or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Blu-ray 4K UHD - coming 2015?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray 4K UHD - coming 2015? - Page 7

post #181 of 853
On a related question: are all of these new displays and projectors coming out going to stay UHD or will they eventually become actual 4K? It seems like this has to be decided first before they decide whether Blu-ray becomes UHD or 4K.

Kris, thoughts on this?
post #182 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbryan View Post

Regardless of the terminology, how would the process work going from 60fps to 24fps? As you said, 48 to 24 is a simple process. 60 to 24 seems more complex. Can current BD do 60 fps or 30 fps?

Current BD standards don't allow for 1080p60. They wouldn't convert it to 24fps. If you wanted a 24fps look you'd need to use some sort of FI system.
post #183 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Current BD standards don't allow for 1080p60. They wouldn't convert it to 24fps. If you wanted a 24fps look you'd need to use some sort of FI system.

Oddly enough 3D 1080P 60fps has been in the hdmi spec since 1.4b was released on October 11, 2011
post #184 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post

My new year resolution is that when this is the tone of a message, I stop participating.

So happy new year! smile.gif

No tone intended other than poking at the studios for their lack of giving a crap. Certainly no tone intended toward you.
post #185 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post

Oddly enough 3D 1080P 60fps has been in the hdmi spec since 1.4b was released on October 11, 2011

Do you have a link? I can't imagine that the current spec has anywhere near the bandwidth that would be required for this.
post #186 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Do you have a link? I can't imagine that the current spec has anywhere near the bandwidth that would be required for this.

http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/understanding-difference-hdmi-versions
post #187 of 853
So basically the bandwidth for HDMI transmittal. That is far different than the data rate required from a disc spinning to accommodate 1080p60 (especially dual streams for both eyes). Again, I can't see any UHD standard for future Blu-ray including more than 30p, even if you have a whopping 3 films shot at 48p (The Hobbit).
post #188 of 853
Hi there,

here is a sumary of one article published on Kraine's french web site ( http://www.projection-homecinema.fr/2013/12/04/quel-support-de-stockage-pour-les-films-24p-en-uhd/) :

I calculated the rates for each type of UHD@24fps signal and check wich formats (BD, BDXL, next format 300GB storage) supported them.

D%e9bit%20film%207.jpg


Conclusion :
- The current Blu-Ray cannot store movies UHD 24p (limited speed and storage capacity, size incompatible with UHD).
- Same conclusion if the Blu-Ray operated the H.265 codec,
- If BDXL operates H.264, it could store all movies 24p UHD at 4:2:0 8-bit only,
- If BDXL operates H.265, it could store all movies 24p UHD up to 4:4:4 8-bit,
- The only format wich can store all UHD 24p signals is the next format to be released in 2015 ( Sony and Panasonic ).

@+
post #189 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

So basically the bandwidth for HDMI transmittal. That is far different than the data rate required from a disc spinning to accommodate 1080p60 (especially dual streams for both eyes). Again, I can't see any UHD standard for future Blu-ray including more than 30p, even if you have a whopping 3 films shot at 48p (The Hobbit).

Interlaced is not supported for UHD, anymore, and music concerts and sports are usually shot in 50/60fps. So the only way to make 4K Blu-Ray capable of storing this kind of stuff is to add support for 60fps. I think they have no other choice than to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by safe91 View Post

I calculated the rates for each type of UHD@24fps signal

I'm sorry, but your calculations are incorrect. I don't know what kind of formula you used. But e.g. 10bit encoding actually consumes *LESS* bandwidth than 8bit encoding, as weird as it may sound to you. Since you didn't take that properly into account I suppose that all your other calculations are probably incorrect, too. See here if you don't believe me:

http://www.ateme.com/Why-does-10-bit-save-bandwidth
http://x264.nl/x264/10bit_02-ateme-why_does_10bit_save_bandwidth.pdf
post #190 of 853
That article was written by a 3 year old. Valuable post lol.
post #191 of 853
Not only is Madshi correct, but the 300gb panasonic-sony solution mentioned in the article has been confirmed by the BDA as a business archival solution which will not be used for consumer video content:

"It will be an optical disc, but I can't comment on any of the specs," he said, also pointing out that the 300GB format Panasonic and Sony are rumoured to be working on is not the same initiative. "It wasn't part of the BDA," he said. "It's for professional use only so it's something totally separate from Blu-ray."

So IMO the article greatly suffers from the lack of basic research on the subject it is attempting to cover.

However thanks safe91 for posting, it looks like it could have been an interesting article smile.gif
Edited by Manni01 - 12/27/13 at 4:44am
post #192 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post

Not only is Madshi correct, but the 300gb panasonic-sony solution mentioned in the article has been confirmed by the BDA as a business archival solution which will not be used for consumer video content:

"It will be an optical disc, but I can't comment on any of the specs," he said, also pointing out that the 300GB format Panasonic and Sony are rumoured to be working on is not the same initiative. "It wasn't part of the BDA," he said. "It's for professional use only so it's something totally separate from Blu-ray."

So IMO the article greatly suffers from the lack of basic research on the subject it is attempting to cover.

However thanks safe91 for posting, it looks like it could have been an interesting article smile.gif

No problem,

i simply think BDA can say what they want, the next storage format of 300Go doesn't belong to the BDA ... Panasonic and Sony decided to create a new format without BDA authorization/sponsorship because actual capacity limitation of Blu Ray Disc ( 128Go maximum ). We don't even know the technology and name of this new format, but what is sure is that this format will not belong to BDA and will not be called Blu Ray. I assume that, for the moment, the consumer video content application of this new format is not clear but the fact is at 2015, it will be the only physical format who can store a UHD-1 or UHD-2 movie.

@+
post #193 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

I'm sorry, but your calculations are incorrect. I don't know what kind of formula you used. But e.g. 10bit encoding actually consumes *LESS* bandwidth than 8bit encoding, as weird as it may sound to you. Since you didn't take that properly into account I suppose that all your other calculations are probably incorrect, too. See here if you don't believe me:

http://www.ateme.com/Why-does-10-bit-save-bandwidth
http://x264.nl/x264/10bit_02-ateme-why_does_10bit_save_bandwidth.pdf

My calcul for non compressed video signal :

Résolution (Full HD/UHD) x color depth (8, 10, 12 bits) x fréquency (24hz)

Full HD 4:2:0 8 bits : (((1920x1080x8)+(960x540x16))x24 )/8 000 000 = rate of 74,6 MB/s
Full HD 4:2:2 10 bits : (((1920x1080x10)+(960x1080x20))x24 )/8 000 000 = rate of 124,42 MB/s
Full HD 4:4:4 12 bits : ((1920x1080x36)x24 )/8 000 000 = rate of 223,95 MB/s

Compression factor of AVC and HEVC :

- The following link (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338) on Blu-Ray forum identified the average speeds recorded for the video tracks on Blu-Ray depending on the codec used (25Mbit/ s in the case of AVC / H.264 = 3.13 MB / s).
- We calculated the rate of uncompressed video encoded with the only video signal format for Blu-Ray (full HD 8-bit 4:2:0) and the result is 74.6 MB / s
- The average compression factor for AVC / H.264 is 74.6 / 3.13 or 23.85.

To simplify our calculations, we retain the medium compression factor of 24:1. The medium compression factor of HEVC will be 48:1 ( 50% most efficient ).

Etc ...
post #194 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by safe91 View Post

My calcul for non compressed video signal :

Résolution (Full HD/UHD) x color depth (8, 10, 12 bits) x fréquency (24hz)

Full HD 4:2:0 8 bits : (((1920x1080x8)+(960x540x16))x24 )/8 000 000 = rate of 74,6 MB/s
Full HD 4:2:2 10 bits : (((1920x1080x10)+(960x1080x20))x24 )/8 000 000 = rate of 124,42 MB/s
Full HD 4:4:4 12 bits : ((1920x1080x36)x24 )/8 000 000 = rate of 223,95 MB/s

Compression factor of AVC and HEVC :

- The following link (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338) on Blu-Ray forum identified the average speeds recorded for the video tracks on Blu-Ray depending on the codec used (25Mbit/ s in the case of AVC / H.264 = 3.13 MB / s).
- We calculated the rate of uncompressed video encoded with the only video signal format for Blu-Ray (full HD 8-bit 4:2:0) and the result is 74.6 MB / s
- The average compression factor for AVC / H.264 is 74.6 / 3.13 or 23.85.

To simplify our calculations, we retain the medium compression factor of 24:1. The medium compression factor of HEVC will be 48:1 ( 50% most efficient ).

Etc ...

I understand. But I'm sorry to say, your calculation is totally incorrect. Have you read the links I posted in my previous comment? Encoding with 10bit actually consumes less space than encoding with 8bit. Furthermore, the higher the resolution, the more effecient compression is. So you can't just use a fixed compression factor and apply that to the uncompressed video size. It just doesn't work that way! I'm not really an expert in compression, but I know that much.

If you want to get reliable information from experts in the compression field, then I'd suggest that you ask here:

http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77
post #195 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

I understand. But I'm sorry to say, your calculation is totally incorrect. Have you read the links I posted in my previous comment? Encoding with 10bit actually consumes less space than encoding with 8bit. Furthermore, the higher the resolution, the more effecient compression is. So you can't just use a fixed compression factor and apply that to the uncompressed video size. It just doesn't work that way! I'm not really an expert in compression, but I know that much.

If you want to get reliable information from experts in the compression field, then I'd suggest that you ask here:

http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77

Hello,

you are absolutely right : the higher the resolution, the more effecient compression is. First tests shows benefits to be expected are between 40% up to 60% with UHD signal ( HEVC/AVC ). That's why i took a middle fixed compression rates of 50% for HEVC. As you seen, my calculation are very simplified just to show capabilities of expected formats to store movies.

I read your link especially the PDF one :

Quote:
So why does a AVC/H.264 10-bit encoder perform better than 8-bit?
When encoding with the 10-bit tool, the compression process is performed with at least 10-bit accuracy compared to only 8-bit otherwise. So there is less truncation errors, especially in the motion compensation stage, increasing the efficiency of compression tools. As a consequence, there is less need to quantize to achieve a given bit-rate.
The net result is a better quality for the same bit-rate or conversely less bit-rate for the same quality: between 5% and 20% on typical sources.

I understand the purpose here is to compare 8 and 10 bits compression based on quality perception image and not based on theorical rates. It's just a trick to gain space when 10 bits compression is used.

@+
post #196 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by safe91 View Post

As you seen, my calculation are very simplified just to show capabilities of expected formats to store movies.

Yes, but the problem is that your calculation is overall much too pessimistic for UHD, especially for high bitdepths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by safe91 View Post

I read your link especially the PDF one :
I understand the purpose here is to compare 8 and 10 bits compression based on quality perception image and not based on theorical rates. It's just a trick to gain space when 10 bits compression is used.

You can tell any encoder to get along with almost any bitrate you like. You can compress 4Kp60 with 16bit and 4:4:4 with 5Mbps if you want. Of course the final image quality will be terrible at such a low bitrate. But it's possible. So when calculating the amount of storage we need we have to take into account how much bitrate the encoder requires to achieve "transparency" to the original source. And 10bit needs less bitrate than 8bit to achieve the same level of "transparency". So in all fairness it's correct to say that 10bit needs less space than 8bit.
post #197 of 853
Do you know how much lesss bit rate you need when you encode at 10 bits ?
post #198 of 853
I don't really know that. I guess it's just a little bit. I also have no idea whether 12bit will consume more or less space than 8bit and 10bit. The doom9 guys should know all that.
post #199 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Interlaced is not supported for UHD, anymore, and music concerts and sports are usually shot in 50/60fps. So the only way to make 4K Blu-Ray capable of storing this kind of stuff is to add support for 60fps. I think they have no other choice than to support it.

Sports videos and concerts could be done at 30p with little to no issues. This is what is done now as well (but in interlaced for Blu-ray). I realize there are lots of concert Blu-rays but I don't think sports will play a very large role in what the final format supports.
post #200 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Sports videos and concerts could be done at 30p with little to no issues. This is what is done now as well (but in interlaced for Blu-ray). I realize there are lots of concert Blu-rays but I don't think sports will play a very large role in what the final format supports.

I'm not sure if you understand the implications of 30fps? Concert Blu-Rays are encoded in 30fps/60i. Which means that there are 60 interlaced fields which originate from 60 different points in time. After deinterlacing you're getting 60 different progressive frames, each from a different point in time. So every 1/60 second a new frame is shown with a different motion position. Encoding of this content can be in 60 encoded interlaced fields or weaved together as 30 encoded frames (h264 encoders support both concepts). But in both cases every of those 60 fields comes from a different point in time. If you played a Blu-Ray music concert with deinterlacing turned off, you would see loads of combing artifacts.

Now 4K doesn't support interlaced encoding, anymore, at all. That also means that CE 4K Blu-Ray devices will not support deinterlacing for 4K content. Which means that if you encode music concerts in 30p, the only option you have is to cut the real framerate in half, which also cuts motion smoothness in half. This is absolutely visible to the naked eye. Motion would be much less smooth than 1080p Blu-Ray music concerts are. Because of that I don't think this is a valid option. We want to get *better* image quality, not worse.
post #201 of 853
So we won't see any Blu ray in 4K in 2014 then eek.gif
post #202 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post

Not only is Madshi correct, but the 300gb panasonic-sony solution mentioned in the article has been confirmed by the BDA as a business archival solution which will not be used for consumer video content:

"It will be an optical disc, but I can't comment on any of the specs," he said, also pointing out that the 300GB format Panasonic and Sony are rumoured to be working on is not the same initiative. "It wasn't part of the BDA," he said. "It's for professional use only so it's something totally separate from Blu-ray."

That's exactly what they said about Blu ray when it first came out about around 10 years ago, It does not mean that 300GB will not be used for commercial use. Sony & Panasonic are of course in the BDA (Blu ray Disc Association)
post #203 of 853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post

That's exactly what they said about Blu ray when it first came out about around 10 years ago, It does not mean that 300GB will not be used for commercial use. Sony & Panasonic are of course in the BDA (Blu ray Disc Association)

There has already been, some time ago, a 320 GB capacity 10-layer disc based on Blu-ray technology demonstrated by TDK (link HERE). The Sony/Panasonic disc is not Blu-ray based and there is really no point is discussing it here. Also it appears that 3-layer and 4-layer discs (based on existing BD-XL) provide all the capacity needed for 4K UHD.


.
Edited by Ron Jones - 12/27/13 at 12:50pm
post #204 of 853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

So we won't see any Blu ray in 4K in 2014 then eek.gif

In two weeks (CES) we may know the answer as to when Blu-ray 4K will make it to market. At this point I would still guess a late 2014 rollout.
post #205 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

I understand. But I'm sorry to say, your calculation is totally incorrect. Have you read the links I posted in my previous comment? Encoding with 10bit actually consumes less space than encoding with 8bit. Furthermore, the higher the resolution, the more effecient compression is. So you can't just use a fixed compression factor and apply that to the uncompressed video size. It just doesn't work that way! I'm not really an expert in compression, but I know that much.

Yup, REDRay has profiles for 9, 18, and 36Mbps 4K (12 bit, 4:2:2 IIRC). That bandwidth is easily within the current Blu-ray specs.
post #206 of 853
True, but REDRay uses a totally different type of codec. They're using wavelet/fractal type compression, from what I've heard. I think that's quite a bit more math intense than h264/h265. Meaning, more expensive decoder chips etc. The REDRay codec is probably more efficient than h265. But then, I've not seen any direct comparisons yet, so I don't really know.
post #207 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Yup, REDRay has profiles for 9, 18, and 36Mbps 4K (12 bit, 4:2:2 IIRC). That bandwidth is easily within the current Blu-ray specs.

And BluRay specs said also only YcbCr 4:2:0 8 bits signal allowed ...

@+
post #208 of 853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by safe91 View Post

And BluRay specs said also only YcbCr 4:2:0 8 bits signal allowed ...

@+

Correct for the current Blu-ray discs, but the next gen Blu-ray standard is expected to support higher fidelity formats, such as 4:2:2 at 12-bits for 4K UHD video but this next gen standard may not allow for any changes to the encoding of 1080p discs, in order to maintain compatibility with existing Blu-ray players.
post #209 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

Correct for the current Blu-ray discs, but the next gen Blu-ray standard is expected to support higher fidelity formats, such as 4:2:2 at 12-bits for 4K UHD video but this next gen standard may not allow for any changes to the encoding of 1080p discs, in order to maintain compatibility with existing Blu-ray players.

Hello Ron and thank you for information,

Do you know if BluRay "Mastered 4K" has the same limitation ( YUV 4:2:0 8 bits ) ?

Thank you by advance.
post #210 of 853
Yes, it is identical.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Blu-ray 4K UHD - coming 2015?