Hdmi 2.0

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Looking at the Sony 4K media player/storage footnotes.
Wonder how this will impact ISP caps?

From a purely self-indulgent selfish perspective, allow me time to check my Time Warner bill before I make comment. You killjoy you.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

It is a concern, but IMHO, Hollywood will resist 10 bit, 4:2:2 and I would wager they will never release anything for consumer use in 10 or 12 bit, 4:4:4. Another problem is H.265, in the first round we only get 8 bit, 4:2:0. Other bit lengths may come with future extensions to H.265. We shall see.

Wendelllllll! Is there a difference between IMHO in post #19 as opposed to IMO in post #20….inquiring minds want to know.

Good wager on the 4:4:4. But as far as bits and sampling ratios, people should not rule out HDMI 2.0 support for 4k 4:2:0 @ at least 10 bit when the Forum reveals more details.

As to HEVC and one of the ways to implement it, attention to our friend vargo if he is following this thread. Varg - Jason Garrett-Glaser (lead developer of the x264 project) has publically supported Telestream in the founding of the x265 project (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...rs#post7997874 )

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by BozQ

What's the point of 32 channel audio? Have you heard of Dolby Atmos or Auro3D 11.1? By upgrading the bandwidth, the possibility of bringing object placement surround is now a lot higher. Previously,we were only limited to 8 channels of audio. Anything more, and we have to settle for a matrix surround format. (Eg. DTS Neo:X)

The upgraded video bandwidth means that 2K/1080p HFR-48FPS 3D(eg. The Hobbit) is now possible at home.

1536 kHz is absolutely crazy at this point. I don't think there's any audio content recorded at that sampling rate.

Yes, all these specs sounds like overkill. But that doesn't mean we're not allowed to expand. There may not be any content that requires such bandwidth now. But the sky's the limit. This means that creative artists has a larger playground to express themselves without being limited by old technology.

The ball's in Blu-ray's court now, with their revision. I really hope to see 4K video, 3D HFR and Discrete 9.1 (or more) surround a reality from here.

The 1536 khz, might be against 8 channels at 192 khz sampling?

I agree this means that creative content artists will have a large playground to express themselves.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by BozQ

What's the point of 32 channel audio? Have you heard of Dolby Atmos or Auro3D 11.1? By upgrading the bandwidth, the possibility of bringing object placement surround is now a lot higher. Previously,we were only limited to 8 channels of audio. Anything more, and we have to settle for a matrix surround format. (Eg. DTS Neo:X)

The upgraded video bandwidth means that 2K/1080p HFR-48FPS 3D(eg. The Hobbit) is now possible at home.

1536 kHz is absolutely crazy at this point. I don't think there's any audio content recorded at that sampling rate.

Yes, all these specs sounds like overkill. But that doesn't mean we're not allowed to expand. There may not be any content that requires such bandwidth now. But the sky's the limit. This means that creative artists has a larger playground to express themselves without being limited by old technology.

The ball's in Blu-ray's court now, with their revision. I really hope to see 4K video, 3D HFR and Discrete 9.1 (or more) surround a reality from here.

I think anything above 7.2 for the home is nuts (and even though some receivers support 11.x today, but those are derived channels), but I'm sure there will be those audio/videophiles, if there's hardware and software to support it, who will rig up individual surrounds and ceiling speakers to support those 32 channels. Except for the super-rich, this means that most people who do this will buy smaller, cheaper components, which means that the overall sound will be worse, not better. Personally, I'd rather have fewer channels of higher quality. This of course will only work in dedicated home theatres and in geeks' bedrooms because no significant other, no matter how technically aware, is going to let those surround and ceiling speakers in her living room unless they're totally invisible.

I think the audio will, like Dolby Atmos, have to be an object oriented model, because the studios are not going to spend the money to mix a 32 channel mix for home consumption when so few homes even have 7.1. And when it comes down to it, there aren't that many films mixed in 7.1. Those that are are mostly animated films. They'll take an Atmos mix and use it for BD and that assumes that Atmos will be successful enough to be used for many films and not just some big blockbusters.

[JohnAV]

Note on this AVS news post -

Sony Unveils Latest UHD/4K Offerings, Curved 65" LCD HDTV

During the camcorder demo, Phil Molyneaux noted that the FDR-AX1 was delivering full 60p UHD video to the XBR-65X850A through a HDMI 1.4 connection, a feat that was regarded as impossible. Molineux declined to mention how this was achieved. The effect of the increased frame rate and resolution were clearly visible in the sample footage.

Go figure

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

The 1536 khz, might be against 8 channels at 192 khz sampling?

I agree this means that creative content artists will have a large playground to express themselves.

No. They wouldn't do that. We don't label a 5.1 soundtrack with 192 kHz sampling rate as "1152 kHz" or 7.1/96 kHz as "768 kHz"

The full documented specs for HDMI 2.0
is not released yet. For all we know, maybe that only applies to 2 channels audio.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I think anything above 7.2 for the home is nuts (and even though some receivers support 11.x today, but those are derived channels), but I'm sure there will be those audio/videophiles, if there's hardware and software to support it, who will rig up individual surrounds and ceiling speakers to support those 32 channels. Except for the super-rich, this means that most people who do this will buy smaller, cheaper components, which means that the overall sound will be worse, not better. Personally, I'd rather have fewer channels of higher quality. This of course will only work in dedicated home theatres and in geeks' bedrooms because no significant other, no matter how technically aware, is going to let those surround and ceiling speakers in her living room unless they're totally invisible.

I think the audio will, like Dolby Atmos, have to be an object oriented model, because the studios are not going to spend the money to mix a 32 channel mix for home consumption when so few homes even have 7.1. And when it comes down to it, there aren't that many films mixed in 7.1. Those that are are mostly animated films. They'll take an Atmos mix and use it for BD and that assumes that Atmos will be successful enough to be used for many films and not just some big blockbusters.

Dolby Atmos has the ability to create a downmixed soundtrack where an Atmos processor is not available. Their motto is to optimize once and deliver anywhere. So the studios don't actually have to create a separate sound mix. They can easily create a 7.1, 9.1 or 11.1 or any configuration. So if they wanted to create a static 31.1 surround for home media, they can do it from the Atmos source. (Just an example)

Personally, I feel the next logical step after 7.1 is a 9.1 setup. The regular 7.1 that we've known and love for the last few years, with 2 height channels. Either Front Height, like Dolby Pro Logic IIz. Or Side Height.

I was not convinced height channels would add anything to the experience until I watched Star Trek Into Darkness in Dolby Atmos. I was completely blown away by the height surround and I felt really depressed after that because the cinema here wouldn't screen Atmos movies for more than a week and currently there isn't any way for home media to recreate such an experience. But I believe discrete 9.1 with Front Height channels is the closest to bringing that experience home.

I know it's a very long shot from here. Many movies are still mixed in 5.1, let alone 7.1. But I hope 9.1 will become the new standard.

Still, exciting future. With this update from HDMI, the playground has been expanded. Now we wait for BDA to announce their revision.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

W

As to HEVC and one of the ways to implement it, attention to our friend vargo if he is following this thread. Varg - Jason Garrett-Glaser (lead developer of the x264 project) has publically supported Telestream in the founding of the x265 project.

Yes, I mentioned this previously:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=135

It is a good move because the x264 name and team carries a lot of goodwill and credibility in the encoding community.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

It is a concern, but IMHO, Hollywood will resist 10 bit, 4:2:2 and I would wager they will never release anything for consumer use in 10 or 12 bit, 4:4:4. Another problem is H.265, in the first round we only get 8 bit, 4:2:0. Other bit lengths may come with future extensions to H.265. We shall see.

I agree, that we will not see 4:4:4 in the consumer market, unless storage technology improves, that could actually store 4:4:4 or even RGB. I have belief that we may see 4:2:0 10-bit as part of the 4K Blu-ray spec, HEVC's main 10 profile supports 10-bit. As I read it, a device/decoder that conforms to Main 10 also supports Main, which could mean as you stated, 10-bit being introduced later on, providing that the player has the Main 10 decoder.

What's interesting is that HDMI 2.0 may support 4:2:0, so what will be the minimum outputted space and bit depth for 4K Blu-ray? 4:2:2 10-bit, same as current Blu-ray?

The 4K Blu-ray specs are going to be interesting.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Wendelllllll! Is there a difference between IMHO in post #19 as opposed to IMO in post #20….inquiring minds want to know.

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
IMO = In My Opinion

Saw IMHO used for the first time many years ago by a posted in the DTP (Desk Top Publishing) section on CompuServe. Took a while to figure it out.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Good to see all the discussion of HDMI 2.0 indicating Blu-ray movie watchers are also interested in broadcast and sports (4K @ 50/60 fps being almost minimally mandatory). As an aside, my Baltimore Ravens are playing Denver this evening and I’m hoping for the best despite the fact I hear the team’s been gutted in the off season since they won the Super Bowl....

Last night I was perfectly satisfied that we have no broadcast distribution or home infrastructure (HDMI 2.0) available yet to consumers for 4K 60fps, as I believe the thrashing that my Ravens took would have hurt more seeing it in 4K.

I was thinking they would lose but not that bad.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Go figure

Phil lives in San Diego . I find the folks who hang out in the Rancho Bernardo area of San Diego hold their cards very close to their chests.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Looking at the Sony 4K media player/storage footnotes.
Wonder how this will impact ISP caps?

I just checked my Time Warner Cable bill and apparently there is no bandwidth usage cap for me to be concerned about.

For other puck users with less generous ISPs (other than TWC), in the future, I would expect advanced compression schemes to cut the current file sizes down by roughly 50% of what they are now….which should help others with cap limits.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion ;

You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Kinda always figured as much.

[doctorD]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Last night I was perfectly satisfied that we have no broadcast distribution or home infrastructure (HDMI 2.0) available yet to consumers for 4K 60fps, as I believe the thrashing that my Ravens took would have hurt more seeing it in 4K.

I was thinking they would lose but not that bad.

That Welker catch (or non-catch) is what did them in. They never recovered after it.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Personally, I feel the next logical step after 7.1 is a 9.1 setup. The regular 7.1 that we've known and love for the last few years, with 2 height channels. Either Front Height, like Dolby Pro Logic IIz. Or Side Height.

I was not convinced height channels would add anything to the experience until I watched Star Trek Into Darkness in Dolby Atmos. I was completely blown away by the height surround and I felt really depressed after that because the cinema here wouldn't screen Atmos movies for more than a week and currently there isn't any way for home media to recreate such an experience. But I believe discrete 9.1 with Front Height channels is the closest to bringing that experience home.

I know it's a very long shot from here. Many movies are still mixed in 5.1, let alone 7.1. But I hope 9.1 will become the new standard.

But I think there's a very big difference between height over your head (as Atmos does) and front height. The primary purpose of all those speakers in Atmos aside from the capability of extreme localization (which is akin to "ping-pong" stereo and will disappear as a mixing style once mixers get more used to Atmos) is so you have smooth transitions for "fly-arounds" as they move from speaker to speaker. That's the reason Atmos added additional surrounds in front of the usual surround channels. It's so you get a smooth transition when a sound moves, say from left front to the former 1st left surround.

And that is consistent with past film sound history: Dolby developed 70mm split surround for Francis Ford Coppola because Coppola wanted the helicopter flyovers to have more perceived directionality in Apocalypse Now. Before that movie, the way you'd have to do it is to send some signal to front-left as well as the surrounds, which would give somewhat of an impression that the sound was coming from only the left surrounds, when in reality it was coming from all the surrounds. Then you'd do the same on the right.

I remember that when I saw the original Close Encounters, which was before split surround, there's a scene near the end when the sound from the alien ship breaks the glass in the viewing tower. In the theatre (Ziegfeld in NYC), it sounded uncannily like it came only from the right surround. In fact, everyone in the theatre turned their heads to the right (which is a "no-no" in mixing). It took me a long time to figure out how they did it and I was amazed that it worked so well. I think it was remixed for the Special Edition so it didn't distract the audience from the screen.

The other thing to realize is that currently, the 5.1/7.1 mixes are done first, then Atmos is used to sweeten with objects. Dolby is pushing mixers to mix in Atmos and then mix down to 7.1/5.1, as you suggest, but that hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

[BozQ]

I remember someone around the forums here said Oblivion was mixed in Atmos first.

I understand that it's near impossible to recreate Atmos for home theatre. Which is why I said 9.1 would be the next logical upgrade for home theatre audio after 7.1.

I just checked again, the 9.1 bed that Dolby recommends is your favourite 7.1 soundtrack overhead left and overhead right.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

In the theatre (Ziegfeld in NYC)...

I hope you were not in line here…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ir#post8083177

b.t.w., I recall something. On the thread in our Tech forum (I don’t remember which one) where you were responding about D-Cinema and screen door effect and asking me about bit rates for DCPs, I’m not quite sure why Anthony disagreed with your premise in regards to seeing screen door effect with 2K vs 4K because many have used that pixilation analogy (screen door effect) regarding K’s and Digital Cinema.

For example, folks can visit the dealer source website for Sony 4K home theater where one can view the illustrations or run the included video clip interviewing Chris ( President, Sony Pictures Technologies), if that screen door effect debate comes up again.

[Penton-Man]

^ Here it is… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...or#post8016489

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by doctorD

That Welker catch (or non-catch) is what did them in. They never recovered after it.

I went to the bathroom when that happened. Did the coaching staff ever dispute that catch?

[Canada]

Panasonic to release a TV with an HDMI 2.0 spec already.