UHDTV - 4K - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 Old 04-01-2013, 10:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
DigitalFilm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A question:

What are the expected 'standard' connections for home 4K that most users are looking to use?

HDMI 1.4?
But at what bit depth and what color resolution?
420, 422, 444?

Or are new connections - such as HDMI 2.0 - the future for UHDTV 4K?

This is asked in relationship to calibration with LUT boxes.
DigitalFilm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 Old 04-01-2013, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 163
HDMI 1.4 has limited support for 4K.

None of the current video processors or LUT boxes have support for 4K.

Just because something is HDMI 1.4 does not mean it supports 4K.

Joel Barsotti
SpectraCal
CalMAN Lead Developer
sotti is offline  
post #3 of 25 Old 04-01-2013, 03:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

None of the current video processors or LUT boxes have support for 4K.

... and I hope that will change soon ! The "problem": at the moment there are only a few people who want to spend a lot of money in video processors which "only" support 2k.

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #4 of 25 Old 04-01-2013, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nudgiator View Post

... and I hope that will change soon ! The "problem": at the moment there are only a few people who want to spend a lot of money in video processors which "only" support 2k.

And even fewer who would be willing to spend the money required to have a real 4K solution.

And even less content to actually watch.


That will all change in time.

Joel Barsotti
SpectraCal
CalMAN Lead Developer
sotti is offline  
post #5 of 25 Old 04-01-2013, 04:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I can only speak for myself. TODAY I wouldn't spend > 3000 USD for a Radiance XE without an option for - at least - 4k. Better will be 8k or 16k.

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #6 of 25 Old 04-02-2013, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 196
4K/UHD has much higher bandwidth than anything we're using today. Cables may have to be replaced to pass 4K and especially 4K/UHD 3D because of the higher bandwidth requirement. When I previewed Sony's 4K consumer projector, they shipped a server with actual 4K content and included an HDMI cable long enough to connect to the projector. When I tried to pass that 4K though half a dozen AVRs or processors I had in house at that time (late 2011), none would pass the 4K even though they were all HDMI 1.4. Only a few of the HDMI cables I had would pass 4K also and the ones that did were both quite expensive. The inexpensive cables (in long lengths like you would use with a projector... 30 feet in my case) would not work. That's not to say there won't be inexpensive HDMI cables that can pass 4K, in fact, you can be certain if high-speed inexpensive HDMI cables don't exist yet, it won't be long. More than likely they simply need an adjustment in geometry or possibly a material change or two that will bump their bandwidth up high enough to deliver the increased number of pixels along with the increase in bits per pixel that UHD brings with it. You're pumping 4 times the number of pixels through the cable in the same amount of time with true UHD signals... PLUS the extra data that comes along with the higher bits per color that UHD supports. So the bandwidth increase is probably on the order of 6X-7X higher than HD bandwidth today, with UHD 3D having the highest bandwidth requirement.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #7 of 25 Old 04-02-2013, 02:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Sure, you are right Doug. But I am also sure, that won't be a problem in 1-2 years. And I don't think that eeColor / Lumagen will offer a 4k video processor / LUT-box in the next few month.

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #8 of 25 Old 04-02-2013, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
derekjsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Why build a product around the HDMI 1.4a today when it is so limited. Knowing an updated standard and chipset will be out in the future. Kind of like all the HD ready stuff 10 years ago. Nice idea but how much of that really worked out. The only true 4k stuff today is over quadlink be it SDI or HDMI.

Derek

CTO / Founder - SpectraCal Inc.
derekjsmith is offline  
post #9 of 25 Old 04-02-2013, 03:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I can wait, Derek wink.gif

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #10 of 25 Old 04-02-2013, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 93
To get an idea of how mixed up and tentative the UHD/4K/2160p scene is right now, follow the recent series of articles in 'Widescreen Review' by Joe Kane.
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #11 of 25 Old 04-02-2013, 05:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
current monoprice cables are rated to support 4K, like the ones I have here (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10255&cs_id=1025503&p_id=9891&seq=1&format=2)

"4K - The 4K resolution is 3840 x 2160 pixels @ 24 Hz, which is four times that of a 1080p display and the same resolution used by state-of-the-art Digital Cinema systems. A High Speed HDMI Cable is capable of handling the high bandwidth required for 4K support."
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #12 of 25 Old 04-03-2013, 09:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 211
We do 4K (and 8K) in the DI work we do...

We have just got 4K via single 1.4 HDMI working on Mistika, the DI system we use (www.sgo.es) for Ultra HD.
But, normally we use Dual SDI 3G I/O and Quad HDMI for true 4K (which Ultra HD isn't).

With luck the upcoming HDMI V2.0 format will address the outstanding issues.

But, home 4K via Ultra HD is some time away from being a reality.

Steve

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #13 of 25 Old 04-06-2013, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjsmith View Post

Why build a product around the HDMI 1.4a today when it is so limited. Knowing an updated standard and chipset will be out in the future. Kind of like all the HD ready stuff 10 years ago. Nice idea but how much of that really worked out. The only true 4k stuff today is over quadlink be it SDI or HDMI.
Basically, its best to wait for the updated chipset within the next year for a new video processor or avr?
blee0120 is online now  
post #14 of 25 Old 04-06-2013, 11:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 196
By the way, there's still no complete consensus on whether UHD will be 4:4:2 or 4:4:4... either way it will be better than the 4:2:0 we get from DVD or Blu-ray.

Bits... 10 or 12... again, no complete consensus.

UHD Blu-ray format is not cast in stone yet. Since pits can't get any smaller with laser technology, the focus is on adding layers to the existing Blu-ray disc format. Since 2-layer Blu-rays already exist, the 5 or 6 layers (or maybe even 8 layers including special features and such) that will be needed for UHD should be doable. Existing disc players, of course, won't play discs with that many layers. UHD 3D will be much like HD 3D. Last I heard, frame rate was not even decided on for UHD. They could do 48 fps or 60 fps, but storage capacity on discs can be an issue with that many frames with 10 or 12 bits and at least 4:4:2 decimation.

One thing is certain, people are going to have to get over their "soap opera effect" hatred, because 48 or 60 fps is NOT going to "feel" like 24 fps film. 24 fps film is like the rotary dial telephone... rotary dial telephones are quaint and interesting reminders of a bygone era. 24 fps film should be the same thing... it is NOT good. And it is NOT a performance standard. In fact it's the WORST POSSIBLE FORMAT people in the 20s and 30s were willing to pay money to see (higher frame rates would make it more expensive to shoot and duplicate movies, and there'd have to be more reel changes during showings of the movies while frame rates lower than 24 damage motion so much it looks choppy). It seems almost impossible that we scream for more bits and less color decimation (to get more fidelity than 4:2:0 can deliver), and we like our higher definition images, but that many of us hold on to the blurred motion caused by the slow shutter speeds demanded by 24 fps like it was something ideal. Personally, I can't WAIT to kiss 24 fps goodbye forever, except for nostalgia showings in theaters or at home. I hope displays continue to show us our 24 fps legacy movies as they were originally made -- but I want to see Iron Man 4 in 60 fps with little or no color decimation and 12 bit color.

BTW - 4K implies 4096 resolution in the horizontal direction. UHD is going to have 4X resolution (not 4K) of HDTV which means doubling the horizontal and vertical lines 1920 x 2 = 3840. And 1080 x 2 = 2160. So you may hear 2160p as a reference to UHD. Of course that assumes UHD remains a 1.78:1 aspect ratio format. I'm not sure if the native aspect ratio of the UHD format has been settled yet, but people refer to 3840 x 2160 a lot when referring to UHD and the models introduced at CES appeared to be 1.78 aspect ratio. It would be interesting to keep the 2160 vertical resolution but expand horizontal to encompass a 2.35 aspect screen so you'd have constant image height at home just like in movie theaters... aspect ratios lower than 2.35 would leave black bars on the edges of the screen. A 2.35 fixed pixel display with 2160 vertical resolution would have to be 5076 pixels wide. That would be a smokin' hot video format.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #15 of 25 Old 04-06-2013, 12:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Smackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
The current ITU Rec. 2020 specification only mandates two resolutions 3840x2160 and 7680x4320, with no allowances for anything but 1.78:1 ratios. I;d really like to see a native 2.35 option as well, but I think the best we can do it get anamorphic encoding included as an option for the next disc format, or download format, so we can at least get higher resolution than we can now. Echoing what everyone else has said, HDMI support for UHD is really lacking at the moment, as you're stuck with 24p for 4K and 30p for 3840x2160 currently. HDMI 2.0 should address this (and since the Rec. 2020 spec allows for up to 120p content, I hope they have a lot of extra bandwidth ready in the new spec), and might bring about support for 4:2:0 over HDMI finally. That will mean all new Blu-ray players and processors to take advantage of it, but at least it'll finally exist in the spec.

Chris Heinonen
Senior Editor, Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity, www.hometheaterhifi.com
Displays Editor, AnandTech.com
Contributor, HDGuru.com and Wirecutter.com
ISF Level II Certified Calibrator, ReferenceHomeTheater.com
Smackrabbit is offline  
post #16 of 25 Old 04-08-2013, 04:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
hungro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Rec 2020 is the way to go with a wider gamut 75% of what the human eye can see , that's a good leap forward. I just hope that the idiots on the board for blu-ray come up with a proper spec so that when jo blow goes out to buy that shiny new OLED tv he get's to see a full image using the full realestate of his tv. I mean I buy 16/9 set and still get my picture cut off, man it's a pisser. Seems like Rec 2020 might end this 2:35:1, 2:40:1 ratio nonsense. I am hoping , fingers crossed. In the end just please don't compress the hell out out the video signal I mean it will be 4K resolution but leave it lossless smile.gif
hungro is online now  
post #17 of 25 Old 04-09-2013, 05:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 196
One thing is certain about UHD... we currently do not have home Wi-Fi that I'm aware of that can deal with UHD bandwidth (combined audio and video). In fact, wired internet connection speeds people have access to at home won't even support UHD streaming with TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio (possibly not even UHD video without audio, not that you'd ever want that). Our internet connection speed (Comcast) just got bumped up to a "real" 30 Mb/sec and that's pretty doggone fast... the fastest DSL is more like 20 Mb/sec. UHD video and audio combined are likely to be much faster.

Just the video part of UHD is 3840 x 2160 pixels x 60 frames per second x 3 colors x 12 bits per pixel... that's right at 18 Gb/sec and doesn't even include audio (nor the effect of color decimation to 4:4:2 which would lower the rate slightly for the image portion). Gigabit Ethernet can't (apparently) even stream UHD video.

Then there's the whole question about whether UHD will ever be a broadcast format - probably not the way things are today. UHD might become the first video format to never be broadcast over the airwaves... we may have no broadcast signals at some point in the future.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #18 of 25 Old 04-10-2013, 01:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
The answer is very easy. You "only" need a more efficient codec for UHD. And I am sure that won't be a real problem.

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #19 of 25 Old 04-11-2013, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Video compression is about as good as it is ever going to get... any more compression than being done today WILL be visible in the images. You can't keep deleting data and not having it result in visible degradation. You can EASILY see the damage done to HD images by compression in ANY cable or satellite signal - it is VERY VERY ugly. It would just be stupid to up the pixel count by 4x then compress the **** out of it so the bandwidth is acceptable. Encoding video... really doesn't achieve anything more than compression does. The decoded images look compressed. You can't get perfectly reconstructed images with less data than is being encoded on Blu-ray today. Netflix et al have gotten about as much as you can get out of compressed video, but it's still not like watching a Blu-ray disc. Multiplying the pixel count by 4X isn't going to make compression easier or more efficient.

By the way, I just noticed that the UHD video displays released so far will be limited to 30 fps because there was nothing "faster" than HDMI 1.4 that could be put in (other than SDI maybe or dual or quad SDI). Some of the more clever UHD models have an external interface box with the HDMI inputs. When there's a high-speed interface available, you'll be able to throw away your original interface box and replace it with a UHD interface box that would (presumably) be able to support 48 or 60 fps.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #20 of 25 Old 04-11-2013, 03:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
There was MPEG2 and nobody thought of MPEG4. For UHD there will be e.g. MPEGxxx ... more compression with (at least) the same quality but 4k. The development will continue ...

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #21 of 25 Old 04-13-2013, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 196
NOBODY in the imaging industry EVER thought MPEG-2 was going to be as good as it gets (spoken from the viewpoint of a 34-year imaging systems engineer). MPEG-2 arose because it was all the tech at the time could deal with. Now that we are past MPEG-2 and into more sophisticated codecs that needed faster processors than were available at the dawn of MPEG-2, we have rather quickly gotten to the point that there's just nowhere to turn to encode video more efficiently, even with processors 10 or 100 times faster than they are today, we've gotten to the point where you need a certain amount of data in order to reconstruct an image without damaging it to the point you've degraded the image. Maybe somebody will figure out how to build an equation with, say 1,000,000 characters that will describe a 25-million pixel UHD image with no loss of fidelity. In that case, NONE of the pixel data would even be in the transmitted data stream... but finding a way to do something like that for video is not for the feint of heart. But that's where we are today. We can't be living with block compression like current video codecs do because it creates visible artifacts and degrades the images if you do much of it. We can do any more chroma subsampling than the 4:2:0 done on Blu-ray discs without serious loss of image fidelity. There's no easy way to compress luminance data losslessly.

If something new comes along that makes UHD bandwidth less of a problem, it will have to be something very different than anything we've ever seen before. It would be easier to make everything bigger and faster to deal with the UHD data than to try to find a highly effective codec (like the 1 equation per frame approach).

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #22 of 25 Old 04-13-2013, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 163
BTW the "next" codec is already, ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding

H.265 here we come.

It's about 30% more efficient that H.264. Given more processing power, you can usually do more with less. There is always a limit, but when you start with more data (4K) typically you have more options available for compression.

Joel Barsotti
SpectraCal
CalMAN Lead Developer
sotti is offline  
post #23 of 25 Old 04-13-2013, 08:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Nudgiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
My words, Joel smile.gif

Sources: Panasonic BDT-110, Toshiba HD-XE-1, Vantage VT-1S
Video processing: Lumagen Radiance 2041
Calibration: Full LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5 Business Pro, Chroma Pure
Probes: X-Rite EODIS3 / C6 / Chroma 5 / i1 pro 2
Targets: JVC-X500, TX-P65VTW60
Sound: Yamaha RX-V2067
Nudgiator is offline  
post #24 of 25 Old 04-13-2013, 11:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 196
You have to keep something in mind... these encoding schemes are FAR larger bandwidth hogs when you require LOSSLESS compression as we would want for high quality UHD imaging. Sure, you can compress the holy crap out of any video signal, but when you decode it, you won't have a version of the image that looks like the original. Netflix and others who really need high-efficiency compression/encoding are NOT delivering LOSSLESS content. Freeze a frame in any action sequence transmitted via Netflix and freeze the same frame from a Blu-ray disc and you find the Netflix version appears to have a resolution of something like 400x300 while the image from the Blu-ray disc will look much closer to 1920x1080. "Efficiency" of the codec is not necessarily tied to image quality. If you want high quality images, you may not be able to benefit much from the "efficiency" of a new codec. Whereas the codec may deliver a "30% improvement" over the previous standard, when it comes to retaining high quality images, the improvement could be much less -- remains to be seen.

The reason UHD even exists is because it's a move to ever-higher image quality at home. Compromising the higher quality images just to get lower bandwidth requirements isn't a compatible concept -- so whatever is used for high quality UHD sources will have to do what it does without visually altering the original images... that's difficult to do while decreasing bandwidth requirements.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #25 of 25 Old 04-13-2013, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Doug, I believe the compression is chart was suppose to be equivalent effective quality.

30% increase in efficiency means equal quality at lower bandwidth.
Just lowering bandwidth is something we can do right now.

It's not like any of the consumer solutions are lossless to begin with.


None of that is to say that we aren't getting close to the edge of what might be possible with compression. Just that there is still some on the table.

Joel Barsotti
SpectraCal
CalMAN Lead Developer
sotti is offline  
Reply Display Calibration

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off