4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No problem in defending joie, as he seems like an okay guy. But, I read the word “uncompressed” in post #459? on the last page. I guess the confusion arises in differences in the nomenclature we’re using here.

OK, but in my defence the post you quoted and answered was only about lossless

‘Uncompressed’ to me, means the captured raw data, the 1920x1080 example of which I already posted above, trying to point out that raw high definition video is BIG, i.e. about 670 GB/hr or 1.48 Gbps serial data. Therefore we have video…

agree, and agreed the first time, I was just pointing out that lossless would not make a difference in image quality but should mean a much smaller bitrates and capacity. Just as the same way that lossless audio makes sense over uncompressed

In the cinematic or television exhibition world, which is governed by bandwidth and storage economies, lossy compression is used for data. In the category of ‘lossy compression’, in essence there are two subclasses, you have what engineers refer to as ‘visually lossless’ (i.e. characterized by low compression factors) and lossy compression of variable PQ (i.e. characterized by medium to high compression factors).

agree, but isn't that just a con job? Let's be honest our visual system has three limiting characteristics, size (something is too small to see), wavelength (can't see IR or UV and some people can't tell the difference between different colours and we can all be tricked on colours) and speed (something is too fast to be seen). In the video words all those three are fixed. size is fixed by #of pixels and display size, colours are fixed by the digital values and speed by the frequency of shooting (i.e. film tends to be 24 frames a second). You see if we assume a pixel in 1080p is way too small to be seen, why do we need 4k? so it is not visually lossless because of size. Is it do to colour? When then why do we have so many colours defined in the first place, and what happens if one person is a bit less colour blind than an other? So it is not because of colour. Is it because an error might only be 1/24th of a second and so it will be too fast? No, that is why displays tend to be 60+ and now the better ones are over 240 MHz, 24 MHz is at the lower thresh hold of fluidity. Why is it “visually lossless”? because the assumption is that if I see it (which I will see because in speed, size and colour my visual system will perceive it) I might not notice paying attention elsewhere on screen) and even if I do I won’t know better since I can't compare it to what it should be.