Lets assume we are getting 4k blu ray, how will it affect pq on our current 1080p sets? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 01:31 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
chadsdsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I am under the assumption (completely uneducated as it may be) that we will see 4k blu ray sooner or later (I predict sooner, as in ps4 official announcement sooner). What is everyone's opinion on how these discs might look when sent to our "old school" 1080p sets? I am fully aware that we won't get 4k resolution/pq out of a 1080 set, but I can't help but think that with possibly 100+ gigs to play with and the new hvec codec, 1080p sets could really benefit, much more so than these "mastered in 4k" discs. Needless to say, it will come down to the overall production quality, but I just wanted to hear what you guys thought?
chadsdsmith is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 05:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

I am under the assumption (completely uneducated as it may be) that we will see 4k blu ray sooner or later (I predict sooner, as in ps4 official announcement sooner). What is everyone's opinion on how these discs might look when sent to our "old school" 1080p sets? I am fully aware that we won't get 4k resolution/pq out of a 1080 set, but I can't help but think that with possibly 100+ gigs to play with and the new hvec codec, 1080p sets could really benefit, much more so than these "mastered in 4k" discs. Needless to say, it will come down to the overall production quality, but I just wanted to hear what you guys thought?

It will depend entirely upon the scaler used in the player - assuming your TV is unable to accept, let alone downscale 4K content to 1080p. My first ever TV beyond CRT was an EDTV (480p) plasma. It could accept just about any resolution over component, VGA, or DVI, including 1920x1080 (this was before HD-DVD/Blu-ray) so options were limited to PC content including games and HD WMVs that Microsoft was pushing at the time, including "Xtreme DVDs" or whatever they were called.

Point being, HD content looked significantly better than 480p content. Static images like text looked better at the native resolution, but video and games looked better being scaled down. Obviously, once I upgraded to a native 1080p display, everything looked decidedly better than my old plasma.

I think we'll see something similar with native 4K content scaled down to 1080p, but the scaler and the content will determine how we perceive it.
nathanddrews is online now  
post #3 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
It would likely benefit from full color resolution and superior compression, but it remains to be seen how the compression quality pans out with 4x the data to compress. If the format is designed properly (which I don't have much faith in, since they already made the stupid decision to make it quad-HD rather than conform to digital cinema resolution), the improvement could be very appreciable.
42041 is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 282
If and only if they move to true 10 bit, 4:2:2 color depth (or greater) encoding.

But, if they expect to compress the living hell out of their 4k masters with H.265 to fit the content on a standard Blu-ray disc (which is 50 GB), then you can expect the same old crappy 8 bit experience.

If we do get a physical UHD disc, it must use a higher capacity disc with a greater bitrate pool that allows for more progressive frame rates including the usual suspects plus native 25 fps, 30 fps, 48 fps, 50 fps, and 60 fps as well as a much improved, pro-grade bit depth and color gamut. Even many consumer TV's can accept 12 bit video information... there just hasn't been any native content to take advantage of the capabilities.

Throw in Dolby Atmos or similar, advanced, system scalable, lossless audio mixing and it'll be spectacular. Anything less and it'll be dead on arrival due to the extra costs of the movies and equipment with very little benefit over Blu-ray.

However, if the studios insist on PPV or downloadable files off the internet... prepare to be extremely underwhelmed just like so-called "1080p" content from Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Vudu, etc.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #5 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 11:49 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
chadsdsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
My question was more in regard to how these disks would look on existing 1080p tv equipment. I would tend to think, assuming the downconversion is performed correctly, that even with a 4k blu ray format using 50gb discs, that the better compression codec would result in a better than current blu ray picture.
chadsdsmith is online now  
post #6 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 12:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

My question was more in regard to how these disks would look on existing 1080p tv equipment. I would tend to think, assuming the downconversion is performed correctly, that even with a 4k blu ray format using 50gb discs, that the better compression codec would result in a better than current blu ray picture.
OK, I'll bite....

"In theory" properly scaled 4K content that is encoded in a way to not have the compression issues that we see with some Blu-ray content, it should look better. You won't get the pixels, but it should be similar to watching HD content on an older tube SD TV: the extra breathing room should make it look less compressed.

In the real world, the studios that are overcompression and DNRing 1080p content, will likely do so with 4K. The difference is, it will be a relative difference based on the larger amount of data. What that means is, it's just as likely it will look exactly the same as 1080p content on a 1080p set. You'll likely only see a benefit on a 4k TV where the pixels are smaller allowing more detail from the recording to show. Since you won't have those extra pixels on your 1080p, you won't get the benefit while having the same issues.

We've seen mosquito noise, DNR, ringing, incorrect coloring, macroblocking and artifacting on both DVD and Blu-ray. I doubt they'll have some sort of epiphany that will make them actually try to avoid that stuff in 4K.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #7 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 12:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

We've seen mosquito noise, DNR, ringing, incorrect coloring, macroblocking and artifacting on both DVD and Blu-ray. I doubt they'll have some sort of epiphany that will make them actually try to avoid that stuff in 4K.
This stuff tends to be the result of using older transfers.
Unless they start upscaling stuff, a 4K format will likely necessitate new ones for those titles. I think you just won't see that much catalog content on the format from the studios that have been reluctant to pay for new scans.
42041 is offline  
post #8 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 07:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I'm more concerned about the law of diminishing returns: not all material was released on VHS; not all VHS material has been released on DVD; not all DVD has been released on Bluray; and not all Bluray will be released in 4K. In each step, less of the preceding amount of material is released in better quality, so there is an increasing volume of low quality material that will likely never see the light of day in better quality or even at all. Since it takes more effort for each quality improvement and with the increasing costs, expect fewer releases to do the format justice with each step, with the remainder being upconverted from prior releases or just not bothered with at all and left to existing old formats.

Consequently I see an actual reduction in the amount of material available to the consumer as old technologies wear out and die or go out of print, regardless of quality.

Eventually I expect we will only have blockbusters in full 4K quality with the remainder on a slope of decreasing quality, with increasing numbers.

In answer to the OP's question: GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out). If material is not scanned at 4K then it's not going to look any better at 1080p than material upscaled to 4K.
IanD is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 02-01-2013, 10:45 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
chadsdsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Thanks for the feedback. The opinions here basically mirror my opinion that, at least in theory, the new 4k format will look appreciably better than the current blu ray format on even our 1080p sets, assuming of course that the work put into that release (source condition, scan quality, compression technique etc.) are of high quality. I ask because I would consider buying into this new format (if and when it happens) long before ever buying a 4k tv. I could buy and enjoy the new tech ahead of time then not have to worry about double dipping on all the titles I would have bought in 2k in the meantime. I am kind of curious to compare a title like lawrence of arabia (which I am sure would be one of the first on said format) on my tv. It looks great in standard blu ray, and I would be intrigued to see how a new format with better compression technology (and possibly more physical space on the disk) might bring out more of its detail. I guess I am just excited about the possibilities. I am sure players will be expensive at first but will likely be affordable much faster than blu ray players took to get to the same level of affordability. I just don't think the market has the patience for such a technology to hang around for long if it does not become affordable quickly. Anyways, I am done with my tangent, any more opinions are welcomed.....
chadsdsmith is online now  
post #10 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 06:38 AM
Senior Member
 
daniels1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I wouldn't even bother buying 4k blu rays. Another sucker scam by the TV makers and studios. The new format will fail just as 3D TV's and 3D Blu Rays are failing now. I admit that both PQ and AQ are miles better on blu ray than streaming. However most of the average Joe still thinks blu rays are too expensive and unfortunately streaming will be the way of the future. $$$ talk here. What the pipe dream roll-out of the 4K blu rays should tell you is that the format is on its last legs. Digital will be the way to go.
daniels1994 is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 07:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by daniels1994 View Post

I wouldn't even bother buying 4k blu rays. Another sucker scam by the TV makers and studios.

All has been said before. The same was said about vacuum tubes, transistors, LPs, CDs, DVDs, color TVs, HDTVs, etc., etc.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #12 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 08:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Just wait for Super-Hi Vision 8K w/22.2 lossless and skip this intermediate step. wink.gif
nathanddrews is online now  
post #13 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 10:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

Just wait for Super-Hi Vision 8K w/22.2 lossless and skip this intermediate step. wink.gif
I can't wait....I don't have another 20 years left in me.wink.gif
reanimator likes this.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #14 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I can't wait....I don't have another 20 years left in me.wink.gif

+1
dsinger is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 08:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pcweber111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Posts: 3,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 262
I'd definitely start buying 4K discs and a player should they make it out fairly soon. The temptation is too great and besides, like a BD player they will be backwards compatible so there's very little risk involved outside of higher pricing at the beginning. Still, the appeal is too great for me to ignore. I'll be there once they drop.
pcweber111 is online now  
post #16 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 08:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

I'd definitely start buying 4K discs and a player should they make it out fairly soon. The temptation is too great and besides, like a BD player they will be backwards compatible so there's very little risk involved outside of higher pricing at the beginning. Still, the appeal is too great for me to ignore. I'll be there once they drop.

I would be too, as long as the specs. are top notch and not some shameless hyper compressed-4k-shoe-horned-into-the-current-Blu-ray-disc-manufacturing-specs.-to-save-a-buck stunt.

However, it looks like there will be another battle royale brewing in UHD land that will make the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD rumble look quaint. Long simmering corporate feuds over consumer dollars abhor a vacuum, and since the BDA is slow to move on a new Blu-ray standard, there is indeed a vacuum. This ain't going to be pretty.

I'll think you'll see internet products offered up by just about every studio and power player out there (Sony's just the beginning)... then there's the RED player... something from Google, then Apple, then Netflix, then Amazon, etc. etc. etc. etc. Then there's the glimmer of hope in doing PPV downloads or streaming to said products... regardless of the quality due to the lack of a solid internet infrastructure in this country. There will be a push to cram UHD content into as small a space as possible because of this. The REDplayer already has audio specs lower than Blu-ray. That's one of the first things to give.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #17 of 28 Old 02-02-2013, 11:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
In a display hardware sense, I think we are into diminishing returns territory where each increment is less of an improvement than the last: s-video was a substantial improvement over composite, component was a smaller improvement over s-video and HDMI is a small improvement over component (at equivalent resolution). In terms of resolution, 1080 was a huge improvement over 480, but I don't think 4K is going to appear to be much of an improvement at all. For anyone with standard eyesight, about the only thing it offers is potentially larger screens at the same viewing distance and full 3D passive resolution. I think OLED will be a substantial improvement in perceived quality and the combination of OLED and 4K will finally be the pinnacle for 3D passive viewing. I don't expect there to be a substantial improvement until the leap to holographic 3D.

Actually, there is no need for 4K TV to reach that pinnacle now: it could be achievable with a simple improvement in resolution to the current Sony 720p OLED HMD.

However, that's all from a display perspective: I don't think 4K Bluray is going to offer very much at all compared to display improvement and personally I wish they would hold off and concentrate on leveraging 1080p Bluray to its full potential (Deep Colour, recent transfers, maximise bitrate, no filtering, etc) along with OLED 4K TV and OLED 1080p HMD releases.

If they were unhappy with 3D Bluray takeup, then they are going to be deeply depressed over 4K Bluray takeup IMO.

I can understand the current economic model calls for reselling equipment with small incremental improvements, but when is someone going to realise that model is fast reaching the "that dog won't hunt no more" point?
IanD is offline  
post #18 of 28 Old 02-03-2013, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I would be too, as long as the specs. are top notch and not some shameless hyper compressed-4k-shoe-horned-into-the-current-Blu-ray-disc-manufacturing-specs.-to-save-a-buck stunt.

IMO that will not be the case and I feel certain the extended BDA spec will use the new H.265 format. Just remember H.265 is in the ratification process (ISO and ITU have already signed off) and it will take some amount of time before we see some H.265 silicon. Its not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when we will see 4K Blu-ray players.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 02-03-2013, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

IMO that will not be the case and I feel certain the extended BDA spec will use the new H.265 format. Just remember H.265 is in the ratification process (ISO and ITU have already signed off) and it will take some amount of time before we see some H.265 silicon. Its not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when we will see 4K Blu-ray players.

I know they'll use H.265... that's a given. However, in order to get great audio (the next evolution is object-oriented soundtracks like Dolby Atmos) AND great UHD 10 bit video without massive filtering, DNR, etc. etc. that will kill any perceived benefit, you'll need a disc larger than 50 GB with a much higher bitrate cap.

If they shove UHD into 25 GB and 50 GB discs so they don't have to manufacture multi-layer Blu-ray's then you will not get much of an improvement... maybe a slightly better image than regular Blu-ray. The Amazing Spider-Man took at least 56 GB (for just the video) and more than likely that was still 8 bit and who knows what kind of audio was included. It had to be put on a BD data disc. I want something better than just average.

UHD won't sell unless it is un-freakin' believable and noticeably better than what we have currently. If the studios and manufacturers don't get this, they're in for a rude awakening.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #20 of 28 Old 02-03-2013, 09:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

If they shove UHD into 25 GB and 50 GB discs so they don't have to manufacture multi-layer Blu-ray's then you will not get much of an improvement... maybe a slightly better image than regular Blu-ray.

Do not agree with your assumptions, we need to hear from the coder engineers (dr1394 for example) how much extra bits 10 bit 4:2:2 will require for H.265 encodes. I do think extras and multiple soundtracks will have to go. For long movies it may well require more than one disc.

As to Dolby Atmos and DTS Neo:X, I would just like to see more, good 7.1 movies. The number of 7.1 movies is sparse so I am not too concerned about Dolby Atmos and DTS Neo:X.

Look at the millions that think 4 mbps HD streams look good. 4K disc could be a very hard sell, time will tell.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #21 of 28 Old 02-03-2013, 10:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stumlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If they decide to do 4K blu-rays, they really should consider cancelling the whole "Mastered in 4K" blu-rays (but are only 1080p) that they are about to roll out soon (or have they already?). Talk about confusing. You have your regular ol' blu-ray, your 3D anaglyph blu-rays, true 3D blu-rays, "Mastered in 4K" 1080p, and "4K" blu-ray

Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia, activate the machine!
stumlad is offline  
post #22 of 28 Old 02-03-2013, 10:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
I don't see H265 being 4x more efficient than H264 at blu-ray bitrates, and blu-ray's compression quality tends to be a limiting factor with film material as it is. If this quad-HD disc uses the same 50GB media, I'll be very disappointed.
42041 is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 02-04-2013, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I don't see H265 being 4x more efficient than H264 at blu-ray bitrates, and blu-ray's compression quality tends to be a limiting factor with film material as it is. If this quad-HD disc uses the same 50GB media, I'll be very disappointed.

Sorry, you post just sounds like a repeating of internet drivel with no facts. H.265 is ≈ 35% more efficient than H.264 for the same PSNR. Some industry engineers have stated here at AVS (several years ago) that H.264 can be transparent to the master at rates less than 30 Mbps which means Blu-ray can easily be transparent to the master.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #24 of 28 Old 02-04-2013, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

Sorry, you post just sounds like a repeating of internet drivel with no facts. H.265 is ≈ 35% more efficient than H.264 for the same PSNR. Some industry engineers have stated here at AVS (several years ago) that H.264 can be transparent to the master at rates less than 30 Mbps which means Blu-ray can easily be transparent to the master.
I'm aware of their claims, I just take all those figures with a grain of salt. The organizations that develop these codecs ain't doing it for free. But let's assume it's 35% more efficient, no qualifications... how does that work out with 400%+ as much data?
And those industry engineers who claim AVC is transparent aren't watching the blu-rays I'm watching. Unless they mean transparent how some people say 128kbps AAC is "CD quality". Maybe in a best-case scenario, like a clean digital image with relatively little motion, you might approach transparency. On some grainy catalog disc, that breaks down. If you see some really nice print of some 70s film, and then compare it to the best comparable blu-rays, invariably one of the biggest differences is that the tightly defined grain structure takes on a blocky, noisy appearance.
42041 is offline  
post #25 of 28 Old 02-04-2013, 10:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I'm aware of their claims, I just take all those figures with a grain of salt.

Then are we to assume you have correct figures? That you have designed and engineered better codecs? You have a better track record of video transfers, mastering and compression than the commercially available Blu-ray disc? It appears you are confusing film/video transfers and mastering with video compression.

If you are going to call someone’s hand then you should be prepared to show you have a better hand.

FWIW: I am a retired audio/video professional of 36 years (tech type person) and can tell you producing pristine content is no trivial task.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #26 of 28 Old 02-04-2013, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

Then are we to assume you have correct figures? That you have designed and engineered better codecs? You have a better track record of video transfers, mastering and compression than the commercially available Blu-ray disc?
I'm not a codec engineer, but I have enough experience with video compression to know you can't quantify a codec's performance across the vast range of possible compression parameters, inputs, and output artifacts with a single number. And you don't need to be a codec engineer to know that increasing the compression ratio four-fold without a corresponding increase in codec performance isn't going to do the quality any favors.
Quote:
It appears you are confusing film/video transfers and mastering with video compression.
No, I'm quite well aware of what compression looks like and what both films and uncompressed film transfers look like. The only thing I don't have much of a feel for is how much compression noise intermediate formats like HDCAM-SR contribute, since I've never worked with the format, but from the tests I have seen, it's negligible compared to the BD encode.
42041 is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 02-04-2013, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I'm not a codec engineer

Perhaps you should look into another hobby. Some of us realize that most anything that is affordable to consumers will have compromises. I would not mind having VPL-VW1000ES and a SRW-5800 in my media room but I would not ante up for these devices. Even if I would ante up for these devices the content available to me would be virtually nil.

Quote:
The only thing I don't have much of a feel for is how much compression noise intermediate formats like HDCAM-SR contribute, since I've never worked with the format, but from the tests I have seen, it's negligible compared to the BD encode.

Why would you even compare a format that is 10 or 12 bit, up to 4:4:4 to a 8 bit, 4:2:0 (Blu-ray, ATSC, DVB-S, etc.) format? Until you show where you can do a better job in these areas, we are done. May be you should read some of the post made by Robert Harris.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #28 of 28 Old 02-04-2013, 05:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 25
@OP, 1080p versus what? Will a new scan for 4K look better even when viewed at 1080p? Yes, unless they over processed like Lowry did with the Bond 4K scans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

In a display hardware sense, I think we are into diminishing returns territory where each increment is less of an improvement than the last: s-video was a substantial improvement over composite, component was a smaller improvement over s-video and HDMI is a small improvement over component (at equivalent resolution). In terms of resolution, 1080 was a huge improvement over 480, but I don't think 4K is going to appear to be much of an improvement at all. For anyone with standard eyesight, about the only thing it offers is potentially larger screens at the same viewing distance and full 3D passive resolution. I think OLED will be a substantial improvement in perceived quality and the combination of OLED and 4K will finally be the pinnacle for 3D passive viewing. I don't expect there to be a substantial improvement until the leap to holographic 3D.

Actually, there is no need for 4K TV to reach that pinnacle now: it could be achievable with a simple improvement in resolution to the current Sony 720p OLED HMD.

However, that's all from a display perspective: I don't think 4K Bluray is going to offer very much at all compared to display improvement and personally I wish they would hold off and concentrate on leveraging 1080p Bluray to its full potential (Deep Colour, recent transfers, maximise bitrate, no filtering, etc) along with OLED 4K TV and OLED 1080p HMD releases.

If they were unhappy with 3D Bluray takeup, then they are going to be deeply depressed over 4K Bluray takeup IMO.

I can understand the current economic model calls for reselling equipment with small incremental improvements, but when is someone going to realise that model is fast reaching the "that dog won't hunt no more" point?

Anybody who takes photos with a decent camera knows higer rez images produce better results. You are making the same sight unseen 'unscaled dvd looks just as good as 1080p' argument. You do not know anything about the human eye either, it can easily view far greater then 1080p.
wuther is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

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