AVS Forum banner

Will bluray ever be capable of producing 4k discs?

10K views 100 replies 37 participants last post by  wse 
#1 ·
Lets say bluray actually does takeoff. What I'm wondering is, in this world of higher resolutions, will bluray ever be able to have enough data to fill a 4k digital film?


Those 200 gig discs may come in handy someday?
 
#77 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by grommet /forum/post/12493127


Uh, 4K is often intended to be used as the permanent movie archive master... restoration is even done at 4K. Film decays. Digital doesn't. You don't even render theatrical film prints from 1080P. Anyway, just don't confuse this with home video delivery.


See you in 10 years.

You didn't answer the question. Why not just use 2K? 2K would create a lasting digital record with enough resolution for 1080P. 4K requires 4x the bandwidth, 4x the storage space. This means SANS that are 4x as large, requires 4x as many servers. As hard drives and tapes wear out they will need to be replaced in 4X as many numbers.

If films will never be released at >1080P why not just archive them at 2K and save hundreds of millions of dollars in archive and storage costs over the next century?


The fact that films after their theatrical release are being archived at 4K instead of 2K (at 4x the annual expense) indicates the studios are more froward looking. Forever is a long time. 1080P is here in 2007. You believe there will never be anything >10080P in 2017?, 2027?, 2047? LCD went from 1 bit 640x480 to 1920 x 1080 10 bit in 20 years. In the next 20 years they will go from 1080p to 1080p?
 
#78 ·

Quote:
We will agree to disagree. I think 10 years ago when digital cinema was still being prototyped if you asked "Can I get a 2K image in my hoime theater (1080P)?" Most people would have said "No way. 2K is way too much resolution for a home theater. It simply isn't worth it. Look this digital cinema system cost $50K and you want one in your home." Moores law is a mean one and has made many Never going to happen predictions look foolish in a lot less than 10 years.

You seem to forget that HDTV is not new at all. It was shown by the Japanese in the early 1970's as a replacement for NTSC.


HD movies were in the hands of consumers in the early 1990's - MUSE HD LD.


Where have you been?
 
#79 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/12493337


You didn't answer the question. Why not just use 2K? 2K would create a lasting digital record with enough resolution for 1080P.

I did answer your question. 4K is one of the current resolutions used to preserve, and often restore, the actual original film footage in the digital age. Some even propose 6K. I'm not talking about home video delivery at all.

Quote:
If films will never be released at >1080P why not just archive them at 2K and save hundreds of millions of dollars in archive and storage costs over the next century?

See above, and also note that though 2K digital cinema is the norm, 4K cinema has been deployed... but as noted earlier in this thread, it isn't exactly mature enough and offers little advantage as of today. Again, this is not home video delivery.


Lee covered the other part...
 
#80 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12493496


You seem to forget that HDTV is not new at all. It was shown by the Japanese in the early 1970's as a replacement for NTSC.


HD movies were in the hands of consumers in the early 1990's - MUSE HD LD.


You been living in a cave or something?

Exactly and you helped prove the point. MUSE had no where near 2K worth of real world resolution. It was 1035i however due to the method that is handled subsampling in fast pans real world resolution in high motion could easily be half that.


Nobody had a 1080p set prior to 2004. The first consumer 1080p LCD was released by Sharp in 2004. The first consumer color LCD display was in 1988 (640x480 16bit color, 14" and had retail price of $2800). I remember seeing and article in PC Magazine and thinking that maybe in a few year we would have COLOR laptops.


So prior to 2004 when broadcasts were moving to 720p digital and most fixed panel TV were 720p the idea that consumers would NEED 1080p (which is 2x the bandwidth and space) was laughable. Digital cinema only had 2K of resolution. Why would a consumer EVER need 1080p in their homes (same resolution as movie theaters)?


Now within a few years all HDTV will likely be 1080p due to combination of the economics of a single resolution design and marketing.


In 10 years we went from 1080p being a DIGITAL CINEMA only technology to widespread consumer adoption.

In 20 years we went from a 14" 640x480 color LCD panel to mass adoption of massive screen sizes.

Silicon tends to result in such exponential growth in size, capacity, and capability that it is not possible to compare it to any other industry. LCD HDTV have more in common with CPU then they do in CRT TV.


Virtually every silicon based product has grown by a magnitude each generation as LCD are no exception; we went from 14" LCD in 1988 to 480p/720p LCD in 1998 to what is available today. Anyone who thinks the train is just going to stop because "consumer's don't need it" has no understanding of silicon mass production. Within a decade it will be cheaper to produce a 4K 65" LCD then it is to produce a 42" 1080P set today. If you are a CE would you rather be selling a $2000 65" 4K display or struggling to maintain margins on $400 42" 1080p?
 
#81 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by grommet /forum/post/12493670


I did answer your question. 4K is one of the current resolutions used to preserve, and often restore, the actual original film footage in the digital age. Some even propose 6K. I'm not talking about home video delivery at all.

I understand 4K is used as an archive format. You didn't answer WHY 4K? It would be like me asking why do cars use gasoline and you saying that cars use gasoline because gasoline is the fuel used in car engines.



It makes no sense to archive data at a higher resolution than it will EVER be used. It simply makes no sense. Indian Jones and the Raiders of the lost ark will never be shown in the theater again so 4K isn't needed for digital cinema. Why archive that movie at 4K? Why not just archive it at 2K? 2K has enough resolution to exceed the limitations 1080p. Indiana Jones will look exactly the same on 1080p coming from a 2K masters as it woudl from a 4K master. All those TB of bits above 2K are simply wasted and will never be used for anything if films are not released at some point on a format >1080p.


Studios tend not to be in the business of wasting money and forever is a long time. The mantra that 1080p/2K is more resolution than anyone will ever need is remarkably similar to "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" (that's slightly over 1/2 a megabyte to the non techy).
 
#82 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/12493746


Exactly and you helped prove the point. MUSE had no where near 2K worth of real world resolution. It was 1035i however due to the method that is handled subsampling in fast pans real world resolution in high motion could easily be half that.


Nobody had a 1080p set prior to 2004. The first consumer 1080p LCD was released by Sharp in 2004. The first consumer color LCD display was in 1988 (640x480 16bit color, 14" and had retail price of $2800). I remember seeing and article in PC Magazine and thinking that maybe in a few year we would have COLOR laptops.


So prior to 2004 when broadcasts were moving to 720p digital and most fixed panel TV were 720p the idea that consumers would NEED 1080p (which is 2x the bandwidth and space) was laughable. Digital cinema only had 2K of resolution. Why would a consumer EVER need 1080p in their homes (same resolution as movie theaters)?


Now within a few years all HDTV will likely be 1080p due to combination of the economics of a single resolution design and marketing.


In 10 years we went from 1080p being a DIGITAL CINEMA only technology to widespread consumer adoption.

In 20 years we went from a 14" 640x480 color LCD panel to mass adoption of massive screen sizes.

Silicon tends to result in such exponential growth in size, capacity, and capability that it is not possible to compare it to any other industry. LCD HDTV have more in common with CPU then they do in CRT TV.


Virtually every silicon based product has grown by a magnitude each generation as LCD are no exception; we went from 14" LCD in 1988 to 480p/720p LCD in 1998 to what is available today. Anyone who thinks the train is just going to stop because "consumer's don't need it" has no understanding of silicon mass production. Within a decade it will be cheaper to produce a 4K 65" LCD then it is to produce a 42" 1080P set today. If you are a CE would you rather be selling a $2000 65" 4K display or struggling to maintain margins on $400 42" 1080p?

My memory is telling me that MUSE LD was 1920x1125i. As was W-VHS. They were Analog HD systems/platforms. 45 Vertical Lines were used for housekeeping functions just like they are today. We quote 1080 because that is the visible structure.


Other than Hitachi - all MMD and FPD's are progressive.


Your timimg is a bit short IMO. The CEM's are going to be building larger FPD's. Instead of 50" you will, for the same money, be able to buy a 60". Then up to a 65".


4K exists as a commerical application. The chain is complete - Cameras, Scanners (for film), Servers for the data and Projectors for the presentation. 4K is being earmarked for D-Cinema - a commerical application.


Why do you believe that HD has such a short life span? 20 years? That's it? 5 years from now we will still have NTSC. It will be well over 60 years old. HD as a format just became popular in the last 3 years and mostly in the last 18 months due to the drop in price - to make it affordable to the masses.


We are somewhere around 30% household penetration in the USA. Less in other countries. 70% have no HDTV.


To give the consumer a 4K home video format - what are you going to use for a delivery system? Surely not HD DVD or BD - they are too limited. Holographic Disc?


If you were saying 20 years from today I might agree with you - but 10 years? I don't believe so at all. We will have only reached about 75% of all households by then. And we are discussing households - not actual TV sets. The number today is about 15%.
 
#83 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12493870


My memory is telling me that MUSE LD was 1920x1125i. As was W-VHS. They were Analog HD systems/platforms. 45 Vertical Lines were used for housekeeping functions just like they are today. We quote 1080 because that is the visible structure.

Key flaw was how the system handled rapid motion. There were many reports of how resolvable resolution was 40%-50% of max in high motion scenes. The point I made was prior to 1080p displays the only 2K format was for digital cinema. Nobody said you can't make 1080p displays for homes that is for 50 foot digital cinema screens. Today 1080p is mainstream and 4K is in digital cinema. 4K will come to home displays eventually but I never said it would be
 
#84 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/12493849


I understand 4K is used as an archive format. You didn't answer WHY 4K? It would be like me asking why do cars use gasoline and you saying that cars use gasoline because gasoline is the fuel used in car engines.



It makes no sense to archive data at a higher resolution than it will EVER be used. It simply makes no sense. Indian[a] Jones and the Raiders of the lost ark will never be shown in the theater again so 4K isn't needed for digital cinema. Why archive that movie at 4K? Why not just archive it at 2K? 2K has enough resolution to exceed the limitations 1080p. Indiana Jones will look exactly the same on 1080p coming from a 2K masters as it woudl from a 4K master.

I honestly can't believe what I'm hearing. "Makes no sense"? Is this a joke? To preserve any classic film, you'd want to digitally scan it at a very high resolution... 4K commonly. Some may even want 6K, or more. You'd also want to do any restoration work in a very high resolution. Isn't this obvious? You are making the digital equivalent of the 'original film' for the archive... one that will not decay. This has little to do with content delivery, or the various resolutions or formats used.


Your theatrical example is totally bizarre and I'm not sure what your point is. Catalog films, yes even "Indiana Jones", are regularly seen in theaters around the world... some re-released by the studio to the mainstream theater chains.
As we've already stated, 4K is already a (not often used) standard for digital cinema projection.
 
#85 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild /forum/post/12491727


The fundamental issue is that even if source material has 4K detail (most digital intermediate scans are done on a 6K or 8K level) that doesn't imply your eye will be able to discern that difference.

I can see the difference easily from where I sit in theaters with real 4K sources (not 35mm where MTF is very down above ~2.5K). DI work these days is usually 2K, sometimes 4K and only > 4K for special projects (70mm, IMAX). I'm talking about the resolution leaving the scanner/telecine. Internally oversampling can go higher.
 
#87 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12497946


This whole issue of 2K, 4K, 6K, etc . . .


What is the actual resolution of a single frame of 35mm film that has run through a motion picture camera? (which is NOT the same as an SLR camera.)


Any links?


If I remember it was something like 2500x2000 for 35mm and 6000x4000 for 70mm


I believe this helps:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf

Lee, I posted a link explaining exactly that at the end of page 2 in this thread. Honestly, I sometimes wonder why I even bother participating in these discussions. Although, your link does help explain the actual study I referenced in my link, so that is helpful.


The problem with this whole issue between the two sides is one of perspective. One side is looking it from a marketing perspective and the other side (myself, Mr.D) are looknig at it from a technical perspective. I have no doubt 4k sources and displays will be happily made available by the CE companies eventually. They would love to sell you entirely new systems all over again. The problem is that in a home enviroment, 4k will not make one bit of difference, visually, when viewing all existing sources in the world today. Only by inventing a higher resolution source will future high-resolution playback benefit everyone, but by then I suspect it will be 3D and then how would you measure resolution?


Doug
 
#88 ·
Doug:


I am with you all the way. I believe the same as you do. So you are preaching to the choir.


What I am trying to do is debunk the spec warriors who think corproations are going to spend billions of dollars each time they read some article. Like we should have a format change every 5 years or so.


OK guys! Time to pony up to the bar . . . . get your checkbooks out.


You want the "very best" available - no problem. Make the check payable to Evans & Sutherland. Order one of their Laser Projectors. 5000x4000 is the resolution format this thing will handle.


OH . . . if you have to ask how much . . . .you can't afford it.
 
#89 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12500030


Doug:


I am with you all the way. I believe the same as you do. So you are preaching to the choir.


What I am trying to do is debunk the spec warriors who think corproations are going to spend billions of dollars each time they read some article. Like we should have a format change every 5 years or so.


OK guys! Time to pony up to the bar . . . . get your checkbooks out.


You want the "very best" available - no problem. Make the check payable to Evans & Sutherland. Order one of their Laser Projectors. 5000x4000 is the resolution format this thing will handle.


OH . . . if you have to ask how much . . . .you can't afford it.

Okay, okay, I'm glad we are on the same page here. I just hope everyone else realizes that with current film and video sources, anything much over 1080 is not going to benefit anyone in the current home enviroment (does anyone really wonder why they came up with 720 and 1080 for the current HD standards? They are not just numbers pulled out of a hat).


Acutally, I would love to have 5000x4000 if, IF, we have sources captured at that resolution and if, IF, I can put at least a 200" screen in my home



Doug
 
#92 ·
2k is not 1080p. 2k refers to a 2k resolution full negative density film scan or material mastered to the Dcinema standard. It is not 1080p video . 1080p video is not "2k" I'd personally say that 1k 10bit log material still looks better than 1080p video albeit slightly softer. Get off the resolution numbers.


The next biggest improvement to domestic video formats will be improvements to the dynamic range that bring it closer to the dcinema formats but we currently don't have many displays available to the consumer that could meaningfully make a good stab at representing these sort of dynamic ranges. This is not the same as slapping a couple of bits into the video , you need the material to make use of the extra precision and move entirely away from a limited video intensity range.
 
#93 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/12463708


Bandwidth:

More limiting would be bandwidth. 4K will require about 4x the bandwidth using VC-1 or AVC. HD DVD is cutting it pretty closing with 30Mbps Audio + Video @ 1080P resolutions. Likely we are talking a transfer rate of 30x4 = 120Mbps well beyond BD spec. Even if new codecs could drop this to 60-70mbps (an amazing feat) it would be well beyond BD "redline". If anything such a spec would want some "head room" and likely would aim for a AV rate of 150mbps-200mbps.

I was wondering why it took 24 posts to get here.
 
#94 ·
i think most of you are truly forgetting how fast technology is advancing, it is possible that we could be passed the technological singularity in 20 years. it is not likely but possible, in that case 20 years from now could be so different that nothing will be even comparable to now.


there is a good chance we will see wall sized flexible screens, it all comes down to how fast nano scale technology shows up.


still i think 3D is the next move, it is the only major change that even the most non videophile can see and understand.


deep color will be added long before we get to 4k resolution, but we will get there as i see no real change in peoples desire for ever larger screens.


size limit for a room has changed as people opt for flat panels, rooms that look overwhelmed with a 50 inch rear projection set look fine with a 65 inch flat panel. if some of the new tech really reduces the bulk and thickness down to a painting you will see another jump in acceptable size. last will be price, when the size is finally maxed out we approach the limits of human vision then the only thing manufactures can do is lower price.


in the end you could see a home with many displays all over the house each networked, playing a themed view so even though you live in a cramped city apartment. the VIEW through all the displays make it look like you are on some tropical island. media then can be called up to any of these displays around the house. at this point we will have to be well passed 4K deep color displays, i am not sure this will happen in 20 years but it is possible.
 
#95 ·

Quote:
deep color will be added long before we get to 4k resolution, but we will get there as i see no real change in peoples desire for ever larger screens.

If people don't want larger screens than higher resolution is totally wasted because that is the purpose of higher resolution.


Remember - Resolution is #4 on the 1 to 4 most important parts that make up an image.


That hasn't changed nor will it.
 
#96 ·
people do want larger screens, they just do not want them to be as massive and not cost as much as the house. flat panels are allowing larger sets to be placed into many homes, i think cost is 80% of the problem that large set have not the room they will be placed in.


if i could get a paper thin TV that costs under 1K i can find a few places in my house that i would like a 100 inch or bigger screen.


how many sports fans would not want a set that makes it look like they have a box seat at the game?
 
#97 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12508992


Remember - Resolution is #4 on the 1 to 4 most important parts that make up an image.


That hasn't changed nor will it.

I'll bite, what are the higher three items? I know color gamut/depth has to be one of them.
 
#100 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner /forum/post/12514115


Well, that depends on where you are at the moment with these 4 criteria. If you have nothing, for example, you need some resolution first (e.g. some pixels) or you can't even explore the other 3.

Ah no. It is the hierachy that was determined noi by me but by others in the know. And as soon as you display an image - all 4 kick in.


We even had a front page article about this here at AVS about 6 months ago.
 
#101 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart  /t/953743/will-bluray-ever-be-capable-of-producing-4k-discs/90#post_12511471



1. Contrast Ratio

2. Gray Scale

3. Color

4. Resolution

Minority report, Oblivion, Total Recall screens of the future if you have the money you can already have that today
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top