Originally Posted by rak306
I looked at that link, and I agree there is a lot of good information there, but they skimmed over the case for needing this. I totally don't understand the viewer preference chart, and there is no explanation of it. I'm not so sure people will be "demanding it".
Ah, the pitfalls of looking at a powerpoint without the associated discussion....
If I had to guess, I would interpret it as the dotted lines are essentially "approval ratings" for black level (a), white level (b) and highlights (c), vs their respective capabilities. For example it looks like nobody liked a black level of 1cd/m^2 (0.4 ftL), where as 90% of people approved of 0.002 cd/m^2 or so. The black level results aren't very surprising, but I think the preference for "very high" white levels is rather surprising.
They define a 12 bit encoding to cover a 10,000,000:1 brightness range. Seems like total overkill to me. I see this version of HDR as a solution looking for a problem. It's fine if you want reality in your living room, but I just want to watch (good) movies. And for that - I don' think it's necessary.
It will be interesting to see what they do. I'd like to think that "HDR" and the associated metadata and processing (SMPTE 2086) will solve some of the problems we have today with projectors and how do you set them up given the dramatic differences in contrast/black level.
Originally Posted by wco81
Blu-ray uses a custom Java virtual machine.
Originally Posted by Michael Osadciw
I kindly disagree with your subjective comments. While current HD Blu-ray can look great, I wouldn't peg it at fabulous. It's far from perfect 1080p. There are many issues that present themselves as limitations even within the realm of our 1080p system. 1080p can look much better, but not in the current delivery/display infrastructure. Having spent a lot of time looking at HD video in post-production houses verifies this.
UHD, even if considering the increase in resolution alone, will be greater than a 1%-5% increase of quality. Current UHD demos look good, but even in its current delivery off of USB sticks, etc., its detail capability is highly smeared by compression artefacts generated somewhere within the chain of source --> final delivery. Any casual viewer can detect them upon close inspection if they tried. We are watching temporary methods of delivering UHD for consumer displays/sales and these methods aren't even delivering UHD 2160p resolution at its full potential.
UHD delivery today is not UHD delivery of the future. So what we see today cannot be applied to and expected as an interpretation of UHD Blu-ray quality and we need to be careful not to do that. Thus any soft judgment on the benefits of UHD, as stated above, is premature. Unfortunately, this type of talk is being treated as fact in too many places. I suspect many writers on popular websites will retract their negative comments about why they think 4K is "stupid". Judge only when the final system in place. UHD as a whole (from source to delivery), if done well, will be enjoyable by all...and you won't need a big screen or a wide viewing angle to enjoy it.
I defer to your experience, especially as my point wasn't to try and quantify anything, it was simply to point out that really everything UHD Blu-ray will bring will be refinements, improvements to an already great system. And make no mistake Blu-ray is great, just look at films like Oblivion, I don't know I personally think content like that looks fabulous on Blu-ray.
Of course the other part of my argument is that there's a good deal of content out there that will never be 4K (the Star Wars prequels for example), but I really, really hope they see an "Ultra HD Blu-ray" release because even though they are "only" 2K, as you say, there are a lot of things that can be improved upon.
Originally Posted by Seegs108
True. They may very well come up with some new type of encryption for the disc, but it would also be naive to think it won't be cracked soon after it's release. We'll just have to wait and see.
My only fear regarding that is, will there be enough interest for someone to bother cracking it?
Originally Posted by Latinoheat
If man created it , man can crack it.
Every time discussion comes up about disc-based content "protection" I'm reminded of this paper/presentation
In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*. It's not Alice and Bob and Carol, it's just Alice and Bob. Alice sells Bob a DVD. She sells Bob a DVD player. The DVD has a movie on it -- say, Pirates of the Caribbean -- and it's enciphered with an algorithm called CSS -- Content Scrambling System. The DVD player has a CSS un-scrambler.
Now, let's take stock of what's a secret here: the cipher is well-known. The ciphertext is most assuredly in enemy hands, arrr. So what? As long as the key is secret from the attacker, we're golden.
But there's the rub. Alice wants Bob to buy Pirates of the Caribbean from her. Bob will only buy Pirates of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. Otherwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attacker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.