Is 4k it..or is there more? - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

Steelmaker · 04-17-2017, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ol_Dut

4k, 16k, 32k, it's all a lot of hoopla. Blu-ray is as far down this road I am going to go. With dvd still the dominant home format, anything past blu-ray seems like it's targeting a really small market.

Agreed. 1080p Blu Ray is my "good enough" threshold. I have no desire to upgrade yet AGAIN.

1234567? · 04-17-2017, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

So in 30 years are homes are going to be larger? That is the only justification for higher resolution, sitting in front of a larger screen farther away.

4K projectors with a 120 inch screen are already way larger than 99.9% of home theaters can handle with the proper viewing distance.

Sitting 4 feet away from a 65 inch tv does not allow you to see the entire image clearly, your vision cannot have all of the screen in focus.

??? I think you are misunderstanding my post. Ultra screen will surely exist at large sizes for theatres of course. Home maybe 10 12 ft screens at most. I can see 8k coming from screens that big. Other benifits are surely coming as well. Wait till Native 3d Holography. You'll see 33+k on something in 30 years.
Gamers, Astronomers, photographers, Hell even video editors have a need for much higher resolution. I think we'll reach a part of time where in 10-12 years flat screens will be obsolete.

As for now I am more then pleased with whats out there, but I have an idea of whats coming or will be coming. So naturally I will upgrade overtime.

GunZenBomZ · 04-18-2017, 06:20 PM

Loving how people flip flop opinions instead of been honest on this site,, some of you should re-read previous threads. Doesn't espouse great confidence either in you're memory or longitudinal thinking guys.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284305

Dwayne · 04-20-2017, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunZenBomZ

Loving how people flip flop opinions instead of been honest on this site,, some of you should re-read previous threads. Doesn't espouse great confidence either in you're memory or longitudinal thinking guys.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284305

I'm with Brad1963 in the link you have provided

. He is holding out for the 401K format,

. Funny as Hell

.

Aragorn the Elfstone · 05-14-2017, 07:05 PM

There will always be more, because TV manufacturers will always want to sell more TVs. 8K might not interest average viewers, but they'll package it with "Super High Dynamic Range" or "Burn-Your-Eyes-Out-Of-Your-Sockets Dynamic Range", etc. so that those same people think "Oh my god! I have to have that!"

AaronY · 05-15-2017, 02:20 AM

Of course there will be more. I mean you think a thousand years in the future this will be it? Lol

Eventually TV's will be as big as the wall in your living room and not that far in the future I don't think so 8k will have practical value

slimdude · 05-15-2017, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronY

Of course there will be more. I mean you think a thousand years in the future this will be it? Lol

I know people take life for granted, but this takes the cake! Tomorrow is not promised to any of us, lest predicting what's going to happen in the next thousand years.

richieb1971 · 05-15-2017, 11:28 PM

I'm more interested in framerate upgrades than resolution.

I'd also like to see 3D get to a more mature level where its not a gimmick, but a technology where your looking into a box of holograms that is at 4k resolution. Thats where cinema should be taking us, where the actual projection has depth, rather than a flat screen.

djgcue · 05-16-2017, 03:34 PM

8K Super Hi-Vision

RockyIII · 05-17-2017, 11:51 AM

What do you guys know about Dynamic HDR10?

Brian81 · 05-18-2017, 11:42 PM

2K or HD is acceptable for me in a sense that if a film never ends up receiving an UHD release, I am fine with it... GRANTED that the available HD transfer is of 'reference quality'. 2K/HD looks fine in theaters, and looks fine even projected on 100"+ screens at proper viewing distances. But bad looking HD is not worthwhile at this point. Nor is ANYTHING SD (color NTSC is sixty-four year old tech). So quality HD is the minimum requirement for acceptable viewing of a film at larger screen sizes, IMO.

UHD is obviously preferable at this point, because it allows for video quality that is closer to the source. It also has the added benefit of new scans that replace old ones.

Goremeister100 · 05-22-2017, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronY

Of course there will be more. I mean you think a thousand years in the future this will be it? Lol

Good one. The way man keeps raping the planet (I'm looking at you China), I doubt we'll be here for a tenth of that time.

Gain · 05-30-2017, 11:14 PM

For movies and TV made over the last hundred years blu-ray is good enough, but there will probably be a use for a much higher-k resolution in the future. I'm not into modern movies or TV at all, so I'm happy to stick with blu-ray. I doubt the resolution in movie theaters were better than 2k blu-ray anyways. I remember the screens being stained and torn, and a lot times what looked like the projectionist eyeballing the focus on the projector.

MassiveMovieBuff · 05-30-2017, 11:19 PM

Quality 1080p blu rays are just fine with me.

tjritter79 · 05-31-2017, 01:20 AM

How to answer this.....?
Well, I'm old enough to have listened to Sgt. Pepper on vinyl in 1967, on an console RCA stereo...thinking, this cannot possibly get any better.
Yet, in time, I've now owned the same recording on 8-track, cassette, CD, USB drive, etc. Each time thinking "this satisfies me, I'll never have to buy this again!" Only to have to buy it again....So, take it from me, there is ALWAYS something better coming, and there will ALWAYS be a market for it!

BluVinyl · 05-31-2017, 03:23 AM

If my pj crashed today, I would still get another 1080p pj. The Optima 4K pj coming out under $3000 makes me think that if my pj lasts another 2 years and breaks a 4K pj might make sense. But for almost everything I'll just upconvert my BDs. I might rebuy a few favorites that got great reviews, but I'll probably live with upconverting. Maybe if I was younger and not paying for kids college I would care more, but I think even on a cheap (screengoo 120 inch screen.) I'm not going to see enough difference to care.

Petra_Kalbrain · 05-31-2017, 04:28 AM

Unless I win the lottery, reason dictates that I'll never be able to afford a screen big enough to truly take advantage of any resolution higher than 1080p anyways. So, 4K or higher really isn't an improvement worth the costs associated with it.

New TV (or projector + screen), new receiver, new HDMI cables, and new higher priced subscription services (cable programming, internet speeds/download capacities, etc.) just don't equate to enough added value for me.

JL13 · 05-31-2017, 04:29 AM

I collected vhs then dvd and now blu ray the buck stops here .....

partridge · 05-31-2017, 04:18 PM

HDR is what really separates 4K from full HD, but right now it's just not worth the upgrade, to me anyway.

Shalashaska · 05-31-2017, 04:32 PM

Unless ultra-thin wallpaper TVs become popular/affordable, 1080p is likely all the pixels most people will ever need once you take screen size and seating distance into account.

That's not all there is to PQ though. The real benefit to UHD is high dynamic range, wide colour gamut and improved colour depth.

I've heard some say HDR on a good HDR display is much more impressive than the jump from 1080p to 4K, or even DVD to Blu-ray.

I have yet to see it in action myself, but I'm excited.

05-18-2017, 11:42 PM	#31
Brian81 Blu-ray Champion Member since:Mar 2011 Trading Score:4	2K or HD is acceptable for me in a sense that if a film never ends up receiving an UHD release, I am fine with it... GRANTED that the available HD transfer is of 'reference quality'. 2K/HD looks fine in theaters, and looks fine even projected on 100"+ screens at proper viewing distances. But bad looking HD is not worthwhile at this point. Nor is ANYTHING SD (color NTSC is sixty-four year old tech). So quality HD is the minimum requirement for acceptable viewing of a film at larger screen sizes, IMO. UHD is obviously preferable at this point, because it allows for video quality that is closer to the source. It also has the added benefit of new scans that replace old ones. Last edited by Brian81; 05-18-2017 at 11:51 PM.

04-18-2017, 06:20 PM	#23
GunZenBomZ Senior Member Member since:Nov 2008 Location:Warwickshire, UK Home Theater Gallery:1 Blu-ray collection:156	Loving how people flip flop opinions instead of been honest on this site,, some of you should re-read previous threads. Doesn't espouse great confidence either in you're memory or longitudinal thinking guys. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284305

05-14-2017, 07:05 PM	#25
Aragorn the Elfstone Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Sep 2008 Location:The Secondary World 4K collection:244 Blu-ray collection:772 DVD collection:152 Digital collection:115	There will always be more, because TV manufacturers will always want to sell more TVs. 8K might not interest average viewers, but they'll package it with "Super High Dynamic Range" or "Burn-Your-Eyes-Out-Of-Your-Sockets Dynamic Range", etc. so that those same people think "Oh my god! I have to have that!"

05-15-2017, 02:20 AM	#26
AaronY Active Member Member since:Sep 2015	Of course there will be more. I mean you think a thousand years in the future this will be it? Lol Eventually TV's will be as big as the wall in your living room and not that far in the future I don't think so 8k will have practical value

05-15-2017, 11:28 PM	#28
richieb1971 Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:89 Blu-ray collection:706 Trading Score:16	I'm more interested in framerate upgrades than resolution. I'd also like to see 3D get to a more mature level where its not a gimmick, but a technology where your looking into a box of holograms that is at 4k resolution. Thats where cinema should be taking us, where the actual projection has depth, rather than a flat screen.

05-16-2017, 03:34 PM	#29
djgcue Senior Member Member since:Dec 2007	8K Super Hi-Vision

05-17-2017, 11:51 AM	#30
RockyIII Blu-ray Baron Member since:Feb 2016 Location:Miami, Fl Trading Score:25	What do you guys know about Dynamic HDR10?

05-30-2017, 11:14 PM	#33
Gain Junior Member Member since:Oct 2016	For movies and TV made over the last hundred years blu-ray is good enough, but there will probably be a use for a much higher-k resolution in the future. I'm not into modern movies or TV at all, so I'm happy to stick with blu-ray. I doubt the resolution in movie theaters were better than 2k blu-ray anyways. I remember the screens being stained and torn, and a lot times what looked like the projectionist eyeballing the focus on the projector.

05-30-2017, 11:19 PM	#34
MassiveMovieBuff Blu-ray Count Member since:Apr 2014 4K collection:411 Blu-ray collection:1629 DVD collection:97 Trading Score:3	Quality 1080p blu rays are just fine with me.

05-31-2017, 01:20 AM	#35
tjritter79 Power Member Top contributor Member since:Nov 2012 Location:Reading, Pa. Blu-ray collection:45 MA collection:959 Digital collection:1205 iTunes collection:1172	How to answer this.....? Well, I'm old enough to have listened to Sgt. Pepper on vinyl in 1967, on an console RCA stereo...thinking, this cannot possibly get any better. Yet, in time, I've now owned the same recording on 8-track, cassette, CD, USB drive, etc. Each time thinking "this satisfies me, I'll never have to buy this again!" Only to have to buy it again....So, take it from me, there is ALWAYS something better coming, and there will ALWAYS be a market for it!

05-31-2017, 03:23 AM	#36
BluVinyl Expert Member Member since:Mar 2010 Location:Maryland, USA Home Theater Gallery:24 4K collection:2 Blu-ray collection:552 DVD collection:18	If my pj crashed today, I would still get another 1080p pj. The Optima 4K pj coming out under $3000 makes me think that if my pj lasts another 2 years and breaks a 4K pj might make sense. But for almost everything I'll just upconvert my BDs. I might rebuy a few favorites that got great reviews, but I'll probably live with upconverting. Maybe if I was younger and not paying for kids college I would care more, but I think even on a cheap (screengoo 120 inch screen.) I'm not going to see enough difference to care.

05-31-2017, 04:28 AM	#37
Petra_Kalbrain Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Vancouver, BC 4K collection:5 Blu-ray collection:561 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:20	Unless I win the lottery, reason dictates that I'll never be able to afford a screen big enough to truly take advantage of any resolution higher than 1080p anyways. So, 4K or higher really isn't an improvement worth the costs associated with it. New TV (or projector + screen), new receiver, new HDMI cables, and new higher priced subscription services (cable programming, internet speeds/download capacities, etc.) just don't equate to enough added value for me.

05-31-2017, 04:29 AM	#38
JL13 Active Member Top contributor Member since:Apr 2013 Location:Fort Myers 4K collection:117 Blu-ray collection:1060 DVD collection:126	I collected vhs then dvd and now blu ray the buck stops here .....

05-31-2017, 04:18 PM	#39
partridge Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Oct 2005 Location:England	HDR is what really separates 4K from full HD, but right now it's just not worth the upgrade, to me anyway.

05-31-2017, 04:32 PM	#40
Shalashaska Senior Member Member since:Jul 2016	Unless ultra-thin wallpaper TVs become popular/affordable, 1080p is likely all the pixels most people will ever need once you take screen size and seating distance into account. That's not all there is to PQ though. The real benefit to UHD is high dynamic range, wide colour gamut and improved colour depth. I've heard some say HDR on a good HDR display is much more impressive than the jump from 1080p to 4K, or even DVD to Blu-ray. I have yet to see it in action myself, but I'm excited.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals