Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Penton-Man]

You guys been busy. No way I can get up-to-speed on this thread right now but I’ll try to contribute at least a few quickie replies to posts on this page….while Ray is taking a breather for the next round.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Tok

Is raygendreau really pagemaster and THXGuru?

No.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

xvYCC is very old news...

Indeed, from April 8 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ab#post7391680 but I see that previously supplied link in that old post is no longer functional, so here goes, I’ll try again –

http://hopa.memberclicks.net/assets/...rHPA_FINAL.pdf

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the latest gadget

I admit I kinda like this one –

Samsung Galaxy Gear: A Long Time Coming - YouTube

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You are assuming ever title released on 4K will be stunning with their increased resolution, I wager many (most) catalog titles will not. That is why I have repeatedly stated that I will move to 4K ASAP but will be VERY selective in titles that I purchase.

IMO, you are a victim of whacked out display settings, you should reserve your judgements till you can see a display that has been properly D65 calibrated.

xvYCC is very old news, Mastered in 4K BDs is old news, some comments here.

I have already posted the next improvement in color gamut will come with Rec. 2020

It is quite OK to be enthusiastic 4K, it is not OK to come here and post all this BS about how physical is in decline, streaming and downloads is the future, etc.

Exactly. I find it hilarious that the hype brigade for 4K is trying to pass it off as a major break through. How many BDs have we seen on 1080 that were sourced from poor masters? Do they really think the studios are going to pull out all the stops to ensure that most of the coming 4K releases are significantly better than current offerings?

The fact still remains that 4K requires a larger display and closer viewing distance than usual for the home to truly appreciate the 'subtle' differences.

Look, I am all for tech improving but I am taking this so called major increase of quality claim with a grain of salt. As said earlier 1080p for the home is very close to cinema 2K which I agree on very large screens at the theaters is lacking. At home though 1080p/2K is more than adequate for even large home projection systems.

The other thing that is getting overlooked is while the prices of the 4K sets drop is that that will also cause the prices of 1080p sets to drop. The current state of the economy and the general consumer dictates that most consumers will be drawn to cheaper 1080p sets.

Again I am not entirely against 4K but I highly doubt it is going fix all the ills of the home video industry. Edge enhancement, DNR and reuse of old transfers are not going to disappear on 4K video.

[Lucy Diamond]

I bought 8 more blurays this weekend

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

Exactly. I find it hilarious that the hype brigade for 4K is trying to pass it off as a major break through. How many BDs have we seen on 1080 that were sourced from poor masters? Do they really think the studios are going to pull out all the stops to ensure that most of the coming 4K releases are significantly better than current offerings?

The fact still remains that 4K requires a larger display and closer viewing distance than usual for the home to truly appreciate the 'subtle' differences.

Look, I am all for tech improving but I am taking this so called major increase of quality claim with a grain of salt. As said earlier 1080p for the home is very close to cinema 2K which I agree on very large screens at the theaters is lacking. At home though 1080p/2K is more than adequate for even large home projection systems.

The other thing that is getting overlooked is while the prices of the 4K sets drop is that that will also cause the prices of 1080p sets to drop. The current state of the economy and the general consumer dictates that most consumers will be drawn to cheaper 1080p sets.

Again I am not entirely against 4K but I highly doubt it is going fix all the ills of the home video industry. Edge enhancement, DNR and reuse of old transfers are not going to disappear on 4K video.

Why settle for more than adequate though? Why not crave the very best. Most reviews I have read relating to 4k state that you can see the quality difference at normal viewing distance.

[bruceames]

I have not seen 4k, but if it's a clear improvement given my current screen size and viewing distance (58" tv at 6 feet), than sure I would want it. However, with my current setup, I am very satisfied with 1080p and would remain just as satisfied with it even when something better comes along (in whatever form). If I were to have a dedicated HT room with a really large screen though than I would probably anticipate 4k more though. But as it is, I'm not really hankering for something better like I did with DVD (after I bought an HDTV back in the day).

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Why settle for more than adequate though? Why not crave the very best. Most reviews I have read relating to 4k state that you can see the quality difference at normal viewing distance.

As I said I am not against it, but I am not drooling over what is essentially hype.

Remember the reviewers are drooling over getting anything new. BD has been around over seven years.

I've seen the HD vs UHD demos at BB. I rate those demos similar to Monster cable demos where they compared their HDMI cable vs. a generic composite cable. The material is cherry picked and text that is one pixel wide on UHD was made to look worse than it really would on a 1080p set (referring to the soccer demo).

As I said I am not against, but the jump from HD to UHD is not the earth shattering experience that it was going from SD to HD. Remember even in the SD era we had large three gun CRT projection sets that showed the lacking quality of the signal at when blow up to 50 inches.

Sure the average sized screen has increased, but I still don't think most homes can accommodate even larger screen sizes. IOW, I don's see the day when the average size screen is 100 inches.

And when I say more than adequate referring to BD, I mean it looks pretty damn good. I really have my doubts about 4K especially if we don't get a true physical disc. IOW, Sony can keep their download and server solution.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Most reviews I have read relating to 4k state that you can see the quality difference at normal viewing distance.

IMO, the quality difference should be apparent to anyone with "normal" vision.

I think a lot of the skepticism is the result of many titles released on Blu-ray that did not have a optimal transfer. I thought the same about MANY LaserDisc and DVD titles.

I have replaced quite a few DVD titles with the same title on Blu-ray. In most every case the video does show some improvement over the DVD version but there are many titles where the improvement is marginal.

Audio is another matter, there are many catalog titles with Dolby Stereo soundtracks and they release them on Blu-ray (and DVD) with a only a 5.1 soundtrack. In most cases I find these to be inferior compared to the original Dolby Stereo and letting my processor do its thing. As usual, there are many exceptions to this.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I have not seen 4k, but if it's a clear improvement given my current screen size and viewing distance (58" tv at 6 feet), than sure I would want it. However, with my current setup, I am very satisfied with 1080p and would remain just as satisfied with it even when something better comes along (in whatever form). If I were to have a dedicated HT room with a really large screen though than I would probably anticipate 4k more though. But as it is, I'm not really hankering for something better like I did with DVD (after I bought an HDTV back in the day).

I have a 100-in projection setup with a SXRD projector. Prior to that I had an LCD unit on the same screen where the screen door effect made the image more digital when viewed from a few feet from the screen. And before that I had a Matterhorn(576) DLP unit on a 92-in screen. The one thing that is in common with all those setups was that DVDs were never meant to be blown up to that size. Blu-ray makes the cut for even home projection setups.

4K+ is needed for the large screen commercial multiplexes where screens are measured in tens of feet not inches.

As I said I am not for stifling tech advancements I just think that for the home video industry and the size of our displays we are reaching the plateau point of diminishing return despite the advancement in resolution. Sure there are other advancements there in the color gamuts, but I'll throw this out also. Couldn't some of the those advancements be applied to the existing resolution formats. VHS and Beta had tech advancements applied to them over the course of their run. Sony's already playing proprietary games with how their 'Mastered in 4K' BDs work with their hardware to increase color reproduction capabilities.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Tok

Sure the average sized screen has increased, but I still don't think most homes can accommodate even larger screen sizes. IOW, I don's see the day when the average size screen is 100 inches.

IMO, 4K will appeal more to us projector types. From another thread:

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Have wanted to change from a 106", 1.78 screen to a CIH 133", 2.35 screen for sometime now. It is hoped the upcoming Sony VPL-VW600ES will look very good when zoomed to fill the screen using letter boxed 1080 or 2160 source material.

It appears that we are never going to get any 2.35:1 anamorphic content on Blu-ray so I do not see much hope of getting any on UHD Blu-ray.

Also, there is no mandate for 4K like there was for ATSC. That could change but I believe that is many years away.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

IMO, the quality difference should be apparent to anyone with "normal" vision.

I think a lot of the skepticism is the result of many titles released on Blu-ray that did not have a optimal transfer. I thought the same about MANY LaserDisc and DVD titles.

I have replaced quite a few DVD titles with the same title on Blu-ray. In most every case the video does show some improvement over the DVD version but there are many titles where the improvement is marginal.

Audio is another matter, there are many catalog titles with Dolby Stereo soundtracks and they release them on Blu-ray (and DVD) with a only a 5.1 soundtrack. In most cases I find these to be inferior compared to the original Dolby Stereo and letting my processor do its thing. As usual, there are many exceptions to this.

I have serious doubts in most video with motion that it will be easy for 'most' to easily see the difference. Sure in high resolution still frame it will become easier, but in full motion video and unless viewed side by side it might not be so easy.

Also a lot of the current content has been cherry picked and enhanced to help to sell the format. As I said early, the likelihood that all the ills of the home video industry are going to be cured with 4K transfers is extremely unlikely.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

IMO, the quality difference should be apparent to anyone with "normal" vision.

I think a lot of the skepticism is the result of many titles released on Blu-ray that did not have a optimal transfer. I thought the same about MANY LaserDisc and DVD titles.

I have replaced quite a few DVD titles with the same title on Blu-ray. In most every case the video does show some improvement over the DVD version but there are many titles where the improvement is marginal.

Audio is another matter, there are many catalog titles with Dolby Stereo soundtracks and they release them on Blu-ray (and DVD) with a only a 5.1 soundtrack. In most cases I find these to be inferior compared to the original Dolby Stereo and letting my processor do its thing. As usual, there are many exceptions to this.

Of course it should. If it isn't, then that person must be in another room to his display

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

IMO, 4K will appeal more to us projector types. From another thread:



Also, there is no mandate for 4K like there was for ATSC. That could change but I believe that is many years away.

Agreed. The broadcasting industry just spent a lot of money upgrading to the ATSC standard. I don't think they are going to open the checkbook again so soon especially with so many predicting the end of OTA broadcasting. Although I think those predicting this are way off in how soon that will happen. We are many years away from the Superbowl not being on free live OTA broadcasts. Heck FM and even AM radio broadcasts are still around. Those will disappear long before OTA ATSC broadcasts cease to exist.

The most likely scenario for 4K in the near to mid term future is success on the level of Laserdisc meaning a niche market. Remember what sold HD. Live sporting events were a significant improvement in HD. Until 4K is broadcast at more than a prove the tech level it will be a slow climb.

I don't see selling films in 4K as being a push for the general TV viewer to upgrade. That's probably blasphemy at this site, but we are an extremely small minority here compared to the average consumer. Sure we help drive the industry by adopting new tech, but the industry cannot rely on just us. So until things like the Superbowl and other major events are broadcast in 4K there won't be much to push casual viewers to buy 4K.

I still know a number of people that don't think BD is much better than DVD. And many consumers have begrudgingly upgraded to BD. I don't think the prospect of purchasing films in a new resolution/format is going to be a large enough driving force. If wasn't for the changing television standards there was no need to move to BD. I just think that lauching another format is way too soon. I am sticking with BD until 4K is a commodity product. It won't be for some time.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

Agreed. The broadcasting industry just spent a lot of money upgrading to the ATSC standard. I don't think they are going to open the checkbook again so soon especially with so many predicting the end of OTA broadcasting. Although I think those predicting this are way off in how soon that will happen. We are many years away from the Superbowl not being on free live OTA broadcasts. Heck FM and even AM radio broadcasts are still around. Those will disappear long before OTA ATSC broadcasts cease to exist.

The most likely scenario for 4K in the near to mid term future is success on the level of Laserdisc meaning a niche market. Remember what sold HD. Live sporting events were a significant improvement in HD. Until 4K is broadcast at more than a prove the tech level it will be a slow climb.

I don't see selling films in 4K as being a push for the general TV viewer to upgrade. That's probably blasphemy at this site, but we are an extremely small minority here compared to the average consumer. Sure we help drive the industry by adopting new tech, but the industry cannot rely on just us. So until things like the Superbowl and other major events are broadcast in 4K there won't be much to push casual viewers to buy 4K.

I still know a number of people that don't think BD is much better than DVD. And many consumers have begrudgingly upgraded to BD. I don't the prospect of purchasing films in a new resolution/format. If wasn't for the changing television standards there was no need to move to BD. I just think that lauching another format is way too soon. I am sticking with BD until 4K is a commodity product. It won't be for some time.

Cable/sat will not lose their grip IMO. It's just wishful thinking by streaming fanboys.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cable/sat will not lose their grip IMO. It's just wishful thinking by streaming fanboys.

Agreed. There's too much money on the table in the current model that they they to figure how to make up for if the model is going to change.

The people that claim cutting the cord is easy are not sport fans and have little need for live event coverage. I still think that some of them are getting content they want through questionable means. I know some that have watched a few pirated streams of DirecTV Sunday NFL ticket when their team was in a big game. And I am sure a lot of those streaming/download proponents aren't buying TV episodes on iTunes or relying on Netflix exclusively.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

Agreed. There's too much money on the table in the current model that they they to figure how to make up for if the model is going to change.

The people that claim cutting the cord is easy are not sport fans and have little need for live event coverage. I still think that some of them are getting content they want through questionable means. I know some that have watched a few pirated streams of DirecTV Sunday NFL ticket when their team was in a big game. And I am sure a lot of those streaming/download proponents aren't buying TV episodes on iTunes or relying on Netflix exclusively.

The sport is the key. I would dump sat/cable tomorrow if it wasn't for the live football. These companies have us by the ***** and they know it. Just my opinion, anyway.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Also, there is no mandate for 4K like there was for ATSC. That could change but I believe that is many years away.

yup, it also took many years before ATSC was mandated. And the main difference is that ATSC (over NTSC) suffers less from co-channel (how close the same channel RF can be used) and adjacent channel (the next or previous RF channel number) issues*. The big reason for the push was not to push tech or to make sure NTSC would work until a given date but so that the government could squeeze the RF spectrum and recuperate some of it so that it could be sold into other uses (i.e. the real channel numbers went from 2-69 back in NTSC days but with the change the channels will have a real value between 7-51**)

I can't see that there will be such a real benefit for governments moving to 4K.

if anyone is interested in a bit more

* The RF is not precise to begin with and it can shift a bit as it is traveling, this is still true with ATSC but with NTSC there is no differentiation between different streams while with ATSC it can differentiate between the data packets. So if channel 20 was strong enough and there was something on 19 when you changed the channel to 19 it might have a ghost of what was shown on 20 as well (in other words a mess)

** each channel has 6 MHz in NTSC VHF-lo 2-6 is 54-88, VHF-hi 7-13 174-216 MHZ and UHF 14-69 470-806 MHz these have to do with how TV evolved in the early years. ATSC dropped the VHF-lo channels as well as free up any channel above 51 (i.e. it is now 470-698 MHz). With ATSC except for the smaller range available you also have real channel number and virtual channel number. So for example in the old NTSC days I had CBS that was channel 3 (i.e. VHF-lo), now it is channel 22 (UHF) for real but my TV still tells me it is channel 3 because the real number is 22 but the virtual is 3 so that people used to going to channel 3 for CBS can still do so.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The sport is the key. I would dump sat/cable tomorrow if it wasn't for the live football. These companies have us by the ***** and they know it. Just my opinion, anyway.

Also, I don't think many of the download/streaming brigade realize how much money the cable companies collect goes to paying for channels like AMC and others that produce a number of highly demanded shows. If the cable TV revenue stream goes away, the channels will have to make it up elsewhere if viewers want to continue seeing the quality produced shows.

There's too much of people wanting to get everything they demand and paying little or nothing for it. The race to the bottom continues...