4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Marcus Fenix]

Will it take 10 minutes to load a disc?
I think it takes way too long already to load a standard blu-ray...

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I really think they need to deploy 66GB and hopefully 100GB discs from the outset. If they can’t commit R&D to exceeding 33GB per layer maybe they can at least improve yields on 3-layer disc manufacture. Somebody please reassure me ...

I don't think 66Gb or 100Gb are anything to be concerned about, if it's supported by the current BD spec or the BDXL spec I suspect it will be there from launch, it's any sizes higher than those supported by BDXL that you should be concerned about as it sounds like BD wont be getting any higher discs than the current BDXL spec allows.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Thinking about Bill Hunt’s piece (esp. his comments on how the large studios are geared to scale), I doubt we’ll get much catalogue from the major studios on this format. Initially there’ll be a spurt (Kwai and so forth), then it should settle mainly into premium-priced new titles. I guess that eventually it’ll fall to the indies to release more catalogue on 4K provided they can get the licencing.

That's what I said in one of the other threads, it might end up being the boutique labels that keep 4K BD going. Heck, if anything it'll be catalogue content that will actually drive the format onwards for quite a while, because most movies are still finished at 2K. Sony do their best with new 4K releases, natch, but not everyone will want what they're selling and 4K finishes from other studios are few and far between.

Still, I've also said that upscaled 2K movies could still take advantage of 4K BD's other attributes but most people simply can't see past the resolution thing (like that's all that matters ), so it probably wouldn't be a good idea in the short term. So, 4K BD will basically consist of photochemically finished catalogue movies from all quarters, and new 4K theatrical/TV releases, mainly from one studio.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Marcus Fenix

Will it take 10 minutes to load a disc?
I think it takes way too long already to load a standard blu-ray...

It will be interesting if the launch players are slow, I have an old pioneer which used to take about two minutes longer than the PlayStation 3 to load, also just navigating the Blu-ray's main menu took longer on the pioneer. An old Sony player I have is about on par with the PlayStation 3 but it lacks WiFi so BD Live was never used on it.

Currently I am using the PlayStation 4 but it's got terrible lip sync issues apart from that everything is on par with the PlayStation 3. I need a new stand alone player that has built in WiFi but it can't be as bad at load speed as the early Blu-ray players were.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's what I said in one of the other threads, it might end up being the boutique labels that keep 4K BD going. Heck, if anything it'll be catalogue content that will actually drive the format onwards for quite a while, because most movies are still finished at 2K. Sony do their best with new 4K releases, natch, but not everyone will want what they're selling and 4K finishes from other studios are few and far between.

Still, I've also said that upscaled 2K movies could still take advantage of 4K BD's other attributes but most people simply can't see past the resolution thing (like that's all that matters ), so it probably wouldn't be a good idea in the short term. So, 4K BD will basically consist of photochemically finished catalogue movies from all quarters, and new 4K theatrical/TV releases, mainly from one studio.

I'm sure this has been said before too, but even if the results end up suboptimal next to what 4K could be, to me it'll be worthwhile just to get Cinemascope films at a res higher than 1920x800ish. I was never quite happy w/ letterboxing on Blu-ray.

(I'd prefer not to have letterboxing on 4K either but due to higher overall res there it doesn't matter so much.)

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I read an article suggesting 4K Blu Ray is a stand against or to fight the popularity of streaming.

Which must be incorrect but it certainly wouldn't work at any rate. Blu Ray has always provided higher quality than streaming but people who like the streaming don't care about that.

Well when Blu-Ray first launched any video streaming was crap even by standards of the DVDs. Today streaming has caught up significantly. Netflix SuperHD broadcasts generally surpass the upconverted DVDs and while Blu-Rays still easily look better its not as overwhelming as it used to be.

This is especially true Netflix has offered a few programs such as House of Cards Season 2 and a few nature shows via 4k streaming in HEVC compressed bitrates of 15 mps. In direct comparisons the 4k streams slightly best the upconverted blu-rays though the Blu-Ray is still better in audio quality. So if you can access the 4k stream of House of Cards from Netflix it makes little sense to buy the Blu-Ray when the disc costs as much as 3 months membership

Thus for physical media to retain a quality edge to justify its existence against the cheaper streaming services an upgrade is due

[RonDM]

Unless you can afford to have your own private theater with a 100" screen, or enjoy sitting 3 ft. from the screen, you will not see much difference. The human eye will have a hard time detecting the difference between 1080p and 4K from normal viewing distances on reasonably sized TV screens. So, best solution is to go with the flow, buy 4K when prices are lower, sit close when watching 4K, and sit further away when viewing your standard Blu-ray collection.

[Mansinthe]

reasonably sized TV screen... get a job. by some decent equip....

4k is so much more than resolution....

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by RonDM

Unless you can afford to have your own private theater with a 100" screen, or enjoy sitting 3 ft. from the screen, you will not see much difference. The human eye will have a hard time detecting the difference between 1080p and 4K from normal viewing distances on reasonably sized TV screens. So, best solution is to go with the flow, buy 4K when prices are lower, sit close when watching 4K, and sit further away when viewing your standard Blu-ray collection.

Someone told me that when I bought into DVD (not the 100 inch screen thing though!) they were wrong!

[Joce]

Originally Posted by RonDM

Unless you can afford to have your own private theater with a 100" screen, or enjoy sitting 3 ft. from the screen, you will not see much difference. The human eye will have a hard time detecting the difference between 1080p and 4K from normal viewing distances on reasonably sized TV screens. So, best solution is to go with the flow, buy 4K when prices are lower, sit close when watching 4K, and sit further away when viewing your standard Blu-ray collection.

Unless you have eye problems, at 60/65" screen and from normal viewing distance you can easily make a difference between 1080p and 4K.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by RonDM

Unless you can afford to have your own private theater with a 100" screen, or enjoy sitting 3 ft. from the screen, you will not see much difference. The human eye will have a hard time detecting the difference between 1080p and 4K from normal viewing distances on reasonably sized TV screens. So, best solution is to go with the flow, buy 4K when prices are lower, sit close when watching 4K, and sit further away when viewing your standard Blu-ray collection.

How about this: you do what you want, I do what I want, everyone does what they want.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

You would look even more beautiful yourself in 4K.

To be honest in just about every store I go to, BD is always heavily outnumbered by DVD especially in stores like Target where unfortunately if anything, they've cut down on their already limited selection of BDs with DVDs. I don't like it but it goes to show that DVD is still going strong.

dvd is quite strong for sure. i just thought with 1080p blu rays being so cheap and now 4k that dvd might be finished.

are there lots of dvd websites like this one where people discuss movies, dvd transfers and stuff like that. just wondering as i'm typing

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Well when Blu-Ray first launched any video streaming was crap even by standards of the DVDs. Today streaming has caught up significantly. Netflix SuperHD broadcasts generally surpass the upconverted DVDs and while Blu-Rays still easily look better its not as overwhelming as it used to be.

This is especially true Netflix has offered a few programs such as House of Cards Season 2 and a few nature shows via 4k streaming in HEVC compressed bitrates of 15 mps. In direct comparisons the 4k streams slightly best the upconverted blu-rays though the Blu-Ray is still better in audio quality. So if you can access the 4k stream of House of Cards from Netflix it makes little sense to buy the Blu-Ray when the disc costs as much as 3 months membership

Thus for physical media to retain a quality edge to justify its existence against the cheaper streaming services an upgrade is due

for sure!

Originally Posted by Teazle

How about this: you do what you want, I do what I want, everyone does what they want.

that sounds fair.

[radagast]

It's a good thing Blu-ray won the format war. HD-DVD would never have been able to handle 4K.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Thinking about Bill Hunt’s piece (esp. his comments on how the large studios are geared to scale), I doubt we’ll get much catalogue from the major studios on this format. Initially there’ll be a spurt (Kwai and so forth), then it should settle mainly into premium-priced new titles. I guess that eventually it’ll fall to the indies to release more catalogue on 4K provided they can get the licencing.

weren't people saying the same with HD?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Marcus Fenix

Will it take 10 minutes to load a disc?
I think it takes way too long already to load a standard blu-ray...

10 ,minutes? are you including sitting through previews? it never took me anywhere near that long to start any BD.


As to the question, considering the specs will only be finalized next year I don't think anyone can answer a serious question on how long it will take to load a film

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

dvd is quite strong for sure. i just thought with 1080p blu rays being so cheap and now 4k that dvd might be finished.

are there lots of dvd websites like this one where people discuss movies, dvd transfers and stuff like that. just wondering as i'm typing

for sure!


that sounds fair.

That's a fair assumption to make because you're right that Blu-Rays (both players and discs) are so affordable these days, but unfortunately people are either ignorant to the improvements of HD, are uneducated on the matter and/or simply don't care because as cheap as BD is now, DVD will always be a little bit cheaper for obvious reasons, and that makes all the difference to a lot of people.

I know this site has a 'DVD forum'.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I really think they need to deploy 66GB and hopefully 100GB discs from the outset.

What are your reasons for feeling this way?

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

That's a fair assumption to make because you're right that Blu-Rays (both players and discs) are so affordable these days, but unfortunately people are either ignorant to the improvements of HD, are uneducated on the matter and/or simply don't care because as cheap as BD is now, DVD will always be a little bit cheaper for obvious reasons, and that makes all the difference to a lot of people.

I know this site has a 'DVD forum'.

oh i didn't know there was a dvd forum. thanks

[zbinks]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

weren't people saying the same with HD?

If it weren't for third party licensees, it'd be mostly true for HD, too.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

That's a fair assumption to make because you're right that Blu-Rays (both players and discs) are so affordable these days, but unfortunately people are either ignorant to the improvements of HD, are uneducated on the matter and/or simply don't care because as cheap as BD is now, DVD will always be a little bit cheaper for obvious reasons, and that makes all the difference to a lot of people.

and VHS, for the same reasons, was also a bit cheaper. Sure did not save it from extinction.

The problem is that you are missing the obvious in the later part of your analysis, cheaper is not a fact but an option. what I mean is this, let's say we have a=11$, b=10$, c=9$, which is cheaper? now what if we have a=11$, b=10$? The person looking for the cheapest price in the first case would buy c while in the second case they would buy b.

You are also missing that cheaper tends to mean lower margins.

So what you end up with a simple question (without necessarily a simple answer) of "at what point in time does it make sense to risk losing the cheap customer?" based on savings as well as some of the other cheap customers moving to what is now the cheapest.