AVS Forum banner

Sony 4K and the rest

37K views 317 replies 75 participants last post by  Bulldogger 
#1 ·
No doubt the Sony 4K set a new reference in the sub 30.000 euros category ( costing only 18.500 ), and make it very difficult for products above that mark to justify them self other than light output.

The level of contrast, colour reproduction, video scalling and processing, lens quality, ..., is incredible. Just out of the box, on the default factory settings. No need for calibration, dont be fooled.

And it also offers 3D and native 4K for free !

4K content is around the corner and in the meantime 1080p content is scalled so good that you can happy wait for the new Bluray format.

I have been the factory in Japan last year testing the prelease units, I have it on my showroom and I can say this product will be a top seller once the customers see it and compare it.

I have compared it to many / most of your prefered projectors and ... competitors are geting nervous ... side by side others seem broken, not focused, no deep, no contrast, etc

There is a new King, we liked or not, but it is better to accept it and push the other manufacturers for more research and development to keep the battle going so we will get even better stuff in the future. If not in one year time we will have a problem like Google or Apple but in the HT projector market.

Who dont see this is blind or just need to not see it due others issues like personal interest.

If the sky is dark and rainy we cant say it is a sunny day, because the customers will notice it, they are not stupid, or do you think that a guy that can pay 20, 30 or 50 thousend euros for a product makes his money been stupid ?

What about the comming new 4K low cost ... under 10.000 euros ... thing about a product range of 3 or 4 models to compete on each price point ... the battle is served and Sony will open new fight areas .. the others need to react and very fast

Happy future ! ( I will be part of it and need more 4K options ... )
 
See less See more
#54 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin /forum/post/21645771


Doubt it. I don't usually agree with amirim on some other things but I agree with him this time.


While it wasn't native 4k (upscaled 1080), my calibrator was allowed to test the new Sony 4k in his set up and at his seating position he reported he couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and the upscaled "4k". If that's true I'm fine with 1080p

If you sit near the SMPTE minimum distance for scope ratio material I assure you that you will see a difference.


Art
 
#55 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech /forum/post/21645675


This was in response to his statement "Why didn't you say the rules were this? I think we are just going to make up stuff we should assume the disc is one-sided"


Despite who he is or works for, he is simply wrong about 4K. It will take time but it is coming. People see a difference whether by "magic" as he calls it, or not. Sony needs another cash cow and will push 4K hard. They will open their movie library and others will have to follow suit. They will justify its early release by pushing the improvements in the up scaling of 1080p content and transition with hybrid 4K/blu-ray players. By 2016 4K displays will be more than 50% of all set sold.

Yes. Having failed with SACD, I am sure Sony can't wait for new 4k discs to demolish any success for Blu Ray. I even heard that Toshiba, the creator of HD DVD, is going 4K, just to get back at Blu Ray.


Except that Sony is the creator of - Blu Ray!!@@@
 
#57 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/0



If you sit near the SMPTE minimum distance for scope ratio material I assure you that you will see a difference.


Art

Which would be what distance? Is that the 1.5 the screen width?
 
#59 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs /forum/post/21645264


It's an OK writeup with OK points on now minor issues.


IMO the current big name movie/audio companies should pay Bill Gates (or his foundation) some very serious money for his advice.


Given their focus on copy protection, odds are that they'll not do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm /forum/post/21645587


What are the minor issues?

For others from amirm's prior ref:

You might want to read it:
Digital Video Revolution: Did We Miss a Step?


;;;


1st paragraph: "Can you imagine still using DVD at one sixth the resolution to power our large screens?"


That's an eerily strange sentence.


Agreed that a Blu-ray movie offers more resolution than a DVD movie, but how important is that really?


Meaning that I've a very decent 37" Panasonic flatscreen TV as well as a very decent Panasonic Blu-ray player, and while some Blu-ray movies show a clear improvement over the same movie via DVD format, it doesn't impress me that much. And BTW sitting at 4 or 5' from the screen does show the hi-rez benefit from Blu-ray, but it's nothing to get overly excited about.


So how big of a flatscreen does one need for a Blu-ray movie to become compelling?


If the answer is > 70" then my question becomes: what percentage of families own at least one flatscreen TV > 70"?


Similarly what percentage of families own TV projectors?


;;;


2nd paragraph: "We saw the music industry go through similar transformation with the resulting format being lower fidelity music compared to where we started (Compact Disc)."


A true but misleading comment.


Steve Jobs simply had the insight (genius (?)) to "rip off" (pun not intended) the easily rippable CD into the mp3 format. AFAIK anyone can legally do this for themselves if they own the CD. Jobs' genius was in seeing the convenience of offering it legally via Apple's iPod devices.


Meaning that without the CD being able to be legally ripped by the CD owner, I rather doubt that the iPod would have ever gotten off the ground.


;;;


3rd paragraph: "At high level, the transformation is occurring due to two factors: what the consumer wants and what the business owner wants."


It isn't what the consumer wants so much as what the consumer will pay for.



If they can get something they want without much additional cost, then sales volume will explode. And everyone benefits.


Both Gates and Jobs understood this when they were in charge of M.S. and Apple.


I continue to think that the execs in the AV biz don't see this.


Doesn't surprise me as I've seen it before. Meaning copy protection has been the AV mantra for the past 25+ years and they can't see past it.


One thing I remember about early PC software was that copy protection often made the software unusable on a 2nd install attempt, even when you were the legal owner and had removed it from the 1st PC. And that many (most?) of those companies went out of business.


Given that you worked for MS, odds are you've an opinion on that?


Or maybe you weren't really that connected with sales and what makes sales work?


Of course you're now in the high end music biz, so maybe you've new insight?



;;;


THE CONSUMER NEED

"The consumer is always looking for convenience."


This is seriously incomplete.


You need to add that the consumer is always looking for what is free or so low cost that it is almost free.


Not to mention: whatever is not a hassle. And copy protection is a hassle. Not insurmountable, but a hassle nonetheless; and one that leads to lower overall volume sales.


;;;


THE CONTENT INDUSTRY NEED



The key thing you missed is that they need/want volume. Yet their pricing and copy protection of the Blu-ray discs has led to low volume sales. The opposite of what they want.


Unintended consequences, but that's where the AV copy protection focus has led to.


e.g. I won't pay for a low cost download of high-rez audio for the simple reason that odds are that in the future I might not be able to prove that I paid for it.


It's a chicken/egg thing.


A physical audio disc is my proof that I own it. But with SACD I can't get the sound to my PC HDD. I recently gave a try to several 2L Blu-ray combo audio albums, which supposedly with mShuttle can be downloaded to the PC, but so far it hasn't been simple and 2L did not respond to my e-mail for help.


Hence I won't be buying any more 2L Blu-ray combo audio albums.


Unintended consequences is what I see with the whole AV biz.
 
#60 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs /forum/post/21646920


For others from amirm's prior ref:

You might want to read it:
Digital Video Revolution: Did We Miss a Step?


;;;


1st paragraph: "Can you imagine still using DVD at one sixth the resolution to power our large screens?"


That's an eerily strange sentence. Agreed that a Blu-ray movie offers more resolution than a DVD movie, but how important is that really?
This is a thread where people say 1080p is not enough and 4K is it. And you are saying it is odd to talk about getting 6X the resolution?

Quote:
Meaning that I've a very decent 37" Panasonic flatscreen TV as well as a very decent Panasonic Blu-ray player, and while some Blu-ray movies show a clear improvement over the same movie via DVD format, it doesn't impress me that much.

I don't know how far back you sit from that smallish display. So sure, it is possible that you are not getting much of a benefit. But what does that have to do with a 12 foot wide projection screen?

Quote:
And BTW sitting at 4 or 5' from the screen does show the hi-rez benefit from Blu-ray, but it's nothing to get overly excited about.

Well, OK. You are not the target my my article then.


Quote:
So how big of a flatscreen does one need for a Blu-ray movie to become compelling?

It is a function of viewing distance in addition to display size. *And* being an enthusiast. My wife doesn't care about BD either. But I didn't write the article for her
.

Quote:
Similarly what percentage of families own TV projectors?

I didn't write the article for US Today or post it in People magazine forum (do they have one?). It was written for a magazine called Widescreen Review where vast majority of their readers have one. And you are in $20,000 part of AVS Forum where similar percentage do the same.

Quote:
2nd paragraph: "We saw the music industry go through similar transformation with the resulting format being lower fidelity music compared to where we started (Compact Disc)."


A true but misleading comment.


Steve Jobs simply had the insight (genius (?)) to "rip off" (pun not intended) the easily rippable CD into the mp3 format.

He didn't use MP3 but AAC. And he didn't invent this at all. Nor did he invent the iPod. A different dude led that project (he is making thermostats now). The key innovation in the original ipod was a small Toshiba hard disk that they got an exclusive on for a time period. The allowed them to make a much smaller hard disk based portable music player. Combine that with Apple's talent in user interface and industrial design and you had a hit. Job saw the potential and went all out marketing the product with tens of millions of dollars spent on a product category that belonged to geeks before that. The rest as they say is history.


The point above though, had nothing to do with people ripping their own. It is about the music industry and what they provide today for digital distribution of new content. There are already music tracks that are only available in compressed music and not CD. Over time that trend will continue.

Quote:
AFAIK anyone can legally do this for themselves if they own the CD. Jobs' genius was in seeing the convenience of offering it legally via Apple's iPod devices.

People have a choice of bit rate and format when they compress their own CDs. I rip into lossless format as do many others. But when I wanted to buy an album recently that was only available in download form, I had to settle for 256kbps. I was not happy about that.

Quote:
Meaning that without the CD being able to be legally ripped by the CD owner, I rather doubt that the iPod would have ever gotten off the ground.

There was nothing in the article about ripping CDs.

Quote:
3rd paragraph: "At high level, the transformation is occurring due to two factors: what the consumer wants and what the business owner wants."


It isn't what the consumer wants so much as what the consumer will pay for.



If they can get something they want without much additional cost, then sales volume will explode. And everyone benefits.


Both Gates and Jobs understood this when they were in charge of M.S. and Apple.

As an ex VP at Microsoft in charge of digital media division, there is not much you can teach me there
. None of the points you are making are relevant to my article. My article is not about history of music. But rather the fact that video is appearing to follow its footsteps in a narrow area relative to quality of distributed content. The proof point is perfectly there and explained in the article.

Quote:
I continue to think that the execs in the AV biz don't see this.

I hope present company is excluded
.

Quote:
Doesn't surprise me as I've seen it before. Meaning copy protection has been the AV mantra for the past 25+ years and they can't see past it.

Don't want to rat hole into there
.

Quote:
One thing I remember about early PC software was that copy protection often made the software unusable on a 2nd install attempt, even when you were the legal owner and had removed it from the 1st PC. And that many (most?) of those companies went out of business.


Given that you worked for MS, odds are you've an opinion on that?

I do. But as I said, it is for another topic and discussion. For now, it is not possible to preserve the revenue model of studios by doing away with copy protection. They have built a business from sequential releases of the same movie. The movie comes out in theater, goes on PPV, then home video, then cable premium and then broadcast. No one sells software 8 times in a row and make money from it but that is what they do.


You can go further and consider the author who writes the story and gets printed in paperback and hardback making double income. It then gets converted to a script for a movie and the cash register rings again. So the history of making money multiple times from copyrighted material goes well beyond movies.

Quote:
Or maybe you weren't really that connected with sales and what makes sales work?

You must have a habit of telling your doctor that he must not have finished medical school.
I ran a division at Microsoft. A division is one that is end to end from making the product to selling it. My marketing team alone had 40 people in it. But maybe you can teach me something I don't know. Hopefully that will come in the next post.


Quote:
Of course you're now in the high end music biz, so maybe you've new insight?

I am not into high-end music. I don't deal with distribution of music which is what the article is about: distribution of video. You seem to have missed the very purpose of the article.

Quote:
THE CONSUMER NEED

"The consumer is always looking for convenience."


This is seriously incomplete.


You need to add that the consumer is always looking for what is free or so low cost that it is almost free.

Non-sense. Was the iPod free? Nope. It was one heck of an expensive device. The smaller version retailed for $400 and the "larger" 10 Gigabyte version $500. Millions of people bought them anyway. The iPhone competes with free phones yet it sells in huge volume. iPad sells for lots of money.


Consumers routinely pay for convenience. DVRs are another example. So are automatic transmission in cars. Air Conditioning. Jet flights, etc.

Quote:
Not to mention: whatever is not a hassle. And copy protection is a hassle. Not insurmountable, but a hassle nonetheless; and one that leads to lower overall volume sales.

Apple products used copy protection for music for years. Didn't seem to hold them back. DVD has copy protection. Didn't stop it from making more money than theatrical release of the movie. Poorly done copy protection is poor. Poorly done software is poor too. So what?

Quote:
THE CONTENT INDUSTRY NEED



The key thing you missed is that they need/want volume. Yet their pricing and copy protection of the Blu-ray discs has led to low volume sales. The opposite of what they want.

I didn't miss that. From the article:


"One could say that Blu-ray is part of the problem as its higher retail pricing actually encourages more rentals as opposed to purchases. "


Studios opted for higher margin thinking this is a chance to up the margins that were being eroded by likes of Wal-Mart pushing prices down as loss leaders to get you into the store. If it were me, I would have priced it the same, give everyone the right to make a few copies, and see how well it did.
 
#61 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm /forum/post/21647133

This is a thread where people say 1080p is not enough and 4K is it. And you are saying it is odd to talk about getting 6X the resolution?

Basically yes.


FWIW I think that my response was enough on topic to have some merit in this 4k thread.


With regard to the rest of my response and your own response to mine, unintended consequences is what I see with the whole AV biz when it comes to the whole thing on Blu-ray discs.
 
#62 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky /forum/post/21646574


Yes. Having failed with SACD, I am sure Sony can't wait for new 4k discs to demolish any success for Blu Ray. I even heard that Toshiba, the creator of HD DVD, is going 4K, just to get back at Blu Ray.


Except that Sony is the creator of - Blu Ray!!@@@

Sony will still get royalties off 4K Blu-ray as creator of blu-ray. 1080p bluray on one side/4K bluray on the other. It just opens another stream of revenue for Sony, selling you another version of Spiderman and new hybrid blu-ray/4K players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/0


Has a 4K Blu-ray standard even been written yet? Agreed upon?

Standardization of the new codecs is set for publication for July 2012.

http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html


If it gets pushed back, Sony loves propriety formats and codecs and would have no trouble forging ahead with their own to make it the standard.
 
#63 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech /forum/post/21648302


... Sony loves propriety formats and codecs and would have no trouble forging ahead with their own to make it the standard.

Yep, Sony loves propriety formats and codecs. And they have crashed and burned with all of them.
  • BetaMAX
  • BetaCam
  • Video8
  • DAT
  • Hi8
  • Mini-Disc
  • Hi-MD
  • Digital BetaCam
  • miniDV
  • ATRAC
  • ATRAC3
  • DVCAM
  • Memory Stick
  • Memory Stick Duo
  • Memory Stick Pro Duo
  • Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo
  • Memory Stick Micro
  • Digital8
  • Universal Media Disc UMD


Yep, 30 years of setting industry standards...
 
#64 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/21648524


Yep, Sony loves propriety formats and codecs. And they have crashed and burned with all of them.
  • BetaMAX
  • BetaCam
  • Video8
  • DAT
  • Hi8
  • Mini-Disc
  • Hi-MD
  • Digital BetaCam
  • miniDV
  • ATRAC
  • ATRAC3
  • DVCAM
  • Memory Stick
  • Memory Stick Duo
  • Memory Stick Pro Duo
  • Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo
  • Memory Stick Micro
  • Digital8
  • Universal Media Disc UMD


Yep, 30 years of setting industry standards...

Looks like all the more reason to believe we will see 4K BD to me.


Art
 
#66 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/21648536


Looks like all the more reason to believe we will see 4K BD to me.


Art

Yep, the track record would indicate that.


But Sony doesn't exactly have a basket full of winning products at the moment. They haven't made money in TV's in 7 years, the PS3 is getting long in tooth. Most of their small electronics have become me too commodity items. They struggle with their cell phones and the ES line is all but dead. Their computers are expensive with few unique selling points compared to the competition and they haven't been very successful with their new tablets or readers.


It's great to see the new projector but the technology needs to trickle down to a lower price point, quickly, to capture any real market share. Sony has a lot of turn around to do and they need to do it sooner than latter. Otherwise, I'm afraid we'll see a spin off of their electronics group and end up with another Pioneer.


4K on a flat screen less than 50" is not going to WOW a lot of people I'm afraid; and that's what most of the world's BD players are hooked up to.


Kazuo Hirai, the new CEO of Sony, has a big job in front of him. And I wish him the very best luck and success.


In the meantime I'll enjoy my modest HT and hope Hollywood turns out some decent movies this year.
 
#67 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/21648524


Yep, Sony loves propriety formats and codecs. And they have crashed and burned with all of them.
  • BetaCam
  • Digital BetaCam
  • DVCAM


Yep, 30 years of setting industry standards...

The three formats I picked out were highly successful in the broadcast arena, the most popular was analog Betacam.


What failed were Panasonics attempts into this market niche. Mformat, M2, D3, D5. HDD5 enjoyed some success until HDCAM-SR took over.


Sony did well in professional circles, just not consumer.
 
#68 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/21648524


Yep, Sony loves propriety formats and codecs. And they have crashed and burned with all of them.
  • BetaMAX
  • BetaCam
  • Video8
  • DAT
  • Hi8
  • Mini-Disc
  • Hi-MD
  • Digital BetaCam
  • miniDV
  • ATRAC
  • ATRAC3
  • DVCAM
  • Memory Stick
  • Memory Stick Duo
  • Memory Stick Pro Duo
  • Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo
  • Memory Stick Micro
  • Digital8
  • Universal Media Disc UMD


Yep, 30 years of setting industry standards...

You missed Elcaset! It was Reel-to-Reel in a large cassette shell. I got one when it first came out. I think it cost ~$1,000 in 1976!

 
#69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/21648524


Yep, Sony loves propriety formats and codecs. And they have crashed and burned with all of them.
  • BetaMAX
  • Video8
  • Mini-Disc
  • Hi-MD
  • miniDV
  • ATRAC
  • ATRAC3
  • Memory Stick
  • Memory Stick Duo
  • Memory Stick Pro Duo
  • Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo
  • Memory Stick Micro
  • Digital8
  • Universal Media Disc UMD


Yep, 30 years of setting industry standards...

->[*]BetaCam Especially SP, THE field acquisition standard, for decades.

->[*]DAT Live performance standard over many years

->[*]Hi8 Handycam (yep became somewhat of general designation for handheld consumer camcorders), bigger than VHS-C.

->[*]Digital BetaCam Market standard for primary distribution of high-value content, well including HDCam/HDCam-SR. Digital Media Center here in Amsterdam is only now recovering the taperoom, now tapedelivery has been reduced to one percent or less, having moved the rest to file downloads.

->[*]DVCAM Don't know the alternative, was there any. HDV was the norm till AVC-HD took over, another format Sony was/is backing.
 
#70 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk /forum/post/21649952


->[*]BetaCam Especially SP, THE field acquisition standard, for decades.

->[*]DAT Live performance standard over many years

->[*]Hi8 Handycam (yep became somewhat of general designation for handheld consumer camcorders), bigger than VHS-C.

->[*]Digital BetaCam Market standard for primary distribution of high-value content, well including HDCam/HDCam-SR. Digital Media Center here in Amsterdam is only now recovering the taperoom, now tapedelivery has been reduced to one percent or less, having moved the rest to file downloads.

->[*]DVCAM Don't know the alternative, was there any. HDV was the norm till AVC-HD took over, another format Sony was/is backing.

Yes, and people need to keep in mind the demise of these formats was due to technology advance, not because it was a bad format. And Sony did fairly well at preserving legacy formats. For example, Digital Betacam decks could play analog Betacam tapes with an option installed.


Today as one would expect the broadcast market is mostly file based with high end post production close behind. Video tape is mainly only used as an HD archive format. Now LTO tape, that's another story. Most high end 4K work is ultimately archived on LTO tape. Tape still has the lowest cost per byte over any disc format.


P.S. Lets not forget 3/4inch Umatic cassette. This was a Sony invented format that was/is probably the most longest lived video tape format. It even outlasted VHS and was first available in the very early 1970s - long before any consumer accepted format. Betamax was grown out of Umatic. One of the principle reasons Betamax failed was Sony's greedy licensing policy that they got away with for Umatic but Matshusta and JVC were not going to go down that road again.
 
#72 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie /forum/post/21650072


Yes, and people need to keep in mind the demise of these formats was due to technology advance, not because it was a bad format. And Sony did fairly well at preserving legacy formats. For example, Digital Betacam decks could play analog Betacam tapes with an option installed.


Today as one would expect the broadcast market is mostly file based with high end post production close behind. Video tape is mainly only used as an HD archive format. Now LTO tape, that's another story. Most high end 4K work is ultimately archived on LTO tape. Tape still has the lowest cost per byte over any disc format.


P.S. Lets not forget 3/4inch Umatic cassette. This was a Sony invented format that was/is probably the most longest lived video tape format. It even outlasted VHS and was first available in the very early 1970s - long before any consumer accepted format. Betamax was grown out of Umatic. One of the principle reasons Betamax failed was Sony's greedy licensing policy that they got away with for Umatic but Matshusta and JVC were not going to go down that road again.

None we necessarily "bad" formats.


My point was formats that did not catch on for main stream consumer use; not talking broadcast market. And Sony should have preserved legacy formats. After all, it's their legacy.


I owned a BetaMax. It was superior to VHS in performance. But it had nowhere near the value of a cheap VHS machine when I wanted to rent the latest movie which happened to be on VHS. Apparently I wasn't alone with that thought either.


Even Sony uses SD cards in there cameras now. There is absolutely no convenience in tracking down a Sony Memory Stick.


Out side of market dominance in an area like professional broadcasting, Sony's proprietary formats have died when Sony killed it with a new Sony proprietary format. Sony's success in CE formats has occurred when Sony has introduced a format in collaboration with another company or companies.


Over the years, Sony has had excellent design, technology, and good products. What they haven't done well is push proprietary formats that other companies are willing to support. Subsequently, the proprietary formats are rather short lived, expensive to use, and not always convenient to buy.


EDIT: I would compare and contrast Sony with the old Nakamichi where Nakamichi took an existing format and improved or added value well beyond the formats original design.
 
#74 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/21650421


Over the years, Sony has had excellent design, technology, and good products. What they haven't done well is push proprietary formats that other companies are willing to support. Subsequently, the proprietary formats are rather short lived, expensive to use, and not always convenient to buy.

Well arrogant they were (still are?). "If we don't make it, you don't need it"


Another tidbit. Sony actually invented the M wrap threading format that became VHS. They thought it was so inferior in terms of tape stress they didn't even bother patenting it. "though shall not have moving tape guides either - interchange will be impossible" After VHS was so successful using moving guides Sony then made a C format broadcast open reel machine around 1982 with moving guides for ease of threading. Tail wags the dog in this case.
 
#75 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech /forum/post/21650573


You missed their newest one. They could have used normal microsd card but love the propriety formats to create revenue.


Not just on the consumer side either. Here is their new 4K camera memory cartridge. Proprietary of course!
http://www.fdtimes.com/news/sony/son...d-hd-3d-2k-4k/


BTW, that's a 2010 press article. This thing is reality today along with the F65 4K camera.
 
#76 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry /forum/post/21650421


Over the years, Sony has had excellent design, technology, and good products. What they haven't done well is push proprietary formats that other companies are willing to support. Subsequently, the proprietary formats are rather short lived, expensive to use, and not always convenient n.

Is there some proprietary format or connection on the VW1000 that you are concerned about?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top