Sony 4K and the rest - Page 6

And the MD too... Unless the average display size for the home approaches 100+"@5ft the need for 4K is minuscule.

In "Intel: super-dense notebook, desktop displays common by 2013" (link), an electronista.com article (updated April 12, 2012) reporting on Intel's Developer Forum in Beijing, we see:

Quote:

"These would include 11-inch ultrabooks at 2560x1440 through to 21-inch desktops with 3840x2160 screens. Intel also expected "halo" 15-inch notebooks with the same 3840x2160 output, which would create a Retina Display-like effect."

If we really do get 21" to 32" PC monitors with 3840x2160 resolution at mass market prices 'starting by 2013', then 21" to 60" TVs with the same resolution (and perhaps some cheaper 2560x1440 resolution models) would probably be the "everyman" price point staple for Big Box stores only a year or two later . . . likely resulting in an 'effectively complete' evolution of the US home TV installed base to the 3840x2160 resolution standard by about 2025--and uncoupled from the actual progress towards 4K2K broadcast OTA|cable, IP streaming, or BD4K adoption.

Yes, and I don't doubt he wants to stop the massive hemorrhaging Sony is going through (and Panasonic). The important point being made is the studio's dictate what is to be, as they have the content, not the other way around. They know the masses want convenience over quality. I doubt they read this forum and discuss at their meetings, how to make the small minority who would love to watch true 4K in the home, so very happy.
And I would like to thank Amir for sharing his great knowledge, experience and thoughts. I am truly grateful.

Amirm.. with all due respect.. and acknowledging your technical prowess, I have to agree with Ryan, Hd_newbie, julio and many others on this thread.. that your logic about not to expect 4k is perhaps incorrect. Not sure whether your studio exec meets are related to this subject..
I would probably be more interested in what LG/Samsung/sony/panasonice et al have to say about 4k players.. I assume above announcement of 4k2k players are valid? 4k2k really means 4k, yes? I assume by 4k2k, they mean 4k horizonal resolution and 2k vertical resolution, yes? Of course, you of all people, would know about the 4k discs.. you did work on the compression algorithms for microsoft, yes? I think I read an article with your interview, a few years ago, in WSR..

If the players really do start showing up, that would be to me, a clear indication of 4K. I would assume Sony chose 4K for a reason.. Not for just a "show off flag ship".. I cannot even imagine how much R&D would have gone into Sony 4k and would guess that others will play catch up.. within 2 years, perhaps? Sony's new CEO Kazuo Hirai's statement rather confirms the arrival of 4k, does it not?

I have to agree strongly with Ryan et al.. Your kind of logic was talked about, since the inception of VHS/Beta for mass markets.. Today's 2K home theatres rival the commercial theatres, perhaps except for the best. In fact, considering your own theatres with the Synthesis tuned audio and your video, I doubt that too many of my local cineplexes are better - - except for the large Ultra screen.. Personally, I prefer my own home theatre (jbl synthesis and sony qualia 004 2k) to the small movie theatres.
But there is always the social and positive experience of going to a movie.. I submit, that going from 2k to 4K for home, would not change that significantly, if any..

I agree.. "the older we get, the more wrong we seem".. I could be, therefore, wrong of course. :-))

""the older we get, the more wrong we seem".. I could be, therefore, wrong of course. :-))"

In all due respect audvid, yes, you are wrong, but not because of your age.
The future of most high tech is not mass improvement in quality, but rather in convenience. This is the main driving force. Bob and Betty across the street, want to watch American Idol not in pristine 1080p or hear it in 24/192, but rather whatever comes without a surcharge on their kitchen tv, bedroom tv, and family tv next to Jr.'s bronzed baby shoes. Blu-ray, 3D and widesreen? "That's what those fancy pants watch when they are not driving their fancy pants German cars."

Apart from the native 4K youtube clips, this site has a 4K film for sale a memory stick:
http://timescapes.org/

When I saw this, I felt compelled to revive this thread:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57467138-221/first-4k-movie-available-for-sale/?tag=FD.topheds

1gb per second. Is that fast enough for 4K content delivery?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-fiber-googles-broadband-tv-service-unveiled-kansas/story?id=16863153

Uncompressed it is about 12 gigabit (depending on sampling), hence the need to use the crude compression format known as interlacing, over STM-64.

There's no need to send 4K as interlaced, or as uncompressed over the internet (not for final delivery for consumers). 1 Gb/s should fine for 4K video compressed with h264/h265. Around 50 Mbps with H265 compression (higher if possible, since it should allow even better quality) should also be fine.

edit: changed "1 GB/s" to "1 Gb/s" (meant gigabits, not gigabytes)
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 8/25/12 at 6:40am

Well, I was about to complain about the data cap, but it looks like there is no cap. Very cool. Now that's what I call progress!

Here is another recent update. I would love to hear from posters who were arguing this will never happen just few months back

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425827/ps4-to-support-4k-resolution

But when will we have 4K BD's?   

My guess would be 2014, at the earliest.
First they have to wait for HEVC/H.265 codec to be finalised. It is not due before early 2013.

Do you think the audio will also be updated? eg Dolby Atmos ( More speakers throughout the room )

Well."Never" according to some of our "resident experts" who were posting just few pages back They stopped posting recently for some strange reason

8K @ a mere 256 Megabit/s MPEG4 AVC, had serious compression artifacts, so I am very warry about 50 Mbit/s for 4K even with H.265/HVEC.

Like I said uncompressed even with fairly low sampling is more than 10 gigabit, so 1 gig would not be enough.

These technologies have sofar only been used for contribution (JPEG2000), and primary distribution, not so much for final distribution.

And probably no later than about 2020. When Japan or Korea starts TV broadcasting in 8k4k|4k2k, presumably there will also be network supplied on demand "30 day reruns" over the internet at near the same quality. Viewers will likely be unhappy if subsequently they can only buy a season of their favorite show on [1080] BD (or streamed equivalent) after watching it live in 4k2k . . . with consequent loss of "after broadcast" [disc] sales.

And once 4k2kBDs are authored for one country|region, world wide exploitation within a year or so seems probable.
_
Edited by SoundChex - 8/24/12 at 11:09am

Sorry but the episodes market is still almost exclusively DVD, not Blu-Ray, so don't expect any presuure from that segment for 8K or even 4K discs.

Are you talking about the 2012 SHV/UHDTV Olympics demos done by the BBC & NHK?
Did you see it? Most of the reviews I've read are positive about the picture quality. I don't remember any talking about seeing compression artefacts. They did mention other things (eg. frame rate being insufficient - eg. that 120 fps would be better than the 60 it was), and other things which they thought were issues (focusing, and other camera/editing issues). Do you have links to reviews of the 2012 Olympics demos talking about bad picture compression artefacts?
You're probably right. I'd much prefer, if we have a 4K (or higher) disc format (maybe other formats too), discs which could hold 100GB or preferably 200GB (or higher) and allow a lot higher bitrates. The Timescapes 4K film you can buy on a USB stick is about 80 Mbps H264.

Though it wouldn't surprise me if 50 Mbps average bitrate (or less) was what some UHDTV (~ 4K) broadcasters used with H265 - even though I'd prefer more.

Actually compared to what the BBC uses with H264 it's not that different. eg. according to one website, BBC HD on Freeview HD currently uses about 10 Mbps average for sport (average for all types is less it says). BBC HD usually transmits at 1440x1080. If we use the "4K" TV standard of 3840x2160, (3840*2160)/(1440*1080)=5.33. So that 4K TV standard uses about 5.33 times the number of pixels as BBC HD sports. If we multiply 5.33 x 10 Mbps you get 53 Mbps. So, ignoring the increased frame rate we may get with UHDTV (and interlaced vs progressive scan), about 53 Mbps avg should give you about the same quality as 5.33 BBC HD pictures (1440x1080 each) - equivalent to 3840x2160 resolution. I said 1 Gbps should be fine for compressed video. I doubt any broadcaster will be transmitting uncompressed or lossless compressed 4K to consumers (if it's going to take Gbps), at least not for quite a long time. At least not in a Blu-ray type format/TV format (not talking about to cinemas). Technically lossless 4K might not take that much depending on the picture content though, given a good codec.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 8/25/12 at 7:53am

Regardless of the current consumer preference structure, a novel US marketing opportunity will exist in the time interval between (1) mass market availability of 4k2k displays and BD4k2k disk players, and (2) nationwide OTA|cable program distribution in 4k2k resolution. At that time, it's easy to imagine HBO filming A Game of Thrones in 4K2K for 1920x1080 OTA|cable broadcasting, and then using the '4x resolution' of BD4k2k disk compared to the original broadcast in order to bump up subsequent complete season disk sales . . . "watch it again at home on BD4k2k disk with both additional|extended scenes and better picture quality than the original airing".

Sounds good to me! So now I guess this is the time when I must admit to NOT knowing the bandwidth available for (UHF) transmission through air in Tokyo!

Ah, didn't realize this thread was still going!

BTW guys, keep in mind that studios will likely ask for higher levels of copy protection to go with any increased increased resolution. When we moved from VHS to DVD, we went from simple analog protection to CSS and region coding. BD added full blown key management/encryption, encryption to the display (HDCP as part of HDMI), watermark detection, and sunsetting of analog output. With HDCP having been shown to be breachable, likely preconditions for higher resolution may require HDCP version 2 (think new HDMI interface), and more forensic marketing/copy controls, restrictions on what else the device may play (e.g. unencrypted content that is not originally authorized), etc. Without these increased measures, some studios may not come on board even if the format does launch.

This may also be a good read. Note that the only guy talking about 4K is an electronic retailer! http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007979&docId=l:1730432746&isRss=true&Em=4&md5=&sendDate=20120825. This studio exec has this to say:

"We really don't know what the future is going to be," Baker [Warner Home Video's executive vice president and general manager of theatrical catalog] says. "It's illogical to think that in the next four to five years there is going to be a new format -- like DVD was new when VHS was around, or Blu-ray is new when DVD is around."

Still stand by this ?

Art

Great question.

Sure. There is no 4K content around the corner. As I noted in my original post, hardware companies will march on toward 4K like there is no tomorrow. I heard at CES they no longer let anyone show 1080p equipment. Upsampling and passing through 4k is just a hardware problem that is easily solvable. Getting 4K content to consumer is way more than that.

Why do you ask? You have seen an announcement from studio head saying they will shortly be putting out 4K content?

To have any 4K content that not just upconverted, the studios needs to start shoot and master in 4K so they have sufficient material to feed a 4K HT media format.

As of now, very few films are shot in 4K, and very few of those are mastered in 4K. Analogue Film can and are scanned in 4 to 8K, but that is mostly for archival purposes.

Even Sony, that had by April 13000 4K projectors installed in cinemas worldwide, have their own studio, and a 4K digital camera, have listed only 2 movies in 4K for 2012 till now, and they are shot on film.
If Sony isn't pushing for 4K harder (same with Barco and Christie) in the big screen Theatre world, who else can and will?

I haven't even heard of TV shows that are shot in 4K.

Seems to me that the whole film industry are sitting on their hands when it comes to 4K productions and releases.

Would be wonderful. But then they have to hurry up and start to shoot the series on a 4K camera and not on a rather "soft" 2K camera they have been/are doing now.
Edited by coolscan - 8/27/12 at 10:43am

I suspect the first native 4k2k content with semi mass consumer distribution will be high priced premium "one-time-only" live sports or concert events 'broadcast' over whichever of ota|cable|dbs|internet can get its infrastructure bandwidth problems solved and implemented first. After that, wider exploitation of 4k2k broadcasting along the current TV model (with a combination of native|upmixed 4k2k content) . . . including 'first run' movies on premium channels, and older movies on free channels. The movie industry has had a long complicated relationship with 'home theater', and it will be interesting to see how they solve the (next) conflict between (1) embracing 4k2k broadcast and [disk] sales to take advantage of the 'new medium', and (2) staying with [max 1080] BD sales and concentrating on making the theatrical movie experience a preference over in-home entertainment. Either way, probably some gains for consumers!

I know no heads of studios but Sony seems to be in position to get this going. Answer the rest of the question about the only hope.....

Art