UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice? 332
An anonymous reader writes Details have emerged on the new UHD Blu-ray spec and players set to start shipping this summer. UHD promises resolutions 4X greater than Blu-ray 1080p as well as much higher data rates, enhanced color space and more audio options. But, will consumers care, and will they be willing to upgrade their HDTV's, AV Receivers, and Blu-ray players to adopt a new format whose benefits may only be realized on ultra large displays or close viewing distances? The article makes the interesting point that UHD isn't synonymous with 4K, even if both handily beat the resolution of most household displays.
I won't notice (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even have a Blu-ray player. :)
Re:I won't notice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I won't notice (Score:5, Insightful)
A human adult with average vision can't distinguish anything much above current HD resolutions from normal TV viewing distances at typical physical TV screen dimensions either. This is one of the big problems all the businesses creating flashy new 4K TVs haven't quite worked out how to deal with yet.
Meanwhile, plenty of people still have DVD players rather than Blu-Ray, because even moving to HD doesn't make much difference for a lot of material in practice, and the old "get them to buy Star Wars for the seventeenth time two step" has run out of music.
Then you have to consider the rise of on-line sources and the generally poor experience of the physical disc systems. Most of that poor experience isn't actually because of swapping discs. It's because of all the other silly things that all legally manufactured players are required using tortured legal tricks to implement, preventing otherwise obvious improvements in competing devices such as skipping to the !~%# movie straight away.
So personally, I'm expecting 4K and other very high resolution formats to flop outside of niche markets, like say luxury home cinema systems with a projector and a screen several metres across. Even where they do get adopted, I'm expecting the market to demand less messy distribution, which would make any sort of disc-based successor to Blu-Ray even less likely to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
So personally, I'm expecting 4K and other very high resolution formats to flop outside of niche markets, like say luxury home cinema systems with a projector and a screen several metres across.
I don't think so. I think it'll keep going until 72" TVs are cheap enough for the masses to own or something like that HoloLens Microsoft was talking about matures. IMO one or the other will happen by 2030, at which point it will stop at 8k (however studio masters will be at 16k so that they can downres for a sharper 8k image, similar to how present 4k is downresed from 8k for the same reason.)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has to keep in mind that the big screen high definition display is still far, far cheaper than a picture window with a good view and it can do far more with out disrupting the insulative affect of walls by putting holes in them. So one for every room, price being the driving issue.
Of course when it comes to content distributor, (buying the same content again and again under new marketing) and manufacturer (you must upgrade) PR=B$ and the latest double vision, the actors with botox and plastic su
Re:I won't notice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, I'm perfectly happy to use $12 Blu Ray disks (6-12 months after a film comes to video) and a $300 37" HDTV for entertainment. 4K is gorgeous, but didn't buy an HDTV until my previous television was ten years old and I could get an HDTV for $300 or less. Once a 37
Re: (Score:3)
"I disagree. I've watched a Blu Ray played on a 50" HDTV at 1920x1080 resolution, and next to it a 50" 4K (3880xwhatever) television was playing some UHD content. The difference in definition was very easy to see from even ten feet away."
On a mall, I bet.
Maybe you are an expert and I'm wrong, but you probably were fooled to think the UHD was better by gaming the controls of both screens.
Re:I won't notice (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if Sony and their idiot partners had not made such an absolute hash of the Blu ray experience by excessive DRM, offensive warnings that can't be skipped and crass shovelware loading of endless previews that are opt out (and sometimes, randomly either can't be fast forwarded or can't be skipped) and super slow clumsy content menus due to the braindamaged Java tie then consumers might actually care about the next Blu Ray standard. But Sony did make a hash of it and delivered an experience that makes you want to throw a shoe at the TV every time. The kick in the face that just keeps kicking. Sorry, no more crappy optical disks rubbing my face in whatever a content provider wants to rub my face in. Solid state, hard disk or streaming for me, Blu Ray can fuck off and die, and so can Sony.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I won't notice (Score:5, Informative)
Try VLC. It is the only thing I will use to watch DVDs these days. For one thing you can start playing the film immediately for most discs, just stick it in and load with menus skipped. For those discs that put other crap in the 1-1 position, loading to the menu means just that. No preview bullshit, no restricted navigation, no tedious animated menu effects, just straight to the navigation point, click play and the film starts without every other authoritative government's angry and unskippable piracy warnings.
Re:I won't notice (Score:4, Interesting)
At the viewing distances and screen size I use, I can certainty see a considerable difference.
What is your screen size and distance? You don't say. And you see the difference between what? Standard definition and HD? Or HD and 4k?
I doubt very much you see the difference between HD and 4k, because while 4k TVs are being sold, there is almost no 4k media being sold. So any difference you might see is a result of artificial upsampling. You're fooling yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, pixel density is a relation between resolution and physical size, so if you think resolution means pixel density, you learned things the wrong way.
NO.
Pixel density is measured in pixels per inch. THAT is the relation between pixels and physical size, just like physical density is a relationship between mass and size. It is an "intrinsic" property, meaning it doesn't matter how big your bar of gold is, it still has the same density.
Resolution, which today is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Centimeter), is also an intrinsic property, in that sense. The resolution of your screen has nothing at all to do with its size. A screen that is 1 inch square
Re:I won't notice (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's try an example. Enter "resolution" into google. What does it say?
the degree of sharpness of a computer-generated image as measured by the number of dots per linear inch in a hard-copy printout or the number of pixels across and down on a display screen. Their resolution never failed them, their fervour seemed never slackened.
Google says you are wrong.
Let's see what Microsoft says. Right click your desktop, and choose "Screen Resolution". What does it say? Microsoft says:
Resolution: 2560x1440 (Recommended)
Boy those silly software guys must have got it all wrong. Let's check the hardware guys... How about dell?
http://accessories.us.dell.com... [dell.com]
Under tech spec, that monitor says:
Native Resolution 1920 x 1200
Guess the hardware guys are wrong too. So who uses it the one true "Jane Q. Public" way?
Re: (Score:3)
But it is a common usage. Ask 9/10 people what it means and they will provide the meaning you claim to be incorrect, as we have seen here. You're fighting the windmills.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also what's on Wikipedia.
You didn't read far enough, wise guy. [wikipedia.org]
Note that for broadcast television standards the use of the word resolution here is a misnomer, though common. The term "display resolution" is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 x 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: broadcast television resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Just as I wrote earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Some movies skip DVD and go straight to BD (Score:2)
Movies have already started to skip DVD. Ishtar, for example, is on Blu-ray but not DVD. You'll notice the difference between Blu-ray and no movie at all unless perhaps you're deafblind.
Re: (Score:3)
Movies have already started to skip DVD. Ishtar, for example, is on Blu-ray but not DVD. You'll notice the difference between Blu-ray and no movie at all unless perhaps you're deafblind.
Do you have any examples of this other than one of the biggest bombs Hollywood ever made? It probably was never released on DVD due to dismal VHS sales.
There is one thing that I notice (Score:2, Insightful)
Forget the resolution. Increase the frame rate!
Every fast action movie or sporting event is just so choppy. I want 120 frames per second.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm supposed to by some low density read only plastic disk with a movie on it with heavy DRM. To put into a player that is beholden to the media companies who happen to have a horrid history for security.
I'll stay with downloaded content, aside from an unlikely unrecoverable raid 6 failure they content is mine and I can do what I like with it forever. No I do not want to rent your content, I do not want to have to view it on approved displays (I'm still using a pre HDMI 1080 CRT 10+ years old). I do n
Re:I won't notice [actually you will notice HDR] (Score:4, Informative)
As the article states, two of the most important changes in this standard are high dynamic range (HDR) and wider color gamut (Rec. 2020) images. I have been working on this with Dolby Laboratories for the last few years, and whenever we bring in movie directors, cinematographers, colorists, or studio executives to see our ridiculously HDR wide-color-gamut display, their jaws hit the floor. The ability to reproduce the dynamic range and color gamut of real life is breathtaking. One of the studio executives, when asked if she could see the difference said "Do I look like a potted palm?"
You will see the difference, and you'll be able to see it from across the room. HDR and wide color gamut combined with UHD resolution is a revolution.
I know this sounds like a sales pitch (ok, it is!) but I've been working in the film business for 30 years before I started working on this; I know what creatives want, and this is it. I spent that time working on CG visual effects, and I think that HDR will have a comparable impact on filmmaking that VFX did.
The Dolby Cinema theaters opening in the next few months will have similar extreme dynamic range and wide color gamut. They look astonishingly better as well.
Wait and see. It's coming, and it's not far away.
Re: (Score:3)
Will the displays calibrate themselves?, and provide some useful fudge setting for people that like their display brighter to see the details easily.
Most people badly set their brightness or whatever it is (and they don't want me to turn it down) whereas that's really glaring to me as I'm used to deep blacks.
If there were gamma in the TV manus instead of just "brightness" it would be a good thing already (that's what I like anyway, in small amount).
With HDR, you'll vitally need some "smart" setting I believ
Re: (Score:3)
The Dolby Vision TVs will have reasonable controls to set brightness and contrast, but one of the selling points to the studios is that we will strive to maintain the artistic intent of the original. The blacks will be black, the whites will be white, and there will be an unprecedented (but realistic) amount of contrast.
It turns out that in high dynamic range content creation, the most important thing is not that the picture be brighter overall; but that there is an increased range between midtones and hig
Re: I won't notice (Score:2)
I've never seen a DVD that looks good on an HD TV above 40 inches. Same goes for H.264 SD content, which has a better encoding potential.
It always just looks like a blurry mess. Not totally unwatchable, but also not as enjoyable either.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. I have a 46" 1080p HDTV and sit around 10 feet from it. I have compared DVD and Blu-ray versions of some of the same movies that I bought on both mediums. The difference is night and day. If I watch on my 1080p computer monitor, 23" and I sit about 2 feet away, it is even more noticeable.
DVDs anno
Doubtful (Score:2)
I just upgraded to an HDTV (from a mid 90s tube tv), so no.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
And the content on TV has progressively gotten worse since the 70's.
70's had cheesy TV shows that you could at least smile at. The TV shows today - they are either just stupid or depressing.
The future is not UHD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: The future is not UHD (Score:5, Interesting)
Any TV you can buy today can do 60 fps over HDMI. The frame rate push has been done for years, the content just never showed up:
It's also arguable if that's the future. Everyone seems pretty happy with the current refresh rates of film, and 60 fps Hobbit wasn't well received.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For me, The Hobbit wasn't well-received because 300 pages of children's book does not equal three feature length films, and stereoscopic 3D is a detraction. The higher frame rate was in the otherwise barren "plus" column.
The Hobbit in 48 fps (Score:2)
I thought The Hobbit was shot in high-motion. Besides, a lot of more expensive TVs have an option for motion interpolation to turn 24 fps source into (artifacty) 120 fps.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought The Hobbit was shot in high-motion
It was, but no one else seems to be following along. It also seems like 48 fps might hit an uncanny valley spot in the eye -- the better rate might be 60 or 72 Hz. [accidentalscientist.com] (linked article is speculation, but interesting).
Besides, a lot of more expensive TVs have an option for motion interpolation to turn 24 fps source into (artifacty) 120 fps
It's usually called "Motion flow" or "motion interpolation," and it usually makes the source material look much much worse. Home theater installers worth their salt know to turn it off. It may or may not be worth it for live sports.
Fragmentation of a Market (Score:2)
Rarely works out well.
The answer is always no (Score:5, Insightful)
When a slashdot submission asks a question, the answer is always no. And this case is no exception.
UHD promises resolutions 4X greater than Blu-ray 1080p as well as much higher data rates, enhanced color space and more audio options. But, will consumers care, and will they be willing to upgrade their HDTV's, AV Receivers, and Blu-ray players
No, no they won't. 1080p is already really good. What we will notice, however, is high-resolution monitors getting cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to TVs, yes... but projectors would see a huge benefit. When you project 1080p onto a 120+" screen, things definitely start getting a bit fuzzy.
Of course, that's a niche market, but it could be enough to drive the prices down into somewhat reasonable category. Projectors themselves have gotten cheap enough that way..
Re: (Score:2)
Edge detail vs. texture detail (Score:2)
Unless you're seriously only concerned with being able to locate the edge of straight lines
The edges of objects in a photograph are fairly close to straight lines, especially once you zoom in. So when you double the width and height, edge detail doubles and texture detail quadruples. You might be thinking of the latter.
Don't need this yet (Score:3)
Re:Don't need this yet (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seeing more and more 70"+ HDTVs for sale in stores, so I have to believe people are buying them. That's about the point when 1080p starts to become limiting [videograndpa.com] at typical living room distances (about 8 ft between sofa and TV). Theoretical max for a room with 8' ceilings is just shy of 200 inches at 16:9, so there's still a lot of room for TVs to potentially grow. Add in more cameras capable of recording 4k, and 4k is going to gain traction in the next 5-10 years whether you want it or not. I've already decided that when the bulb on my current projector deteriorates, I'm just going to replace it with a 4k projector.
Re:Don't need this yet (Score:4, Informative)
You're doing it completely wrong. You need to get a clue about viewing distance and the ratio between display size and it.
You're one of those guys who thinks he has this kick ass awesome setup because you made it bigger, but really, you just made it shittier.
You should at least get the most basic of clues from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]
At no point should your display be larger than the distance you're viewing it from, thats just retarded.
Too late! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too late! (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, does that hurt. I'm afraid you're right to a very large extent. I could certainly upgrade from a 42" 1080 p screen, but unless I sit really close with my glasses on, it doesn't make much difference.
The nieces and nephews think the TV is something akin to a slide rule - an interesting historical object of little daily import. If it doesn't go on the laptop screen or the phone, it doesn't get watched.
Except for the Star Wars laser disks but that's another sad tech story.....
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm constantly asked if my 720p is a 4k. A good recei
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
>"But, will consumers care, and will they be willing to upgrade their HDTV's, AV Receivers, and Blu-ray players to adopt a new format whose benefits may only be realized on ultra large displays or close viewing distances?"
Nope
4K is such a crazy marketing gimmick. Most of the population can already barely tell the difference between a quality DVD upscale and a Bluray at any reasonable size or distance. The manufacturers *want* to keep making everything obsolete so people "have" to keep buying new stuff, and re-buying their content over and over.
Re: (Score:3)
Reminds me of how VGA could readily handle higher resolutions than modern displays, component video even better, but everything had to be digital so they could sneak in their DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
The industry already has a problem convincing people that they need HD. A lot of people don't have the enthusiast sorts of setups where it would really matter. Or rather, most people don't.
A lot of people are skipping 3D too.
The industry got fat off of a forced technology switch. They were on the gravy train for awhile and don't want to go back. It never occured to them that they were experiencing an unsustainable bubble.
Now they want to throw all sorts of nonsense at us in a desperate attempt to keep the g
Re: Nope (Score:2)
Industry is having trouble convincing people they need HD? A large majority of the market switched to HD. They're not having trouble convincing the market to adopt HD. They already did.
That's why they ended up doing 3D because their market dried up when everyone had an HDTV.
Re: Nope (Score:4, Informative)
A large majority of the market switched to HD. They're not having trouble convincing the market to adopt HD. They already did.
I know of people who have their HD set hooked up to cable and satellite boxes with RF cables...and then they stretch the SD image because they think they're not getting what they paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that because cable providers charge more per year for high-definition service?
Re: (Score:2)
You want to know how noticeable? You can see the little hairs on peoples arms, that's how noticeable it is.
I can't see the hairs on real people 10 feet away (for normal arm hair), if I can see the hairs on someone's arm on TV, why are they zoomed in on someone's arm?
They would not be investing so much money into 4k if it was just a marketing gimmick like you say.
By that standard, 3D isn't a gimmick. But nearly everyone still agrees it is. And, so long as people with 1080p at home, look at my 720p and ask if it's 4k, I'll believe that there's something else to it. Good settings on the TV, high quality input material, scaled properly seems to make more of a difference than pixels. At least with people with
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I can't see the hairs on real people 10 feet away (for normal arm hair), if I can see the hairs on someone's arm on TV, why are they zoomed in on someone's arm?
I suspect that the format might fit a certain popular film niche, in which seeing the actor's body hairs is in fact considered a desirable feature.
Re: (Score:2)
>"So by most you mean 51% of the 7 billion or so out there?"
Reasonable setup- 60" TV viewed at 8 feet:
No, by "most" I would estimate 75% of people off the street would not be able to tell you they were watching an upscaled DVD on that setup instead of 720P or 1080P (without showing them that) and be perfectly happy. Maybe 50% of those 75% would probably still not even notice a difference if you flipped between the upscaled DVD and a 1080P source in that same setup.
And I would estimate 99% of people off
Uh...no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the days of NTSC, a standard that lasted half a lifetime. This upgrade-your-TV-every-6 months crap is getting old. And get off my lawn.
Some of us grew up with PAL, which made HD even less of a priority.
Quite frankly 720 or compressed-to-shreds 1080i isn't worth the effort c.f. PAL, and although proper 1080p from BluRay is rather more impressive, I can't say it has spoiled me for anything less - a PAL DVD on a ~40" HD screen with upsampling doesn't exactly make you want to claw your eyes out.
Re: (Score:2)
TV system doesn't match (Score:2)
PAL/NTSC doesn't really exist in DVDs (yes, I know people will argue that, but I can put any DVD from any region, NTSC or PAL into my old DVD player and it'll output what NTSC or PAL based on a software switch).
Not all DVD players can do that. I own a copy of Wobbl and Bob, which is "region: all" and encoded in 576i/50. I've owned three "consumer" DVD players: an Apex, a PlayStation 2 slim (NTSC U/C), and a Magnavox, all region 1. Of the three, only the Apex would play it. The PS2 froze on a black screen with an error message "TV system doesn't match", and the Magnavox displayed a similar message with different wording.
Re: (Score:2)
"TV system doesn't match"
Were you going RCA video out? HDMI is 2-way, and the player and monitor negotiate. But most of the other video standards, like RCA, composite, S-video and such are 1-way. It would be *impossible* for the system to "know" that the TV doesn't match. I found a "cheap" DVD player with a PAL/NTSC output switch, and it was (naturally) region free. It's never had a problem playing anything on everything. Same as playing a DVD on a computer. I've never had any DVD played on a computer (or by association, out
Re: (Score:3)
Just because Intel releases a 100 MHz faster CPU you don't have to buy it, you know. And TVs get incremental upgrades, but honestly how many generations of mainstream media has there been? VHS (1973), DVD (1995), BluRay (2006) and this will be the fourth. Does it really kill you that something better comes along once a decade? Sure, marketers will always tell you that you need something new, that's not just in their job description that is their job description. I like the state of the art moving forward, w
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that the markets for every other concievable consumer product should be turned into the PC upgrade treadmill from the 90s is hardly a selling point.
That bullsh*t isn't even tolerable on PCs now anymore.
People got tired of it. I doubt anyone wants a return of that crap.
Much like the music industry, video needs format churn to fuel unsustainable growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Nein (Score:2)
I was one of the early (and later) adopters of HDTV. I've currently got a ~5 year old Pioneer Plasma (Kuro baby!) that does 1080p and, frankly, I'm fine with it. I've seen the 4K TVs and the additional resolution, to my eyes, doesn't seem to do much for the picture. I'm sure there's more detail there. I had the fortune of seeing the Hobbit in both the new HiDef projection screen (with LCD style panning, oooh) and in an IMAX theater back to back and I was amazed at how much more sharper and detailed the
why are we still doing this (Score:5, Informative)
And again, my media PC combined with torrents is still better. It can already play 4k videos. Don't have to buy any new hardware, don't have to re-buy movies I've already bought. Don't have to worry about the kids breaking the disk. Don't have to worry if that disk you bought in Europe will work back in the States. DVDs were a large upgrade from VHS, the next step is better digital distribution. Blue-ray and UHD are just stepping stones to them realizing physical media is dead.
Give me a digital distribution system that will work even if the company goes out of business. One that I allows me to backup the media. One that allows for offline storage so I can watch when I don't have internet. One that works on all platforms. One that I can re-download the file if I do lose it. The only thing that satisfies all of that is DRM free files. Until they provide that, torrents will still win.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you want to own what you buy.
What are you, some kind of socialist?
How many people have this setup to start with? (Score:3)
Mostly people don't bother with all this stuff to start with, and the manufacturers are so busy trying to sell new TV's that they don't even bother to build good one to begin with.
For instance, I just set up a Sonos 5.1 surround system. During the process I checked compatibility with my TV and I found this list of televisions that don't pass 5.1 surround data out the TOSLINK port under various conditons: https://sonos.custhelp.com/app... [custhelp.com] . Some only pass it from specific sources and some don't pass it at all. I'm lucky, my TV works under all conditions. Never mind problems with HDMI/HDCP/CEC/ARC compatibility.
I don't care about increased resolution because I can't be sure that the next TV I'll buy will meet my minimum specs. Purchasing is a gamble these days and once you engineer a working solution why would you upgrade? I didn't jump on the 3D idiocy and I'll bet you didn't either. Even if you have a 3D TV did you buy extra, or any glasses for it?
The producers, in a genius move enabled by "vertical integration", will add a new broadcast or regional flag or change an encryption key or some shit and stop making media in the old format. People will run like lemmings to Walget or TarMart to buy new equipment because the old stuff has been artificailly obsoleted. It's enough to make me stop watching altogether. Good luck selling your advertising time when no one gives a shit assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 10+ year old 1080 flat CRT no HDCP support hell it's got DVI not HDMI. Screen looks beautiful the whole were going to obsolete your gear because you might pirate our content BS was the last straw for me. The content got pirated anyways and pirated content plays just fine on my "ancient" TV, flankly it works better than the store content no unskippable 30 minutes of ad's and I can trans-code it for any device I care to.
There's more to it than that (Score:4, Informative)
The new spec also brings HFR (up to 60 fps, probably), wider colors (Rec. 2020), more accurate colors (10-bit seems to go mainstream) as well as double resolution. But hey yes, a BluRay looks pretty sweet already. In any case, it doesn't hurt unlike 3D that some - me included - just doesn't like. I just checked my local version of pricewatch and of 646 TV models for sale 102 now feature UHD. They even sell 40" UHD TVs for $500 now, which makes no sense at all and all this with Netflix being just about the only source of non-upscale UHD content. So I think it's beyond a doubt that mainstream TVs will go there eventually.
Besides, the trend is only bigger TVs. When I grew up we had a 20-something inch TV, now I have a 60" TV. When prices go down, sizes go up. It won't be quick and it's not urgent at all, but just like FullHD settled in - there were a lot of naysayers then too - UHD will too. It's not like SACD and DVD Audio where people listen on the go and want playlists, watching movies/series is still primarily a living room couch activity where you sit down to watch one for 40 mins - 3 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
But the thing that really kills any interest from me is that the article author expects that will continue to use 4:2:0 Chroma Subsampling. That to me makes the new increased colorspace worthless, as you won't actually be able to see any of it (small chroma resolution).
I remember being astounded that the original Blu-Ray spec carried-over the 4:2:0 from DVD, and once-again this mess will be propagated further. The smart move would be an upgrade to 4:2:2, which is supported by many high-end camera formats,
Re: (Score:2)
A 2160p picture with 4:2:0 chroma already contains as much chroma detail as a 1080p picture with 4:4:4 chroma.
depends on features (Score:3)
Will the standard contain provisions for unskippable items? Then I won't buy an UHD player.
We want content (Score:2)
not new disk player that will require the purchase of special 4K edition of Ernest Goes To Jail. Almost everybody wants easy access to all entertainment media yet these media douche bags refuse to do it.
Mr CEO I've got an awesome idea that will let every one around the world get access to all movies so cheap they won't care if they lose them and have to re buy them 10 times over. We'll be riiiiiich!!!
No no jr tech guy lets lock up the distribution, only make certain media available to certain regions of the
Ghostbusters 4K (Score:2, Interesting)
The original Ghostbusters film from years back recently had a '4K' remaster released in a 1080P Bluray edition. The film had no more detail than a good DVD version, because the 'original' negative was obviously in a horrid state, and the film had been shot mostly partially out of focus. The 4K did wonders for the GRAIN, though.
4K is great for nature documentaries. Everything else, less so. 4K tears apart the compromises in CGI and VFX, for instance, and the cost of improving the production so it appears 'pe
I didn't even need HD ... (Score:5, Insightful)
GIve me a season full of shows on one platter (Score:2)
I want large-data formats to succeed because I want my "boxed sets" to take up less shelf space. Give me an entire season at as-broadcast resolution on a single disk (13 episodes of HD or 3-4 times that for a very-good-quality digitization of old stuff that only exists on broadcast-quality NTSC tapes would be nice), including bonus material, and I'll be happier than if the large disks are used only for higher-definition content. My eyes aren't what they once were and neither are my ears.
For the same reaso
Article leaves out the new DRM on the output (Score:5, Insightful)
The content providers have threatened to require the new HDCP 2.x DRM system on the HDMI outputs instead of the existing HDCP 1.x. HDCP 2.x has required all of the IC providers to design new chips, and the standard is much more restrictive and much more fragile than the existing HDCP 1.x.
HDCP 1.x took several generations of product to get to function ( most people's problems with HDMI in the first few years was due to the HDCP DRM failing, not HDMI, which only specs how to send data).
Given the past history of HDCP it could be years before you can reasonably expect multiple pieces of consumer electronics from different vendors to play together well. I'm sure the message "HDCP violation" will look much nicer in 4K.
I'll Care Because it isn't SONY (Score:2)
Sony used to be ultra-proprietary, but they made up for it with very high quality and original stuff. Now SONY is still ultra-proprietary, but their stuff is meh.
Up with the new standard!
Because we have demonstrated, time and again, that (Score:2)
we will buy anything. Every time we come close to market saturation in the latest Video display resolution and the accompanying disc/digital library, they come out with something new...that we all just have to own. I once worked in R&D for a global consumer electronics company...this has all been planned out, decades in advance because...suckers!
As an audio-visuophile, It's not about resolution (Score:5, Funny)
As an audio-visuophile, all I can say is, seriously, just like the megapixel war in digital cameras, we're now having a megapixel war in TVs. But, what most people realize is that these new, super high resolutions are useless to most people, because while they may have the 4K TV, all of the equipment around it fails to deliver the content to the TV properly.
Cables are a simple example of this. Your run of the mill $10 HDMI cable from Walmart is not going to faithfully reproduce the digital signal between a UHD Bluray player and a 4K TV. No oxygen-free copper. No gold plating (or maybe just a few microinches of it). No super high twists per inch. The bits are just going to get fuzzy between the source and the TV and this makes it impossible to reproduce 4K content accurately.
Even more jitter and fuzz is introduced by poor power conditioning, inadequate and noisy power cables, and lack of solar irradiance dampers (lab tests have shown that even having the sun shine on equipment introduces noise and inaccurate pixels).
It's nearly impossible for a home A/V setup consisting of crap you get from Walmart or Bestbuy to do a good job of presenting UHD or 4K content in the truest, deepest form and with the most clarity.
Harddrives (Score:3)
The new format is on a harddrive. It is data. Can we be done with these discs? Just period.
What would it cost to put the data on a thumb drive instead of a disc? It doesn't need more space then the movie takes up and it doesn't need to be writable. What would it cost to make a crap thumb drive with the movie on it that wasn't even writable?
Just go with that. We're not going back to the dvd collection days. That's through.
I'll wait for UFHD (Score:3)
I hear the ultra-fucking-high-def (UFHD) standard will be out in 5 years. I'll wait to upgrade my TVs and players when they support that standard. That way I can watch Ultraporn
The Technology Treadmill (Score:3)
With a few exceptions, what is even ON TV these days that is worth spending $$$$ on to upgrade all your gear every year or so ? I bought all my favorite movies that I wanted when we switched from VHS to DVD. I didn't even bother when Blu-Ray happened. ( Remember Blu-Ray hardware prices first year or two ? LOL What are they now ? ) Will likely donate the whole collection as I watch the new standards come and go. I don't -think- you'll be streaming UHD or 4K anytime soon as we can barely get decent HD quality across the networks due to compression and bickering over bandwidth consumption. It will only get worse for the newer formats I think. ( US markets only, you folks overseas with enviable high speed symmetric bandwidth, ymmv )
Dunno about you all, but I'm just about done with TV. When the one we have dies, I'll just put the aquarium in its place and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
(4K does not count)
And why not?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(4K does not count)
And why not?
Because unless you live in a palace with a real fucking movie screen 10 meters across and 6 meters high, 4K will be about as noticeable as an acarian bug. In other words it is completely useless for a normal consumer living in a normal house. You know the 99,99% of the world's population ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a load of nonsense. I have a 4k set and have watched 4k shows and movies already, it looks absolutely amazing. I've watched the same shows with a 1080p set of the same size and it looks like crap after watching 4k. Yes, 4k is noticeable. It's extremely sharp and unless you have absolutely horrible eyes, you will notice the difference between 1080p and 4k. So yes, it's worth upgrading and they wouldn't be investing so much money to make 4k possible if it was just "useless" like you say.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess - you took the time to adjust the brightness, contrast, color, etc. settings to suit your room? In my experience most people don't, and the defaults that are tuned to look good in the over-bright fluorescent lighting of the display rack look horrible anywhere else.
That makes sense from a marketing perspective, after all the store staff isn't going to fiddle with anything, but it would be really nice if there were a quick and easy option to switch to "living room defaults". Maybe even an overl
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a space where they can mount a projector will be in a decent enough position to see an improvement with 4K.
Everyone else, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people have 30+" TVs? How many people have computers? How many would occasionally benefit from connecting a large-screen monitor that doesn't suck to their computer?
Or alternately, how many people don't want to always watch TV from at least two screen-diagonals away? Why do people sit in the front rows of a theater where they cave to crane their necks back to see the whole screen? I *like* having the image fill most of my field of view, and that means sitting considerably closer than one diagon
Re: (Score:2)
I don't plan to be an early adopter, but when a 4K 37" television is under $400 I will probably get one.
Re: (Score:3)
... 4K will be about as noticeable as an acarian bug.
I'm guessing you've never had a dust mite allergy.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
Well, what's the difference between typical NTSC and 1080p? Holy crap, it's massive. What's the difference between 1080p and 4k? The numbers are big, but the perceptual difference is nowhere near.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I can notice the difference between 1080p and 4k, but said difference is so small that I'm not about to buy a new 60" TV and the coming HD-Bluray yet. Hell, people are just now really starting to even buy standard BluRay. I really doubt this will take off anytime soon. When it does and it makes sense then I'll upgrade. Right now 1080p on my 60" is a fantastic experience that I don't see being worth money to 'upgrade'.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the problem? It's not like 1080p TVs took the world by storm - it's been almost two decades and plenty of people still have CRTs. Most people replace their TV when the old one starts to fail, at which point I will certainly be willing to pay a modest premium for 4K. In the mean time let the enthusiasts have their fun.
Personally I suspect one of the major drivers behind 4K screens will be computer monitors - there's much to be said for standardized resolutions, and even on a 30" screen the diffe
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with better resolution is that now even more snafus and easter eggs can be found in movies and TV shows.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Seriously - who notices such things except the people who enjoy spotting them?
Re: (Score:2)
4K probably needs a media format to get off the ground. The extra bandwidth required for a 4K broadcast is probably a problem for most cable systems. The extra bandwidth required for streaming will VERY likely be a problem.
Streaming already has to make severe compromises as is.
Although most people probably don't have viewing setups that would benefit from 4K. Many don't have setups that benefit from BD even.
Re: (Score:2)
this is one evil downside to 'higher res'. more wasted (imho) storage and network! I like using just enough to get the job done. blue ray has too much; its over 30gig for a movie. the torrented versions tend to be 3gig (lets say) and that's a 10:1 compression and with very acceptable quality (not perfect but for 10 to 1, I'll take it!). no drm, no ads, no problems.
I can store movies on my nas if they are 3gig or so. but when they are 30gig, that's insane. storage is cheap, sure; but I won't just thro
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, almost my entire video collection is DVDs, but I would still much rather watch them on a 1080p screen. My computer has enough horsepower to upscale and deinterlace them beautifully. And then there's the few works of video art where the additional detail is worth the added storage space.
Meanwhile for the un-tech masses a DVD, Blue-ray, or UHD video all take roughly the same amount of storage space - one ~5" plastic disc, plus case (usually)
Re: (Score:2)
DVD, Blu Ray and UHD in the same box. For only $10 extra, be even more future proof than with just dvd and blu ray!
Don't forget the 3D Blu Ray version and free Digital Copy (download only, not compatible with iTunes, Linux or any system that our proprietary player takes a dislike to, offer expired 1 month before this disc dropped to a sane price).