4K… I have Seen The Light - Page 7

See my previous edited post. You don't need anything more than a DL 50GB BD to do 2160P.

With the advancement of H.265 HEVC over H.264, in the not too distant future - say 18 months to 2 years, you may see Hollywood using 25GB single layer BDs for movies with absolutely no difference in PQ or AQ versus todays 50Gb DL BDs (1080x24P + HD Lossless Audio).

Sell 600 million BDs a year - drop the cost per unit by $.30 by going from DL to SL = $180 million per year in savings.

I saw that.
But you can always use more...it alll depends on bit rate. We dont have to be satisfied with current bit rate and compression . Uncompressed 1080p is few terabytes. Its same thing as MP3 320Kbps being almost same as uncompressed audio till few years ago. But you cant stop technology from progressing. If sony doesn't come up with more storage , some one else will and patent it. It is bound to happen. 3 years ago, we would have said 1080 P is more than enough for resolution of our eyes while viewing a 60" TV at regular distance, but that's going to be obsolete in 5-10 yrs and 4K will be new 1080p and so on. Just my thoughts...
If I owned Sony or Panasonic, I wont be complacent and waiting for some one else to come up with 100 GB BD ROM or something else. Thats usually the beginning of your downfall.

mani

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is responsible for all things BD, not Sony.

Ever heard of a 66.8GB DL BD? Something developed by Sony and Panasonic. They say they were submitting their work to the BDA for approval . . . that was over 2.5 years ago:

http://hothardware.com/News/334GB-Bluray-Layers-Could-Lead-To-More-Spacious-Optical-Discs/

Adding layers doesn't do anyting for the bit rate. It stays the same. But spinning the disc faster does increase the bit rate.

Which do you think they would go with for 4K BD?

1. A proven replication technology with a new video compression codec

2. A brand new - never been done replication technology and either an existing video compression codec or a new one

Do we know for a fact that current BD ROM replication lines can easily (READ: Cheaply) be modified to replicate 4 layer BDs?
Edited by Lee Stewart - 9/21/12 at 7:26pm

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1428971/4k-bluray-seems-closer

This may be of interest. 4k transmissions @50mbps........then 10-20mbps.

Dual layer BD is all that may be required.

Don't forget that in all of this discussion, given that the size for any particular density movie is a fixed target, the flash or standard ROM memory world might well have caught up by then.

By the time it becomes easy to make a 100GB BD-ROM readable at the right rate (isn't that largely solvable by a large cache by the way?) a 100GB USB/Thunderbolt/whatever memory ROM/flash memory stick might become the most alluring physical medium.

Or less clumsy words to that effect. Criminey. Not enough caffeine yet.

Is that going to happen in the next 15 to 18 months?

What makes you think that a 50 GB BD can't be used for 4K? That the physical media has to be 100 GB?

How much would it cost on a per unit basis for a 50GB movie on a ROM flash memory stick - say you were making 500,000 of them. How long would it take you to make those 500,000 movie included ROM flash memory sticks? First you have to make the sticks right? Then you have to load the movie on them right?

I don't. I was just picking a number that was bantered about. Pick 50 if it makes you feel better.

Remember, I'm talking about the future here.

Loading? No, that's why I said ROM. Read only memory has been mass produced with dedicated bits forever.

OK - 50GB - fits on a DL BD. No new physical media needed
.
So you are saying they manufacturer the stick and load the movie in the same manufacturing process - at the same time? Not two seperate manfacturing processes?

http://www.hometoys.com/emagazine/2012/04/beyond-blu-ray/1917
Edited by Lee Stewart - 9/22/12 at 7:27am

As some pointed out. But what of 60fps and (God willing)120fps native recordings?

Besides I was mostly referring to your comment here: where you refer to 4 layer. The race to cheap 4 layer might be fundamentally difficult; the race to cheaper memory sticks might overtake it.
.
Well actually yes I was talking about a mask ROM, but I see your point in that they're currently not quick to make from pre-fab to fab. Not yet anyway. In any case, the sum of all the steps required would certainly shorten over time, even in the case of various EEPROM technology, no?

The point here is twofold:

1. The 4K technology is not the end of the line. Nothing ever is. Neither have we reached anywhere near what many would love to see the max frames per second. There might be a fundamental physics problem with adding ever more layers to BD technology cheaply that causes the per-bit curve to start rising badly in a hard to move way. This may or may not be the case with memory.
   
2. Despite the acronym, ROMs are random access. There are things about having control over the entirety of a movie that are superior to a spinning disk. Perhaps the per-bit cost need not *beat* the disk technology per se, but just descend low enough to make it enough of a noise in comparison to the cost of a movie.

I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

Perhaps you'll find this interesting:


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/movies-coming-to-a-memory-stick-near-you-1814465.html

As we have seen, video compression codecs improved with time. At this time, there are no industry wide plans to change the shooting frame rate of movies from 24 to 48 or 60 or higher. Yes there will be The Hobbit movies shot in 3D at 48 fps. What other movies have been announced and are in pre-production that will use a higher than 24 fps shooting rate? (you can skip the Avatar sequels - they won't start for another 3 years).

Did you know that a 3D BD does not need 100% more storage than a regular BD. It only needs about 50% more storage. That little miracle is preformed by the special video codec used to author 3D BDs - AVC MVC

I made an EDIT to my post and I see it was done after you responded. It discusses using SS Memory Sticks for movies and how impractical it would be.

4K is definitely not the end of the line. We already know what that is . . . 8K. At least for consumers.

SSD's might be great for use as a media to hold Hi-Res movies that have been downloaded. But as a prerecorded media (like VHS, LD or Optical disc) they will always be too expensive.

One of the things I pointed out is that ROM need not actually BEAT the bit per movie cost. Your argument else-thread said this: seems to imply that it need to drop below the cost of disks, which wasn't the entirety of my point. My point allowed for the process to reach noise in comparison to the cost of movies. Actually it need not even need to be noise. Just viable.

I'm sorry, there's nothing in your link nor your arguments that makes a compelling reason for "always too expensive". The argument might well sustain "never be lower than disk" which is fine. But where is the wall stopping the eventual release on memory sticks? It need only be viable for a movie.

Further, if the interface is chosen appropriately (pick one), it will have significant forward compatibility to any movie format in the future. For your idea to stay with disks requires that the players themselves change with each increasing demand in size, as soon as it no longer fits.

Manufacturing SSDs with prerecorded movies will always be more expensive than replicating them on optical discs simply from a manufaturing process. Something they can't improve on. If they could, they would have already done it. Hollywood wants to keep their costs down for physical media, not increase them forcing them to increase their prices. The sell-tru market has been in decline for 5 years in a row. It has lost almost 50% of it's sales. Consumers have become ultra price sensitive.

Again, I'll accept that perhaps the memory (BTW, I still think mask ROM is not out of the question) will never outrace the disk, but it doesn't need to regardless of how hurt the industry is. It just needs to become low enough to allow a sensible price. It does after all bring with it an advantage that the market might well be willing to adopt. For instance, the TV's themselves would play the movie, not some hokey external player. AND as I said, there is a lure to having an interface that can connect to even enormous amounts of data.

We can drop this conversation, we're at an odd impasse. We each maintain that we're not accepting enough variables, and we each have established in our own minds that we have. I can't explain it further except to counter everything you think is a counter.

On the fun stuff.

Hollywood has been operating on a 700% markup on optical discs. What costs them $2 (fully packaged ready to be shipped) they sell to wholesalers and large retailers for $14. If your SSD costs $10, then Hollywood's markup drops to 40%. Even if it costs $5, their markup is only 280%. That is less than half of what they are making today. They can't raise their prices because consumers will balk just like they have with BD.

Sure - you continue to use "what if" while I continue to use WHAT IS.

Well....Blu Ray association includes sony. Sony and Phillips came up with UDO and DVR blue Diodes which eventually became BluRay. Blu Ray association is just association of several companies which inlcudes Sony. So it is still companies like LG, Sony Samsung etc , which will invent new standard and not the Blu Ray Association, they will just create a standard that everyone will eventually adhere to.
And bit rate and total storage are co dependent. If you have a 50 Mbps video playing , that will require 3000 Mbits of data in i minute and 180000 Mbits in 1 hr and 360000 Mb in 2 hrs which is 45 GB. Now if you increase the fixed bitrate to 100 Mbps, you will need 90 GB of data for 2 hrs. Yes you can fit 4K material on 50 GB . But if yoy have less compressed data , it should be better. If you dont believe in more data/details being better , then why worry about going from 1080p to 4k or 8k..!1

So why wont movie tehaters use 50 GB blu ray disc to run the 4k movies and why several terabytes of hard drive to run a 4K movie, if there is no difference. More storage is bound to happen, its just matter of time.
Yes if you compress it enough , I sure you can put 4k content on a DVD as well

You have consumer video, you have professional video. A consumer 4K movie will be nothing like a professional 4K movie. The only thing they will have in common is the moniker "4K." They won't even use the same pixel count.

If you haven't figured it out by now, here is a clue, consumer video gives use what the CEMs and Hollywood deem we should have . . . and not one bit more.

You will see the difference on screens from 16 feet wide and upwards.
From 16 feet wide screens and downwards the difference between DCP formats and compressed consumer formats will be less and less noticeable the smaller the screen gets.
4K original digital film captured and scanned at a higher than 4K resolution compress easier and with less loss of quality than 2K original sources compressed to a consumer format.

Could you speak in degrees [of viewer's field of view], please? Thank you.

IMO, the difference is greater than what you are making it out to be because 4K Digital Cinema:

Bigger Dynamic Range
Bigger Gray Scale
Bigger Chroma Subsampling Rate
Bigger Color Gamut

All things that can be seen on screens smaller than 16 feet wide.

I use an 8 ft wide screen, so it will be interesting to see. If my experience with the new iPad is any indication (I thought the added resolution would be wasted on a tiny screen but it is not) perhaps even smaller screens will indeed benefit - particularly once native sources become available.

Most people here who believe that beyond certain point it doesn't matter as our eyes cant resolve the pixels are blinded by limited knowledge we have of workings of human brain and perception of light and image being projected on our retina. It may be true that beyond a certain point we may not be able to discern the pixels , but that doesn't mean that our brain can't tell a difference between 2 megapixel image and 20 megapixel image on 10 ft wide screen , being viewed from 10 feet away. Our visual perception/brain is still way more complex than any camera /projector made yet. Imagine looking a a bright sunlit beach , and you can still see all shadow details and see people in shade so clearly while also enjoying brightly lit waves and white clouds. And try taking that picture with 8000 dollar camera and you will have to spend hours on photoshop to make sure that parts of image in bright sunlight and in shade are discernible and are not too clipped. There are aspects of hearing and visual perception which cant be defined in physical parameters that we know of yet. As you pointed out if you hold iPAD 2 and ipad 3 at a distance beyond which our eyes shouldn't be able to differentiate resolution, you can still tell which has higher resolution , although you cant see pixel structure.

Those are two different things. You can still benefit from higher resolution (up to a point) even when pixel grid / structure isn't visible.

About your example: 10 ft wide screen viewed from 10 ft away, 2 megapixel image against 20 megapixel image. Angular resolution for 2 megapixel image is 33 pixels per degree (of viewer's field of view) and angular resolution of 20 megapixel image is 104 pixels per degree. Even those who believe in most conservative estimations of visual acuity would agree that you'd be able to tell the difference between 33 ppd and 104 ppd.

Well you can make it 20 feet , you still will be able to tell the difference between 1080p native content being played on that screen vs 4K native content on a 4k projectore

Whats the point?? we can't even get quality streamed1080p content, without a source what is the point?

What, 20 feet wide screen with viewing distance of 10 feet? Is that what you're saying?

No ..other way around...I think we were talking about viewing distance

Well then there is no point of this whole thread, or of 4K projectors or TV's that are being made !!!!
The point is that advancement needs to start somewhere. Content will eventually come as demand grows. If they had made 4K content first and there were no 4K displays yet , then you will say whats the point of 4K content as there is no way to see it. So given the complexities of the world events will take their due course and eventually there will be both 4K displays and content. Whether it is going to be 1 yr or 5 yrs , who knows...