Now that 4K TVs are coming, will there be another disk format? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
1  2
Home Theater Computers > Now that 4K TVs are coming, will there be another disk format?
jeffkro's Avatar jeffkro 11:03 AM 06-30-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post

Extremetech had an article on a new Tech, It was a new laser that could write a petabyte on one DVD.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/159245-new-optical-laser-can-increase-dvd-storage-up-to-one-petabyte

Yeah, heard about this. The NSA should be thrilled.

jeffkro's Avatar jeffkro 11:20 AM 06-30-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

I haven't read the entire thread, but I did see mention that Sony is involved with the new format. That gives me great pause to sit back and see how things evolve. Sony has a notorious track record for backing media formats that never materialize or fail shortly after being introduced. Blu-Ray is the only winning format they've backed in the past 30-40 years. How many of you remember the ElCassette, Digital Compact Cassette, Mini-Disc, and of course the grand prize winner - Beta? I'm not 100% sure about the DCC, but I believe Sony was involved with it at some point.

Sony tries like hell to introduce new formats in the hope that it will somehow gain support and they can rake in the licensing fees from everyone else. The truth is, Sony products have fallen from grace over the past decade or so. They were once the frontrunner in many categories but their quality has fallen off considerably from what it once was.

FWIW, a new HD format being introduced at this point is likely to be met with a lot of consumer resistance. There are still a lot of people that haven't upgraded to HDTV yet, let alone Blu-Ray or 3DTV. I suspect that this will be limited to the high end of the consumer spectrum until the technology and price trickle down to mainstream users. The average consumer isn't likely to want to spend $2K on a new 4K TV when 42" HD flat screens are selling for less than $500.

I recently bought a 60" vizio and it looks great to me, I'm in no rush to upgrade. I definitely don't see pixels at a standard viewing distance, and I can definitely spot the pixels in my cheepo laptop.
cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 02:30 PM 06-30-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post

Extremetech had an article on a new Tech, It was a new laser that could write a petabyte on one DVD.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/159245-new-optical-laser-can-increase-dvd-storage-up-to-one-petabyte

I was reading the article when I read this and suddenly had to check the article date "June 20, 2013" - yep, it is very recent...I cannot understand why they said this:
Quote:
Blu-rays are no slouch, but they require a special player that not too many people apart from PS3 owners have

Not too many people own a Blu-Ray player? Seriously? In 2010, before cheap players hit the market, Blu-Ray was in 17% of US homes. In 2011 it was up to about 40% of US homes.
Mfusick's Avatar Mfusick 02:54 PM 06-30-2013
Lol. Not many have a fancy expensive player .. Lol
stanger89's Avatar stanger89 03:17 PM 06-30-2013
FWIW this was posted in the High End Projectors forum about Red's new codec that their redray player uses:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The encoder has three quality levels you can choose from before you start your encoding;
9Mb/s for low bitrate encoding, can possibly be used for streaming 4K material.
18Mb/s premium quality for Home Theatre size screens.
36Mb/s Cinema quality for distribution to big screen cinemas.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438597/new-sony-4k-sxrd-projector-vpl-hw100es-less-than-10000/90#post_23481222
captain_video's Avatar captain_video 03:42 PM 06-30-2013
I don't know all that much about 4K yet, but from what I understand the biggest benefit is when using it with an extremely large display screen. Anything smaller than about 60-70" may not provide much in the way of better detail. It's akin to watching a Blu-Ray on a 25" screen. It looks great, but you probably can't tell the difference between a Blu-Ray and a standard DVD at that screen size. The higher the definition, the bigger the screen you can use. 4K is really aimed at the home theater enthusiast that has a real home theater with a huge screen and not just a collection of A/V components with an average-sized screen. This is probably why it appeared in the projector section of the forum. If you're not viewing on a 10-foot or larger screen then you probably don't care about 4K. I really don't see this format making much of a dent in the consumer market.
Mrkazador's Avatar Mrkazador 03:57 PM 06-30-2013
I can easily tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor. Its a huge difference...
Chronoptimist's Avatar Chronoptimist 05:41 PM 06-30-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

Mini-Disc
1992-2013 seems like a reasonable lifespan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

and of course the grand prize winner - Beta?
Betacam is still used in production today. While consumers may have gone with VHS, Beta clearly won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

They were once the frontrunner in many categories but their quality has fallen off considerably from what it once was.
I really don't think they have to be honest. The biggest problem is that the high end market is dying off, and most people these days are looking at the prices of cheap Korean electronics and think the Japanese (or other) electronics are "too expensive".
A high end Sony product is just as good as they ever were - but most people aren't willing to pay for high-end products now, and only look at how the specs are on paper to buy something "comparable".
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

FWIW, a new HD format being introduced at this point is likely to be met with a lot of consumer resistance.
I still haven't been able to get a confirmation on this, but if a regular Blu-ray drive is capable of reading the first layer of a BDXL disc, then that's your format sorted. Put a regular 1080p Blu-ray encode on the first layer, and use the other three for a H.265 encoded 4K version.

Otherwise, we are going to run into serious problems if they are putting out 4K-only discs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MlNDBOMB View Post

I don't know about how 4k will come about. H265 will bring some improvements in compression, but not enough to cover the increased pixel count and remain in a 50gb disc.
It does if the disc only contains the HD audio track and skips all the extras. Most films are 15-25GB on Blu-ray, not 50GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrkazador View Post

I can easily tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor. Its a huge difference...
Yep. People arguing that 4K requires 80" and larger displays are people that don't want to buy a new TV and are trying to convince themselves that there's no difference.
The same thing happened when 1080p first came along and people were arguing that you would need a 60" display to notice a difference.
cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 06:49 PM 06-30-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrkazador View Post

I can easily tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor. Its a huge difference...

If you are sitting a foot away from it, yes. See the chart below for distance vs size. Anything closer than 3 feet away will give you a marked difference between DVD and BluRay for that size monitor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Yep. People arguing that 4K requires 80" and larger displays are people that don't want to buy a new TV and are trying to convince themselves that there's no difference.
The same thing happened when 1080p first came along and people were arguing that you would need a 60" display to notice a difference.

For a 1080 set, you would need a 50 inch or higher display for the normal sitting distance of 8 to 10 feet from the TV. A 60 inch screen guarentees you will notice the difference at the normal 8 to 10 foot sitting distance.

For a 4K set you would have to sit about 5 foot away from a 50 inch screen in order to see the full benefit of 4K. Unless you have a cramped living space you would never put your chair only 5 feet from a 50 inch TV. I have a 106 inch screen, so I would have to sit around 10 feet from the screen to really see the benefit of 10k, and I certainly do not sit that close. My front row is 12 feet away and my back row is about 20 feet away. 4K offers me no benefit in that arena. What it DOES offer is the ability to keep a good, high, resolution while playing 3D.


stanger89's Avatar stanger89 07:47 PM 06-30-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

If you are sitting a foot away from it, yes. See the chart below for distance vs size. Anything closer than 3 feet away will give you a marked difference between DVD and BluRay for that size monitor.
For a 1080 set, you would need a 50 inch or higher display for the normal sitting distance of 8 to 10 feet from the TV. A 60 inch screen guarentees you will notice the difference at the normal 8 to 10 foot sitting distance.

I've seen some different interpretations:
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

According to that for a 10' viewing distance, 4k starts to become beneficial at about 75".
Quote:
For a 4K set you would have to sit about 5 foot away from a 50 inch screen in order to see the full benefit of 4K.

The question isn't where you see the "full" benefit, it's where you start to see a difference at all. Of course the amount of difference factors in to the price you're willing to pay.

The resolution of they eye is about 0.6 arc minutes per pixel, so if you sit at about 3 picture heights, that's about 1900 pixels high before you've achieved a "retina" display (see Dr. Soniera's comments about the iPhone).

Quote:
Unless you have a cramped living space you would never put your chair only 5 feet from a 50 inch TV. I have a 106 inch screen, so I would have to sit around 10 feet from the screen to really see the benefit of 10k, and I certainly do not sit that close. My front row is 12 feet away and my back row is about 20 feet away. 4K offers me no benefit in that arena.

Actually using Dr Soniera's figure of 0.6 arcminutes/pixel (100 pixel's/degree), you're at just the right seating distance for a 4k "retina" display, try punching 100 pixels/degree, 106" diagonal, and 2160 pixels vertical in here:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~res18h39/calculator.htm
Quote:
What it DOES offer is the ability to keep a good, high, resolution while playing 3D.

Projectors don't lose resolution with 3D, nor does 3D Blu-ray. All 3D projectors either alternate eye views (shutter glasses), or they use two stacked light engines and either polarized or chromatic filters, and 3D Blu-ray is frame packed (two 1920x1080 frames).
JerryW's Avatar JerryW 01:05 AM 07-01-2013
I sit 10.5 feet back from a 120" screen.
It's great, for both video and web browsing.
I don't wear glasses or have any other visual impairments.
captain_video's Avatar captain_video 05:44 AM 07-01-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

1992-2013 seems like a reasonable lifespan.
For what? I can't recall ever seeing anything marketed on mini-disc. Mini-disc had an extremely limited appeal.
Quote:
Betacam is still used in production today. While consumers may have gone with VHS, Beta clearly won.
Completely out of context. I was referring to the consumer market.
Quote:
I really don't think they have to be honest. The biggest problem is that the high end market is dying off, and most people these days are looking at the prices of cheap Korean electronics and think the Japanese (or other) electronics are "too expensive".
A high end Sony product is just as good as they ever were - but most people aren't willing to pay for high-end products now, and only look at how the specs are on paper to buy something "comparable".
Sony used to be at the top of the heap when it came to consumer grade TVs. There are far better models out there from numerous manufacturers at lower prices. The high end market is only about 5% of the overall market at best. The name "Sony" doesn't have quite the same appeal to consumers that it once had. I thought I read somewhere that Sony was getting out of the TV business because they could no longer copmpete, but that may just be hearsay.
4th-horseman's Avatar 4th-horseman 09:19 AM 07-01-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

I haven't read the entire thread, but I did see mention that Sony is involved with the new format. That gives me great pause to sit back and see how things evolve. Sony has a notorious track record for backing media formats that never materialize or fail shortly after being introduced. Blu-Ray is the only winning format they've backed in the past 30-40 years. How many of you remember the ElCassette, Digital Compact Cassette, Mini-Disc, and of course the grand prize winner - Beta? I'm not 100% sure about the DCC, but I believe Sony was involved with it at some point

While I agree with the idea to sit-back on this, I feel some OCD need to defend Sony on a minimum basis. Innovative product design groups have shills from time to time, no different than Google, Apple, Sony, Microsoft, etc. I don't intend to say all of those companies are innovative at this point, but they've done due dilligence to bring innovative products (software, hardware, web) to consumers where others have waited in the shadows to see whether consumers love/hate/adopt etc. Sometimes they've hit homeruns and others not, but not a single one of those have hit a homerun everytime. Nor do they have only one single failed effort. As to formats, Sony did collaborate with Phillips on the Compact Disc standard as an evolution from laserdisc I believe. We still refer to and use the sony-phillips-digital-interface (spdif) today. They were also a part of the dvd standard development. I still agree to wait around a while.

On an even further tangent, but somewhat related to a new format . . . Can any of the extremely knowledgeable video experts here explain why 23.967 exists? How did such an odd frame rate become commonplace, and why is the next step to double up? Why can't they merge with the overly common display/projection technology standards of 30/60/120??
cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 11:40 AM 07-01-2013
The frame rate initially came out due to analog televisions and analog transmission signals. 60Hz had interference from radio stations and so they reduced it slightly to make it go away. I would guess that film is reduced as well to allow it to easily fit into the slightly below 60Hz number. When they moved to digital they could have fixed it, but IMO that would have been a horrific time to do it. Allowing people to get a very cheap to manufacture digital to analog converter box and keep their old TV was the right way to go. It is a throwback to the Tube TV days, basically. In a few more years they will be able to force a change since all the tube TVs will be gone - or so few will remain that they will no longer matter.
Chronoptimist's Avatar Chronoptimist 03:02 PM 07-01-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th-horseman View Post

On an even further tangent, but somewhat related to a new format . . . Can any of the extremely knowledgeable video experts here explain why 23.967 exists? How did such an odd frame rate become commonplace, and why is the next step to double up? Why can't they merge with the overly common display/projection technology standards of 30/60/120??
As cybrsage says, it's to maintain legacy compatibility. NTSC regions use 60/1.001 (59.94..) as their standard format, and you can fit 24/1.001 frames into this using a 3:2 cadence. This exhibits judder when shown on a 60Hz display, but that is how it's always been when broadcasting films in NTSC.

In PAL regions where their legacy displays are 50Hz, the 24fps of film had to be sped up 4% to 25fps in order to display them smoothly. This speed increase means that films end up about five minutes shorter, and it can be noticeable if a film is playing music you are familiar with for example.
Doing this avoids judder completely though, as it's using 2:2, and because it's sped up, it actually appears to be a bit smoother than 24p.

The good news is that both of these processes are reversible. It is possible to play NTSC DVDs at 24p now for example. This is trivial on a HTPC, and I believe there are now some standalone players that can do it. (I think some Sony Blu-ray players offer this feature)
On a HTPC, tools such as ReClock or JRiver Video Clock are also able to slow down the 25fps PAL video to 24fps and resample the audio in realtime to output a 24p signal and have the film play as it was supposed to. I don't know of any standalone devices capable of doing this.

Similarly, they can also restore the original 24fps framerate from 24/1.001 encoded discs. (though many European Blu-rays are actualy 24.000fps on the disc itself)
sippelmc's Avatar sippelmc 03:05 PM 07-01-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Just remember that until HDMI 2.0 comes out any 4K TV you buy now is the gimped version of it.

Not necessarily. The Samsungs will have an "evo-kit" like piece so that once HDMI 2.0 (or whatever it will be called) comes out, you can upgrade just the connector. See: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1479472/dan-schinasi-explains-samsungs-ultra-hd-strategy Its worth watching actually and was quite interesting.

That said I'm not sold on 4k.
cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 03:38 PM 07-01-2013
Yeah, and the Auzentech Prelude will get a daughter board to enable HDMI 1.3 output. Stated a different way, do not buy something expecting the company to upgrade it in the future, buy it for what it can do now. smile.gif

I agree with you on the 4K but I do think eventually everyone will have it if only because all the manufacturers are going to move to it.
MKANET's Avatar MKANET 04:27 PM 07-01-2013

I've always preferred using a very simple, yet practical test in determining maximum optical display distance; its especially easy to do when using a PC as the video source...  It also takes into account my personal vision precision; which is 20/20.

 

I simply type a sentence in 8point TrueType font on the native resolution of my display.  I push my seat back as far as I can still comfortably read the sentence.  The results seem to fall within the range of popular display distance calculators.  This test should work for 4K displays too.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post


I've seen some different interpretations:
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

According to that for a 10' viewing distance, 4k starts to become beneficial at about 75".
The question isn't where you see the "full" benefit, it's where you start to see a difference at all. Of course the amount of difference factors in to the price you're willing to pay.

The resolution of they eye is about 0.6 arc minutes per pixel, so if you sit at about 3 picture heights, that's about 1900 pixels high before you've achieved a "retina" display (see Dr. Soniera's comments about the iPhone).
Actually using Dr Soniera's figure of 0.6 arcminutes/pixel (100 pixel's/degree), you're at just the right seating distance for a 4k "retina" display, try punching 100 pixels/degree, 106" diagonal, and 2160 pixels vertical in here:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~res18h39/calculator.htm
Projectors don't lose resolution with 3D, nor does 3D Blu-ray. All 3D projectors either alternate eye views (shutter glasses), or they use two stacked light engines and either polarized or chromatic filters, and 3D Blu-ray is frame packed (two 1920x1080 frames).

stanger89's Avatar stanger89 07:24 PM 07-01-2013
Except you necessarily actually want to be able to make out two distinct pixels. Being able to see the width of a pixel, which is what you see when you can make out single-pixel-scale text, means you are seeing aliasing, which any gamer knows (or will tell you, if you aren't and ask one) is a bad thing. Ideally the display should be capable of resolving detail finer than you can see, just like you want your audio system to capture/reproduce past what you can hear. Though there's one big difference between how we handle audio and video, with audio we filter the output to remove the aliasing from the digital reconstruction, with video we don't. Whether you like Macs or not (I'm rather ambivalent) take a look at a Macbook Pro's retina display to see the benefit of having more resolution than you "can see".
Chronoptimist's Avatar Chronoptimist 04:10 AM 07-02-2013
I can make out a single dead or stuck pixel on the image from much further than those charts suggest.

And the goal is to have enough resolution and be at a distance where you cannot resolve an individual pixel. If you can resolve an individual pixel, then there is not enough resolution yet. You need to double the distances on those charts.
Nevcairiel's Avatar Nevcairiel 08:33 AM 07-02-2013
Dead or stuck pixels typically have a very high contrast when you look for them, so its very easy to spot them. The real question is if you can clearly say if its one or two stuck pixels (if they would happen to be next to each other).
Moving so far away that you cannot see all detail anymore can obivously not be the idea either.

Our vision is more complicated than one simple rule could ever describe.
Even on these so-called "retina" displays you can still make out individual high-contrast pixels.
Chronoptimist's Avatar Chronoptimist 05:24 PM 07-02-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

Moving so far away that you cannot see all detail anymore can obivously not be the idea either.
The point is to have enough resolution and detail that, at normal viewing distances, you can't tell that you are looking at a screen. If you can resolve a pixel, or the gap between the pixels ("pixel grid") then you don't have enough resolution yet.
I couldn't tell you what paper it was from now, but there have been studies which indicate that you essentially need double the resolution of what you need to just resolve an individual pixel to fool the eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

Our vision is more complicated than one simple rule could ever describe.
Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

Even on these so-called "retina" displays you can still make out individual high-contrast pixels.
I still see the pixel grid on "retina" displays. It is far less of a distraction than it is on normal LCD displays, but it's still there.

For example, the paper-like qualities of e-ink are not what reduces eyestrain for me - I actually get eyestrain reading on them due to their low contrast unless I'm outside in sunlight or under a bright lamp - it's the lack of any visible pixel grid on the screen that allows my eyes to relax when reading text.
My eyes are similarly relaxed when reading text on Retina displays - most of the time, at least. With black text on a pure white background, I start to notice the pixel grid and aliasing again, and that does strain my eyes from extended reading.
1  2

Up
Mobile  Desktop