4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 88

It's similar to the number of megapixels in a camera. The number of megapixels used to be the most important number as far as image quality goes.Now the lenses and other things are more important. Having said that, all things being equal, everyone will choose the camera with more megapixels.

I think what will happen is in a few years the manufacturing cost difference between a 4K TV and a1080p TV weill be so small, everyone will only make 4K TVs. Kind of like how 3D is available in all TVs except the low end..

You repeatedly state this nonsense, even now criticising other for not having deeper understanding on how compression works, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up.
Your claims are solely made up in your head and goes against all reports from the people that work with the new compressions codecs and all the people that have seen the effect in person.
4K down-converted to 1080p are done numerous times in re-scanned movie titles that have been re-released on Blu-ray and they always show better image quality.

Bitrate has fare less importance than so many people believe and claim. You reach a point of diminishing return long before people think they do.
Often the reason for high bitrate in BD is because of trouble spots/faults in the source that introduces unacceptable much artefacts, and bitrate is increased far above the normal just to save the situation.
It has no apparent effect on clean sources. If that was the case, all BD movies would run at max bitrate. They do have the space for it.
You never seems to get that having original four time the resolution from a camera or scanner source will always trump the image quality coming from a 1080p source.
The higher original resolution will have less artefacts, not more, because much of the artefacts from the lower resolution source are already present in the original camera files.
Then this get compressed which that both emphasis the original artefacts and add new ones.

Take the example of a much complained about artefact in BD movies; The Edge Enhancement (EE).
Why do you think it is there?
Because the original 2K source is so un-sharp that during authoring the technician has to turn the sharpening knob to "11".

When your source is 4K shot on even higher resolution, the resolved resolution of details (more correct term is surface texture) makes the image appear sharper by the increased resolution by itself.
Because the increased and improved natural organic sharpness is present in the original source material, the need for added electronic sharpening decrease immensely.

In addition, because of improved camera sensor technology that introduces less artefacts into the original source, the image will be much cleaner.

Marry all these facts together and send the 4K original finished film through one of the new compression codecs, you will then be able to compress the source harder without loosing any significant image quality and retain transparency to the original source.

The biggest problem for HD original sources is that they always have been too low on resolution. At 4K we just barely pass a resolution quality that is acceptable.

You have been told this time and time again, and still you are stuck on how 2K resolution and H.264 function through compression and the result of it.
Now it is time to understand that with 4K and new HEVC codecs and compression methods, everything you knew have changed.

Until you can come up with some new data that back your antiquated claims, you should rather resist the temptation of posting this endless stream of statements that only exist in your own brain and have nothing to do with the technical reality of 2013.
Stop misleading people.
Again and again you show that you have no understanding of the relation between higher image resolution sources + high resolution displays and PPI.

You're just stuck in viewing distance/angle of view only argument, and never consider all the other factors that have an impact on display quality when resolution is quadrupled from HD to UHD.

I looked closer to the Red claim and here is what they state:

The Redray 4K player implements its own compression algorithm in .RED files requiring only 2.5 MB (20 Mbps) for transporting 4K content, which is roughly what HD requires today for broadcasting with MPEG-2 at its full resolution (19+ Mbps).

After reading this, my opinion about credibility of Red is close to ZERO. Anyone comparing to the MPEG-2 is basing on total ignorance of intended marketing victims. It is amazing to see somebody shameless enough to make such comparison, this is outright idiotic. It also puts the claim of Red about 4K on a suspicious list.

You mix the issues. The talk is about 720p60 and 1080i60 as in the standard. It is well known in broadcast that 720p60 gives better rendering especially at fast events. There is no reason why 1080 should be better: it has has 2x pixels and half the frame rate. The pixel amount advantage of 1080 shows up beyond the deep compression regime, at Blu-ray rates.


Video standard makes huge difference obviously but the point is different. The 65 Mb/s rate is not out the hat: Take 1080: with H.264 it requires 10 Mb/s for broadcast and 25-30 for Blu-ray PQ. Now take HEVC @4K: it requires 25 Mb/s for broadcast, now calculate what is proportionally the rate need for Blu-ray quality.

10-bit is rather minor issue, there is also 4:2:0 issue. Most likely the outcome is that consumers don't give a damn about this much the same as they do not bother about edge-lit or local dimming LCDs. Possibly there might emerge companies offering content download to their proprietary players an there it will be possible to see 10-bit and 4:2:2.

The claim this silliness will end at 8K and earlier is based on (1) that 8K offers such healthy headroom nobody it will discourage anybody to go higher (2) Japanese are absolutely committed to it and NHK has such a grip it will surely happen. Others will follow then.

Good points from those who describe the diminishing detectable returns of reducing compression at given upper thresholds. The same applies to digital audio, but there's no convincing those who are resistant due to confirmation bias, placebo effect, or a general misunderstanding of the purpose of compression in the realm of audio and video (to discard frequencies/information that is out of range of human sensory perception).

You've said this forever and many, including myself, strongly disagree. There IS far more detail in a 1080i broadcast than a 720p broadcast. There simply is and you can deny it until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the facts. Most networks have chosen it for that reason. You ignore the fact that over 90% of what we watch on TV is either static or nearly static in nature. This takes away the advantage of the 'p' as opposed to the 'i'. I had lengthy conversations with Bob Ross who was the Chief Engineer at CBS years ago. They conducted elaborate and in-depth experiments that showed for most material, 1080i was preferable. Even sports telecasts, where motion is at its greatest, are still largely or nearly static for the most part. Yes, when there's considerable motion, 720p is preferred. But for most TV material, unless you're watching at some great distance on some small screen, the detail advantage of 1080i is clear and undeniable. I'm not sure why you continue to deny this is the case in the U.S. broadcast system.

Once again because NHK is or will be doing it, doesn't mean the rest of the world will follow suit. You ignore the difference between a Government subsidized system and one in which the broadcasters must shell out their own money to make these expensive changes. Sorry, you won't convince me that going from 4K to 8K is going to matter to almost anyone. You can't demonstrate the advantages in any typical home and I can't see broadcasters & manufacturers jumping on the NHK bandwagon because of your alleged greater 'headroom'. There is simply no selling point and 'headroom' aint gonna do it IMO.

From what I have read with the HDTV color space you need at least 10-bits to completely get rid of banding. As for 16-bit video I have heard that it is used when the Sony F65 and F55 record uncompressed video.

I agree with that and in terms of displaying video the highest precision that will be needed for the UHDTV color space is 12-bit video.

12-bit video is used with movie theaters because that is what is needed to completely get rid of banding. The color space used with digital movies is large but the UHDTV color space is also large which is why 8-bit video isn't even listed as an option in the UHDTV standard.

There are economic reasons why 10-bit consumer video hasn't happened yet but at this point in time I think it would be a mistake to release a high end physical video format that doesn't support 10-bit video.

I am skeptical of REDRAY for several reasons, one reason is the lack of major studio support, but I doubt that RED would release their first consumer product and have it deliver video that looks worse than Blu-ray. That would hurt their reputation and I don't see why they would do that.

ATEME had a demonstration in which 4K at 60 fps was shown at 15 Mbps with HEVC.

Can't find the link right now, but zdnet is reporting CBS will be using 6
4k cameras for super bowl.

http://www.zdnet.com/will-you-watch-super-bowl-xlvii-in-4k-ultra-hd-7000010710/

Well, we have to see on what PS4 announces with BD, but there is a new format coming. I posted it on before, so you might want to read my past posts. Ummm, if Bluray was going so well... Then why hasn't Sony made anymore Bluray changers. The 7000ES? There is huge demand for these changers now, but Sony quit making them.

Nitro

Sony is in the process of cutting anything that is not proving to be profitable for them, or a market they think they can turn around. I can't imagine Blu-ray disc changers to be high volume items.

PS4 will likely use a quad layer Blu-ray drive—not that it needs it for games (50GB is more than enough) but for future-proofing.

I personally would rather upgrade to 8K and skip 4k altogether. If you 1080P failed today, then it be cheaper to replace it with another 1080P set, than upgrading to 4k. Sharp has been demonstrating an 8k set at 85", so wouldn't you rather wait for 8k?

I have 3 Sony 7000ES changers, but I got 2 of them at good deal. I know one guy that has 16 Sony 7000ES changers. If you can find one now, then you pay 2100 over list price. List price is 1899.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BDP-CX7000ES-Blu-ray-Changer-Black/dp/B002JIMRFC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1359788990&sr=8-2&keywords=sony+7000es


So if Bluray is still going stronger, and Sony needs lots of money. I would be making these changers. The demand is there for them, so why isn't Sony making them?

We have to wait and see!

No, I wouldn't.

This sounds PR. Opposite to old codecs which were visibly breaking at low bitrates, new codecs are masters in masking artefacts by substituting them with kind of equivalent of edge-preserving lowpass filtering.
In effect the 15 Mb/s 4K may look entirely equivalent to 10 Mb/s 1080 upconverted. Meaning obviously it is still very watchable but the point here is:

When the compressed 4K becomes clearly, unequivocally superior visually to the (upconverted) 1080?

Without any perceived benefits? No. Do you realize how large a screen you'd need at normal viewing distances or how close you'd have to sit to a screen size you'd actually buy to even realize you're looking at an 8K screen??

Add to that the fact that it will be many years when and if you'll see 8K in the U.S., and for me, the answer becomes even clearer.

Additionally, the cost for yet another infrastructure upgrade by broadcasters after they switch to 4K, will be heavily resisted, especially when the benefits of 8K will be so hard to show to the public. The fact that Samsung is demoing an 8K display means nothing in terms of 8K coming to market anytime soon. It won't.

According Wall Street Journal Sony will unveil PS4 20 february
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276672168365276.html?mod=rss_Technology

So I need to subscribe to WSJ to read this article. No, thank you.

I do have no WSJ subscription still i can read this article.

Here is the CNET article '' PS4 20 february''
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-9020_7-57567025-222/sony-teases-big-nyc-event-for-feb-20-ps4-debut/

Like esdwa, I couldn't read it either.

Well there is demand from two people. That kind of device is not in high demand from most people, and most people I know with large Blu-ray libraries are either happy to grab the disc off a shelf, or are building home theater computers and ripping them to hard drives, rather than buying expensive disc changers.

BD disc changers are great for folks who do not want to spend time on ripping disks or do not know or care how to do it or just have no time for this.

Ripping may also become useless with ongoing Cinavia implementation to all new Hollywood disk releases. Unless you keep your media player free from Cinavia equipped firmware upgrade.

Personally although I find accessing video library from single source/storage great and very convenient idea especially when playing bunch of music videos during party, but I do not mind stopping by my movie disk collection shelf and browse to pick one I am in the mood to see again. After all it is a part of fun. For me at least. Cheers!

Has Cinavia been adopted by more studios in addition to Sony?

Blu-ray disc changers seem like a bigger hassle, but maybe that's just me. I realize the HTPC route is not for everyone.
Cinavia is not an issue with HTPC - just don't use a player with Cinavia support.
I like it because it lets me put my library out of the way, rather than having it on display. While I understand that some people like to have a shelf full of discs, just like some people like to have shelves full of books, neither of those is appealing to me.

Place your bets. Wall Street Journal is saying Sony will announce the details of the PS4 on Feb 20th for release by December 2013. Will it have 4K capability? Will it use a BDXL drive with the ability to read 128GB quad layer? Will it use h.265 codec for 4K movie playback or Sony's own XAVC? Will they call it PS4, Orbis, PS4K or some as yet unknown name?

This is very misleading. They will be using 6 4K cameras, but they are not broadcasting or streaming a 4K h.265 signal. They are only going to use the 4K cameras to get cleaner and clearer instant replay calls. So now when they have to zoom in to see if a player's foot is in bounds or not, it will not be the usually pixelated mess. Just like with HD, I suspect the NFL will be one of the first to make the switch over to 4K and then just downrez it for broadcast. It will probably be late 2015/early 2016 before we see a few channels like ESPN, HBO and a few PPV channels broadcast in 4K, but we should have 4K blu-ray by the end of the this year to hold us over.

Yes, I was looking at the numbers last night. My room be perfect size.

If we was in Europe, then it might be worth while to jump to 4k. The problem is that our satellites won't be upgrade till 2016. http://www.tvpredictions.com/dhd100112.htm The the cool technology is going to be laser comms. Which I have already posted on in the past, but here is the http://www.laserlightcomms.com/index.php The issue is more about bandwidth, and current RF satellites can't handle the bandwidth for 8k.

Yeah, You need to read lot more! There is several broadcasters that stated that they didn't want to switch to 4k. Then a few years later to switch to 8k. I stated Sharp, and you state Samsung??? Sharp did it 2012. NHK has already demonstrated 8K at the olympics in 2012.

I have both, but it is easier to get a Bluray changer, and put a disc in the machine. Than do the HTPC route. I primary use my htpc for audio only, it is easier. I use Control4 to access the bluray changers via the Ipad.
Sony 7000ES changers have some cool features though http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/sony-bdp-cx7000es-blu-ray-disc-changer?page=0,1

Nothing has been posted on the optic drive system. I did see a writeup of a company from Boulder that wants to develop an HVD for either Hitachi or Sony. So we have to wait and see!

For the record, neither I have bd changer. I just understand approach of those who have it.

I use PC for pc work and sometimes as transfer tool but never for playback. Having hot shoe box, booting in my living room usually far more than few seconds was never an option but I can understand some find it acceptable. Instead I use standalone networked media players around my house one in every room where display is present. Comparing to typical HD/3D capable HTPC these are cheap, small, almost invisible unlike most HTPC and all feed from one large hidden multidisk media storage. Gigabit wired LAN ensure smooth playback with instant access to my entire library from anywhere in the house. It is fast, easy and super convenient. Without spending hundreds for HTPC upgrades I can use time to enjoy watching my library instead of spending precious time for its maintenance.
Edited by esdwa - 2/2/13 at 8:58pm

Hello all,

Quick question.
There is this brilliant theater near me called Cinetopia. All of their theaters have 4K projection. My question is this.
Will 4k picture look even Clearer, sharper, and more detailed on a smaller screen then it will on a much larger screen?
More specifically they have an 85 foot screen in in their largest theater and a small screen in what is called one of their movie parlor theaters.
Will 4k Look more amazing on the smaller screen… ie..In the way that a 1080P picture looks great on 32 inch screens and 42 inch screen and 50 inch screen… But the more you go up in screen size To the really big big screens.. there is less detail and less pop And starts to look less amazing
Thx