4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Canada

CEA refines UHD 2160p

So what have they changed? It looks the same as earlier this year.

Obviously this is for broadcast television, if it's anything like the HD spec the discs will be a bit higher in regards to the specification they use. I still think we will get 4096 × 2160 on the disc.

TV: 3840 × 2160
Blu-ray Ultra HD: 4096 × 2160
DCI: 4096x3112

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

So what have they changed? It looks the same as earlier this year.

Obviously this is for broadcast television, if it's anything like the HD spec the discs will be a bit higher in regards to the specification they use. I still think we will get 4096 × 2160 on the disc.

TV: 3840 × 2160
Blu-ray Ultra HD: 4096 × 2160
DCI: 4096x3112

Now that would be a good move.

[Geoff D]

How is the "HD spec...a bit higher in regards to the specifications they use"? Broadcast HDTV is 1920x1080 (we even have 1080p Freeview broadcasts in the UK), Blu-ray is 1920x1080. UHD will be no different, they'll use the same res for both TV and video: 3840x2160.

And the CEA specs mentioned in the post above aren't for "broadcast television", they're outlining what the minimum spec of 4K/UHD display devices should be.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

How is the "HD spec...a bit higher in regards to the specifications they use"? Broadcast HDTV is 1920x1080 (we even have 1080p Freeview broadcasts in the UK), Blu-ray is 1920x1080. UHD will be no different, they'll use the same res for both TV and video: 3840x2160.

And the CEA specs mentioned in the post above aren't for "broadcast television", they're outlining what the minimum spec of 4K/UHD display devices should be.

I wish they would have made 4k tvs with 1.90:1 aspect ratio and gave us full 4096x2160.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, that would've been nice but it'd cause more problems than it'd solve at this point, given how the 1.78 frame size has become the de facto standard for home video content. So on top of having to scale/border/crop all that legacy material to fit the new ratio when playing it back, we'd have very similar issues with 1.85 content because that still wouldn't fit the screen perfectly; remember that even 1.85 theatrical deliverables have a 1998x1080/3996x2160 resolution, they don't share the full width (2048/4096) of scope content.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

How is the "HD spec...a bit higher in regards to the specifications they use"? Broadcast HDTV is 1920x1080 (we even have 1080p Freeview broadcasts in the UK), Blu-ray is 1920x1080. UHD will be no different, they'll use the same res for both TV and video: 3840x2160.

And the CEA specs mentioned in the post above aren't for "broadcast television", they're outlining what the minimum spec of 4K/UHD display devices should be.

I didn't know it had changed to 1080p, it used to just be 1080i.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, that would've been nice but it'd cause more problems than it'd solve at this point, given how the 1.78 frame size has become the de facto standard for home video content. So on top of having to scale/border/crop all that legacy material to fit the new ratio when playing it back, we'd have very similar issues with 1.85 content because that still wouldn't fit the screen perfectly; remember that even 1.85 theatrical deliverables have a 1998x1080/3996x2160 resolution, they don't share the full width (2048/4096) of scope content.

I take it there's no chance of getting some kind of scaling option for scope content on 4KBD? I don't know how much of a PQ improvement you would get if you didn't have to use 25% of your scanlines on black bars, but it definately made an improvement with DVD when going from scope content letterboxed in a 1.33:1 frame vs. the anamorphic 1.78:1 frame.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, that would've been nice but it'd cause more problems than it'd solve at this point, given how the 1.78 frame size has become the de facto standard for home video content. So on top of having to scale/border/crop all that legacy material to fit the new ratio when playing it back, we'd have very similar issues with 1.85 content because that still wouldn't fit the screen perfectly; remember that even 1.85 theatrical deliverables have a 1998x1080/3996x2160 resolution, they don't share the full width (2048/4096) of scope content.

I remember they settled On 1.78:1 because of something that worked perfectly on a mathamatical level correct? Was there no way to make the aspect ratio a little wider to fit full 2k 2048x1080. I remember they were thinking about making the ratio like 2.00:1 or 2.10:1 originally I read somewhere but ended up setting on 1.78:1.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I take it there's no chance of getting some kind of scaling option for scope content on 4KBD? I don't know how much of a PQ improvement you would get if you didn't have to use 25% of your scanlines on black bars, but it definately made an improvement with DVD when going from scope content letterboxed in a 1.33:1 frame vs. the anamorphic 1.78:1 frame.

It'd be great if they did that, yeah. But considering that even theatrical DCPs don't encode the 2.40 image in that way (e.g. 2048x858), it's a long shot. (Although the data itself for 'scope movies is often stored in an anamorphically stretched form for archival purposes, should they need to run off another filmout.)

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

I remember they settled On 1.78:1 because of something that worked perfectly on a mathamatical level correct? Was there no way to make the aspect ratio a little wider to fit full 2k 2048x1080. I remember they were thinking about making the ratio like 2.00:1 or 2.10:1 originally I read somewhere but ended up setting on 1.78:1.

Indeed. 16:9 is a compromise that was chosen in the CRT era when anything wider would have been unfaesible with that technology. 16:9 was chosen over 15:9 or anything other as it apparently matches the aspect ratio used in the works of Canaletto which are apparently especially pleasing. Now we live in a flat panel world there is no reason why wider aspect ratios could not be used for displays.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Indeed. 16:9 is a compromise that was chosen in the CRT era when anything wider would have been unfaesible with that technology. 16:9 was chosen over 15:9 or anything other as it apparently matches the aspect ratio used in the works of Canaletto which are apparently especially pleasing. Now we live in a flat panel world there is no reason why wider aspect ratios could not be used for displays.

I would like a wider ratio if it improves things. Perhaps a couple of Tesla coils as well, with some of the crap they have been making lately I could do with one to jolt me back awake.

Choose what ever they go with at the speed there going about it I could have knocked together a better format and a film worth watching to release on it.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I would like a wider ratio if it improves things. Perhaps a couple of Tesla coils as well, with some of the crap they have been making lately I could do with one to jolt me back awake.

Choose what ever they go with at the speed there going about it I could have knocked together a better format and a film worth watching to release on it.

What I think you are after is an Interocitor, the triangular screen may get some getting used to and the self destruct mechanism may prove awkward.

Seriously though, I think if we could get full 4K that would be a good thing. If 4K Blu-Ray is going to be niche as many here suggest, then this would surely cater to us niche buyers.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

What I think you are after is an Interocitor, the triangular screen may get some getting used to and the self destruct mechanism may prove awkward.

Seriously though, I think if we could get full 4K that would be a good thing. If 4K Blu-Ray is going to be niche as many here suggest, then this would surely cater to us niche buyers.

yes full 4 will do.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

What I think you are after is an Interocitor, the triangular screen may get some getting used to and the self destruct mechanism may prove awkward.

Seriously though, I think if we could get full 4K that would be a good thing. If 4K Blu-Ray is going to be niche as many here suggest, then this would surely cater to us niche buyers.

They could widen it out to 1.90:1 and that would be 4096x2160. But the again, 2.40:1 would be encoded with black bars as part of that resolution so we would lose out there right? I guess it doesn't really matter then.

[bailey1987]

What ratio and resolution would be required to display a film in it's OAR with no pixels wasted on black bars?

[Canada]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

What ratio and resolution would be required to display a film in it's OAR with no pixels wasted on black bars?

Wouldn't that all depend on the resolution and ratio of each individual movie and what kind of film or digital the movie was shot on?

1:78:1 shot at 3840x2160 resolution which will never happen because that is not a resolution used for film or digital cinema?

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Canada

Wouldn't that all depend on the resolution and ratio of each individual movie and what kind of film or digital the movie was shot on?

1:78:1 shot at 3840x2160 resolution which will never happen because that is not a resolution used for film or digital cinema?

I'm guessing what with there being too different go to ratio's that the dimensions of a television will always be a compromise.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's not quite true about the bit depth. As long as the manufacturers have done the firmware fiddle (e.g. Sony) to 1.4 hardware to enable certain features of the HDMI 2.0 spec up to the 10.2 Gb/s limitation, then something like 10-bit 4:2:0 2160p24 should be fine....

Correct . In fact, HDMI 2.0 can even pass 12-bit 2160p24, which is of some long range future proof relevance because 12-bit should be sufficient for BT.2020 color primaries plus HDR (at well over 1,000 nits peak capable brightness), using Dolby’s perceptual transfer curve.

P.S.
In fact, as Richard correctly alluded to on the last page, only 10-bit would be needed for BT.2020 with traditional standard dynamic range imagery….even using the less efficient 2.4 EOTF gamma.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I take it there's no chance of getting some kind of scaling option for scope content on 4KBD? I don't know how much of a PQ improvement you would get if you didn't have to use 25% of your scanlines on black bars, but it definately made an improvement with DVD when going from scope content letterboxed in a 1.33:1 frame vs. the anamorphic 1.78:1 frame.

The problem is that while it would improve things slightly on those who have 21:9 televisions it would be a negative for those with 16:9 ones since it would require 25% more compression with no improvement in resolution. For me 21:9 televisions seem absurd to me. 16:9 was picked because it was a nice half way point between cinemascope theaters and standard 4:3 movies of the past. A television that wide would be a nightmare when watching 4:3 programs like Gone with the Wind or Wizard of Oz. So I'm hoping that Ultra HD Blu-Rays keep the native 16:9 format of standard Blu-Rays myself

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The problem is that while it would improve things slightly on those who have 21:9 televisions it would be a negative for those with 16:9 ones since it would require 25% more compression with no improvement in resolution. For me 21:9 televisions seem absurd to me. 16:9 was picked because it was a nice half way point between cinemascope theaters and standard 4:3 movies of the past. A television that wide would be a nightmare when watching 4:3 programs like Gone with the Wind or Wizard of Oz. So I'm hoping that Ultra HD Blu-Rays keep the native 16:9 format of standard Blu-Rays myself

I'm not wanting scaling for 21:9 TVs, but an option to have an anamorphic encoding of sorts where all of the available pixels can be used for the movie only, and not wasted on the letterbox bars on the top and bottom of the image.