AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Anyone care to speculate on the new 4k disc format?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone care to speculate on the new 4k disc format? - Page 3

post #61 of 107
4/6/12 at 6:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

What would be more indicative of the future would be the numbers from only content available in both BD (including BD+DVD combo) and DVD SKUs...?!

The small amount of DVD only releases would have little to no effect on the numbers .. other than perhaps to beef up the DVD totals .. nothing is being released to BD only that I know of ..
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 107
4/6/12 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Or maybe Laserdisc - a true Videophile format when it was released. So how did it do adoption wise?

Despite Laserdisc's players low 20% adoption rate, it was still generating more than $1 billion/year in Laserdisc sales alone, from just Japan and the US during the mid 90s.
4K Blu-ray already has built in infrastructure. One of the main goals of HEVC was to fit 4K rez on standard 50GB dual layer blu-ray. Even if that or another codec fail to achieve it, there are already 128GB BDXL quad layers available that can easily get it done. No need for huge capital investment.
The 4K players would need beefed up processors, but other cost will remain the same. The first ones will be hybrid native 4K/1080p players and might have $50-75 added to the price. 4K displays will probably have $500-800 added cost at larger sizes until mass production ramps.
The biggest hurdle as is always the case with new format, is chicken and egg. Why build the players when there are no sets and why build the sets when there are no players. 4K is definitely coming it is just a matter of when. 8K is where we may finally end up in 20 years as the limit of the human eye come into factor, but for now 8K would be just to large a format.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 107
4/6/12 at 1:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Despite Laserdisc's players low 20% adoption rate, it was still generating more than $1 billion/year in Laserdisc sales alone, from just Japan and the US during the mid 90s.
4K Blu-ray already has built in infrastructure. One of the main goals of HEVC was to fit 4K rez on standard 50GB dual layer blu-ray. Even if that or another codec fail to achieve it, there are already 128GB BDXL quad layers available that can easily get it done. No need for huge capital investment.
The 4K players would need beefed up processors, but other cost will remain the same. The first ones will be hybrid native 4K/1080p players and might have $50-75 added to the price. 4K displays will probably have $500-800 added cost at larger sizes until mass production ramps.
The biggest hurdle as is always the case with new format, is chicken and egg. Why build the players when there are no sets and why build the sets when there are no players. 4K is definitely coming it is just a matter of when. 8K is where we may finally end up in 20 years as the limit of the human eye come into factor, but for now 8K would be just to large a format.

The 100GB BDXL and 128GB BDXL are not BD-ROM discs.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 107
4/6/12 at 1:50pm
DIRECTV Prepares For Ultra HDTV

Quote:


By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (March 15, 2012) -- Some might argue that DIRECTV still has work to be done on its HDTV effort, but the satcaster is already preparing for the launch of Ultra HDTV, writes Advanced Television.

Ultra HDTV is expected to offer a picture resolution 16 times better than current High-Definition signals. Most industry experts believe that Ultra HDTV sets won't likely be available at retail until 2020. To showcase the future technology, BBC plans to broadcast part of the 2012 London Olympic Games in UHD in select locations.

Ultra HDTV is expected to be transmitted using Ka-band frequencies and that's okay with DIRECTV. Advanced Television reports that Philip Goswitz, DIRECTV's senior vice president for space and communications, told the recent Satellite 2012 conference that his company already transmits in Ka-band and may end its Ku-band transmissions in four of five years.

"(Ku-band will) ensure that satellite broadcasting continues to distinguish itself for image quality of service. We see this as a key strategic advantage for us," he said, according to Advanced Television.

The publication added that Goswitz did not reveal when DIRECTV would begin employing 4,000-line and 8,000-line resolutions which would be necessary to display Ultra HDTV. But the executive maintained that DIRECTV's current use of Ka-band technology would give it a competitive edge when Ultra HDTVs are available.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dultra031512.htm
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 107
4/6/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

DIRECTV Prepares For Ultra HDTV



http://www.tvpredictions.com/dultra031512.htm

I guess they could always just down convert to 1080p if their accelerated timetable for 4K market penetration did not pan out, but 2018 sounds about right the big pay channels to start switching over to 4K.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 107
4/6/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

DIRECTV Prepares For Ultra HDTV



http://www.tvpredictions.com/dultra031512.htm

All this says is that UHDTV will probably be sent on KA band frequencies. All DirecTV said is they currently use KA band for their current HD cahnnels.

Based on that it's quite a stretch to claim DirecTV is prepared for UHDTV and they in fact aren't claiming that either. The article author is.. Other than perhaps the HPAs and dishes, all the existing equipment from the modulators backwards would need to be replaced with 4K compatible equipment (what ever that is because much of it doesn't exist yet).

What compression standard will they be using? What will the mezzanine broadcast format be? There is no current standard that can carry 4K.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 107
4/6/12 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

All this says is that UHDTV will probably be sent on KA band frequencies. All DirecTV said is they currently use KA band for their current HD cahnnels.

Based on that it's quite a stretch to claim DirecTV is prepared for UHDTV and they in fact aren't claiming that either. The article author is.. Other than perhaps the HPAs and dishes, all the existing equipment from the modulators backwards would need to be replaced with 4K compatible equipment (what ever that is because much of it doesn't exist yet).

What compression standard will they be using? What will the mezzanine broadcast format be? There is no current standard that can carry 4K.

Standards that deal with UHDTV include:

Rec. ITU-R BT.1201-1 (2004)
Rec. ITU-R BT.1706 (2006)
SMPTE 2036-1 (2009)
SMPTE 2036-2 (2008)
SMPTE 2036-3 (2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 107
4/6/12 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Standards that deal with UHDTV include:

Rec. ITU-R BT.1201-1 (2004)
Rec. ITU-R BT.1706 (2006)
SMPTE 2036-1 (2009)
SMPTE 2036-2 (2008)
SMPTE 2036-3 (2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television

Those are production format standards currently in use. I am referring to broadcast transport standards.

Quote:
In another indoor demonstration at the NHK Open House, the UHDTV signal was compressed to a 250 Mbit/s MPEG2 stream. This was later input to a 300 MHz wide band modulator and broadcast using a 500 MHz QPSK modulation. This "on the air" transmission had a very limited range (less than 2 metres), but shows the feasibility of a satellite transmission in the 36,000 km orbit.

These are experimental systems and hardly ready for prime time. I wonder if the VP of Programming at DirecTV would care to comment on how many HD & SD channels would have to be dropped to carry 250mbs for one UHDTV channel. Who is going to pay for that revenue loss?

I don't doubt that some day DirecTV will broadcast a 4K event. Perhaps even have a limited 4K channel. But it's not like they are sitting there ready to go just waiting for a 4K tape, disk, or fiber feed to come in.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 107
4/6/12 at 9:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

Those are production format standards currently in use. I am referring to broadcast transport standards.



These are experimental systems and hardly ready for prime time. I wonder if the VP of Programming at DirecTV would care to comment on how many HD & SD channels would have to be dropped to carry 250mbs for one UHDTV channel. Who is going to pay for that revenue loss?

I don't doubt that some day DirecTV will broadcast a 4K event. Perhaps even have a limited 4K channel. But it's not like they are sitting there ready to go just waiting for a 4K tape, disk, or fiber feed to come in.

You had a question about which video compression codec might used:

High Efficiency Video Coding

Quote:


HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320×240) up to 1080p and Ultra HDTV (7680×4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color gamut and dynamic range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Ef...y_Video_Coding
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 107
4/7/12 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You had a question about which video compression codec might used:

High Efficiency Video Coding



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Ef...y_Video_Coding

I get that. But show me a commercial box I can buy that employs this codec. Show me a consumer product that reads it.

None of this stuff is reality yet.

It's going to be many years before we see any 4K broadcast if ever. By that time it will no doubt be a streaming technology.

Note I'm talking about a viable 4K service that can stand on it's own. One time technology demos which I'm sure will be many over the next few years don't count.

This is not a technology problem. We could do it today with MPEG4 if we wanted to. Hell, we have been doing 4K digital cinema for well over five years now. We have the cameras, recording devices, and displays. The transmission equipment I spoke of above could be built.

The problem is the business model.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 107
4/7/12 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

I get that. But show me a commercial box I can buy that employs this codec. Show me a consumer product that reads it.

None of this stuff is reality yet.

It's going to be many years before we see any 4K broadcast if ever. By that time it will no doubt be a streaming technology.

Note I'm talking about a viable 4K service that can stand on it's own. One time technology demos which I'm sure will be many over the next few years don't count.

At this time, there is no "viable 4K service." Why would you think there is?

Quote:


This is not a technology problem. We could do it today with MPEG4 if we wanted to. Hell, we have been doing 4K digital cinema for well over five years now. We have the cameras, recording devices, and displays. The transmission equipment I spoke of above could be built.

The problem is the business model.

Digital Cinema uses MotionJPEG2000. That is not a consumer video codec.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 107
4/7/12 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


At this time, there is no "viable 4K service." Why would you think there is?

Digital Cinema uses MotionJPEG2000. That is not a consumer video codec.

My whole point here is that a 4k service is far away and the reason is not just technology. It's not just around the corner as some people here think.

P.S. II work in the post production business and have a lot of insight on this.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 107
4/7/12 at 5:55pm
As I would understand the process: first you learn how to capture-and-reproduce the audio|video program, and only when you can confidently expect to be able to do that "on demand" must you also to be (completely) ready to broadcast|distribute the program. "Baby steps."

This Olympic Games 2012 document gives us some idea of the current state-of-the-art for 8K4K AV capture|playback (of course, other info on the web suggests the state of the "compression and transmission" mechanisms is currently 'more fluid'!) Nonetheless, it's nice to see some tangible plans for current|future exploitation of this technology:
Quote:


"Super Hi-Vision for Public Viewing
NHK R&D and BBC R&D have been working on SHV for a long time and OBS (Olympic Broadcasting Service) came in to help facilitate the capture. The BBC will trial SHV broadcasting, 16-20 times the resolution of existing HD technology. Two SHV cameras, providing 16 times more detail than the average 1080p HD display, will capture the footage. The signals will be recorded on special Panasonic P2 tower machines: Video Signal: 7680x4320/60P; Audio Signal: 22.2ch 24bit; Recording Media: 17 P2 cards X 2 slots; Compression Scheme: AVC-Intra 100x16; File Format: MXF+XML (P2HD)
During the running of the London Olympics, NHK, OBS and the BBC will jointly showcase the Olympics in SVH. Hourly live and pre-recorded 'showcases' will be screened in public venues in Bradford, London and Glasgow and send to Japan and the USA, via private Internet networks, for viewing there. Tickets in the UK will be available for free. The BBC sees SHV very much as an alternative public viewing option for big events like the Olympics."


Reply
Reply
post #74 of 107
5/2/12 at 1:58pm
Thread Starter 
What would be the difference between what the MPEG's High Efficiency Video Coding scheme is intended to be and RED's wavelet codec used for commercial 4k quality video compression? Or do they work, basically, the same way... or did RED have involvement in the new HEVC standard?

Any insiders care to postulate as to what is the better video codec to use for 4k and beyond?
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 107
5/3/12 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

What would be the difference between what the MPEG's High Efficiency Video Coding scheme is intended to be and RED's wavelet codec used for commercial 4k quality video compression? Or do they work, basically, the same way... or did RED have involvement in the new HEVC standard?

One uses wavelet compression and the other (HEVC) doesn't?
HEVC seems more of an 'advanced version' of H264/mpeg4 which was an 'advanced version' of mpeg2.

So if Red uses wavelet compression, it's got more in common with codecs like Dirac (BBC's) and Jpeg2000.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 107
5/4/12 at 5:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bloggs View Post

one uses wavelet compression and the other (hevc) doesn't?
Hevc seems more of an 'advanced version' of h264/mpeg4 which was an 'advanced version' of mpeg2.

So if red uses wavelet compression, it's got more in common with codecs like dirac (bbc's) and jpeg2000.

hevc = h.265/mpeg-h
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 107
5/5/12 at 2:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

hevc = h.265/mpeg-h

Anybody care to comment on which one may be the better codec, H.265 or a true wavelet design like JPEG 2000 or RED?

My understanding was that wavelet compression was the better way to go and the MPEG design didn't have the same quality vs. space saving.

Am I wrong?
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 107
5/5/12 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Anybody care to comment on which one may be the better codec, H.265 or a true wavelet design like JPEG 2000 or RED?

My understanding was that wavelet compression was the better way to go and the MPEG design didn't have the same quality vs. space saving.

Am I wrong?

My guess is HEVC/H.265 at lower bitrates. I think it would depend on bitrate, etc. eg. a home optical media format would probably use a bitrate a lot lower than is used for Jpeg2000 in digital cinema.

Here's a link to a test
http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/16...es/article.pdf
Quote:


VP8 image compression showed
performance comparable to JPEG XR and JPEG 2000, all signicantly outperforming JPEG compression. For
video compression, the performance of VP8 were competitive with x264, while, interestingly, the new HEVC
technology under denition usually showed the best performance

Though the above test was subjective and at very low bitrates (2250 Kbps and less) and not at 4K resolution.

I think another reason is patents, licensing and money. If all the members of the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association) got together and decided on a 4K version of Blu-ray, they may decide to include codecs which they own patents in, and where they could earn royalties from instead of those they don't.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 107
5/5/12 at 10:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I think another reason is patents, licensing and money. If all the members of the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association) got together and decided on a 4K version of Blu-ray, may decide to include codecs which they own patents in, and where they could earn royalties from instead of those they don't.

Good point... if they get royalties from H.265 then they'll go with that irrespective of the quality of other competing codecs.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 107
5/6/12 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

....How about fiber based, high-bandwidth SDI that can handle ultra-high resolution specs. like they use in professional Hollywood and broadcast production equipment?

Good riddance to HDMI and all the headaches that go with it!

Because then the "pro" companies could not justify the exorbitant prices they charge for professional equipment. Not only that but the companies who make the infrastructure to convert from SDI to say HDMI for output monitoring as a consumer would see it would be out of business and not allow this. Follow the money and you will usually find the answer.

One can only hope to see HDMI die, and a move to pro level interconnects, but sadly not likely to happen. HDMI was a poorly implemented standard forced upon consumers out of studio fears of closing the analog hole and it is sad that the addition of DRM to the interface was sold to consumers as a feature (single cable).....
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 107
5/8/12 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Anybody care to comment on which one may be the better codec, H.265 or a true wavelet design like JPEG 2000 or RED?

My understanding was that wavelet compression was the better way to go and the MPEG design didn't have the same quality vs. space saving.

Am I wrong?

H.265 is a consumer based codec while MOTION JPEG2000 and RED are professional codecs. Consumer based codecs can't function at 250 Mbps with a required storage of 300 GB for a two hour movie. There is no consumer based cheap, easily replicated media/delivery system that has those specs.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 107
5/8/12 at 8:50am
Thread Starter 
So, do you suppose the BDA group will cram "just adequate enough to maybe squeak by" UHD video into the current BD25/BD50 specs. using H.265, or do you think they'll go for the 100 and 200 GB discs and up the bitrate? They'll absolutely need new players because the processing horsepower necessary to decode H.265 will be a lot greater than H.264, so why not use larger capacity storage media while they're at it?

I would hope they'd try to do the latter so UHD resolution at 25p, 30p, 48p, and 60p (obviously, the video frame rate equivalents) with Full UHD 3D would be possible as well without sacrificing quality. And at the prices these 4k TV's, players, and discs will probably be for the foreseeable future I would expect real quality.

Any idea if they're going to stick with 8 bit, 4:2:0 video (boo!) or do you think they'll finally move up to at least 10 bit?

If the BDA is going to entice people to migrate to 4k media, it'll have to look a lot better than Blu-ray.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 107
5/8/12 at 9:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, do you suppose the BDA group will cram "just adequate enough to maybe squeak by" UHD video into the current BD25/BD50 specs. using H.265, or do you think they'll go for the 100 and 200 GB discs and up the bitrate? They'll need new players because the processor horsepower necessary to decode H.265 will be a lot greater than H.264, so why not use larger capacity storage media while they're at it?

They can fit 4K using H.265 on a dual layer 50GB bluray disc.

Quote:


I would hope they'd try to do the latter so UHD resolution at 25p, 30p, 48p, and 60p (obviously, the video frame rate equivalents) with Full UHD 3D would be possible as well without sacrificing quality. And at the prices these 4k TV's, players, and discs will probably be for the foreseeable future I would expect real quality.

4K (@ 24 FPS) is a standardized format. 48 and 60 FPS are not.

Quote:


Any idea if they're going to stick with 8 bit, 4:2:0 video (boo!) or do you think they'll finally move up to at least 10 bit?

IMO - 8 bit 4:2:0

Quote:


If the BDA is going to entice people to migrate to 4k media, it'll have to look a lot better than Blu-ray.

Only for those willing to buy a large (60" or bigger) display. The bigger the display, the better it will look. The bigger the display, the less consumers will buy it.

IMO, 4K will not be a mainstream format. It will appeal to videophiles only.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 107
5/8/12 at 9:11am
Thread Starter 
Lee, thanks for the reply!

48p and 60p (usually with 3D in tow) are coming to a theater near you thanks to pioneers like Jackson and Cameron. Why wouldn't the studios anticipate this next leap forward in the specs. of the newest home video format? 25p and 30p are uncommon, but it would be nice to see the occasional European HDTV show or Todd-AO content in its native frame rate.

Native frame rates without frame conversion... now that's the ticket!

Even if it takes a while to adopt 48 and 60 fps, newer prosumer and professional video cameras can use these rates right now. It would be nice to "officially" support them instead of having to show-horn in a non-standard video container to make them work. This happened with Blu-ray and 60p since the BDA didn't think ahead. Sony and Panasonic added their own AVCHD container, but not all players can accept that format.

8 bit again... ugh!
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 107
5/8/12 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Lee, thanks for the reply!

48p and 60p (usually with 3D in tow) are coming to a theater near you thanks to pioneers like Jackson and Cameron. Why wouldn't the studios anticipate this next leap forward in the specs. of the newest home video format? 25p and 30p are uncommon, but it would be nice to see the occasional European HDTV show or Todd-AO content in its native frame rate.

Native frame rates without frame conversion... now that's the ticket!

8 bit again... ugh!

Until SMPTE standardizes a movie format, it is nothing more then an experiment.

30 fps - for 2 movies? That was all that were made in TODD-AO (and 1 3D 70mm short - James Cameron's T2 - Battle Across Time).
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 107
5/8/12 at 9:23am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Until SMPTE standardizes a movie format, it is nothing more then an experiment.

30 fps - for 2 movies? That was all that were made in TODD-AO (and 1 3D 70mm short - James Cameron's T2 - Battle Across Time).

Wouldn't hurt to throw 30 fps in just for good measure. Why not?

Let's say, 48 fps (at least) starts to take off... and 4k media doesn't support it. It would have been a dumb move not to include it just in case.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 107
5/8/12 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Wouldn't hurt to throw 30 fps in just for good measure. Why not?

Because it is a movie format that hasn't been used for over 60 years, nor will it ever be used again.

Quote:


Let's say, 48 fps (at least) starts to take off... and 4k media doesn't support it. It would have been a dumb move not to include it just in case.

AFAIK, the BDA doesn't include specs that are "just in case" when they revise existing specs. Said revisions are made to add a specific change, like Frame Packed 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 107
5/8/12 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

H.265 is a consumer based codec while MOTION JPEG2000 and RED are professional codecs. Consumer based codecs can't function at 250 Mbps with a required storage of 300 GB for a two hour movie. There is no consumer based cheap, easily replicated media/delivery system that has those specs.

One of the 16 levels of HEVC is 800,000 kbps, which is 781.25 mbps - though the one they use for 4K Blu-ray is most likely to be a lot less. It's not that they can't function at certain bitrates, it's more like they set limits / different profiles with different max bitrates for different consumer devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

25p and 30p are uncommon

They're formats (especially 25p) a lot more widely used than 48p. Though they can already be stored in the interlaced formats (50i & 60i) - except when using 3D. 50p and 60p at full resolution would be a lot better - than 25p/30p.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 107
5/11/12 at 11:17am
An item in Engadget "NHK shrinks its next 8K Super Hi-Vision-ready camcorder to the size of HD cameras" (link) details NHK's success in reducing the size of the next generation 8K4K camera down to one-person-portable (4kg)
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 107
5/11/12 at 12:02pm
Thread Starter 
Too bad the U.S. is no longer in the technology forefront. You think a network here would pioneer 8k digital broadcasts with stunning imagery? Ha!

We don't make things... we make money.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Anyone care to speculate on the new 4k disc format?