Are Blu-ray remasters future proof? - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

Blu Man · 01-30-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy86i

but wait.. if we can get 200GB and up (16 layers!!!??!) in the future, if they wanna do 4k they could and it woudent mean a new format.. just double dipping.

Wouldn't you still have to buy a new player? And the minimum amount of space the disk could have would be just over 1 trig. 200 GB's wouldn't cut it for uncompressed video.

graf1k · 01-30-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saprano

It has to do with resolution, 2 million pixels, 4 million pixels.

somebody corect me if im wrong.

Corrected. 1080p is already over 2 million pixels. 2K and 4K refer to the vertical resolution so instead of 1920x1080, it would be something like 3840x2160 (not sure what the actual res would be) which would be over 8 million pixels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Man

Wouldn't you still have to buy a new player? And the minimum amount of space the disk could have would be just over 1 trig. 200 GB's wouldn't cut it for uncompressed video.

I assume you mean 1 terabyte.

RustyK94 · 01-30-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Man

Wouldn't you still have to buy a new player? And the minimum amount of space the disk could have would be just over 1 trig. 200 GB's wouldn't cut it for uncompressed video.

lol the godfather trilogy was 9TB uncompressed. You think we will see that in the next 10 years.

I think not but i live in hope.

Even then could i relay see any difference unless i pushed my face against the screen.

Blu Man · 01-30-2009, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mredman

16 times sharper then HD. WTF are they trying to burn our eyes out. 16 times can't even imagine how that will look to the naked eye. I almost would say this will make damage to your eyes. 16 times HD that is insane it must be like looking at a laserbeam. and boom there goes your eyes he he

It wouldn't burn your eyes out. Don't know how you came to that conclusion. Have you ever watched a movie on film? Well what were talking about has the same resolution as 35mm film.

Blu Man · 01-30-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyK94

lol the godfather trilogy was 9TB uncompressed. You think we will see that in the next 10 years.

I think not but i live in hope.

Even then could i relay see any difference unless i pushed my face against the screen.

Thats what some people say when comparing Blu Ray to DVD......

RiseDarthVader · 01-30-2009, 11:16 PM

Lol this thread is like a time machine into the future. Some of us looking forward to new higher resolution tech and the other claiming they can't see a difference or their eyes will explode

graf1k · 01-30-2009, 11:21 PM

Well, there is something to the thought that 4K might be "too high res". I remember reading something about the Japanese attaching a prototype 4K camera to the front of a car and filming and when they played it back for a test audience, it was so real looking that a bunch of the audience got motion sickness or something. Then again, Japanese people in general seem to be more prone to motion sickness apparently so who's to say how much was the camera and how much was just the audience. I wish I could remember where I saw that.

EDIT: Found it! http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6754-Ul...prototype.html

RustyK94 · 01-30-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Lol this thread is like a time machine into the future. Some of us looking forward to new higher resolution tech and the other claiming they can't see a difference or their eyes will explode

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bnqtXOi1iaY

Marine Mike · 01-30-2009, 11:22 PM

I think its official that nothing is 'future-proofed' anymore and the only thing that can come close is a PS3.

I bet that Blu-ray remasters will get another remaster 5 years after its released.

Blu Man · 01-30-2009, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graf1k

I assume you mean 1 terabyte.

Yeah, sorry.

goresnet · 01-31-2009, 01:12 AM

Starting to think I should have put a "what if..." in the title! Even if we couldn't see the difference in uncompressed video, wouldn't you want it? I know I would!

RiseDarthVader · 01-31-2009, 01:17 AM

graf1k what are you on about that 4K is "too real" and it would give you a headache. Have you ever watched a movie in a cinema? That's over 4K right there. Or how about an IMAX movie 8K man.

Blu Man · 01-31-2009, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

graf1k what are you on about that 4K is "too real" and it would give you a headache. Have you ever watched a movie in a cinema? That's over 4K right there. Or how about an IMAX movie 8K man.

IMAX is 10k

RiseDarthVader · 01-31-2009, 03:18 AM

Well when the effects houses scanned The Dark Knight IMAX scenes to do all the visuall effects work they scanned it at 8K. They then found it too hard and time consuming to render at 8K and settled on 5K which is then upscaled to 8K for the final prints.

Blu Man · 01-31-2009, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Well when the effects houses scanned The Dark Knight IMAX scenes to do all the visuall effects work they scanned it at 8K. They then found it too hard and time consuming to render at 8K and settled on 5K which is then upscaled to 8K for the final prints.

Man, we can never see a movie uncompressed can we?

RiseDarthVader · 01-31-2009, 03:24 AM

Well in a way we are seeing a movie uncompressed cause you don't get any macroblocking or any other compression artifacts in cinemas. So in a way we are seeing the movies uncompressed BUT at a lower resolution then the max.

Blu Man · 01-31-2009, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Well in a way we are seeing a movie uncompressed cause you don't get any macroblocking or any other compression artifacts in cinemas. So in a way we are seeing the movies uncompressed BUT at a lower resolution then the max.

But still, were not seeing the camera's full capability. Does the same go with 35mm or are we seeing the real deal their?

sonnyworld85 · 01-31-2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy86i

whats the point.. 4k on a massive screen compared to 1080 on a small screen looks the same. its blown on on the big screen so it looks like at home even tho what you are getting is half the size.

what we have now is good enough. dont get greedy.

+1000

VHS4Ever · 01-31-2009, 04:41 AM

I'm not buying another format until it is something drastic.

RiseDarthVader · 01-31-2009, 05:17 AM

35mm is scanned at 4K which is close enough to it's actual resolution. Because when the 35mm records scenes with poor lighting or at night it only records about 2 megapixels of information. Which is the equivelent on Blu-rays max resolution. So when you are watching a dark scene on Blu-ray you are pretty much seeing an exact replication of what the uncompressed image would look like. But basically beyond 4K or 35mm you don't really see anymore details the only difference you would probably see is the grain structure.

01-30-2009, 11:21 PM	#27
graf1k Blu-ray Guru Member since:Aug 2008 Location:🆇🆇🆇🆇 Trading Score:198	Well, there is something to the thought that 4K might be "too high res". I remember reading something about the Japanese attaching a prototype 4K camera to the front of a car and filming and when they played it back for a test audience, it was so real looking that a bunch of the audience got motion sickness or something. Then again, Japanese people in general seem to be more prone to motion sickness apparently so who's to say how much was the camera and how much was just the audience. I wish I could remember where I saw that. EDIT: Found it! http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6754-Ul...prototype.html Last edited by graf1k; 01-30-2009 at 11:24 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Yamaha RX-V1800...future proof? (ish?)	Receivers	canuckle	29	04-07-2009 08:30 AM
How future proof are your home entertainment systems?	Home Theater General Discussion	tron3	10	06-02-2008 01:42 PM
Sony ES STR-DA3200ES future proof?	Home Theater General Discussion	jimmy242	9	01-04-2008 12:43 PM
KDL46V3000 Future proof enough?	LCD TVs	fattyslimslim	33	12-03-2007 02:43 AM
Is Blu-ray future proof?	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	saljr	38	07-02-2007 02:18 AM

01-30-2009, 11:16 PM	#26
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	Lol this thread is like a time machine into the future. Some of us looking forward to new higher resolution tech and the other claiming they can't see a difference or their eyes will explode

01-30-2009, 11:22 PM	#29
Marine Mike The Busey Member since:Apr 2008 Location:Ohio Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray collection:120 Blu-ray reviews:4 Trading Score:4	I think its official that nothing is 'future-proofed' anymore and the only thing that can come close is a PS3. I bet that Blu-ray remasters will get another remaster 5 years after its released.

01-31-2009, 01:12 AM	#31
goresnet Blu-ray Guru Member since:Oct 2008 Location:League City, TX 4K collection:51 Blu-ray collection:576 Trading Score:1	Starting to think I should have put a "what if..." in the title! Even if we couldn't see the difference in uncompressed video, wouldn't you want it? I know I would!

01-31-2009, 01:17 AM	#32
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	graf1k what are you on about that 4K is "too real" and it would give you a headache. Have you ever watched a movie in a cinema? That's over 4K right there. Or how about an IMAX movie 8K man.

01-31-2009, 03:18 AM	#34
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	Well when the effects houses scanned The Dark Knight IMAX scenes to do all the visuall effects work they scanned it at 8K. They then found it too hard and time consuming to render at 8K and settled on 5K which is then upscaled to 8K for the final prints.

01-31-2009, 03:24 AM	#36
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	Well in a way we are seeing a movie uncompressed cause you don't get any macroblocking or any other compression artifacts in cinemas. So in a way we are seeing the movies uncompressed BUT at a lower resolution then the max.

01-31-2009, 04:41 AM	#39
VHS4Ever Senior Member Member since:Sep 2008 Blu-ray collection:224 Blu-ray reviews:61 Trading Score:16	I'm not buying another format until it is something drastic.

01-31-2009, 05:17 AM	#40
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	35mm is scanned at 4K which is close enough to it's actual resolution. Because when the 35mm records scenes with poor lighting or at night it only records about 2 megapixels of information. Which is the equivelent on Blu-rays max resolution. So when you are watching a dark scene on Blu-ray you are pretty much seeing an exact replication of what the uncompressed image would look like. But basically beyond 4K or 35mm you don't really see anymore details the only difference you would probably see is the grain structure.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals