Blu-ray Disc Association: 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray On The Way

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There are several problems:
- not enough speed

- speed isn't the advertised speed (my speed is supposed to be 25mbps - I usually get around 7mpbs)

- even when it is, some ISPs will throttle your speed if they catch you using a lot of data at a time when the network is congested. When I stream a film, it always seems to work fine for an hour - then I have problems after that and while I can't prove it, I think I'm being throttled.

- you know what's going to happen: various vendors will provide streaming 4K, but they'll compress the hell out of it. So they'll be able to say it's 4K resolution, but it will look worse than 1080p because of all the artifacts. And idiot consumers will think, "I have twice the resolution of Blu-ray, so I don't need Blu-ray."

They do recommend at least 20 mbps for 4k streaming. If you're getting only 7 mbps then you're not getting 4k streams, you're getting 1080p streams. That's about the max for 1080p Netflix I believe. Doesn't matter what size your pipe is.

No, 4K Netflix looks MUCH better than 1080p Netflix. Not only is the bit rate doubled, but they use the H.265 codec, which is twice as efficient. I've compared 4k Netflix to Blu-ray (on Smurfs 2), and detail-wise it's about the same. But the Smurfs 2 on Netflix has better much color saturation for some reason. The other 4K movies and TV shows I've tried all look great on Netflix (although not quite as good as native 4k, due to the low bit rate).

[Teazle]

I watched some of the vid (cheers Penton). I just can't believe they can do 2-hr films w/ half the stuff on the features list (bigger color space, HDR, HFR) at UHD res. in a measly 100GB (3-layer 33GB per). It sounds like the HD DVD of 4K -- disc too small, bit rates too low, the marketing strategy being to trumpet the mysterious magic of the codec which is supposed to make up for everything. (It won't.)

Also, 3-layer discs never seem to make it to market.

I hope they postpone this thing til they can get to say 100 to 150GB per layer. Will be needed for the next round of games consoles in any case. Then it would rock.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I watched some of the vid (cheers Penton)....

For thanks, just PM me a link as to where you purchase your mustache scissors.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The problem is that there once was a time when studios (like many record labels) produced products for specialist and niche markets. They found a way to make money doing that.

But today, companies are only happy making the really big mass market bucks. And part of the reason for that is that these are almost all public companies and they're only interested in producing products and services that "increase shareholder value". And the only thing that's going to push that needle is large profits which means large sales.

Look at the theatrical market. A movie that grosses $100 million today is considered a failure. "John Carter" grossed $284 million worldwide, not including ancillary or home media sales and it was considered a major failure for Disney (although it did have a ridiculous $250 million production budget).

Frankly, I'm surprised that items like the Herzog and Twilight Time releases get issued at all. Because if you look at the sales numbers, BD (surprisingly, at least to me) is a hit driven business. Once you get past the 10th best-selling title in any given week, sales are pretty minimal. And I don't think we're seeing (but correct me if you have evidence otherwise) a lot of successful "long-tail" titles - in other words, in spite of what'd you think by looking at the releases or comments on this site, it's not actually a collector's market.

The problem is that if it's not growing (only 2.47% unit growth and negative half percent revenue growth so far this year) and especially since BD still has a surprisingly small physical market share (21% in U.S. units, 31.3% in U.S. retail revenue), the studios, especially the big studios, will lose interest and place their resources elsewhere. That means fewer releases, fewer restorations, vanilla discs with few extras, fewer titles released with special packaging, etc. and probably higher prices. Obviously, all the big hit movies will still get released, but they'll be fewer catalog releases, except for the ones that are quick, cheap and easy to put out. Look at how WB claims they don't have any more money for Looney Tunes restorations.

Either there's not enough of us or BD player owners are not buying enough titles. Obviously, people who participate on this site own plenty of titles (sometimes more titles than they'll ever be able to watch), but the mass market doesn't. I think that this is partly a marketing problem - the studios have not gotten the message out to the general public that BD has the most superior picture and sound quality. And unfortunately, the media uses the terms DVD and BD interchangeably. Even the NY Times refers to all physical media as DVD. That's part of the problem, IMO.

You've just said the same thing as I did but put a negative spin on it for reasons I'm not sure of. I'm not surprised in the slightest to see Herzog and Violent Saturday, Ace in the Hole etc, get releases on both sides of the pond because that's where we are now in the market cycle. Same thing happened with VHS sell thru and DVD, we've just got there slightly quicker with bluray and with a smaller catalogue but I suspect BD will last slightly longer as a result (not that it'll get bigger but the trend of arthouse releases and licenced titles will continue and standard bluray is very much geared towards 4k, wheras VHS and DVD were not ideally suited to the television standard that replaced the one in place when they launched.). 4k disc will be exactly the same.

As for studios not releasing niche products, show me a thing more niche than Sorcerer in a digibook and I'll give you a biscuit. Mass market be damned, they wouldn't buy that in a million years. Market diversification is the thing now. I'd worry less about what everyone else is doing, and enjoy your hobby. I don't know about a collectors market but look at the evidence - Holy Mountain and El Topo. Available for a year or two. I don't know how many they sold but they went OOP and someone's decided there's enough of a demand to re-release them. I doubt anyone's making a mint off them, but there they are, available to buy again.



I also refer to all physical media as DVD. I'm not an evangelist for it. I'll probably refer to 4k BD as DVD as well.

[AmishParadise]

The fact that the Blu-ray format is "x" number of years old is irrelevant to me. I just started collecting Blu-ray's over the past few years and have absolutely zero interest within this decade at the very least in investing in any 4k technology whether it be display technology, the medium in which said content is delivered or the content itself and this is coming from someone that owns just under 2,200 DVD's and is closing on 1,000 Blu-ray's by years end. From the average seating position in my home the current audio/video quality provided to me by the Blu-ray format (via my 58" plasma display or 120" front projector setup) is quite exhilarating at times and a substantial upgrade over the same content I already own on DVD. Will note as well that I still purchase several "current" TV shows each year on DVD which have yet to be released on Blu-ray for the first time. Like I really need a 4k format and perhaps I'm one of the few, but I could absolutely care less about video up-conversion. Have no issue watching the video content I own in the native resolution offered and have no desire to up-convert it to something it's not. That being said, I would contend that peoples expectations are simply unreasonable if they feel the Blu-ray format hasn't been performing as they'd expect after "x" number of years, especially when compared to the DVD format who's competition at the time was the VHS tape.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by AmishParadise

The fact that the Blu-ray format is "x" number of years old is irrelevant to me. I just started collecting Blu-ray's over the past few years and have absolutely zero interest within this decade at the very least in investing in any 4k technology whether it be display technology, the medium in which said content is delivered or the content itself and this is coming from someone that owns just under 2,200 DVD's and is closing on 1,000 Blu-ray's by years end. From the average seating position in my home the current audio/video quality provided to me by the Blu-ray format (via my 58" plasma display or 120" front projector setup) is quite exhilarating at times and a substantial upgrade over the same content I already own on DVD. Will note as well that I still purchase several "current" TV shows each year on DVD which have yet to be released on Blu-ray for the first time. Like I really need a 4k format and perhaps I'm one of the few, but I could absolutely care less about video up-conversion. Have no issue watching the video content I own in the native resolution offered and have no desire to up-convert it to something it's not. That being said, I would contend that peoples expectations are simply unreasonable if they feel the Blu-ray format hasn't been performing as they'd expect after "x" number of years, especially when compared to the DVD format who's competition at the time was the VHS tape.

I think you speak for a lot of people. I've little interest in 4k at the moment. I expect to upgrade in a few years time but at the moment it seems pointless. Films projected look like cinema to me, and that's all I ever wanted from this hobby.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by KRW1

I think you speak for a lot of people. I've little interest in 4k at the moment. I expect to upgrade in a few years time but at the moment it seems pointless. Films projected look like cinema to me, and that's all I ever wanted from this hobby.

See, that's what baffles me. Why do most people just want to settle with what we have now? No one has to replace their collection, I just intend to buy new titles in 4k for example. If we sit still that is dangerous. What I want is HD to be seen as lower quality much the same as SD is now. That is progress. It might never happen but we need 4k to succeed. I'm guessing people are tired of collecting? That's the only reason I can think of why people don't want to be part of the next step up in quality. I find it odd and before people come back with the expense thing, if that was the problem they wouldn't have a collection in the hundreds in the first place.

[Pizzamorg]

I don't think it's about settling, or being tired, but more because things are being replaced so fast these days. My whole childhood was dominated by the VHS and although many act like DVD completely took over, over night, that wasn't really the case. I remember at the beginning of DVDs life span, the players alone were really, really expensive. Like more expensive than Bluray players are now. And if you go back to watch those early, first release DVDs...they are actually pretty underwhelming too.

Since that point, we've had DVD become Bluray, become UV, become Bluray 3D and now 4K Bluray - and there is probably a whole bunch of other stuff, I find it hard to keep up. We had like two decades of a single format, then in one decade we've had multiple, and multiple off shoots off of those as well.

It seems like every year there is a new technology coming out and it almost feels worthless investing in any format if tomorrow there is going to be YET ANOTHER big bad format that will dominate all others previous. Bluray may not be as expensive as it once was, but this isn't a cheap hobby when you start thinking about good TVs, good players and collectable versions of films and so most people can't physically afford to keep up in the first place.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

I don't think it's about settling, or being tired, but more because things are being replaced so fast these days. My whole childhood was dominated by the VHS and although many act like DVD completely took over, over night, that wasn't really the case. I remember at the beginning of DVDs life span, the players alone were really, really expensive. Like more expensive than Bluray players are now. And if you go back to watch those early, first release DVDs...they are actually pretty underwhelming too.

Since that point, we've had DVD become Bluray, become UV, become Bluray 3D and now 4K Bluray - and there is probably a whole bunch of other stuff, I find it hard to keep up. We had like two decades of a single format, then in one decade we've had multiple, and multiple off shoots off of those as well.

It seems like every year there is a new technology coming out and it almost feels worthless investing in any format if tomorrow there is going to be YET ANOTHER big bad format that will dominate all others previous. Bluray may not be as expensive as it once was, but this isn't a cheap hobby when you start thinking about good TVs, good players and collectable versions of films and so most people can't physically afford to keep up in the first place.

But UV is just another type of digital copy and 3D is just an extension of bluray.
Things will get a lot worse if bluray wasn't here. The studios would need to keep offering something different otherwise people would just keep their digital HD copies forever. Studios, IMO, want total control of content and consumers, that is the danger. Is it a matter of time until we have to pay every time we want to watch our movies? New formats are never going to stop being introduced. Taking the stance of never upgrading because something is around the corner means one would never collect in the first place.
Anyway, thanks for your reply you fox!

[Pizzamorg]

I get they are just extensions of an existing format but 3D Bluray requires a 3D compatible TV and player, and as 3D is a relatively new technology it isn't likely to be the case a persons stuff is already compatible unless bought after the invention. As such it may as well be considered a whole new format. You could argue that you could just avoid 3D, and I agree, but more and more stuff is being released these days with a 3D focus.

I just want to know that when I start collecting something, I won't be forced by the corporations to replace that the following year. I think a format should have a life span of at least a decade.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

I get they are just extensions of an existing format but 3D Bluray requires a 3D compatible TV and player, and as 3D is a relatively new technology it isn't likely to be the case a persons stuff is already compatible unless bought after the invention. As such it may as well be considered a whole new format. You could argue that you could just avoid 3D, and I agree, but more and more stuff is being released these days with a 3D focus.

I just want to know that when I start collecting something, I won't be forced by the corporations to replace that the following year. I think a format should have a life span of at least a decade.

Well, bluray and dvd will certainly have well over ten years. (Obviously DVD has passed that threshold long ago.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

I get they are just extensions of an existing format but 3D Bluray requires a 3D compatible TV and player, and as 3D is a relatively new technology it isn't likely to be the case a persons stuff is already compatible unless bought after the invention. As such it may as well be considered a whole new format. You could argue that you could just avoid 3D, and I agree, but more and more stuff is being released these days with a 3D focus.

I just want to know that when I start collecting something, I won't be forced by the corporations to replace that the following year. I think a format should have a life span of at least a decade.

I can understand your frustration as BD isn't the top tier format anymore when 4KBD comes out, but if you don't want 4K, you don't have to buy it. Even now new releases are on DVD and BD. I really doubt that you would not be able to get 1080p BD releases 5 years from now. You might see the odd 4KBD + BD + DVD combo pack, but you won't be deprived of anything.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

I don't think it's about settling, or being tired, but more because things are being replaced so fast these days. My whole childhood was dominated by the VHS and although many act like DVD completely took over, over night, that wasn't really the case. I remember at the beginning of DVDs life span, the players alone were really, really expensive. Like more expensive than Bluray players are now. And if you go back to watch those early, first release DVDs...they are actually pretty underwhelming too.

Since that point, we've had DVD become Bluray, become UV, become Bluray 3D and now 4K Bluray - and there is probably a whole bunch of other stuff, I find it hard to keep up. We had like two decades of a single format, then in one decade we've had multiple, and multiple off shoots off of those as well.

It seems like every year there is a new technology coming out and it almost feels worthless investing in any format if tomorrow there is going to be YET ANOTHER big bad format that will dominate all others previous. Bluray may not be as expensive as it once was, but this isn't a cheap hobby when you start thinking about good TVs, good players and collectable versions of films and so most people can't physically afford to keep up in the first place.

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

I get they are just extensions of an existing format but 3D Bluray requires a 3D compatible TV and player, and as 3D is a relatively new technology it isn't likely to be the case a persons stuff is already compatible unless bought after the invention. As such it may as well be considered a whole new format. You could argue that you could just avoid 3D, and I agree, but more and more stuff is being released these days with a 3D focus.

I just want to know that when I start collecting something, I won't be forced by the corporations to replace that the following year. I think a format should have a life span of at least a decade.

I agree with you to a certain extent in that it does seem like technology keeps advancing faster these days than it once did, but I also disagree with the way that you've outlined some of these points.


I would say that if we look at what (arguably) are the major format leaps for the most mainstream movie formats... VHS to DVD, and then DVD to Blu-Ray, it took a lot longer for the first transition to happen than the second transition. There was roughly 20 years between the launch of VHS and DVD, and only about 9 years between the launch of DVD and Blu-Ray.

But some of your comparisons are off. You bring up things like UV and 3D BD as if these are new major leaps, and act like nothing at all happened inbetween VHS and DVD. For one thing that was this little thing called Laser disc that, while having a very niche audience, was still a leap and one that many hardcore film lovers got into. I was a bit too young to really get into LD and appreciate it (and frankly I'm kind of glad that I missed the boat on that one because despite it's benefits at the time, it seemed like a very cumbersome format due to the size of the discs and movies not fitting on a single side of one disc, etc), but it was there. Then there were other formats along the way, many of which ultimately failed and/or faded away... i.e. Betamax, Divx, HD-DVD, etc.

New formats and new technology were always coming out. But nothing really took VHS's throne until DVD came along.

And you are right that the VHS to DVD transition wasn't overnight, but it didn't take forever either.

The DVD format first barely started hitting the market somewhere around early 1997. It was a slow trickle at first, with only a handful of movies out there. And yeah, players were very expensive at first, just like the first Blu-Ray players were, but the prices came down over time just like BD players have.

I got my first DVD player in June of 1998. I actually still have it and it still works (though I hardly ever use it anymore). It's a Panasonic player, and it was an opened box shelf demo unit, so I payed a bit less for it than a new one, but I recall paying somewhere around $300 to $400 for it. Considering that players were probably $1,000 at launch and this was only a year and a half of so later, that was a decent drop in price.

Then when the PS2 came out in 2,000, having DVD playback built in and being about the best selling console of all time, it put the format in many, many homes. At the time it was a good deal since stand alone players were still in the ballpark of costing the same as the PS2. But it wasn't too much longer before prices went down.

And Blu-Ray player prices didn't get to the level that they are at now overnight. Don't forget... Blu-Ray launched in 2006. It's been around for 8 years now... just a couple shy of a decade. It's not some format that just came out within the last couple of years anymore.

So, while there may have been some small degree of variation between how long it took the two respective formats' players to come down in price, it wasn't this extreme variation as you are making it out to be.


I know some people will see this differently, but I really don't even see UV as being a true movie format. It's more of a streaming service that you either pay for each movie through, or redeem a code that comes with a Blu-Ray or DVD. And even putting aside my issues with the general concept of digital distribution, considering how many difference services there are and so forth, the whole streaming/downloading thing is way fragmented for it's own good anyway.

As for 3D BD, let's be fair here. The vast majority of 3D Blu-Ray releases either come with the 2D Blu-ray in the same pack, or allow the 3D disc to be played back in 2D for anyone with a non-3D set up. It's not like if you buy a 3D combo pack, you are somehow unable to watch the movie with a 2D set up.

I do think that there were many missteps and poor decisions made with the implementation of 3D BD. It's something that they either should have had ready to go when Blu-Ray launched in general, or should have heald off a bit longer. Since enjoying the movies in 3D requires a new TV and new player not long after people just got on board with HD, it was kind of asking for a lot not long after many had made such a transition.

But the benefit of it is that if 3D is something that you care about, you can just buy the 3D combo packs, watch the movies on your existing 2D set up, and upgrade the equipment later. It's not like by buying the 3D packs, you are buying something that you can't watch at all in the mean time.




While I have reservations about transitioning to another new format, my hope with 4K BD, if it happens, would be for it to either come in combo packs that include both the 4K version and standard BD version, or for the 4K discs to somehow be able to be played back in 1080p on standard BD players (the latter of which is probably highly unlikely, but would be nice).

I would be more inclined to make that transition if I could buy a 4K BD/standard BD pack with the standard BD version including at least everything that the separate release of it (with no 4K disc) includes, so that I'm not missing out on anything by going this route. Then I'd be ready for 4K later on, and can still watch my movies in other rooms with a non-4k set up.

[Shavian]

If Avatar had been released in 2004 rather than 2009, no doubt the original Blu-ray specifications would have included 3D, as would most HDTV sets. As it happened, though, it was only in early 2010, with the extended success of Avatar (and the hugely profitable admissions premiums for 3D showings), that movie studios jumped on the 3D bandwagon. By this time, broadcasters had made the switch to HDTV, and most tech-aware consumers had already made the switch.

For instance, I bought my current 40" HDTV set in 2008, as many people did; that replaced a working 27" Sony that I had bought in 1991. Unless my HDTV had actually broken, there's no way that I would have considered replacing it after two or three years; now, after six years and a major drop in the price of 4K sets, I'm seriously considering it.

Technology doesn't always progress in convenient ways. Sure, it would have been great if all new HDTVs and Blu-ray players in 2006 had featured 3D. But then, it would also have been great if TV broadcasts had been in full color and 1080p right from the beginning. It would certainly have been better if Blu-rays had been introduced in 1995, skipping the DVD format altogether. Things just didn't work out that way, which is why progress always remains a struggle between leaping to a new technology and remaining compatible with the old one.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

See, that's what baffles me. Why do most people just want to settle with what we have now? No one has to replace their collection, I just intend to buy new titles in 4k for example. If we sit still that is dangerous. What I want is HD to be seen as lower quality much the same as SD is now. That is progress. It might never happen but we need 4k to succeed. I'm guessing people are tired of collecting? That's the only reason I can think of why people don't want to be part of the next step up in quality. I find it odd and before people come back with the expense thing, if that was the problem they wouldn't have a collection in the hundreds in the first place.

You'll have to bear in mind I said exactly the same thing when Bluray came out. I never thought it would catch on and thought it would end up the way of SACD. This is why this doom talk amuses me. It surpassed my expectations by miles, so I'm hoping 4k will as well. It's just a question of diminishing returns. Bluray looks astounding at 144", it's hard to see a case for replacing a lot of discs.

I don't see a time when 4k replaces bluray ever, if that helps, I see it as the same format but with a higher capacity. Certainly not tired of collecting, it's just slightly overwhelming now the sheer amount of releases, I'm forced to slow down slightly! I've sold about 1/4 of my collection this year and still left with 800+ and more arriving each week.

[RAILERSWIM]

Thank god they are working on a physical medium.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by KRW1

You'll have to bear in mind I said exactly the same thing when Bluray came out. I never thought it would catch on and thought it would end up the way of SACD. This is why this doom talk amuses me. It surpassed my expectations by miles, so I'm hoping 4k will as well. It's just a question of diminishing returns. Bluray looks astounding at 144", it's hard to see a case for replacing a lot of discs.

I don't see a time when 4k replaces bluray ever, if that helps, I see it as the same format but with a higher capacity. Certainly not tired of collecting, it's just slightly overwhelming now the sheer amount of releases, I'm forced to slow down slightly! I've sold about 1/4 of my collection this year and still left with 800+ and more arriving each week.

Don't get me wrong, I adore bluray. I just want to adore 4k bluray as well!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

See, that's what baffles me. Why do most people just want to settle with what we have now?

Many people are skeptical of a format that doesn't even exist yet. They look at the current format and think 'I dunno, this is gonna be pretty hard to beat'.

What exactly is baffling about that?

Many people are excited about 4K/UHD. Many others are taking a wait and see attitude.

Neither of those seem particularly baffling to me.

[UFAlien]

I'm not excited because:

A - I neither have a 4K TV nor will be feasibly able to get one for some time.
B - The demos I've seen have honestly not been that impressive; it's nice not to have visible pixel structure but the extra detail was almost impossible to see.
C - Content. The majority of new movies are still mastered at, or even shot in, 2K.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Many people are skeptical of a format that doesn't even exist yet. They look at the current format and think 'I dunno, this is gonna be pretty hard to beat'.

What exactly is baffling about that?

Many people are excited about 4K/UHD. Many others are taking a wait and see attitude.

Neither of those seem particularly baffling to me.

It's not the 'wait and see' I find baffling. It's the 'no interest' stance I don't get.