Predictions for 2013 4K projectors - Page 11

Originally Posted by Highjinx 

Watch that clip again...gents...all the clues are there.

2.38 " Currently the way the media is sent out to the user is via BD data disk, you put that in you're player and transfer the content, we haven't announced details if it will be IP based, maybe start it, buffer it up and watch it later or not........you get to keep the movies as well.."

Sounds the possibility of streaming from the disk....not direct play. Of course the download option as well would make sense.

Originally Posted by mark haflich 

By standard, I think you are saying untill anf if a $K Blueray standard is agreed upon and implemented.

Originally Posted by mark haflich 

YOU do not do it. Sony loads the content onto the server by a BD data disc. There is no reader on the server. The consumer gets no disc because Sony does not want the consumer to have access. Once Sony loads it onto the server's HD, its there forever bu its use is limited to the specific dusplay that the server is loaned for. Remember the server is a loaner and must be returned to Sony when the for purchase server is made available. How content will get to it and correspondingly how content can be purchased and put on the server is not known at this time. That's my take but if I am wrong or not hearing the video correctly, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Highjinx 

You are talking about the current server loaned out to 84" owners.....not the impending server to be released. That server, if that clip is not ficticious, will have the capability to load a BD data disk and transfer the data to it's internal hard drive for storage and play back, not just one film but many...and the purchaser of the BD data disks, gets to keep the data disk.

What the clip again, the text in quotes is from the clip:

At the 2.38 minute point:

"Currently the way the media is sent out to the user is via BD data disk, you put that in you're player and transfer the content, we haven't announced details if it will be IP based, maybe start it, buffer it up and watch it later or not........you get to keep the movies(disks) as well.."

This is a data disk, no BD specification needs to be worked out....it's data deciphered internally by the server/PS4, they can change it as often as they like with no issues.......one simply downloads(automatically) the new decode alg....the server is essentially a PC, as is most of the PS4 architecture.

Originally Posted by Seegs108 

It cannot stay this way. There NEEDS to be a standard created and here's why. The only content that these servers are getting (no matter the delivery method) are Sony titles and independent films/clips that Sony has authored. They playback and output correctly because the video and audio are encoded to a specification that Sony has made which ensures everything plays back and outputs properly on the hardware/software they have chosen to put into that server. What happens when Time Warner or Universal (or any other studio) wants to start selling their films in the 4K/UHD format? They need to know how to author the the information and encode the video/audio in a way that will play on a media server properly. Sony is VERY unique because it's a huge conglomerate which happens to manufacture every facet needed to film, encode and reproduce things any which way they want. There isn't another company like that. You aren't going to see Universal, MGM, Time Warner, ect making their own server so they will need to know how to encode the video so it will work on a specific media player. If you think Sony is going to be the only player in town with a 4K/UHD delivery system you're in a dream world. This is why there needs to be consistency in the encoding and delivery system. These studios do not want to limit themselves to a small market and pick and choose which media player/company they want their movies played back on. It doesn't make sense financially to do so. There will be a "4K Blu-ray player" with specific specifications on bit-rates, bit depths, chroma levels, codecs, output, ect and I don't think that every company will want to do the disc-to-harddrive delivery system. It's redundant and time consuming for consumers.

If this is how Sony chooses to do it until the specifications are created, that's fine. But I seriously doubt this will stick for the long run. Mark my words.

Originally Posted by Highjinx 

How many video codecs are there for the PC, and how many new ones keep coming...AVI, MPG MPEG, ASF WMV, MP4, FLV etc........all output in a common display understood signal stream. All the playback software needs to do is figure out the input format, the data base for this can continually evolve. Why lock into any set parameters, except to the output parameters, it's backward redundant thinking. If a new compression alg is devevloped or improved, they can implement it immediately, all that will be required is a software update so the play back device can understand the 'new' BD data stream.. The decoded stream stored on the HD and played from there, no need to worry about optical disk spin rates etc.

Originally Posted by Seegs108 

You aren't making a whole lot of sense to me. For some reason you have this naive view on this situation and think that a standalone server/4K media player is going to have some random chipset that has processing power beyond what is needed. You need to look at all of this from outside the bubble. These company's couldn't give a damn about what we want. For them, its about making money. What they are going to build is something that is as cost effective as possible to maximize profit. For example, why do you think cable providers chose to stick with MPEG2 for broadcasts? As far as compression algorithms go, it doesn't stand a chance against MPEG4 or even VC-1. So then why did they do it? IT"S CHEAPER. Plain and simple. Chipsets to decode MPEG2 are much cheaper because they don't require as much processing power to do so.
First of all, those are all containers, not codecs and while the output to a display to and from HDMI is the same no matter the codec being used you seem to be generalizing that it doesn't matter the compression method used. It does and in a huge way. H.265 can ideally cut down the file size/bit-rates in half because of better algorithms. While that's great and all, this means we need even more powerful processing power than ever before to decode that information. Also, the difference in processing power it takes to decode 8-bit versus 10-bit video is large. If you then take into consideration along with huge fluctuations in bit-rate (as you propose without setting parameters) and higher chroma sampling rates on top of the higher bit-depth you would need an exceptionally powerful computer to be prepared to take on whatever anyone chooses to encode the information in.

They aren't going to invest money into creating another compression algorithm. They've been working on H.265 for years now and that WILL be the codec used. These things cost money. Let's get real and stop pretending.

Say you purchase this Sony server and it's made in the way you propose. It has free range to decode whatever it wants. The server will have limitations with it's processing power. Plain and simple. It will only be able to decode H.264/H.265 to a certain bitrate before faltering. Every computer has it's limits. This is why there needs to be a standard so there aren't any issues. The standard is there to make sure people feel comfortable with their purchase. They know that from now until the next format is released (8K or whatever) this player will play anything realeased by the studios in 4K. Why would I want to take a chance or have to buy another player down the road because it can't play things correctly? If people know what to expect from the video/audio they can build an architecture around that to ensure smooth playback and output.

Originally Posted by mark haflich 

The required servers for what is going to haopen at least initially *the cinibf for purchase Sony server shown under glass at CES and the coming Red Redray server would be considered hardware although they are just basically computer servers and thus within your discussion computers not hardware? Actually CD players and bluray players and d/a coverters are just portions of a computer gussied up more or less.

Originally Posted by whitetrash66 

Well, what does everybody think? There is a lot of new 4K tvs coming out this year from Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Westinghouse, and other brands that are cheaper. What do you all think about the fall? any new announcements for 4K projectors coming up? will next years JVC projectors be 4K finally? TRUE 4K? will sony release a successor to the VW1000 (hopefully cheaper as well)?

Originally Posted by mark haflich 

Not a great interview with improper conclusions set forth by the young lady.

As to healthy, i suppose such speculation might keep one from otherwise getting introuble with idle time but there are simply no facts available at this time to make projector projections.

What we are getting is wish lists.

Originally Posted by zombie10k 

This article claims 64% of ISP's in the US have a download cap.

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/

Verizon FIOS doesn't for now, but likely will once they see people downloading 100+ GB files on a regular basis. I'd still prefer a high capacity BD, it makes it more readily available for those who don't have that kind of bandwidth or living under ISP caps.

3 movies a month would be the current limit under Comcast's rules. Then $10 per each 50GB extra. This doesn't scale, they need to find a better way to get these massive files to the end users.

Originally Posted by zombie10k 

This article claims 64% of ISP's in the US have a download cap.

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/

Verizon FIOS doesn't for now, but likely will once they see people downloading 100+ GB files on a regular basis. I'd still prefer a high capacity BD, it makes it more readily available for those who don't have that kind of bandwidth or living under ISP caps.

3 movies a month would be the current limit under Comcast's rules. Then $10 per each 50GB extra. This doesn't scale, they need to find a better way to get these massive files to the end users.

Originally Posted by Manni01 

I hope this will help with UHD bluray the way you describe, however unless you sit 50" from a 50" TV, there is really very little point in buying a 4K display of that size for video/movie content.
Even with an 84-88" display, you have to sit very close (around 1SW) to see any difference with a 1080p display (except for passive 3D, as this gets much better, but the display you mention has no 3D).
So hopefully lots of people will fall for the marketing of 4K instead of thinking "do I need this in my set up".
42" displays look fine with 768p panels in most living rooms, and 1080p is enough up to at least 60", if not 65" IMHO, unless you use these as giant computer monitors of course.
I have an 88" diag 16/9 display and 4K does very little by itself as the increase in resolution is simply not visible from my sitting distance (12ft). This is the main reason why I stuck to 1080p to date.
So it's the same chicken and egg situation. Unless a 4K standard for content brings more to the table than a simple increase in resolution that doesn't improve the picture quality unless your display is huge and/or you sit very close to it, why would people pay $2000 for a 50" display when they can get exactly the same picture quality for half less?

We need cheaper BIG displays. 88"+ UHDTV or 4K projectors for less than $10K. That will do it!

The pipe to most homes in the US with vendor limits do not support 4K download.