4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 66

It's still cheating to advertise it (the film on Blu-ray) as "full 1080p resolution", when the picture, not including the bars, only takes up about 800 progressive lines - for a 2.40:1 film.

But those "black pixels" aren't in the source. They are just a byproduct.
When I play 100x177 video on 1920x1080 panel, yes - all pixels are being used for something but source is what matters.

Its' not false advertising. They don't describe the resolution of a format by the active image area. It varies way too much. They never have before. Why should the start now?

When the BDA approved commericals that said BD was "Beyond High Definition" should they have been sued for false advertising?

When a bunch of Asian CEMs claimed that their DVD players could turn your DVDs into Full HD 1080P - should they have been sued for false advertising?

What do you mean the black pixels aren't in the source?

Source doesn't contain black bars. That would be a complete waste of storage without any purpose. You know that.

What is the source? Be specific.

That is not the cost of the drive at all. The moderator of RED is selling timescapes, he had lot of time shooting those photos. So that cost is based on his time to make Timescapes. Really, this is a poor comparison.
I like to see where you get the cost for a BD-DL, because currently the dual layer format for a recordable 50 Gig is around $8 to $10. If you quote a BD-DL ROM, then you can't buy one for that amount. Sony could, because they are buying in large quantities.

Well, Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic and the rest of the industry have a new player on the field. That is Apple! Apple never liked Bluray format. NHK has only researched a few solutions for media, so it is rather easy to follow. I have listed those solutions in other posts. Apple has been primary streaming their content, but UHDTV (4k & 8K) is huge bandwidth requirements. Fiber to the home is the answer, but it will take a long time to build. Google is also funding Fiber to the home. So, Google could be another player as well. I suspect that internet2 will become the network in the future, but it was developed primary for research now. Internet2 was designed to be expandable, while you can't do that on Internet now.

Well, you still be able to listen to the old audio formats. My Denon 5308 had the capability, but I just recently put 2 additional surround speakers. The 7.1 sounds so much better than 5.1. I have been into the multichannel sound since prologic, but that was most important part for me. Yes, most homes don't do multichannel audio at all. Actually, one poster in the past showed me that speakers could be incorporated in the TV. Perhaps someone would post that photo up. The new 22.2 audio format is going to be the costly upgrade with UHDTV. I will post link to the paper from NHK, but the issue is rather expensive cost to upgrade. http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0045-6.pdf
I probably do separates than a receiver, but it would very costly upgrade. My subwoofer now is a Definitive Technology Super Cube Reference (1800 watts), so I have to need another one. Dolby Atmos is proposing a 25.3 setup, but I am not sure if it is for the home. Ps3 with games is rather cool with my sub.

The pixels are still there, you can't remove a pixel. The pixels are probably turned off. The aspect ratio was designed around projectors, then migrated to TV's. This has been the most common complaint with 1080P. I try to explain this to my 78 year old father, but it is impossible.
The zoom feature makes the picture fuzzy on TV's. I am not sure what is the answer to this problem, but perhaps Sharp ICC technology could help. Not really sure...

So they aren't earning money by deception/false advertising. Since it's not beyond high definition, yes. (or actually just made to stop advertising it in that way) It depends how they worded it, as long as they word it so people are clear what it actually does, it's okay.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/22/12 at 12:43pm

No - it s great comparison because it's available NOW. It's 4K content a consumer can buy. And as you can see from that link, that are selling it in many other formats. With pricing a little on the high side buy nothing outreageous. Not like their 4K pricing.

Why are you even mentioning BD-R? They don't use them for replicating BD movies. And we are talking about what it costs the studios when they order 2 million copies of their movie on BD. You yourself could order 100,000 copies of your content on DL 50GB BD and only have to pay $2.20 per disc.

So you are talking what? 10 , 15, even 20 years from now? How does that help getting 4K content to consumers in 2013?

You totally missed the point. There will be those that do install 22.2 in their home. Others may go to 16.2, others 10.2, others 7.1, others 5.1 and some - they will use whatever speakers come in the TV. Just like today with 7.1. Some have it. Some have 5.1, some have 3.1, some have 2.0 and most just use their TV's speakers.

You don't have to install 22.2 in your home.

The pixels in the black bars are not turned off

But there were no lawsuits

No - it was just like I said - very misleading. No lawsuits

There are technicial terms, there are marketing terms and the best way to explain high tech to mass market consumers is through the KISS principal. The most successful marketing campaign during the adoption of HDTV came about in 2006 when the LCD CEMs started selling 1920x1080 LCD HDTVs in quantity and multiple sizes, way ahead of the PDP CEMs. And they called it "Full HD."

Of course in most cases pixels that cover black bars are active. It's not the case in (AM)OLED displays, I believe. Not really what I was talking about.
By source I mean video content stored on any type of media. Black bars aren't there in source (content). TV adds black color to empty space (black bars).

They may not be in the original content, but when encoded onto Blu-ray they're encoded into the 1920x1080 picture for HD content (that isn't 1.78:1) eg. as RGB(16,16,16) - well in YUV. The TVs can also add black bars or pillarbox bars (eg. if there's standard def content on the disc - like bonus features).

So the black bars you see in a 2.40:1 high definition film on Blu-ray are encoded into the 1920x1080 video file on the disc, and not generated by the TV.
Technically I think it would probably be better if they were generated by the TV or Blu-ray player instead of being encoded on the disc.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/22/12 at 3:42pm

@Joe

I don't know. At Google Images I can find lots of Blu-Ray screencaps at 1440x1080 (at Google Images - size: exactly: width: 1440, height: 1080). Are you saying all of those are cropped and were 1920x1080 originally on disc?

Yes.

Blu-ray does support 1440x1080 (though I don't think any commercial release has ever used that video encoding format) but only for 1.78:1 video stored anamorphically.
1440x1080 with a square pixel aspect ratio isn't a valid Blu-ray encoding format.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/22/12 at 3:58pm

Thank you. I've just found:

That seems crazy. Though waste of space isn't that high, it is still a waste.

It seems that isn't the case for 720x480 and 720x576 though. Am I wrong?

For approx 4:3 content encoded at 720x576 or 720x486, your're right (and the pillarbox bars would be generated by the TV/player if the TV was 16:9).

Though if a film/trailer encoded at 720x576 or 720x486 is 2.40:1 (or anything wider than around 16:9), it will still have black bars encoded into the video.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/22/12 at 5:03pm

The pricing is great, but he could have just hosted the file on a hosting server. Just have people sign up and then download the content. He have to develop a unique password, so to limit distribution.
The point is that you are not large company, just a person that wants 4k content. No one is going to buy 100k copies, so they can get BD DL for 2.20. You have a friend that is shooting 4K movies, so how are you going to distribute this content to the public?
Depends on your location. Internet2 has a unique program called 100 Megabits for 100 Million homes. Which the funding is coming from the FCC, and the plan is 2020. There is a program called the National Broadband Plan. Each state seems to be funded by different contractors, and they are building the fiber by regions. So my state has 4 regions. Also, If you know anything about the original Internet, it was commercialized in 1995. Prior to 1995 it was for research. The current is based on hacked up telephone network, that has limits in bandwidth. The current internet can't handle bandwidth of UHDTV to the home, so the only solution would be all fiber network. How did NHK transmit 8k? It was fiber optics from Japan. NHK started the research for UHDTV in 1995.

It is not easy for me to follow it. The problem now is that they are expanding the bandwidth. Currently, now it is at 100Gb/sec. I seen a recent spec from IEEE, that increases the bandwidth to 400Gb/sec and I suspect that 1Tb/sec should be next.
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/22/12 at 8:33pm

It only takes a few bits to encode the black bars. In MPEG-2, it only takes 85 bits to encode a 1920x16 strip of black pixels in P and B-frames. Having the decoder add the black bars would be fairly complex and given the so few bits wasted, is not worth the effort.

Ron

The pricing is great? $99.99 for a 25GB USB stick holding a 52min. 4K documentary?

Sell it at ridiculous prices like Timescape is.

So how long will it take to roll out this Plan? Feb 16, 2010 – The FCC chairman today outlined a vision for 100 Mbps connections to 100 million homes.

A "vision." So how far along are they? How many homes have access to 100 Mbps connection?

They also successfully transmitted 8K terrestrially using two UHF channels to a receiver 4.2 kilometers away.

Is that for consumer fiber or professional fiber?

Full size:

http://aparanjape.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hd_vs_sd_resolutions.png

Ok, go and buy a 4K RED Camera and you need a fast computer with RED to process the video, etc. Then go shoot on your free time 4k video. If he used RED One for the video camera, then that is $25,000. The Red Rocket video card is $5,000 alone. I estimate that he has at least $60,000 in equipment. Then pay for hosting service, and send out the video to us for free. So you see that $100 is a bargain.
The first thing is to develop the backbone, and then each state has different contractors that are installing the fiber. When you see a highway being built, you can find that it is being funded. The time lines is not shared to the public at all. The problem is always funding, and their future capacity is 8.8 Terabits. The original internet ran ouf of money with Research institutes, so it had to be commercialized.

Google in 2010 wanted to do 1Tb/sec, so IEEE came back and said 400Gb/sec can be done. Doesn't state on professional or consumer. (Not sure if you know what is the difference, because professional now is called dark fiber.) This your backbone, so to the home is entirely different.
1Gb/sec to the home is what Google just installed in Kansas City. There is other communities that are installing fiber to the home now. This company [URL=http://]https://www.epb.net/[/URL] was one of the first for http://chattanoogagig.com/[/URL
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/23/12 at 11:12am

Well - when you put it like that, think how much of a bargin it is buying a BD of The Avengers for $30. That BD cost $220 million to make.

So your answer to my question is . . . you have no idea.

Doesn't look like 100 Mbps is going to be affordable for all ($299/mo)

http://www.cincinnatibell.com/internet/speeds/100Mbps/

That is professional movie. Avenger made at the box office. $622,888,000, so this is just more money. I bought the 4 Disc combo at Amazon via pre-order for $25, but you can buy it for $20 just the bluray. /quote]
That is through a former Ma bell, but Cincinnati has several choices. Time Warner will compete with that 100 Mb/sec. Docsis 3.0 can do 1Gb/sec too. Well, more now. Time Warner has started installing Fiber in NYC. You can get Fiber through Time Warner now with businesses, but it is rather expensive.

I have 50Mb/sec download now. 5Mb/sec upload It is only $80 a month. Here is Sonic cost in San Francisco, it is only $70 a month for 1Gb/sec
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222694/Sonic.net_plans_1Gbps_fiber_service_to_San_Francisco_homes
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/23/12 at 11:30am

What difference does it make who made it? Or how much it made at the BO? And I can see you are balking at paying $30 for the movie. And then you claim $100 is a bargin for Timescapes in 4K on a 25GB USB stick.

Article written June 2012

Sonic.net 1Gbps fiber plans service to San Francisco home

http://www.webdesign.cybercitypr.com/web-design/sonic-net-1gbps-fiber-plans-service-to-san-francisco-home-2.html

BTW - Sonic.net only does business in CA and AZ.

You are comparing apples to Oranges. I have around 1000 Blurays now. The quality is great for 1080p, but if I am going to spending 20K for a TV. Then I don't want an over- compressed outdated technology that is only going to last a few years. I am willing to wait a few years for the next gen optical format. I hate to upgrade every few years, and that is what Sony wants people to do. Also realize there is only probably less that 50 movies for 4k Tv's now. Just looking at the RED website and Sony website. I want the best quality that I can buy. So, yes, I am willing to spend more...

HDMI has been huge disaster, because people want to have one central location for their movies and multiple TV's. The problem is now you have to spend $$$(1K to 16K) for these HDMI video matrix switches, that might work. There is issues with distance, and the handshake protocol that is required for these HDMI switches. So, I suspect that the future devices will use a technology similar to DisplayPort, but designed around optical fiber.

Sonic is just an example on how little it costs for 1Gb/sec and fiber to the home. Actually, there is small communities that are developing co-op fiber networks. The communities are hiring Alcatel-Lucent to build their fiber network for them. That is the company that built Chattanooga TN network. http://www.ftthcouncil.org/ People are fed up with $200 a month Cable bills, so they hire a company to build their network. The cost is about the same each month. No increases. There are several other providers that will build the network for the community. I doubt if people know about the Internet2 plan.
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/23/12 at 4:44pm

I don't understand the relationship you are creating between the cost of a display versus the cost of the physical media the display will show. What does the price of the display have to do with what you are willing to spend on a per unit basis for the physical media? Those involved in creating new content in a new format will do it in a manner that is financially sensible to them with effort to make the finished product to what they deem acceptable.

Why should you care about how much compression is used? Are you an video compression expert? You are happy with BD - you must be with such a large collection, and it is highly compressed.

If you are waiting for Holographic Disc to be used to deliver prerecorded movies, then be prepared to wait for at least 10 years. By then 4K will be old tech and 8K will be just coming out.

A 4K format on a new physical media that would necessitate the retail price being $100 would be considered a major failure. It would be a niche product that will have an extremely small adoption rate - just like LD did with their $80 and $90 CAV special editions. It is not the intention of the CEMs to introduce a niche product. They want it to go mass market. THAT is where the money is, not selling to 1% of the total market. That is left to the "boutique" companies whose sales are tiny in comparison to the major CEMs.

People are going to ask:

1. What does it look like?

2. How much does it cost?

3. If I wait, what's next?

Because there is always something "next." Believe me, no one wants a format where they have to pay $100 per title versus the $25 they are paying today.

As far as how much 4K content could be available? Much more than the "less than 50 movies" you claim. It's over 300. That includes 4K productions, 65mm productions and IMAX docs.

You suspect wrong. The next version of HDMI will be released later this year to specifically address 4K at higher frame rates and higher frame rate 3D. The industry has standardized on HDMI. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future

Higher Cable TV bills are based on the content providers charges. Building your own network doesn't change that. IP service is different.

So you think people won't want backwards compatibility in a 4K blu-ray player since all they have to do is move all their media to a hard drive?

Every system design has a compromise. You can't design it to have it all. Anyway, this statement from Hitachi regarding Holographic storage. "A True Holographic System Would be Disruptive" Hitachi design would be disruptive, but it would give the end user larger capacity and faster data access. This is requirement UHDTV2 (8K). Also realize that you have a larger holographic backup, so I prefer the Hitachi design. http://blogs.hds.com/technomusings/2011/08/a-true-holographic-system-would-be-disruptive.html
The author of the article is from Hitachi, Ken Wood, Director of Strategy in the Office of Technology and Planning.

Ken explains the other Design from GE in the article. GE does give you backwards capability with Bluray, but you are limited on capacity and data access. I would prefer the Hitachi design, because I am looking for an easy, permanent optical data backup.
I have my media now on RAID server, so basically like a 20TB hard drive with one drive letter. I just use J river Media center to access the media, for CD,DVD, Bluray, SACD, etc. Rather cool program for less than $50. You still need a computer for each room. I recently built a silent-HTPC. The advantage is that I can play media anywhere in my house.
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/24/12 at 5:32pm