in 4k, especially since that would be the same resolution as their digital masters.

Well it won't be exactly the same. Its still compressed.

And isn't bluray already close in resolution to 2K?

Edit-

2K- 2048×1556

Bluray-1920x1080

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Josh

I doubt studios would be willing to distribute their films in 4k, especially since that would be the same resolution as their digital masters.

Hi Josh.

That practice has already been in effect, and continues to be offered (purely in terms of ‘resolution’) every time you watch a Blu-ray movie at home which was acquired with an HD digital camera….of which there are a lot of motion pictures, check imdb. Even recent ones, like for instance, Hugo, when one considers 2K files and HD to be essentially bearing the same resolution.

Check the middle pic here…
http://www.hometheater.com/content/4k-revolution

[saprano]

Welp, we as humans are never gonna agree on anything and it seem theres alot of confusion and anger in this thread. I for one will not be a sheep, like others, to these companies and spend money on something so soon that i don't think is an obvious benefit.........yet.

Im outta this thread.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Welp, we as humans are never gonna agree on anything and it seem theres alot of confusion and anger in this thread. I for one will not be a sheep, like others, to these companies and spend money on something so soon that i don't think is an obvious benefit.........yet.

Im outta this thread.

Sap, it’s not like 4kBD is arriving over-night. It’s going to take time. But we’ve really got to start somewhere and I think it’s apparent that many people are ignoring (perhaps intentionally) the tie-in of 4k with some manufacturers’ solutions for glasses-free 3D TV.....which according to a plethora of ‘unbiased’ observers is the only thing which is holding these consumers back from jumping on the home theater 3D bandwagon.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Josh

I doubt studios would be willing to distribute their films in 4k, especially since that would be the same resolution as their digital masters.

Why does that make a difference? Do you think the pirates and bootleggers care about quality? Half of the bootlegged films are made by some idiot sitting in a movie theatre with a video camera (or in the future, probably with just a phone).

The studios care about one thing: how much money they are losing due to piracy. (Of course they count anyone who watched the film illegally as a loss of revenue, which is ridiculous. Just because you stole it doesn't mean you would have paid for it if you couldn't steal it.) They don't care if they're losing the sale with a low quality, low-res vesion or a high-res version.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by vargo

Of course TVs can shrink. Clearly you didn't read my post.

I will say it again, you are thinking of an 80" TV as a physical device with 80" diagonal that hangs on your walls. Your imagination is stuck in the present.

In the future your living room 'display' could be every flat surface in the room. It could be any flat surface in any room.

This is what I meant by the holodeck concept.

It could be something that rolls down like a shutter. It could be a transparent made-to-measure film that covers your entire wall and essentially disappears when not in use.

And this is what I meant by hiding.

It could be a tiny box that tracks your eyes and paints an image directly onto your retina via laser. It could be a super light HMD that you wear 24/7 in the same way that people nowadays carry their phone 24/7.

What you see might appear to be 84" or 100" or whatever arbitrary size you want to talk about. When we get to the stage of retinal projection I am absolutely confident that the benefit of resolutions above 1080p will become hugely apparent.

This isn't a TV anymore. Definitely not an 84 or 100" size because that's not how things work. Applying a size to something like this doesn't even make sense.

My analogy did not fail, you just failed to understand it.

I understood every word you said. The fact that your analogy fails doesn't mean people just don't get it.

And it's hilarious that your examples basically prove what I said, that "TVs" won't be 80+" standard, or fail to address how it's still a form-factor issue in the shutter concept. Just because it's a shutter doesn't mean I magically get more space in my room for it.

Perhaps YOU should try to consider what other people say instead of insinuating that you are just so smart that others can't get it.

*EDIT* Just to clarify, I highly believe that TV will evolve into something else. That doesn't change the fact that TVs will not get there.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

Of course 4K, well 3.8K (2160x3840) will take off. Can anyone imagine CES2020? No new products, it's the same old 1080p Blu-ray. I predict 2160p will become available within two years. Again for the theorists, I saw a 50'' 2160p TV from about 5-10 feet away, and it changed my perspective on 1080p from amazing to average.

That's quite a big difference, especially considering I'm somewhere in the middle of these two distances .

[Brightstar]

I have a question if i view a 4k content on a 4k screen will i still get black bars at the top and bottem? (widescreen)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

And it's hilarious that your examples basically prove what I said, that "TVs" won't be 80+" standard, or fail to address how it's still a form-factor issue in the shutter concept. Just because it's a shutter doesn't mean I magically get more space in my room for it.

I think he fails in explaining it, but I agree with him. I just made a post on the other 4k thread so I hope you don't mind if I copy it

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Also, after the splurge of McMansions, homes are getting smaller again, not larger, so the potential market for very large screen sizes, especially in cities, is not that great.

I don't get the connection. Do you think in order to properly watch a movie you need a mcmansion? this is what THX has to say about screen size to distance
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...r/hdtv-set-up/

Originally Posted by THX

How do you calculate the best seat-to-screen distance for a plasma, LCD TV or projection screen? Divide the size of your screen by .84 (screen size is measured diagonally). For example, a 65-inch TV divided by .84 equals a 77-inch viewing distance (6.5 feet).

now I am not saying their metric is the only one (personaly I would say with today’s tech you can easily go to just 1x screen width and with 4k even easier) but THX is a respectable organisation in the field and since they neither manufacture nor sell TVs it is not about getting people to pay more for larger displays. So are you saying that someone needs a McMansion in order to have a room where their head is 77" from their TV (after all I think you would agree that a 65" TV is much larger then the norm), just to put it in perspective a twin/double bed is 75" and a queen, king is 80" so if you have a bed and it is not from one wall to the other you can definitely have a large screen. But my guess is most people sit at around 10' plus from the display and that would mean 8.4' screen (or ~100" diagonal)

If you look at most new apartments being build in Manhattan, for example, most of the architecture is floor-to-ceiling windows of continuous glass in much of the apartment. There's actually very little wall space and very little space that can be dedicated to a screen of any size, never mind a screen larger than 65".

I don't see how that is relevant or makes any sense, you can have a display in front of windows, or even in the middle of a room, for example, one of my friends has an apartment in Ottawa windows on two of the sides over looking the river and parliament (gorgeous view), he wanted to enjoy it so the seats face the windows, he has blinds and a screen, when he is not watching TV or wants to enjoy the view it is all open and he can sit out enjoy the view and almost think he is in the country at night when wanting to watch TV he closes the blinds and pulls down the screen and turns on the projector.

An other example is my sister, her basement is an open floor plan, part of it is a gym with exercise equipment and part of it is a play room for the kids, between the two she has a 42" TV on a swivel stand, if the kids want to watch something while playing the TV faces that way, if someone wants to watch something while exercising they rotate the TV 180 degrees and they can watch something while exercising.

I really don't get why windows or open floor plan means someone can't have a TV in their home.

the reality is that most people can enjoy the big screen instead of the little screen experience at home and I have never heard of anyone that decided to go with a smaller screen because the previous one was too big. The reality is that in the 30's a TV was on average around 11" and since then the sizes have kept on growing with every passing decade and there is no sign that it will stop. The excuses given for why "people won't have big screens" do appear to be mired in what they have and use now. You said "doesn't mean I magically get more space in my room for it." but where is the space needed? it is not for how far one sits (i.e. I can't sit 30' from the TV- since you can most likely sit as far from the TV as you do know but just enjoy it more because it fills more of your vision) and if one day, for example, there is cheap roll up OLED, then placing it probably won't be much of an issue either. Now if the issue is "TV", then let's call it a display. Traditionally a TV is a display with a TV tuner and a Monitor is a display without one, and for this discussion it does not matter.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I have a question if i view a 4k content on a 4k screen will i still get black bars at the top and bottem? (widescreen)

black bars have to do with aspect ratio (how wide compared to how tall) and not resolution. Since over the years film has been shot at different AR from 1.33 at the start to 4.0 for Napoleon, unless they chop off parts of the frame to make it fit your display sooner or later there will be black bars (top/bottom or left/right).

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I have a question if i view a 4k content on a 4k screen will i still get black bars at the top and bottem? (widescreen)

Originally Posted by Anthony P

black bars have to do with aspect ratio (how wide compared to how tall) and not resolution. Since over the years film has been shot at different AR from 1.33 at the start to 4.0 for Napoleon, unless they chop off parts of the frame to make it fit your display sooner or later there will be black bars (top/bottom or left/right).

A 4K projector w/ zoom lens with a Scope (or wider) shaped screen would solve this.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

A 4K projector w/ zoom lens with a Scope (or wider) shaped screen would solve this.

Yes, but when playing films that are less than 2.35/2.39, there would be still be black bars on the sides. You can go constant height or constant width, but either way, there's going to be bars (or curtains) somewhere, unless you zoom the image, which would have the effect of cropping the image.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Also, after the splurge of McMansions, homes are getting smaller again, not larger, so the potential market for very large screen sizes, especially in cities, is not that great.

If you look at most new apartments being build in Manhattan, for example, most of the architecture is floor-to-ceiling windows of continuous glass in much of the apartment. There's actually very little wall space and very little space that can be dedicated to a screen of any size, never mind a screen larger than 65". In fact, there's very little room for bookcases, so these apartments are really being designed with a portable, virtual world in mind.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't get the connection. Do you think in order to properly watch a movie you need a mcmansion? this is what THX has to say about screen size to distance
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...r/hdtv-set-up/

Who said anything about "properly"? If you don't have wall space, you can't really have a very large-screen TV no matter what you want. I've been in several brand new million dollar NYC apartments and there's no place for a very large TV. About the best they can do is a 32" sitting on a dresser in a bedroom.

I was in a small house in Woodstock, NY last week and the only place where even a 50" could have gone is blocked by a heating stove. They've got a tiny TV (probably 22" or smaller) in the kitchen and that's the only TV in the house.

It's not a matter of what's proper or what's wanted, but what's practical. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. And that's aside from the generation of people who are perfectly happy watching TV on their computer, iPad or even their phone screen.