4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 46

1440×1080 is not really 1080p, it's a technicality. And 25fps is totally unsuitable for just about anything. Even the BBC’s own productions are shot at 24fps.

PAL speed up is something that should have been long forgotten with the introduction of HD broadcasting, and it yet another example of how out of touch broadcast is these days. (if you use an HTPC source, you can fix any disc-based content encoded at 25fps, such as PAL DVDs, with ReClock)

Here's another example of how broadcast is out of touch with their market: “Head of Time Warner Cable Is Unfamiliar With Apple’s AirPlay”
For those that don’t know, AirPlay is Apple’s technology that lets you stream 1080p video from an iOS device direct to an AppleTV box—the “complex” part of getting Internet video services on your TV.

Yes it is, but I agree it's not full HD. What isn't really 1080p resolution are 2.40:1 films on Blu-ray - they're encoded as 1080p but they're actual picture doesn't fill the full 1080 lines.

Not usually, they're usually shot at 25 fps. Which BBC productions are you saying are shot at 24 fps?

"Most people you know" are not the average American. The average American is a cash cow for the cable companies - and by implication the content industry. And yes, via that cable or satellite subscription. Over which they do watch the same content that is available on Blu ray. "All you can eat" trumps a la carte, even when "all you can eat" means low grade product. That's a well-known marketing rule for eons now.

Why else do you think Apple has been sitting on its Apple ITV for years and refusing to launch it. And indeed all of it is heavily compressed stuff not even fully exploiting the potential of 1080p. But now we desperately need 4k?

Broadcast quality is definitely better than streaming. I know I watch both. I DVR the broadcast programing along with the Dish cable networks. The broadcast channels DVRed are also better than the Dish converted to mpg4 broadcast channels also. I believe Comcast simply passes the OTA signal so no loss there. Those who care about PQ watch OTA. The only difference between Blu-ray and OTA PQ is the bit rate. Broadcasters can send out 1080p 24fps just like Blu-ray if they want.

1440×1080 is 4:3 aspect ratio HD which is used in parts of Europe but not in the US.

When I picked up the UK copies of Wonders of the Solar System/Universe, I'm pretty sure they were 1080p24 on the disc. (actually, Solar System may have been 1080i50, and Universe was 1080p24?) It doesn't make any sense for them to shoot 25p when their content is for a worldwide audience. Anything live will be 25p though, but most content such as American Dramas, Films etc is all 24fps native. The majority of content broadcast in PAL regions, even if it's broadcast at 25fps, is 24fps native.


It's anamorphic, rather than 4:3. As far as I'm concerned though, "1080p" is 1920x1080 pixels of resolution, though there will be less vertical resolution with wider than 16:9 formats. (it wouldn't make sense to switch to anamorphic 1080p for scope films now)

While 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 are technically "1080p" because they have 1080 lines of vertical resolution, you're having to upscale the image horizontally, which is why I said it's a technicality that they're still considered "1080p".


I won't disagree that it's better, but when you're settling for convenience over image quality, broadcast loses to streaming in my opinion.


Bit-rate and encoders, which make a massive difference. Broadcast, just like online streaming, is horribly bit-starved. (that's how they give you hundreds of channels full of nothing worth watching) Broadcast may be better than streaming, but it's still massively behind Blu-ray in terms of image quality and audio fidelity, whether it's "1080p24" or not.

People that care about image quality will be watching Blu-ray, not broadcast.

Broadcast is about convenience, not quality. And if you want convenience, being able to pick what you want to see from a list online and start watching within seconds, beats waiting for a show to come on, or watching a recording that's full of ads. (even if you can fast-forward through them at 32x)


Regardless of your preference, broadcast is falling out of favor with the younger generations, and they have already proven that they have no intention on staying up-to-date when HD content is primarily broadcast in 1080i around the world. It's not like streaming where the limiting factor is home internet connections, but rather they have a limited amount of bandwidth to allocate which is holding them back. I would not expect broadcast to be adopting 4K at all, let alone any time soon, and I really don't see why anyone that cares about image quality enough for 4K resolution to matter, would be watching broadcast to begin with.

You are confused between disc/ master encoding vs camera native capture

AFAIK BBC is the only broadcast with 1080p25 as they moved ahead unilaterally with Olympics coming. 1080p25 is not a HD spec.

People have conceptual problems what the 1440 means, it is not a European problem in any way. 1440 means that original video stream containing sampled information utilizing the full 1920x1080 (properly bandlimited) bandwidth is prefiltered with horizontal filter limiting the bandwidth to the one corresponding to 1440 samples. Thus the signal still has 1920 samples but its information content corresponds to 1440 samples /how is that can be easily seen in frequency domain/.

This is universally applied everywhere in HD based on the arguments of low visibility of signal content above frequency range correspondinng to the 1440 samples and subsequent heavy compression which would be eliminating such content anyway.

The 1440 issue, which I mentioned a couple of times is here, is a mosquito buzzing into the ears of those who like to hear the 4K mantra. You can try to kill the mosquito but the truth is that in the current TV there is not even full 2K information carried. Logic would thus tell it would be better to move first to high-bandwidth 2K to enjoy real 2K. But no, marketing will press for highly-compressed 4K which obviously will be prefiltered and effectively equivalent to 2880 at most, resulting in the "4K" for ignorant masses.

1080p25 won't be much use for Olympic events.

Wrong mostly. There is a program called "Live from the Appollo" which is 25p (when it shouldn't be), but most really live content is 50i, not 25p.

Incorrect.

What he means is that indeed in the analog era movies which were recorded in 24ps were broadcasted in the PAL system 25p/50i by just speeding them to 25fps which resulted in small artefacts.

Maybe this will answer some questions; BBC Production & Delivery

PDF version; http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/p..._v1.0-2011.pdf

Bob Hetherington posted two 4K articles Mark Anderson wrote today on AVS.

beyond blu-ray and 4K resolution - the new frontier in home theater & media rooms


He believes that '4K is definitely a niche market and will remain so for (at least) the next decade (assuming content is available)'

Is it not true that when a program "filmed" in 4:3 aspect ratio is scaled to 1920x1080 16:9 aspect ratio for broadcast at 1080i or 1080p black/grey side pillers are added to the image? This is accomplished by scaling the 4:3 apect ratio image to 1440x1080 and then the 240x1080 side bars/pillers are added.

Both interesting articles. However--with or without content--for many consumers the factor which most determines the quality|resolution|features of their next home AV product is 'whatever is included in the "mass market" price point model at Costco'. As engineering|business|medicine increasingly demand higher resolution and data storage densities, it's likely that manufacturing economies of scale will deliver those advances to consumers "whether wanted or not" . . . after all, there is no downside to watching a 1920x1080 BD movie (even just 'natively') on a 4K2K resolution monitor.

And in any event, consumer technology seems to march inexorably forward:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundChex

I see that on 5/15/2012 NHK announced they have successfully managed an 8K4K video test terrestrial broadcast transmission 2.6 miles across Tokyo using just two regular UHF TV channels (UHF 31, 34). This suggests to me that the technical issues for 4K2K broadcasting using just one existing UHF channel are already essentially reduced in scope to a series of engineering problems, but that, based on the issue raised in several countries of whether next generation TV should have 8K4K video or just 4K2K, it seems like NHK is looking to provide a finished solution that meets both options . . . and likely one that offers those broadcasters who select 4K2K initially an "easy" migration path to 8K4K at a future time of their own choosing.

They may do something like that, but that doesn't mean that:

There is no 4:3 aspect ratio HD broadcast format used in parts of Europe (the only 1440x1080 HD broadcast format is an anamorphic 16:9 one - as used by the BBC), and if you were talking about pillarboxing 4:3 content in a 16:9 frame, surely the US could do that too when displaying old content? ie. it wouldn't be specific to parts of Europe.

Yes, I was srong it is used in the US and is not unique to Europe.
In Europe how is a movie filmed in 4:3 aspect ratio displayed without distortion on a 16:9 aspect ratio 1080p HD TV?

The same way as outside Europe, with pillarbox bars. Though I think most 4:3 feature films (shot on film) are actually more like 1.37:1 (because of optical soundtrack) rather than 1.33:1. 1080/(1/1.375))=1485.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio

It is why I have a DVR that records OTA, beats streaming for me. Cable/satelite has the potential to use mpg4 to be better than OTA but I don't know if they are doing so. Don't really see any difference on Dish.

I don't think any content provider is sending 1440 any more. That was the early days of HD when the first cameras were 1440. Of course there is the inferior 1280x720.

Not even the BBC in the UK? The only times when they switch to 1920x1080 is around the time they are broadcasting 3D content (they switched twice to that so far I think, and then back to 1440).

The ITU has announced that they have defined UHDTV. UHDTV is defined as 4K and 8K video formats, a frame rate of up to 120 fps, an extended color range, and the option of "constant luminance" encoding. Not a lot of details in the press release and unfortunately you have to be a member to download the actual specification.



Mark Anderson only wrote the Beyond Blu-ray opinion piece. Personally I would disagree with much of it though there is one thing I would specifically mention. That would be the several quoted paragraphs by Justin Evans (a former film maker and current projector maker). Evans made many statements I would completely disagree with and the most absurd statement he made was "it is entirely possible that mainstream movies will never be distributed in 4K". Evans is the president of a company called BryteWerks which sells a $3,000 2K projector for movie theaters and doesn't even offer any 4K projectors. To ask Evans about 4K is like asking the president of a company that only makes cheap DVD players what his opinion on Blu-ray is.

Movies already are distributed in 4K. Sony advertised it years ago. I think they started it, supplying the hardware also. The theaters I go to, all the projectors are 4k and you can really tell when a movie isn't 4k. I don't know why theaters don't advertise it like Sony used to.

It doesn't need terabytes if it's compressed (about 220 gig would be needed for a 2 hour film at 250 Mbps, though I'd imagine a Blu-ray 4K version would use a lower bitrate. They might use a 50GB disc and H265, but I'd hope for at least 100GB discs). The article keeps talking about the size of uncompressed 4K, but we don't have uncompressed 1080p commercial films on Blu-ray/streaming/downloads. They don't have to use H265 - they could use H264, just that H265 should allow about half the avg bitrate/disc space for the same picture quality.

That Evans guy is a sceptic, nothing wrong with that
His statements are $$$$ related. 4K: Quadrupling price of visual effects work? profit margins slashed by half? No indie film could afford to make a 4K movie? It would be the death of independent film?

I would have prefered it if there also was an expert with a positive attitude toward 4K in the article.

Yes I did. I stand by what I wrote. It doesn't need terabytes of space if it's compressed. Just like 1080p doesn't need terabytes if it's compressed.

Also, with H265 compression, they're trying to achieve the same picture quality at 50% of what it would take if using H264. It doesn't mean they're going to compress to 50% of what the uncompressed video would take.


Though they're going to use compression for UHDTV.

Yes, consumers, including me, would prefer uncompressed 4K / 8K. But realistically, I really doubt that's what they would give us for a consumer pre-recorded media format - at least not in the near future.

This is going to take, easily, 5 to 10 years for all this to become affordable for average Joe to give a damn about it. 4k is not for tomorrow, obviously.

This debate is pretty useless.

Funny to see that there's even pro 4k, trying to convince us we desperately need 4k NOW. Fact is, avs board must be a very small portion of total consumers, and no one will change their perfectly working sets for something that would make them spend money in a new BR player, more expensive BR-movies, for such a small advantage (gotta be pretty fun to sit 7ft from a 80" TV, totally useless ...).

Do I understand this correctly? HDMI 1.4 supports data transfers of either 1920x1080|60p (BD) or 3840x2160|30p . . . and the latter would seem to be 'intended for' first generation BD4K. This looks like the BD4K movie delivers (only) 2x the amount of video data compared to the same move on BD . . . so I would expect a BD4K disk of the movie to require 2x the capacity of the BD version (actually SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 2x, because there would be an increased opportunity for data compression without additional detail perceptual loss). And obviously GREATER THAN 2x disk capacity would allow for less aggressive video compression.

Though HDMI can support 1920x1080p60, Blu-ray can't (within the standard Blu-ray specs) - though it can output from the player in that format.

Normal Blu-ray titles are 1920x1080p24 (usually 23.976). Though it does support 1920x1080 @60i, etc.

Uncompressed 3840x2160 will require 4x the amount of space or bitrate as uncompressed 1920x1080 at the same frame rate (assuming using the same colour bitdepth etc.).

Though Blu-ray uses compression, and I'm sure Blu-ray 4K will too (eg. H265, which they are saying will be require half the bitrate for the same quality picture as H264).