4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No, it is not a ‘con job’.
It is just a descriptor used by professionals in advanced imaging technology in order to communicate the quality of the compression as it relates to the uncompressed source, for example ‘visually lossless’ as opposed to ‘high quality’ compression as opposed to ‘good quality’ compression as opposed to ‘poor’ compression.

If it makes you feel any better, think of it as extremely high quality compression in order to maintain no motion artifacts or other pictorial artifacts with that compressed data. For instance, in the uncompressed 1920x1080 world as described on the prior page (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps), a real world example of extremely high quality compression (‘visually lossless’, ‘almost transparent’, whatever) would be that of viewing footage compressed by MPEG4 SStp codec at 880 Mbps via an HDCAM SR tape. That, by the way, would still need about 400 GB/hr of space.

you miss my point. Let me try again, Lossless literaly means without loss, can we agree with that? If I take a bar of iron and I remove an atom, I think we can both agree that no one will see the difference, actually we can remove quite a few atoms and neither eye site nor a balance will tell the difference. Now let me ask you this, we take a clip (let’s say 10 seconds), original and compressed (visually lossless), we go frame by frame where the mathematical differences lie (i.e. where there is true loss) between the two. Now we playback one of the clips at normal speed, will the person be able to say if it was A or B? If the answer is Yes than obviously visually it is not lossless, there is a loss tthat is visible. That is why I call it a con job. It is not because we can’t see the difference but that a) we don’t care about it and b) the guy won’t now better.

Obviously there is bigger losses and smaller losses, more important losses and less important ones. But just that even if they are small and unimportant (i.e. one pixel at one corner) it will still be a visual loss

The reason why ‘4K’ is desirable is because we (humans) see in a higher resolution than 1920x1080...
Anthony, I don’t want to engage in a ‘debate’ with you

No problem on that. I agree with you 100% 4k is important, but I want good 4k. To give an example you can DL/stream 1080p but it does not look good, because of all the losses, it is practically no better than good SD.

My point was not that 4k is not needed, but simply if we assume that a pixel difference in 1080p can’t be seen (i.e. visually lossless in the true definition of the word) than 4K would not be needed since we would be assuming 1080p is beyond human resolution.

p.s. I was using Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum