4K Blu-ray format will be called Ultra HD Blu-ray – has new DRM feature

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: 4K Blu-ray format will be called Ultra HD Blu-ray – has new DRM feature[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2014/11/myce-blu-ray-disc-95x75.png[/newsimage]
[quote][/quote]
Read the full article here: http://www.myce.com/news/4k-blu-ray-format-will-be-called-ultra-hd-blu-ray-has-new-drm-feature-74182/

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I can do without the 60fps I don’t like HFR at all. But I will take 2106p and 10-bit precision, thank you!


#3

DRM? Not going to be a problem until somebody starts marketing a UHD BluRay reader for PCs. Can’t imagine anyone wanting to burn a UHD as the process would probably take several days.


#4

can someone explain the point of having DRM on the disks if it will allow copying? surely it’s better to have no DRM at all, isn’t it? you can bet a dollar with it on, things will still go pear-shaped, just as they always do when a company goes to these lengths. it’s been proven independently, time and again, that these protections do more harm than good, not just to those who want to make copies of their bought disks but to the companies themselves because of the breakdowns that always happen


#5

If you ask me, THE SOLE MAIN PURPOSE OF 4K content is to make it BIGGER AND BIGGER so that poeple woudn’t duplicate commercial stuff anymore :rolleyes:

TRUE 4k “Ultra” HD (not 1080P to “4K” remasterd BS that still is 1080P in reality !)is like 4 times as big as 1080P Bluray, using BD-TL / QL discs with an capacity of 100+ GB BIG !!

A matter of fact is, that the content of 4K just looks the EXACT same as 1080P on a FULL HDTV …

And don’t get me started about 3D gimmick HoaX :Z !!

Just recently made a leap of faith and bhought my first stand alone bluray player and an Bluray BURNER in addition :stuck_out_tongue: .

I have waited quite some time to make the jump.
Cuz frankly, when u play DVD content on a decent desktop computer with Filters/shaders to enhance quality and what not.

The quality of DVD looks VERY ClOSE if not better than Bluray.
I’d say in some arreas DVD looks EVEN BETTER :eek:

So … 4K, thank u but NO thanks !!

The main REASON, i woud adopt 4K in the future is to dump many BD-r’s or DVD’s on 1 BD-XL disc when it is getting [B]AFFORDABLE[/B] :eek:


#6

I only purchase the 7.1 Blu-ray movies. Other than that it is pointless imho. I do notice a bit more clarity with Blu-ray but not enough to justify dumping dvd. Directv looks clearer than most movies and that is just tv shows. If you ask me its just to make more money. I still prefer cd’s over any other type of media except vinyl but I don’t own any records anymore.Â


#7

Ohh… fancy new site. Very nice.

4K is awesome. All you need to do is visit your local electronics store (Future Shop, Best Buy, etc) to figure that out. It have 4x the pixels and better colour reproduction. Anyone who thinks it’s some kind of conspiracy needs to go outside and eat a bullet. The prices are falling like a rock and I hope to get a 65" Samsung or LG in 2015. I think “Ultra HD Blu-ray” is a lame name. IMHO, “4K Blu-ray” sounds better for the masses to identify with. What’s next, Ultra Ultra HD Blu-ray? LOL.


#8

Are you kidding me? I STILL can’t edit my own posts? Come on!!


#9

I don’t find it difficult at all to tell the difference between DVD video and Blu-ray. The video quality is a good deal softer, and less detailed in DVD resolutions as a general rule. Occasionally you might still find a Blu-ray that was made poorly, but I haven’t found many.

Moving on to Ultra HD will undoubtedly give crisper video, but we are quickly getting to a point where the improvements aren’t readily seen in a typical home viewing scenario. I don’t want to sit within arms length of a 50"+ tv.

I’m interested in their DRM solutions, and will look forward to hearing their explanations of what is, and what isn’t allowed in copies. In the past they have wanted far too much control over copies and those copies that have been available have been terrible quality (UltraViolet).

The cost for Ultra HD equipment will keep me out of that market for the foreseeable future, but I can see investing in a 27" 4k monitor if they continue to drop in price.


#10

Will all this really make a noticeable difference on my 19 year-old, 14" CRT TV? :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

[QUOTE=Jannenba;2744866]If you ask me, THE SOLE MAIN PURPOSE OF 4K content is to make it BIGGER AND BIGGER so that poeple woudn’t duplicate commercial stuff anymore :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I don’t think this is the case because the higher video resolutions bring new codecs and streaming demands that mitigate the issues of duplication, downloading etc. The new H.265 codec is proving to be very impressive for reducing file sizes while keeping the quality high. I have seen excellent 1080p video from 1gb sized files using this codec. Heck, I have seen decent quality from 500mb files! Plus, this codec will be incorporated in the hardware soon and this will be a big boon to performance regarding its use.

I was somewhat surprised to read that data density on the 4k discs is only 33gb per layer. I would bet most 4k discs will be dual layer with 66gb capacity. This is marginally better than today’s blu ray discs. IMO, the real game changer for having 4k content is this new codec. It is going to change many things in the near future for the better, especially in regard to streaming video.


#12

[QUOTE=UTR;2745043]I don’t think this is the case because the higher video resolutions bring new codecs and streaming demands that mitigate the issues of duplication, downloading etc. The new H.265 codec is proving to be very impressive for reducing file sizes while keeping the quality high. I have seen excellent 1080p video from 1gb sized files using this codec. Heck, I have seen decent quality from 500mb files! Plus, this codec will be incorporated in the hardware soon and this will be a big boon to performance regarding its use.
[/QUOTE]

Surely, u must be talking about very short 1080p clips of proximately 20 - 35 min=small then :rolleyes:

And MORE IMPORTANT, those rips are usually made from → [B]A VERY CLEAN SOURCE[/B] ← to begin whit !!

And then there’s those black borders that reduce filesize significantly too… And by doing that improves the redistribution of bits in the most needed areas.;

Many factors to consider to get such an small file size thoug !!

But actually, i wosnt talking about Single .mkv/ x264 files … But rather about whole Bluray disc structure with extra’s/menu’s and wwhat not.

That said, [B]I DON’T THINK U’LL BE ABLE TO FIT ALL THAT IN ONE GB SMALL FILE/CONTAINER WITHOUT SACRIFICING QUALITY… ALLLOOT [/B] :disagree:

About the promising H265 codec !!

Whitout going into detail, H265 is far from done and no subsitute for H264 at the moment !! On the contrary!!

Currently, H265 doesn’t do a better job then H264 inlike reducing the filesize while maintaining the quality !!

Have done several tests in Vidcoder / handbrake myself to come to that conclusion .

then there’s the fact many stand alones today , dont fully support H265. So, thats another compatibility issue that might rise soon or later during playback of homemade or commercial Bluray discs for that matter!!


#13

^At low bitrates, H264 is still better than H265, especially if you’re talking about the free X264 encoder. At high bitrates and 4K resolutions, H265 is already ahead.


#14

[QUOTE=Jannenba;2745053]Surely, u must be talking about very short 1080p clips of proximately 20 - 35 min=small then :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

The files I watched were for 90-120 minutes of video. I was shocked at the quality. I watched them on a 60" Samsung HDTV using a computer to play the files. I have watched a 2gb h.265 encoded file that had video quality indistinguishable from a blu ray disc. How these files were encoded I am not sure but the results were plain to see and very impressive.

[QUOTE=Jannenba;2745053]Whitout going into detail, H265 is far from done and no subsitute for H264 at the moment !! On the contrary!!

Currently, H265 doesn’t do a better job then H264 inlike reducing the filesize while maintaining the quality !!

Have done several tests in Vidcoder / handbrake myself to come to that conclusion .

then there’s the fact many stand alones today , dont fully support H265. So, thats another compatibility issue that might rise soon or later during playback of homemade or commercial Bluray discs for that matter!![/QUOTE]

We are just seeing the beginning of the H.265 codec and it is already far better than H.264, IMO. As it gets refined more, and hardware decoding/encoding comes to market, it will only get better. It will have a big impact on video quality across the board from 4k discs to streaming video. I would be willing to bet that it will also keep illegal downloading viable for 4k video too. Just think of the impact that the H.264 codec has had the past ten years. It is logical to assume that H.265 will repeat that success.


#15

[QUOTE=UTR;2745075]The files I watched were for 90-120 minutes of video. I was shocked at the quality. I watched them on a 60" Samsung HDTV using a computer to play the files. I have watched a 2gb h.265 encoded file that had video quality indistinguishable from a blu ray disc. How these files were encoded I am not sure but the results were plain to see and very impressive.
[/QUOTE]

120 mins 1080p material shrinked to 0.5 - 1gb and not 1 macroblock or mosquite noise to SEE on an 60" inch hdtv :clap: … right!!

Must be watching 1 frame/image still :smiley:

I did the test with tv serrie the sopranos , and i needed minimum between 1800 - 2200 MB to do 1 decent episode in 1080p.

Keep in mind, thats an filesize reduction of a wooping 75% - 90% you know!!

the original file size per episode wos arround 14 - 15GB !!

Anything below 1500MB started to show (very lil…but still) blocks and all other sorts of noise!!

And thats for only 45 - 55 min of footage !!

[QUOTE=UTR;2745075]
We are just seeing the beginning of the H.265 codec and it is already far better than H.264, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Trust me, for SD material convertion h.264 is MUCH MUCH better then H.265 atm.

Especialy for footage that has allot of Grain noise in it, there lies the catch.

I wos REALY shocked how much beter h.xxx is compared to mpeg2 :eek:
ESPECIALY with very VERY LOW BITRATES (1600 Kb/sec - 1800 Kb/sec) :eek::eek:

Thats why iam so glad i bhought myself an Bluray burner, to squeeze and fit atleast an entire Season of TV-series on xx DVD discs to 1 bluray :iagree:


#16

Another new format, another new protection.

Funny how history keeps repeating itself. :slight_smile:

I wonder how long this one will last? :wink:

[B]Wombler[/B]


#17

[QUOTE=Jannenba;2745077]120 mins 1080p material shrinked to 0.5 - 1gb and not 1 macroblock or mosquite noise to SEE on an 60" inch hdtv :clap: … right!!

Must be watching 1 frame/image still :D[/QUOTE]

I have seen it with my own eyes so saying it can’t be doesn’t make what I say false. You need to check out some of the H.265 files that are available and see for yourself what is [B]currently[/B] possible. You will be impressed. One video I watched was 89 minutes long with DD5.1 sound and a file size of 1.55gb. The quality was outstanding. Just make sure you play it on a computer that has enough CPU power to handle it as there is no hardware designed to decode it yet.


#18

[QUOTE=UTR;2745114]I have seen it with my own eyes so saying it can’t be doesn’t make what I say false. You need to check out some of the H.265 files that are available and see for yourself what is [B]currently[/B] possible. You will be impressed. One video I watched was 89 minutes long with DD5.1 sound and a file size of 1.55gb. The quality was outstanding. Just make sure you play it on a computer that has enough CPU power to handle it as there is no hardware designed to decode it yet.[/QUOTE]

well, be it as it may. I SURE couldn’t reproduce ↑ those results using quite a few settings whitout alteast sacrificing some quality !!

Maybe they did achieved these results with an tweaked custom version of hxxx that is not available for public use!

But in the end, what good does it do if you can’t playback the h265 files on older bluray hardware !

Allot of poeple are still using DVD hardware player these day’s, yet they invent another codec that again requires new bluray hardware/software !!!

Hopefully my stand alone gets an firmware update to adopt the new h265 codec… cuz iam not about to start and collect xx bluray players !!

1 for each different new codec :rolleyes: !!

And its not just about cpu power alone you know, its about the different profile settings that is used with these codecs that makes those files compatible/incompatible with some devices !!!

With an decent GPU u dont Need much cpu horse power anyway :stuck_out_tongue:

But that aside, do u have an link to those h265 files u mentioned ?

In the meanwhile i’ll search for it myself, cuz i have to see that for myself!

It may be very well that my hdtv screen play much sharper then urs and shows the compression errors more clearly !!

take care,


#19

I too have not been able to reproduce the quality and file size of some of the video I have watched. Not sure how they are doing it but I would like to figure it out eventually. Some H.265 video has not impressed me but some has left me in awe as to the quality verses file size. I am posting from my phone right now but I will send you some info when I get to a proper computer.


#20

Here is a link to some H.265 video files.

http://www.elecard.com/en/download/videos.html

The compression for the 1080p videos would allow a 90 minute video to be contained in a file size of roughly 1gb up to 2gb depending on which file you download. The 4k files are mind blowing to me even when played on a 1080p computer monitor. They ran smoothly on my computer with an overclocked i5-3570k CPU. To download the files I had to right click on the “Download” link and use the “Save Link As” option. I played the files with Media Player Classic-HC.