Blu-ray 4K specification to be finalised by the end of 2014

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Blu-ray 4K specification to be finalised by the end of 2014[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2010/06/BR_Thumbnail.png[/newsimage]

The Blu-ray Disc Association has recently decided to standardise a specification for 4K content on Blu-ray discs.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/blu-ray-4k-specification-to-be-finalised-by-the-end-of-2014-70125/](http://www.myce.com/news/blu-ray-4k-specification-to-be-finalised-by-the-end-of-2014-70125/)

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

#2

Don’t be surprised if it never materializes, and if it does the DRM will be draconian. In any case it will require all new hardware to play. As for cost, all bets are off.


#3

I just want the 7.1 sound honestly that’s the only difference I notice with Blu-ray. Well I do have to look for 7.1 discs because most Blu-ray is still 5.1


#4

[QUOTE=bonehead1;2716087]I just want the 7.1 sound honestly that’s the only difference I notice with Blu-ray. Well I do have to look for 7.1 discs because most Blu-ray is still 5.1[/QUOTE]

And yes and now if someone would just buy me the toys I be one happy camper…like how many are going to really benefit from 4k movies not a whole lot especially if the old movies are still DVD/BD format not the 4k. So that doesn’t sell for me.


#5

[QUOTE=bonehead1;2716087]I just want the 7.1 sound honestly that’s the only difference I notice with Blu-ray. Well I do have to look for 7.1 discs because most Blu-ray is still 5.1[/QUOTE]
Those of us with young eyes can easily distinguish between 1080p and 480p.
And 4k2k tvs definitely have better PQ/rendering compared to most of the 1080p tvs … Although tbh, since 4k2k tvs are the premium tvs, 1080p premium tvs also appear much better than lower end (most) 1080p tvs, so it’s likely that the 4k2k tvs just use premium panels.


#6

I’m still not sure 4k will get mass appeal. It largely hinges on people needing larger tv’s to benefit from the higher resolution (assuming you aren’t sitting 2ft away from the tv).

Right now average tv size seems to be around 55" which is still too small to really benefit from 4k.

People have pointed out that the prices of 55" 4k tv will drop, but even if it’s capable of doing 4k, you really aren’t going to see a benefit of a 1080p bluray vs a 4k bluray… so i don’t think people will buy the content.

DVD was great because it was the ultimate format for SD tv’s. Then we had the flatscreen/plasma/lcd/led revolution and bluray made sense because it took advantage of that tech.

4k seems to rely so heavily on larger tv’s that I’m not sure it will take off the same way 1080p did. I know so many people with HDTV’s that don’t use HD content on them. I think 4k would be a niche product like laserdisc for video/audiophiles. I’m not sure the world is ready for mass adoption.

Average TV size could go up. I’ve always wondering how far it can go up before people run out of room in their living rooms :slight_smile:


#7

[QUOTE=bonehead1;2716087]I just want the 7.1 sound honestly that’s the only difference I notice with Blu-ray. Well I do have to look for 7.1 discs because most Blu-ray is still 5.1[/QUOTE]
That’s what Dolby Pro Logic IIx is for.


#8

I’ll bet 4k will be almost noticeable for those garage-door-sized TV’s. As for the TV’s that actually exist, there won’t be any real difference. Of course, the DRM technologies used will probably be quite similar to the civil control methods that only people like Adolf Hitler would use. If you want this movie, you’ll need to grant us the “right” to monitor your every move.


#9

[QUOTE=Zod;2716139]I’m still not sure 4k will get mass appeal. It largely hinges on people needing larger tv’s to benefit from the higher resolution (assuming you aren’t sitting 2ft away from the tv).[/QUOTE]

99.99% of 20th and 20st century people never needed to have a TV with more than 14 inch viewable area.

You are predicting the transition from 1920 * 1080 to 3840 * 2160 will take longer than that from 640 * 480 (or 720 * 480) to 1920 * 1080.

The reality is it took decades for the first digital 320 * 240 audiovisuals. The time for 320 * 240 to 640 * 480 was much shorter, but it still took more than 10 years. From 640 * 480 or DVD to 1920 * 1080 or HDTV, less than 10 years. Most people on technology websites like myce.com first heard about 3840 * 2160 or uHDTV around 2013. Most others will first hear about it in 2014 or 2015. But Netflix, Sony, YouTube, and many other leading contents providers started supplying uHD video in 2013.

Compared to the first-generation HDTV sets, first-generation uHDTV sets are quite inexpensive. And not just from Sony and Mitsubishi. There are actually tens of uHDTV set manufacturers. Competition’s far stronger, at a greatly accelerated pace, and on much larger stakes.

Part of this acceleration is due to media fusion. Apple sells iPod and iPad, but it also sells TVs and watches and monitors and workstations. It will surely soon become an important player in driving as well, with or without drivers. Another factor is that there are now fast-growing mainland Chinese TV manufacturers. Some of them make their own panels. It wasn’t a joke when I said “wait… $300” for something that now costs $300,000 on another thread.

Just wait long enough.

Meanwhile, the real ULTRA resolution’s not 3840 * 2160. There will be even more 5120 * 2160 and 5120 * 2880 screens for TVs, computers, phones, tablets, cars, refrigerators, or just anything that can accomodate the space and prove its usability.


#10

For those of you who do not yet own a 4K TV, it’s here to stay!
Swapped a 2 year old XBR for a new 4K XBR and the difference is amazing.
The old one was fantastic but the new one is truly stunning!
Put the two sid by side on the same cable box and the difference in panels and image processing should be apparent to anyone not declared legaly blind.
4K is here to stay despite the blind nay sayers !

As for a new Bluray standard, about bloody time!
Let’s face it, even with draconian DRM on the disks, streaming 150 gigs of data for each movie is just not practiacal or possible in “Real Time”. It also eats up your ISPs Data limits very fast.


#11

I agree olddancer, but the price has to come down a bit before I replace my 1080P 60" Sony. I cant wait to get my hands on a few 4K Monitors also.


#12

Of course 4K will come to blu ray its an obvious given. My 10" iPad has higher resolution than 1080p so yes smaller screens will benefit (I mean 32", 42" etc… not tablet screens). 4K isn’t all about larger screens. For example it will allow you to sit closer to a 42" screen without it feeling like you are sitting so close thanks to the smaller pixels and this is a big deal. When I try to make my 42" plasma look bigger by sitting closer, at a certain point it doesn’t work because I see the pixels.
4K will also give a more 3D-like picture with better color and black details thanks to
the clarity of the image.


#13

[QUOTE=alan1476;2716354]I agree olddancer, but the price has to come down a bit before I replace my 1080P 60" Sony. I cant wait to get my hands on a few 4K Monitors also.[/QUOTE]

Apple and Dell must be planning to launch a few more 4K monitors and at least two or three of them should be priced at under 1K dolllars. Not exactly cheap but the two companies used to sell 2560 x 1600 monitors for over 1K dolllars and Apple was selling 1920 x 1200 monitor for well more than 2K when I bought my LG Flatron 1920 x 1200 for a little under 1K dollars. I think it is highly likely there will soon be lots of cheap meaning well under 500 dollars 3840 x 2160 to 5120 x 2880 monitors on both OEM and retail channels.


#14

“Current TVs are already greater than the finite resolution of the human eye. We’re talking a physiological limitation, not a technological limitation. TVs, at the sizes people buy and the distances people sit, are better than what the average person can see. We’re talking a physiological limitation, not a technological limitation. TVs, at the sizes people buy and the distances people sit, are better than what the average person can see. Higher resolutions aren’t beneficial because we can’t actually use them.”

Excerpt from c|net article
by Geoffrey Morrison
January 28, 2013

I tend to agree. Besides, what movies or TV content nowadays are really worth the effort? Regular DVD and HD TV resolution is just fine for crap! But if they don’t have something new to market, what are they gonna sell you?


#15

[QUOTE=pcarey;2716478]“Current TVs are already greater than the finite resolution of the human eye. We’re talking a physiological limitation, not a technological limitation. TVs, at the sizes people buy and the distances people sit, are better than what the average person can see. We’re talking a physiological limitation, not a technological limitation. TVs, at the sizes people buy and the distances people sit, are better than what the average person can see. Higher resolutions aren’t beneficial because we can’t actually use them.”

Excerpt from c|net article
by Geoffrey Morrison
January 28, 2013

I tend to agree. Besides, what movies or TV content nowadays are really worth the effort? Regular DVD and HD TV resolution is just fine for crap! But if they don’t have something new to market, what are they gonna sell you?[/QUOTE]

Who really needs a private house? Cave has been the safest and most environment-friendly place for residence for at least several million years for most humans ever lived on this planet.

Those articles are almost worthless. Just good enough to keep as one more historical evidence of human error.

I predict less than one percent of the many MyCE members in three years will admit they were wrong (Such views are not this prevalent on some other website communities.)

But then you do not feel the need to correct your error in the past. Self-appointed tech-savvy people are far more stubborn and retroactive than most others because they tend to live in their own fantasy worlds where they themselves are often the heroes and the leaders in never-stopping technological revolutions.


#16

Kenshin, UHDTV is 3820 x 2160 and 4K is really 4096 x 2160. As you probably know many are erroneously referring to UHD as 4K when its not, but its close.

Don’t expect 2880p on TVs it is not a standard that will likely be supported. Wider resolutions of 2160p are more likely like 5120x2160 won’t be common.
I know because I work in broadcast hardware industry and am working to develop 4K hardware products.
Manufactures may build and market them to trump competition but it would be nonsense.
The next standardized step might be 8K which like the jump from 1080p to UHD is double the h & w and 4 times the pixels.


#17

[QUOTE=ivid;2716552]Kenshin, UHDTV is 3820 x 2160 and 4K is really 4096 x 2160. As you probably know many are erroneously referring to UHD as 4K when its not, but its close.[/QUOTE]

Everyone knows 4K means 4096 and the U in uHDTV means double the resolution of HDTV. By 4K and uHDTV these days, most people mean just anything from 3840 * 2160 to something like 5120 * 2880. That’s not about specification or standard. It’s just a convenient expression meaning next-generation or post-HDTV. It is just like it was with 4G for the telecommunications industry.

Don’t expect 2880p on TVs it is not a standard that will likely be supported. Wider resolutions of 2160p are more likely like 5120x2160 won’t be common.

Just wait. (Though I specifically meant 5120 x 2880 for higher-end desktop monitors for the first half of 2014.)

I know because I work in broadcast hardware industry and am working to develop 4K hardware products.

You don’t.

Manufactures may build and market them to trump competition but it would be nonsense.
The next standardized step might be 8K which like the jump from 1080p to UHD is double the h & w and 4 times the pixels.

So your idea is 21:9, a ratio that is very close to 2.35:1 or 2.4:1, is nonsense? The original reason not to have made 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 as standard for HD-rated monitors and TVs was almost entirely to do with LCD and PDP panel yield rates. 3840 x 2160 and 5120 x 2440 will not disappear. But 5120 x 2160 will become a major standard ratio for all kinds of devices including phones and tablets. Of course, the first is large-size smart TV. Inexpensive 5120 x 2160 panels will not come in this year. For now, 2560 x 1080 (29 inch) panels have become relatively affordable though they still cost considerably higher than 2560 x 1440 (27 inch) panels.

You seem to have read my post focusing on the TV BROADCASTING aspect. There are different specific resolutions for different form factors and different usage models. Most of the first 5120 x 2880 device will be desktop monitors. For portable computers, 3200 x 1800 can be 4K as well and 3.2K is 4K enough.


#18

Kenshin I apologize I offended (I get the feeling I did). But no not everyone knows UHD 3820x2160 is not the same as cinema 4K.

I think we are on the same page. I think I stated clearly I was talking about TVs and ONLY TV standards. I focused on TV because you said “there will be even more 5120 * 2160 and 5120 * 2880 screens for TVs”. So yes I focused on what you said about TV because that is my industry.
I don’t think SMPTE will likely make a 2880p broadcast standard because it doesn’t really make sense, for them or the content providers. Just the fact that 1080i and 720p were both common was a big enough headache for the industry. Then 1080p/60 came along and no one supported it. I know of one major broadcaster that was set to do 1080p60 for a major sporting event and abandoned it for a few reasons.
2880p would be a 16:9 aspect right but only only 33% larger ? Not exactly marketable as big deal. It would be a bit of a gimmick because most if not all content would be unconverted. Its unlikely anyone is going to provide native 2880p content on blu ray or as download/streamed content. It creates too many headaches for too many people.
I did say that 5120x2160 is more likely and LG have even announced a 105" 5120x2160 TV. I just don’t believe 21:9 will be as common as 16:9. I believe they will be more of a niche product for film fanatics. Of course PC monitors and tablets will keep getting larger etc that’s a given. I personally think 21:9 is too wide for a PC monitor or tablet etc. but that’s my preference. I don’t believe the 21:9 wide screen TVs will take off big. They aren’t now and they are available for 1080p.
About 21:9, no I think 21:9 CONTENT is great. Personally I would prefer pillar-boxed 16:9 to letterboxed 21:9. I was referring to it as a broadcast standard and because it’s only good for wide aspect films. So, some films and no TV broadcasts. Its more likely broadcasters will simply broadcast 21:9 content it at 3820x2160 and display it letterboxed or just crop to 16:9 like many of them do now.

Also, yes I really do work in broadcast industry and do have hands on knowledge of where the broadcasters are going over the next few years. I really am currently directly developing 4K capable hardware. I have hands on insight to the industry and understand the headaches of standardizing too many aspects and resolutions etc.