or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #31 of 3670
Sure, but fully downloaded files have copyright and piracy issue. Past 20 years of PC experience teach us that software copyright is always hackable and hardware implementation is the way to go. Sure you can get the hardware modified but it makes it that much more difficult and inconvenient, especially when you need to download hardware updates.

For sure dedicated hardware will have its place in the system.

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

My basic fear is that as disk sales decline, the movie studios will choose to keep just a single format in disk distribution, and because of the relative quantities, that single format will be DVD.

I have never seen the market make a step backward on the same platform after a better product has commercialized.
post #32 of 3670
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I have never seen the market make a step backward on the same platform after a better product has commercialized.

You don't remember that Laserdisk came after VHS, and died?
post #33 of 3670
Do you consider compact disc better or laser disc? I don't recall VHS killed laser disc. Neither will DVD lead to the demise of BD. Unless BD is an unstable emerging technology which does not seem to be the case.

In any case the market never looked back to tape media as a future solution, but optical disc. If anything BD will be killed by a smaller or higher density media. Markets are already contemplating semicon based movie storage that looks like USB flash but hard coded. (which is why cartridge based games are hard to pirate) At the rate semicon prices are going down they will be viable in about 10 years, if ever.
post #34 of 3670
When will the last Blu-ray be bought from a video store?
post #35 of 3670
What happened is tha VHS had established a foothold before Laserdisk came along. Laserdisk was a videophile format with little mass appeal, and it never had a chance.

Streaming video has just decisively outsold both DVD and BRD put togather by a multiple of at least 4X. Meanwhile, the Internet-enabled HDTV is now ubiquitus - you would be hard pressed to find an HDTV that did not support the streaming feature.

The future belongs to a bare HDTV box with no external disk player, speakers, subwoofer, or A/V receiver. Only A/V enthusiasts will have those, everybody else will be "watching TV", with streaming video-on-demand via the Internet added to satellite, cable, and antenna input options. The single exception will be gaming consoles, those will continue to be external and will continue to be popular. Heck, I use a PS3 as a BRD and DVD player, a digital photo repository, and stream NetFlix from it to my 2007-vintage "dumb" HDTV.

Enthusiasts will continue to see value in surround sound and ultimate video quality. Very likely video downloads will be added to disk media by the video collectors among us. But I have to say, Blu-Ray disk will never IMHO be more popular or widespread than it is now, and will soon be in decline - as all disk media sales are seeing soft demand right now.

As for quad resolution media and displays, I see those as total non-starters. This is it, guys - we are approaching the all-time peak availability for disk media, and DVD and BRD will only decline from here.

That's how I see it. These market forces are all ready apparent if you set aside your own desires and just LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
post #36 of 3670
So why did lower res VCD had a chance against "well-established" VHS then, and IMHO caused the early demise of LP?

Games were "downloaded" since the infancy of Internet yet disc based games are still around. The gaming market has even grown to be bigger than Hollywood. Internet and hardcopy media are not mutually exclusive. As per my previous post, hardware implementation has a role to play as not all are righteous

BD Live is a nuisance to most people and quite useless. But the value and potential to studios are more than just "more previews"
post #37 of 3670
Gary, the problem I have with your analysis is that you appear to be counting all VOD streams delivered, regardless of source or cost against paid for DVD/BD purchases.

A free B movie from Netflix that is delivered with streaming, at low resolution is not "worth" as much in profit as a DVD or BD purchase.

Studios will be reluctant to kill the BD goose before it has finished laying golden eggs, even if the format does reach it's max adoption and is only selling in the millions of units (vs. 10's of millions of units) to collectors for new release Blockbuster titles.

Let's say that a new release BD is sold for $18. The studio profit on that disc is probably at least $12, after payout of royalties, authoring costs, packaging and shipment to retail.

What is the profit on the same movie that is delivered via Vudu? Maybe $3? What is the profit on that movie delivered as part of Netflix free all you can eat buffet? .25?

There is nothing that is ready to step in and replace the profit margins that BD offers to studios.

Audio CDs have been declining in sales for a decade now, but I don't see them getting scrapped by record companies any time soon... they still make more money when you buy a $10 audio CD then when you buy 2 or 3 singles off of iTunes at $1.29 a pop.
post #38 of 3670
I believe that VOD streams are in fact the most popular medium of all time. I believe that once you have a media server set up, that is the most convenient way to own a movie - as a downloaded file. Even though I have happily been collecting movies since the days of VHS, I already have as many boxes of VHS, DVD, HD-DVD, and BRDs as I care to own, and find the shear bulk of all the media inconvenient. I no longer carry home stacks of disks from Costco or the bargain bins at WalMart after every visit. I believe that many people share this same problem. If it did not take so much time, I would rip all these movies to hard disk and put the originals in storage. Because the truth of the matter is that with an unlimited streaming account, I will order a VOD stream out of preference to searching out and playing the disk.

The bulk of my collection are DVDs. But I can often get an even better quality HD stream, so I am actually seeing a better quality stream than the copy I already own. I mean, I need the high bandwidth WAN connection for work purposes, but having it in this day of VOD has also changed my viewing habits. YMMV.
post #39 of 3670
Well at least now you are being more honest about where your bias comes from.

I also value streaming. I also value picture quality and being able to see new releases fairly quickly after they become available.

Ripping to hard drive does add a bit of additional cost, but for me it's worth it for the convenience. Not to mention that I will always have a hard copy of my favorite films in the highest quality that has ever been made available.

Amazon ships me the new releases and it takes all of about 40 minutes to rip one to my basement NAS (I push a button and walk away, when the chime sounds I know the movie is done, I can then put the original in a bin in the basement). I can then stream it to any computer in my home as well as any dedicated media streamer box that can handle a high bitrate MKV file.

My NAS solution cost about $1200 with hard disks and has storage for roughly 1500 DVDs or 300 BDs and I can add more capacity as needed. So the added cost per title is around $2-$5 and I have the advantage of owning the content for as long as I want. No worrying about a streaming provider being offline when I want to watch a movie, no worrying about DRM preventing me from watching something I paid for on any device I want to watch it on.
post #40 of 3670
I have no bias that I know of. As I mentioned at least twice, I like BRD and that is the only disk media I buy now. But to deny the overwhelming success of streaming VOD would be unrealistic. I fully understand that not everyone can get flawless HD streams, and acknowledge that is a legitimate reason to prefer disk media.

But (returning to the actual thread topic) likewise I see little reason to expect that the higher-than-1080p Digital Intermediate file of a movie will ever get distributed to home viewers, or that they would have a display to do justice to such a resolution.
post #41 of 3670
What do i need and how much will it cost to get flawless HD streams?
post #42 of 3670
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

What do i need and how much will it cost to get flawless HD streams?

Basicly, you need the phone company to bring a fiber optic cable near to your home, so that only the last link from the telephone box on the street to your house is via twisted pair wire. Then you need to subscribe to the broadband package with the greatest bandwidth. Then you need a VOD provider that has HD streams.
post #43 of 3670
70mm film has been said to be ok upto 8k and many rips have already been done at this resolution even though they are then down converted for blu ray etc. In japan they have had a test channel for a couple of years which actually broadcasts in 8k. Philips did confirm (at ces) that they would release thier first 4k this year 3rd or 4th quarter I can't remember. The high capacity bluray format (bdxl) was agreed upon by the major players last year though currently not for domestic use at 128gb which could fit most 4k films though not 8k. I don't personally see a need to go beyond 1080p unless you are using a projector and the display is very large. I use a 9ft 2.35:1 and sit less than 3 meters from the screen and the image (1080p) is still great so as I said a very big display would be needed for 4k+ to really be required. Sorry for the lenght of the post
post #44 of 3670
People here believe you can see a difference between HD Ready and 1080 at >42". Go figure what size warrants 4k res PC monitors are already going beyond 1080p

IMHO we should see a diff at >60"
post #45 of 3670
That is years away.

Docsis 3.0 was sketched out in 2005 or 2006 and only started gaining wide deployment last year.

Not to mention that I have little love for Cisco. They love building their own proprietary technology and trying to leverage it to force everything on a network to have to be upgraded with more Cisco gear just to get stuff to work properly.
post #46 of 3670
I'd love to have a 4k display, but I don't think they'd be very likely to fit into my budget...2560x1600 monitors are still too pricey for me :x
post #47 of 3670
As somebody who fixed TV's BR is rapidly becoming mainstream. I see LOTS of them in consumers homes, about 1/4 of my customers own one. People typically keep thier DVD player until it dies then replace it with a BR player. BR players don't cost much more than DVD players and will play their existing DVD collection. Most have a handful of BR's, but lots of DVD's.
post #48 of 3670
A great conversation! If I was to add my 2 cents worth. It would be this. The HDTV Global Consortium that decided the 480-1080 standard for consumers looked at all optimal resolutions in the 1980's and 1990's. They settled on 720-1080 for HD because it represented the very best compromise for all parties concerned. 480-1080 provided the optimal ease of transition to new display technologies with a nod toward limitations in the emerging global public internet/communication grid. Military and Defense operations were using much higher resolutions, bandwidth and faster frame rate stuff decades before the 1080 threshold was adopted for public use. In short, the HDTV Consortium adopted resolution depth for consumers that would blow everyone's minds and reach the edge of perceptual difference (1080). Today, resolutions, for example, used by NASA for 'Deep Space Imaging' and current global Military applications far exceed 1080 or the subject 4k by 2k threshold mentioned in this thread. You would be shocked to learn where they are at. Think Hubble telescope and better. With resolutions measuring in the 100's of thousands. But this is used to blow up very tiny distant objects to nearfield depth. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns for a home HDTV viewing as mentioned by most of the commenters here. Can you squeeze a skoshe of enhanced perceptual image fidelity by upping the resolution to 4x2. Of course you can (especially for very large displays). But anything below 60 inches would be practically the same as 1080 to the naked eye and a waste of time and money. But for the emrging 3D market, it may be everything! The trick is to make the 60 inchs and larger displays look as pure as the 32 inch display at 720p-1080p. Or to make inscreen 3D (misnamed as 2D) on smaller 32-50 inch displays as visually compelling as outscreen 3D viewing on large screen (60"-200") displays.

Hence the debate over 2x4 formats. The industry really needs to focus this 2x4 conversation to the 3D debate IMHO. Or this will never really be a widely adopted format. But it will get upconversion applications in future HDTV displays. By using advanced SRT (Super Resolution Technology) algorithims, I suspect future HDTVs will take whatever signal fed to it from 480i-1080p, from broadcast, streaming or Blu Ray disk and upconvert them via a SRT process to a much higher resolution and ideal frame rate for inscreen/outscreen 3D effect. This will negate the need to change any of the delivery system technology standards that exist such as Blu-Ray, Broadcast, internet & etc from 480-1080. Toshiba was on this bandwagon after HD-DVD collapsed with its SRT for SD-DVD program. The market wasn't ready for it at the time. But later on and as part of a greater SRT 3D effort it may gain traction. But it definitely won't obsolete Blu-Ray, nor be the exclusive domain of Toshiba. Wide competition and different SRT upconversion formats will exist that will challenge the limits of visual perception. It will only make HDTV viewing more immersive in the eyes of the many. Even though only a few (with perfect vision) will actually be able to see it.
post #49 of 3670
While I can't say that I agree with gary often, if at all, I have to agree with him here. Blu-ray has about 5 years left max and DVD will die out around the same time. The future of movies and music is with downloads. Downloads are increasing every year. Downloads have killed the CD market. It has already been published that CDs will no longer be sold in the UK by 2014. Physical media has a vert short future life and will be for collectors only. Broadband internet speeds will continue to get faster and faster so that full 1080p and beyond encodes with lossless audio can be streamed or downloaded in a couple of minutes. It will not be today or tomorrow but the handwriting is on the wall already. Within 3 years it will be even more obvious. BLu-ray delivers a great viewing experience but it is not in the long term, where the industry will be. Downloads will be it for both music and movies. I predicted this during the format was and was vilified for it but as the years have passed, it is becoming clearer and clearer that this is where we are headed. While I think there is a future for 4k displays, that is at least 10 years away.
post #50 of 3670
This will be extremely difficult to come to pass with the current state of broadband in the US.

I would find it much more plausible that this be the norm in countries like Japan or S. Korea with sophisticated, uncapped broadband networks.

How exactly are the 10's of millions of Americans with sub-standard broadband access and no alternatives going to get their movies in 5 yrs? The infrastructure will not have caught up by then.

CD death was predicted almost five years ago and they are still ticking. Will they eventually be gone? Yes, but I think that it's going to take longer than most realize. Think 7-10 yrs more than 3-5 and you might make a case I can get on board with.

Even then I think studios realize the value of a format for collectors and that will keep BD alive for longer than "3-5 yrs".
post #51 of 3670
Originally Posted by Servicetech571 View Post

As somebody who fixed TV's BR is rapidly becoming mainstream. I see LOTS of them in consumers homes, about 1/4 of my customers own one. People typically keep thier DVD player until it dies then replace it with a BR player. BR players don't cost much more than DVD players and will play their existing DVD collection. Most have a handful of BR's, but lots of DVD's.

Heck, I got my first BR player in July and gave my old DVD player away. Once in a while I use my BR player to play a movie. Most of the time I use it for streaming movies from Qriocity. We never plan ahead to watch a movie. If there's nothing on TV that interest us then we look and see if there might be a movie on Qriocity that won't put meet sleep or gross out my wife.

Purchasing a BR disk is the last of my options!
post #52 of 3670
BluRay will be sold a decade from now. I'm 100% certain. Will lots be sold? Maybe not. Probably not. The fact that the most important video-rental/streaming provider in the US doesn't do new releases via streaming nor seems to have any plans to, well....
post #53 of 3670
I think 2160p is quite a way off. People are still adapting to 1080p. The gripe I have with streaming is the quality(pic and sound). Some of the stuff on netflix is just downright horrible. And I can clearly see the visual difference b/w Hd broadcast and Blu-ray. Granted the mass public may not or even care. I don't have a problem with streaming or downloading content. But I want true 1080p content with lossless audio. Also, when you download an mp3 from itunes or napster you get get to keep it. When will that be available for movies? Because I have quite the collection of dvds and blu-rays and continue to collect. Internet speeds are going to have to triple in bandwidth to do this. And most people in rural areas or small towns are running off 3meg connection or less if not dial-up.
post #54 of 3670
With the dawn of huge TVs, 4k will be coming. It is unikely to be 1080p ->4k directly but many intermediate resolutions in between to maximise the "milking"

Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

IMHO after so many years of false start I think 2011 especially 2H we shall see volume on >60" sold. With that I would think it would usher in 4k, and as Gary mentioned, more and more studios are adopting 4K scans anyway

By Paul Gray – Director, European TV Research, DisplaySearch

It’s clear from discussions across the supply chain that the industry is considering launching 4K x 2K (3840×2160) resolution TVs, which have four times the information content of current 1080p products.

This increase in resolution is a sign of the growing maturity in the TV market, and the price erosion that continues to damage the business. Set and panel makers are seeking the next innovation that can boost pricing.

So why 4K x 2K? From a broadcast or packaged media point of view, any increase in content format is still a long way off, with many markets still to make the move even to HD (we estimate that less than a third of homes in Western Europe watch HD, for example). It is also hard to justify in terms of image quality. If you watch TV from further away than 3m (10 ft.) you would need a screen size of at least 55” to notice the difference. Any smaller, and it would be beyond the resolution of the human eye.

There are other reasons to introduce higher resolution, even where it is not viewable. The most obvious is for passive 3D glasses. Doubling the number of lines is necessary to restore 1080 lines to each eye, and would overcome the main objection to passive 3D. However, the ability to produce a retarder film with such fine resolution has yet to be proven.

Achieving such a product would not be cheap either. Implanting a 4K x 2K video pipe requires four times the signal bandwidth and memory, and it will require significant post-processing if the up-scaling is going to be worth viewing. As with real-time 2D to 3D conversion, concerns about the quality could result in a negative view of the new format.

Our upcoming TV forecast includes 4K x 2K LCD sets for the first time. We anticipate seeing the first product release by the end of 2011, with very small volumes in 2012. The key concern I have is the marketing and timing of the 4K x 2K introduction. 2010 saw a surge in new features (3D, LED backlighting, and connected TV). In fact, there were so many mixed messages that consumers became completely confused.

In this case, format confusion could ensue—720, 1080, cinema (21:9), 4K x 2K. Careful examination of real needs will be required to ensure that 4K x 2K has lasting value to consumers and thus rewards for the industry. Forcing another supposed innovation into the marketplace will merely provoke another round of price erosion as costly innovations are discounted to win over consumers.
post #55 of 3670
I am very skeptical of "tweener" resolutions, they are much more likely to have scaling issues than a straight doubling-doubling (aka ~4k x ~2k) would. One pixel into 4 and maximizing the smoothing, improvement that does is cheap and quick -- and with 8 million pixels coming 30x per second, those are important concerns.

A tweener resolution of say 3000 x 1500 is going to be a mess and will probably be indiscernible in demos. At least with 4k x 2k, the hard-to-demo benefits will be combined with "4x the resolution of HD".

Maybe I'm wrong and mfrs. can sell "twice the resolution" but I really doubt it. You are looking at a pixel count in the vicinity of 2300 x 1400. No matter how much number massaging you do, that doesn't feel sellable in TVs.

As an aside, the ascendancy of streaming video is going to make selling "better TVs" very very hard. Nothing come out of Netflix has the quality of broadcast HD, let alone something beyond that. And broadcast HD would probably look only marginally better on a 4k x 2k. Streams that are in the 480p - 720p range might actually end up looking worse, but more importantly, I doubt anyone will much care.
post #56 of 3670
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post
You don't remember that Laserdisk came after VHS, and died?
I would be happy with Blu Ray becoming a niche product. I wouldn't be happy with BD being driven completely from market because of VOD.

VOD forces you to pay expensive high speed cable rates and their rates keeping going up and up, especially as the likes of Comcast continue to gobble up competitiors and monopolize the market.
post #57 of 3670
@rogo on tweener resolution: ideally I totally agree with you. But practically they will scale resolution up slowly just as the "HDReady" format of 1024-1366 before reaching 1920 due to existing content, equipments, learning curve etc

IMHO 4k res is highly dependent on advent of huge TV. Effectively it is a 8MP picture which we know how big a display has to be to resolve that resolution. (ya DSC makers lied ) Both has to exist at same time. Otherwise none will.

NB Cinema with it's large screen size makes sense:
post #58 of 3670
You may be right about how it plays out, I just doubt they can sell 3 megapixel TVs at all -- regardless of size -- when it's going to be impossible to show a benefit anyone can see.

At least with 1080p TVs there was content that had 1080 lines, even if interlaced at first. And there was this "full HD" business.

"A little better than HD" seems like a tough sell. "Quad HD" seems like the kind of thing video nuts would buy. Maybe I'm projecting, but I really want neither -- 1920 x 1080 that's great is more interesting to me than 4k x 2k that's bit starved (and if it's merely upscaled as 99% of content will be, it really offers next to nothing).

What seems likely to happen with resolution is that Apple is going to ship a Retina Display iPad in 2012. And that device is likely going to cause a cascading industry effect toward more resolution. In the meantime, I believe that home flat panels are a thorougly mature market right now and that lack of ability to meaningfully reduce cost anymore -- which has set in -- is going to cause margins to shrink as slow but insidious price erosion affects the market, especially brought on by the Vizios of the world.

In an effort to restore margins, "higher than HD" resolutions are inevitable. And perhaps you're correct that "somewhat higher" comes first, followed by 4k. I just tend to think 4k is so much cleaner and more logical and from a manufacturing standpoint, I doubt it's at all challenging to pull off at 60"+ sizes. The LCD "cells" and the electrodes would be no smaller than those used in the 18" monitor on my laptop -- in fact they'd be much larger since that monitor is a 1920 x 1080. I wonder if over time, it might be possible to produce better energy savings with smaller pixels in higher resolution displays -- less material to push around per pixel might exceed the need to push around more pixels.

Anyway, we'll see. Not this year of course, but I'm curious to see what happens when that iPad drops in 2012.
post #59 of 3670
Agree especially on the retina display hype I don't think it's a big issue developing 4k res displays, especially 60"+, from a manufacturing point of view (not PQ) but it is the content that will take some time catching up. We just had maybe 50% movie content remastered to 1080p so will be uneconomical to remaster them too soon before fully "milked"

4k SOURCE won't be anytime soon. Like I said we will probably see OLED 50" before 4k but docu Baraka is a good foretaste of what is to come though
post #60 of 3670
Just what we need: Another reason for the studios to remaster all of their product again so we can purchase yet another version of Star Wars or LOTR. Since Star Wars came out in VHS, I think I've purchased 6 different versions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?