Inexpensive: <$2k - 4K TV about to enter US - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 194 Old 04-18-2013, 11:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can compress Blu-ray down to DVD size (about 8GB) and have results that are much better than any DVD due to the increased compression efficiency of H.264 compared to MPEG-2.
Why is it so unbelievable that you could compress 4K down to Blu-ray size (50GB) and have better results than Blu-ray due to the increased compression efficiency of H.265 compared to H.264?

And we already have a standard for quad-layer Blu-ray discs with BDXL - which supports 128GB discs - if you want to improve image quality even further.


I can compress 10 lbs of chit into a 5lb bag as well...........don't mean what I compressed into that bag will be worth a chit though................

There are compression issues at today's compression rates, you are talking about the grand daddy compression rate of all time.

Native HD was available when I bought an HDTV over a decade ago..................there is nothing showing internet nor sat or cable will

be able to ever give you native 4k. Upconversion adds artifacts and your talking about the greatest upconversion process ever invented .


Quad layer discs are an interesting new tech still reliant on compression.

4k content will need major expensive improvements in internet and sat and cable infrastructure to get a foothold.
Jetmeck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 194 Old 04-18-2013, 11:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can compress Blu-ray down to DVD size (about 8GB) and have results that are much better than any DVD due to the increased compression efficiency of H.264 compared to MPEG-2.
Why is it so unbelievable that you could compress 4K down to Blu-ray size (50GB) and have better results than Blu-ray due to the increased compression efficiency of H.265 compared to H.264?
And we already have a standard for quad-layer Blu-ray discs with BDXL - which supports 128GB discs - if you want to improve image quality even further.

Indeed compressing BR using H.264 instead of MPEG-2 at DVD rate will provide much better PQ. But it does not mean the PQ will be satisfying. This is
why HD brodacast is compressed in the range of 10 mb/s with H.264. But this is still not prime PQ, to get into this BR uses 25 Mb/s. Even the 25 vs. 10 Mb/s doest not tell all since BR is nonreal time compression which can be optimized using multipass encoding while the 10Mb/s is realtime with no time for such optimizations. Thus, the 25 Mb/s BR would still be better than 25 Mb/s realtime encoding.

In the same spirit, 4K could be compressed to BR size using H.265. But it is too much to expect that it will be better than BR. This is because 'native' BR encoding for 4K using H.264 would require about four times more data than BR, that is about 100 Mb/s. H.265 might reduce it by two to get PQ equivalent to
BR.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #93 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 12:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Indeed compressing BR using H.264 instead of MPEG-2 at DVD rate will provide much better PQ. But it does not mean the PQ will be satisfying.
So you agree that 1080p compressed down to DVD size using H.264 is much better than MPEG-2 DVDs at the same size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

In the same spirit, 4K could be compressed to BR size using H.265. But it is too much to expect that it will be better than BR. This is because 'native' BR encoding for 4K using H.264 would require about four times more data than BR, that is about 100 Mb/s. H.265 might reduce it by two to get PQ equivalent to
So we have established that, at DVD sizes (8GB) - even though the 1080p content is being "bit starved" compared to Blu-ray (50GB to 8GB, or 6.25:1) the compressed HD content looks better than the MPEG-2 DVD content.

Then why can't "bit starved" H.265 4K content compressed down to Blu-ray sizes (100GB to 50GB, or 2:1) look better than H.264 compressed Blu-ray - even if it is not as good as 100GB H.265 content would be.


That's not to say there is anything stopping them releasing H.265 compressed 4K content on BDXL discs - you are going to need a new player anyway, so why not move up to a triple-layer (100GB) or quad-layer (128GB) disc format?
But even if they stuck with current Blu-rays it would still be better than H.264 1080p content - even if it is not ideal for 4K content.

And the reality is that it would actually fare better than you might think, because 4x the number of pixels does not mean that there is actually 4x as much detail in the image, so compression does not scale linearly with resolution. And as resolution goes up, the visibility of compression artefacts goes down - because they are smaller relative to the overall image.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Native HD was available when I bought an HDTV over a decade ago..................there is nothing showing internet nor sat or cable will be able to ever give you native 4k.
Frankly I don't care about broadcast (haven't watched it in years) and more than one company has already announced 4K streaming services to be available by the end of the year. But I don't care about that either, because I buy discs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Upconversion adds artifacts and your talking about the greatest upconversion process ever invented .
Upconversion only adds artifacts if it's done poorly. I don't know what you are talking about with "the greatest upconversion process ever invented" as it's scaling roughly the same amount as NTSC > 1080p. (4x)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Quad layer discs are an interesting new tech still reliant on compression.
"New tech" when drives have been available since 2010? They are no more "reliant on compression" than Blu-ray is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

4k content will need major expensive improvements in internet and sat and cable infrastructure to get a foothold.
Satellite and Cable broadcast is a dying industry.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #94 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 01:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
canton160's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Really.................love it when people pull stuff from their behind.


http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/01/08/4k-tv-promising-but-not-ready-for-prime-time/

http://www.zdnet.com/4k-uhd-tv-needs-big-pipes-not-a-pipe-dream-7000010632/

http://tech2.in.com/opinions/hdtvs/theres-no-point-in-buying-a-4k-tv-this-year/774772


More compression not a good thing unless you like artifacts......................get real.

Internet and tv infractructure would all need large investments to make this a reality.

you have no idea what you talking about.

Has the video resolution goes higher, the capacity to note video artefacts in compress video goes lower, the 4k content can be more compress than 1080p, see the chart




that means the actuall footage streaming in 1080p can be even more compress using h.264 without the loss of quality

see this article

http://blogs.iis.net/alexzam/archive/2013/01/28/h-265-hevc-ratification-and-4k-video-streaming.aspx
Quote:
So taking those factors into consideration, what kind of bandwidth should we expect for 4K video OTT delivery? If 1080p video is currently being widely streamed online using H.264 compression at 6 Mbps, then 4K (4096×2304) video could probably be delivered at bit rates around 18-20 Mbps using the same codec at similar quality levels. Again, remember, we’re not comparing Blu-ray quality levels here – we’re comparing 2013 OTT quality levels which are “good enough” but not ideal. If we switch from H.264 to H.265 compression we could probably expect OTT delivery of 4K video at bit rates closer to 12-15 Mbps (assuming H.265′s 40% efficiency improvements do indeed come true). I should note that those estimates are only applicable to 24-30 fps video. If the dream of 4K OTT video also carries an implication of high frame rates - e.g. 48 to 120 fps – then the bandwidth requirements would certainly go up accordingly too. But if the goal is simply to stream a 4K version of “The Hobbit” into your home at 24 fps, that dream might be closer to reality than you think.



and see this other article about 4k streaming by sattelite.

http://www.satelliteprome.com/opinion/testing-space-for-4k/
Quote:
From an operator’s perspective, being able to deliver sufficient bandwidth for Quad HD (four Full HD streams) transmitted at 40 Mbit/s is our main contribution, in addition to filming some of our own 4K content. We also chose to operate in progressive mode at 50 frames per second which gives a heightened sense of reality. Since the channel’s launch on January 8 we have had even higher than expected interest from content providers, set manufacturers and pay-TV operators to test the transmission chain.

also have you heard of BEARM VIDEO Technology








videos : beamrvideo.com


[/URL


In the 90´s a hdtv or projector would cost 20.000$
In 1996 when the hdtv commercials start to show up, there was no cheap way the storage HD codecs, with exception of JVC DIGITAL VHS and SONY HDCAM

Only in 1993 HD-DVD format, developed and proposed by Toshiba and NEC, was introduced to the DVD Forum and approved as the next-generation DVD format.
The first Blu-ray Disc prototypes were unveiled in October 2000, and the first prototype player was released in April 2003 in Japan. Afterwards, it continued to be developed until its official release in June 2006.

At the time theres was no h.264 and the adoption was much slower, on the world today, the 4k adoption will be much slower, maybe 3 to 4 years

in japan the "NURO" internet 2Gbps cost only 51$...... eek.gif thats 256 MB/s even if in real world speeds they would get only 100MB/s is ENOUGHh for a lot 4K streaming.


http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Sony-Offers-2-Gbps-Broadband-in-JapanFor-51-123896

Projector Mitsubishi HC5

Projector Optoma hd300x 

Av receiver Onkyo TX-NR 818

Oppo 103D

Media player Med1000x3D

 

 

KEN KREISEL DXD-808 

Q7000 5.1

canton160 is offline  
post #95 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 04:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

So you agree that 1080p compressed down to DVD size using H.264 is much better than MPEG-2 DVDs at the same size.
So we have established that, at DVD sizes (8GB) - even though the 1080p content is being "bit starved" compared to Blu-ray (50GB to 8GB, or 6.25:1) the compressed HD content looks better than the MPEG-2 DVD content.
Then why can't "bit starved" H.265 4K content compressed down to Blu-ray sizes (100GB to 50GB, or 2:1) look better than H.264 compressed Blu-ray - even if it is not as good as 100GB H.265 content would be.
That's not to say there is anything stopping them releasing H.265 compressed 4K content on BDXL discs - you are going to need a new player anyway, so why not move up to a triple-layer (100GB) or quad-layer (128GB) disc format?
But even if they stuck with current Blu-rays it would still be better than H.264 1080p content - even if it is not ideal for 4K content.

You probably do not catch with the logic so take it again and just straight: There is 1080 HD broadcast @10 Mb/s and BR discs @25 Mb/s both claiming superb PQ with H.264. So, going with your thinking, why waste bit budget on BR and not compressing it @10 Mb/s H.264 like in broadcast?

Crux of the problem is that modern compression is a toolbox which offers range of bitrate vs. PQ tradeoffs, e.g. for H.264 25 Mb/s, 10 Mb/s and even 6 Mb/s might be 'good' or 'excellent' in PR materials. There are however evident differences between them for critical viewers.

Now, the 4K makes sense if the target is highest PQ. So, if you one claims that 4K H.265 will be better than 1080 BR H.264 @25 Mb/s then why not compare
it with the 1080 compressed @H.265? What one would have then would be quite squeezed 4K and 1080 with healthy overhead in its bit budget.Squeezed 4K effect would be close to downconverting it to 1080 plus some other potential side effects. Thus, one needs healthy increase in the 4K compression bitrate over 1080 to show its strength. A factor of 2 sounds like minimum.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #96 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


Now, the 4K makes sense if the target is highest PQ. So, if you one claims that 4K H.265 will be better than 1080 BR H.264 @25 Mb/s then why not compare
it with the 1080 compressed @H.265? What one would have then would be quite squeezed 4K and 1080 with healthy overhead in its bit budget.Squeezed 4K effect would be close to downconverting it to 1080 plus some other potential side effects. Thus, one needs healthy increase in the 4K compression bitrate over 1080 to show its strength. A factor of 2 sounds like minimum.
Everybody discussing this forgets that 2K camera capture has too low resolution to compress much before it looses its quality of details. Details in images should rather be understood as surface texture, which is a more appropriate description.

2K compressed with H.265 will probably be better at lower bitrates than 2K compressed with H.264. But it will still have problems because 2K just doesn't have enough pixels to reproduce what is captured (surface texture) of sufficient quality.
In addition, most 2K material today originates from 2K cameras or 2K scans, even though more and more increased resolution material that are downsampled are being used.

Material that is captured on sensors with higher resolution than 4K and downsampled to 4K will compress much easier than 2K material. But we will see material in the future that is shot on 4K sensors for 4K release having problems when it is compressed too much compared to released 4K material that is captured on higher resolution sensors.

Ideally; All 4K material should be captured on sensors that has full 4K resolution for each color channel.
In the immediate future the highest resolution sensors in digital film cameras will have no more than about 20MP sensors, with between 15-20MP effective use of sensor.
Most cameras will just have 4K sensors, and that will dilute 4K as a increased quality measure over 2K.
coolscan is online now  
post #97 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
candre23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Lets try to remember that h.265 is still essentially in a pre-alpha phase. The "standard" isn't totally finalized, nobody has even announced potential release dates for compatible hardware, and software compression currently chugs away at low-single-digit-fps speeds on high end PCs. It's going to be a couple years at least before h.265 is anywhere near ready for mainstream use. Sure, in two or three years somebody could make up a "BD4K" standard with 4k h.265 feature films on 50GB bluray media. It will definitely look better than current blurays. It may not be as good as 4k can possibly look, but we're really pushing the limit of perceptibility here.

But this is all speculation. Right now, at this moment, there is almost no 4k content available. In the near future, your only options are going to be specialty devices like what Sony is coming out with. Expect similar offerings from other studios and/or verizon and google (to be fed by their fiber services). If you're waiting on a new disc-based format for 4k, don't hold your breath. One will probably be along eventually, but not any time soon.

For me, I don't need 4k "content". I just want a huge-ass computer monitor. My content is my work, and bargain-basement panels like this are going to let me get my work done easier and more enjoyably.
candre23 is offline  
post #98 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 08:37 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
^Good points (I didn't realize how far along they were in the development process), all this hullabaloo is a tempest in a teacup. It's also another reminder as to why I'm in no rush to grab a 4k panel (I don't have the monitor needs you do).
vinnie97 is offline  
post #99 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 12:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
canton160's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
if you guys are not interested in 4k, why bother to comment in 4k topics wink.gif come back in few years when you ready to move in the next PQ level.

4k panels - check
1299$

4k media pc players - check
1000$

4k content - soon,

there native 4k video on youtube
or theres cheap 4k camera avaible right now, to make my own 4k content

Camera 4k GoPro HERO3: Black Edition (450€)

whats about this for gamers ?

more tvs 4k from skyworth at 1500$

Projector Mitsubishi HC5

Projector Optoma hd300x 

Av receiver Onkyo TX-NR 818

Oppo 103D

Media player Med1000x3D

 

 

KEN KREISEL DXD-808 

Q7000 5.1

canton160 is offline  
post #100 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 02:01 PM
Member
 
Xevious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXBu9nxLN78

This guy did an hour long video on the monitor. I am still waiting for mine.

Anyway something he said at 46:48 gives me great hope. He mentions:

Guy 2: Oh, thats funny.
Guy 2: That's a sticker over the manual. And in the manual they have like a Y HDMI cable that is going into HDMI 1 and 2.
Guy 1: Oh really? So they were initially splitting it?
Guy 2: Thats what it sounds like.

I actually now have hope that this thing might be able to do 60Hz by running over both HDMI 1 and 2 like other 4k monitors/tv's can do.
Xevious is offline  
post #101 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 05:26 PM
Newbie
 
xgrifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That was SEIKI SE50UY04 50-in 4K 3840x2160 TV Unboxing and Preview from Pc Perspective
Which was them mainly testing games on it. and a little 4k content they said Robert Heron from teckzilla
ordered one also and he will have more on the tv and video side of it on an upcoming ep of teckzilla
xgrifter is offline  
post #102 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by candre23 View Post

Lets try to remember that h.265 is still essentially in a pre-alpha phase. The "standard" isn't totally finalized
It was finalized in January, that's hardly "pre-alpha".
Quote:
Originally Posted by candre23 View Post

nobody has even announced potential release dates for compatible hardware
A number of companies have announced HEVC-capable hardware - including Samsung's 2013 display lineup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Implementations
Quote:
Originally Posted by candre23 View Post

...somebody could make up a "BD4K" standard with 4k h.265 feature films on 50GB bluray media. It will definitely look better than current blurays. It may not be as good as 4k can possibly look, but...
At least we agree on something. smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by candre23 View Post

For me, I don't need 4k "content". I just want a huge-ass computer monitor.
But that is 4K content. The way I see it, 4K gives me a much larger workspace. (the OS will be left at 100% scale) 8K gives me a large high DPI monitor. (150/200% scale in the OS for improved rendering quality on par with devices like the current iPad and Retina MacBooks)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #103 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 06:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
" It may not be as good as 4k can possibly look, but we're really pushing the limit of perceptibility here."

Disagree wildly.

50GB, 4K BluRays would be better, but are pointless. You are requiring all new hardware for something that pushes the limits of perceptibility.

If you want people to care, you'll need bigger disks. If you want people to upgrade the rest of their value chains, why wouldn't you just upgrade the disc capacity and do 4K properly?

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #104 of 194 Old 04-19-2013, 08:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

" It may not be as good as 4k can possibly look, but we're really pushing the limit of perceptibility here."

Disagree wildly.

50GB, 4K BluRays would be better, but are pointless. You are requiring all new hardware for something that pushes the limits of perceptibility.

If you want people to care, you'll need bigger disks. If you want people to upgrade the rest of their value chains, why wouldn't you just upgrade the disc capacity and do 4K properly?
I think the issue is being overblown. I agree that because you are going to need new hardware to play back H.265 content, it just doesn't make sense to stick with the current dual layer 50GB format.

However, for the naysayers that argue we can't/won't go beyond a 50GB disc format (which I think is wrong - especially when BDXL already exists) I think 50GB is more than sufficient to show a marked improvement with H.265 compressed 4K compared to H.264 compressed 1080p.

We can see today that even compressed down to one sixth its ideal size, H.264 compressed 1080p content looks considerably better than MPEG-2 encoded DVDs.
H.265 compressed 4K content at only half its ideal size is clearly going to have a similar jump in image quality compared to H.264 compressed Blu-ray.

Would I rather watch a 50GB Blu-ray disc than a 1080p file compressed down to 8GB? Absolutely.
But would I rather watch a DVD compared to that compressed HD file? Absolutely not.
The same would apply to a 50GB 4K file. It may not be ideal, but it would still be better than current Blu-ray.

But I don't think we will end up with a 50GB disc format for 4K anyway - this just illustrates that it's definitely possible, and wouldn't be nearly as bad as some people have been saying.



I do think that distribution is going to be a problem though - are we going to have three formats available at the same time? As much as I hate to say it, I don't see DVD going anywhere.

Even people I know that have Blu-ray players are still buying DVDs - because every player in their house can play a DVD, but only one of them works with the Blu-ray disc.
Do you just abandon Blu-ray and force everyone to upgrade to BDXL-capable players? Can you use a quad-layer disc (128GB) and dedicate the first layer (25GB) to a regular 1080p H.264 encode? I don't know if that's even a possibility, or if standard Blu-ray players will just reject a BDXL disc, rather than only being able to read the first two layers.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #105 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 12:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
The guys at RED did some light test of the Seiki yesterday;
Quote:
We got a truck load of these delivered to the studio today. Panels look better than you would expect for $1200 but they are no where near the big dogs.. mostly in terms of bit depth, color accuracy and controls ( as expected )

Obviously first thing we did was hook it up to REDRAY and it looked pretty good. Gradients from light to dark and fades you really notice the lack of bits that the panel can process.. looks like it handles about 6 bits and doesn't dither very well if at all. Color gradient charts that are preloaded on REDRAY seem to reveal a bit of non-linearity per color in the display.

You need to turn sharpening to zero and color is a single slider that you need to find out the sweet spot. Also noise reduction off.

I also hooked it up to some video cards.. The GTX 680 works great, the GTX 690 doesn't yet ( no HDMI port and i couldnt find the adapter to see if it works)

I think this is where this screen was meant to live.. its a great large computer monitor with a ton of real estate and the size isn't too obnoxious. Just make sure you have a nice small 27" or 30" monitor on the side for color accuracy. Solidworks guys are gonna have wet dreams with this monitor.
coolscan is online now  
post #106 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 12:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Chron, I think we are talking about a different thing.

Of course, a 50GB 4K file will look good. But it's pointless. If that's all we're going to get; I'd rather just skip out on 4K. There will never be a mass infrastructure for it because people will almost uniformly go, "I do not see the difference."

If we want a 4K world, we need a genuine, step-wise increase in picture quality. That's going to require a jump in the file size so that when people watch this stuff on jumbo screens, most people actually see it as better. Bit-challenged recordings are going to have advantages that are too subtle. Hell, we're already having that problem with questionably-crafted BluRays and horribly uploaded HD broadcasts.

The standard simply needs to be better or else it's just marketing and no one will care.

(Note, this doesn't mean I don't want a 4K computer monitor either way. But vis a vis video, crappy streamed 4K or low-bit 4K on some bastardized existing BluRay discs with new players that almost no one owns are simply not going to create a next-gen format. There are already reasons to believe we'll never see good 4K. If we don't explain what we want now, that's all but a certainty.)

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #107 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 01:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Chron, I think we are talking about a different thing.
Well I'm mainly putting forward reasons why 4K would work at smaller sizes than people expect, and still offer clear advantages even if you don't double the storage capacity - it would be best if they do (and I'm quite sure that they will) but it is not essential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Of course, a 50GB 4K file will look good. But it's pointless. If that's all we're going to get; I'd rather just skip out on 4K.
Do you skip films that only ship on a single layer Blu-ray, or fill half the disc with extras? The majority of Blu-rays in my library are below 25GB for the main feature - about 20.5GB on average (I think that number is actually a bit lower than it was last time I checked) and that's not from a small sample size.

Even if you ignore the fact that moving from 1080p to 4K only requires about 3x the bitrate rather than 4x (detail doesn't scale linearly with resolution) you could still fit 4K onto a 50GB disc without pushing it - you halve the requirements by moving to H.265, and halve it again if you consider that most Blu-rays are actually less than 25GB for the main feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

There will never be a mass infrastructure for it because people will almost uniformly go, "I do not see the difference."
Can people not tell the difference between a DVD and an HD broadcast?
The HD broadcast is worse than Blu-ray, but it's still very clearly better than the DVD.


But I'm quite sure that if there is a disc format planned, it will be using BDXL discs or a similarly high capacity format. The point I am trying to make is that 4K distribution is not some unfeasible nightmare we can't overcome. (which I think you agree with - but many people on this forum do not)
As long as you move to H.265 - you can have image quality comparable to Blu-ray on a 50GB disc, as long as that disc only contains the film and isn't full of extras.


If - and this is a big if - a standard Blu-ray player can read the first layer of a BDXL disc, I think the problem of a disc format and distribution solves itself. You use the first layer for a 1080p H.264 encode (no worse than current discs if you leave out the extras) which leaves you around 100GB for a H.265 4K encode.
And if that doesn't work, well I am quite sure that they would be able to devise an equivalent disc that does work this way - similar to how a regular CD player just ignores the SACD layer on those discs.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #108 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 08:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DaveFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Natick MA
Posts: 17,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26

Embedded for easier viewing.

I'd buy one but for gaming the 30Hz limit really isn't good at all.

Notice how he runs all the games with Vsync OFF. That kind of defeats of the purpose. Screen tearing is going to be awful.

XBOX Live: Wagmman
PSN: Wagg
BFBC2: Wagman
Steam: Wag

My Second Life character looks and acts exactly like me except he can fly.
DaveFi is offline  
post #109 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,898
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post


Embedded for easier viewing.

I'd buy one but for gaming the 30Hz limit really isn't good at all.

Notice how he runs all the games with Vsync OFF. That kind of defeats of the purpose. Screen tearing is going to be awful.

He turns Vsync on part way through. There was no tearing after that.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #110 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 10:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 1,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 73
There is no way in hell I would pay for a 4K movie on a 50GB disk. I think the people who argue for such a thing must have very small TV screens. For those with projectors or larger FPD, you can already make out compression artifacts on existing 1080p BD disks. Why would I want to continue with those artifacts on a new 4K standard? Also, don't believe the hype about compression ratio improvements from companies who sell compression related tech. They always compare a poorly implemented and setup previous gen codec implementation against their heavily optimized new codec demo. Wait for independent testing vs. something like x264 with properly optimized settings. I doubt you will see more than 25% file size reduction for equivalent picture quality vs. h.264 on difficult to compress content. Same was true for MPEG2 transition where the gains from h.264 were way overblown vs. reality.
Wizziwig is offline  
post #111 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 02:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Well I'm mainly putting forward reasons why 4K would work at smaller sizes than people expect, and still offer clear advantages even if you don't double the storage capacity - it would be best if they do (and I'm quite sure that they will) but it is not essential.
Do you skip films that only ship on a single layer Blu-ray, or fill half the disc with extras? The majority of Blu-rays in my library are below 25GB for the main feature - about 20.5GB on average (I think that number is actually a bit lower than it was last time I checked) and that's not from a small sample size.

I don't skip those BluRays, but again you're positing an entirely different problem. I -- and many others -- invested in BluRay because it was the high-definition disc format and we were going to get an HDTV. Period. It's not actually a given we're going to get 4K TVs (unless that feature simply becomes "free" on all higher-end TVs by decade's end, which it might, but is another matter). If 4K discs are merely some slight -- real, but slight -- improvement, I'm not likely going to bother. Why? Because many discs won't actually look discernibly better and I'm not going to read reviews of every disc to see which ones are good encodes/transfers. Too much work. If the format is really good to begin with, I'll just know every transfer is going to be pretty damn amazing.
Quote:
Even if you ignore the fact that moving from 1080p to 4K only requires about 3x the bitrate rather than 4x (detail doesn't scale linearly with resolution) you could still fit 4K onto a 50GB disc without pushing it - you halve the requirements by moving to H.265, and halve it again if you consider that most Blu-rays are actually less than 25GB for the main feature.

So 50GB works for all but long, epic movies? The very movies for which a high-end format is most appealing? Got it!
Quote:
Can people not tell the difference between a DVD and an HD broadcast?
The HD broadcast is worse than Blu-ray, but it's still very clearly better than the DVD.

There are a surprising number of people who can't tell the difference. And then there are a surprising number of HD broadcasts that have gotten so bad that, well... they're bad.
Quote:
But I'm quite sure that if there is a disc format planned, it will be using BDXL discs or a similarly high capacity format. The point I am trying to make is that 4K distribution is not some unfeasible nightmare we can't overcome. (which I think you agree with - but many people on this forum do not)
As long as you move to H.265 - you can have image quality comparable to Blu-ray on a 50GB disc, as long as that disc only contains the film and isn't full of extras.

So, yes, we agree completely that 4K distribution is a solvable problem.

And it seems like we also agree that the format should include BDXL, which in my mind is more than sufficient. It also should add pretty much no cost to the physical portion of the format. The playback is trivial; the manufacture will probably will run a tad more.
Quote:
If - and this is a big if - a standard Blu-ray player can read the first layer of a BDXL disc, I think the problem of a disc format and distribution solves itself. You use the first layer for a 1080p H.264 encode (no worse than current discs if you leave out the extras) which leaves you around 100GB for a H.265 4K encode.

Intriguing idea.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #112 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 02:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
mikek753's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Hmm ...
So far as I see it this 4k TV is only good to show (play) from USB drive 8 Mp pictures at 50 " size - yes that would look much better vs current 2 Mp 1080P TV
while the rest are not ready yet to take any benefits from this 8Mp panel due to input connections, isn't it?
This TV can be used if it come with current 2 DVI inputs to be used as full 8 Mp 50" monitor for PC that can output via many modern video cards such resolution over 2 DVI outputs. While I'm not aware of 2 HDMI outputs as I see only 1, for for another one has to be DVI to HDMI adapter.
As result HDMI vide card output can go to AVR to extract audio and another DVI via HDMI to 2nd TV input. This should work in case AVR will not cause any delay for video stream - IMHO.

I think newer Thunderbolt and DP 1.2 will solve this bandwidth issue, but those have to be standard on video devices as output and on 4k TV as input.

No, use 4k TV in 30Hz or 24 Hz as PC monitor isn't any good - too much delay, 50 Hz is min I can accept.
mikek753 is offline  
post #113 of 194 Old 04-20-2013, 03:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

If 4K discs are merely some slight -- real, but slight -- improvement, I'm not likely going to bother.
I just don't understand where you are getting the impression that a 50GB format would be a "slight" improvement.

Moving from 1080p to 4K is 4x the pixels. So you go from needing a 50GB disc to a 200GB disc if you were to stick with H.264.
But moving from 1080p to 4K only adds a complexity of about 3x - so now you are down to 150GB.
PSNR testing shows that H.265 is roughly twice as efficient as H.264 for the same image quality, which takes the requirement down to 75GB.
And from my own library of about 600 Blu-rays, the average size for the actual feature is 20.5GB rather than 50GB (most discs are either filled with extras, single-layer discs, or just simply don't use all the space) and to be fair, lets just call it 25GB. So that brings the requirement down to... 37.5GB for a 4K file with the same image quality on a pixel-level as we have with current Blu-ray releases, but 4x the resolution. If you only put the main feature on a 50GB disc, you would actually be increasing the quality over what we have today.

I'm not trying to say that I want them to stick with 50GB discs - I'm just trying to explain how it actually wouldn't be that bad if they did. But I would absolutely prefer to have less compression than we currently have on Blu-ray if that's a possibility, and I don't see any real reason for them to stick with 50GB discs - especially when you have the possibility of a disc that can have a standard Blu-ray layer and a 4K layer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So 50GB works for all but long, epic movies? The very movies for which a high-end format is most appealing? Got it!
The longest film I have on Blu-ray is Lawrence of Arabia - it's almost four hours long. And the disc is... 43.2GB in size. The actual film itself is 38.7GB - and if I convert the audio to FLAC rather than DTS-HD, it's down to 37.2GB. (kind of ironic that a 13 year old, free, open-source format does lossless compression better than DTS or Dolby)

So if you factor in everything listed above, it works out as requiring approximately 55.8GB to have the same quality on a pixel-level as the current Blu-ray release - so you would need to compress it slightly more to fit. But compression artefacts with H.265 are less visible than H.264, especially when you have 4x the resolution. (as resolution goes up, the size of artefacts goes down)

But I think a four hour movie is quite an exception. Most of the films in my library are in the 2-2.5 hour range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

There are a surprising number of people who can't tell the difference. And then there are a surprising number of HD broadcasts that have gotten so bad that, well... they're bad.
Perhaps I should have rephrased that - do you think that people in the market for a 4K television can't tell the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

And it seems like we also agree that the format should include BDXL, which in my mind is more than sufficient.
And it probably will be - or some format derived from it.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #114 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 12:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I just don't understand where you are getting the impression that a 50GB format would be a "slight" improvement.
....
And from my own library of about 600 Blu-rays, the average size for the actual feature is 20.5GB rather than 50GB (most discs are either filled with extras, single-layer discs, or just simply don't use all the space) and to be fair, lets just call it 25GB. So that brings the requirement down to... 37.5GB for a 4K file with the same image quality on a pixel-level as we have with current Blu-ray releases, but 4x the resolution. If you only put the main feature on a 50GB disc, you would actually be increasing the quality over what we have today.

They aren't going to make "main feature only" discs.... That's a fantasy, OK?

It would be a slight improvement, and only that.
Quote:
I'm not trying to say that I want them to stick with 50GB discs - I'm just trying to explain how it actually wouldn't be that bad if they did.

And, again, you are missing my point. If they do this, it will kill 4K for a decade or more. Perhaps forever. Once you release the format in a way that makes it uninteresting, you do irreparable harm to the format in the marketplace. I direct your recollection to high-quality audio: SACD, DVD-A... You can't put the genie back in the bottle. So if they release the 4K genie and it's "main movie only" stuff on 50GB discs, you can forget it. You won't be getting much content; you'll be getting a niche, videophile-only format that will die on the vine.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #115 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 02:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I direct your recollection to high-quality audio: SACD, DVD-A... You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
That's because normal people are happy with CD-quality audio (and they should be if science is to be believed - 16/44 should already be beyond the limits of human hearing) and because it required specialized players.

The same problem exists with Blu-ray today as it is - people are happy enough with DVD and Blu-ray requires specialized players. Even if they simply move to a 1080p/4K hybrid disc as I theorized on earlier, it doesn't fix the problem of people still buying DVDs and streaming content in preference to buying Blu-ray. It just means we have an even higher-end format that people don't buy.


If it's someone's birthday, along with other gifts, I'm known for giving out Blu-rays (probably because no-one else does) and I put in a lot of effort to make sure that it's something they're going to love rather than just walking into a store and buying the first thing I see on the top 10 shelf that seems appropriate. It generally goes over well with people, especially if it's either something they haven't seen before, or something that is one of their old favorites. E.g. that old VHS tape that sits in the machine and gets watched over and over again. Yes, people are still using VCRs in 2013, because most people don't think it's worth buying something they already own a second time.

Just recently with another person's birthday coming up, I was specifically requested to not get them a Blu-ray, and buy a DVD instead - even though they have a Blu-ray player and a PS3 in their home. Quality is less important than convenience to most people outside of our hobby, and 4K isn't going to change that.

What needs to happen for the success of a future disc format is the elimination of DVD - and good luck with that. Rather than DVD sales moving over to Blu-ray, streaming will take over. If they don't/can't release 4K on some kind of hybrid format, I think they will actually kill the market for high-end physical media because it will be too fragmented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So if they release the 4K genie and it's "main movie only" stuff on 50GB discs, you can forget it. You won't be getting much content; you'll be getting a niche, videophile-only format that will die on the vine.
You don't think the extras on a DVD/Blu-ray are mainly niche content created for film nerds? How many people in the "mainstream" do you think watch a film again multiple times with the commentaries on (though separate audio tracks hardly take up any space) or go through all the behind the scenes content? It was interesting when DVDs were new, but I never look at any of that stuff these days - even for films I really love. At best it's a waste of my time - time which could be spent watching other films - and at worst, it ruins the magic of the film for me.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #116 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 06:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,898
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So if they release the 4K genie and it's "main movie only" stuff on 50GB discs, you can forget it. You won't be getting much content; you'll be getting a niche, videophile-only format that will die on the vine.
You don't think the extras on a DVD/Blu-ray are mainly niche content created for film nerds? How many people in the "mainstream" do you think watch a film again multiple times with the commentaries on (though separate audio tracks hardly take up any space) or go through all the behind the scenes content? It was
barely
Quote:
interesting when DVDs were new, but I never look at any of that stuff these days - even for films I really love. At best it's a waste of my time - time which could be spent watching other films - and at worst, it ruins the magic of the film for me.


Absolutely no one outside of some fringe shut-ins would care at all.

I quietly breathed a sigh of relief when some of the later DVD's started showing up with less and less of that crap. The only exceptions to that were the "shorts" supplied with Pixar films, which are truly gems. And in THOSE cases, a 2nd disk is what you want anyway.

For DVD's, I got used to jumping to the menu any way I could (which is a real challenge on some of them), going to scene selection, grabbing scene 1, and watching away. "Fast Play" was a half-joke.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #117 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

For DVD's, I got used to jumping to the menu any way I could (which is a real challenge on some of them), going to scene selection, grabbing scene 1, and watching away. "Fast Play" was a half-joke.
If I recall correctly, stop, stop, play is a universal code that should take you directly to the menus on any DVD player. (or most anyway)

But I switched to PC-based playback years ago and never have to deal with that. I love that I can just put a Blu-ray disc in my PC and instantly be watching the film rather than going through adverts and menus.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #118 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 08:31 AM
Member
 
Fyodor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm curious. It's my understanding that many of the mid-range and above computer video cards support these resolutions. If you watch a blu-ray on your computer will the content be upscaled to 4K? Will the upscaling be any good?
Fyodor is offline  
post #119 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyodor View Post

I'm curious. It's my understanding that many of the mid-range and above computer video cards support these resolutions. If you watch a blu-ray on your computer will the content be upscaled to 4K? Will the upscaling be any good?
madVR upscaling is arguably better than any of the standalone players.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #120 of 194 Old 04-21-2013, 11:08 AM
Member
 
Fyodor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Can MadVr upscale to 4K with existing hardware?
Fyodor is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Seiki Digital Se50uy04 50 Inch 4k 120hz Led Hdtv
Gear in this thread

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