Originally Posted by Fanboyz
Most movies are finished at 2k in the DI stage, 4K will only exist for showrooms. My guess is that HDMI can't even pass it.
HDMI 1.4 allows for 4096×2160p (~1.85:1 4K resolution).
Originally Posted by FitzRoy
You'd need a screen the size of a wall to see the benefit of 4k and I'm pretty sure you'd need the eyes of a predatory bird to see 8k of pixels.
Some would argue you need a screen the size of a wall to really appreciate 1080p.
But yes, you'll want a large screen and some great peepers to fully appreciate 4K+. Although I would love to have a 4K computer monitor...
Originally Posted by RobertR
The math says you're losing something, though. 4X the pixels, but only twice as much space.
Well, BDXL supports 128GB discs as well. 4X the pixels crammed into 2.56X the space would obviously have more compression, but only on encodes that take up the full disc... which is pretty rare in the first place. If
your average film used 35-40GB of a 50GB Blu-ray - assuming no one used 25GB discs - and the audio track(s) used another 10GB, 100-128GB BDXL would be 3-4X the storage. Keep in mind that you can't get better than uncompressed or lossless audio, so file sizes for audio will remain unchanged unless they add many more channels. Given that in some scenarios of Blu-rays with higher bit rates than their HD-DVD counterparts you can't tell the difference, I would guess that efficient programming of proper codecs would still allow 4K BDXLs to be technically outstanding despite the math not scaling perfectly.