Ultra HD (UHD) Blu-ray is here!

[gene]

If Blu-ray isn't good enough for you, then you're about to be in for a nice surprise. The Blu-ray alliance threw down the gauntlet and announced the 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray specification at CES 2015. While the full spec will be finalized in the spring, what's been released so far looks awesome and promises to be the best audio and video format available for UHD TVs. New UHD Blu-ray players are slated to start rolling out this year.


Are you ready to upgrade to UHD Blu-ray and change your AV receiver, HDTV, cables, etc?

Read our Ultra UHD Blu-ray Spec Announcement

 

[FirstReflection]

It's insanely frustrating to me that we can't just have the minimum spec be identical to the way over 90% of all films ever made have been digitally archived and remastered.

1) 4096 x 2160 resolution

Why is 3840 x 2160 even a thing? Was it so critical to avoid tiny vertical black bars on either side of upscaled 1920 x 1080 content that it's worth having to either crop or rescale every single movie? I would much, MUCH rather have 128 columns of black pixels on either side of upscaled 1920 x 1080 content than what we're going to get, which is every single movie either being cropped or rescaled from its pristine 4096 x 2160 archival form to fit into this completely unnecessary "consumer" format of 16 x 9 aspect ratio.

2) DCI P3 colour gamut

Thankfully, the UHD alliance for streaming and download content seems to be on board with setting this as the bare minimum for all UHD content. But the UltraHD Blu-ray spec? Sure, the players are mandated to support up to Rec. 2020 colour, but the content itself has no mandated colour space. It could still be Rec. 709.

Given that there are no displays capable of showing the entire Rec. 2020 gamut, but there are several that can display the entire P3 gamut - and given that essentially every movie ever is in the P3 colour gamut - why in the holy heck is this not just stated outright as being the mandatory minimum colour space for all UHD content?

If they want to leave Rec. 2020 there for future content, fine - I have no problem with that. Let's be "future proof" on the colour gamut front right from the start. That's a good idea. But for the love of Pete I don't want it to be even possible to release something in 4K and have it still using Rec. 709. DCI P3 minimum. Just mandate it.

3) 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling

Every movie that has been digitally archived? It's been done with 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling. Mandate that the UHD Blu-ray players must be able to send out full 4:4:4 signals. But mandate that the content can have nothing less than 4:2:2.

Again, almost every film ever made already exists in this state! They exist in digital archive format in 4096 x 2160 resolution using the P3 colour gamut and 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling. If we want to leave the door open for even wider colour gamuts and 4:4:4 signals, great! By all means leave that door open and mandate that from day one, the players will be able to output those signals. But the content - mandate some darn minimums for the content!

4) 10-bit colour

I think it should be mandated from day one that the players be able to output up to 16-bit colour, but the content - again, all those archival digital version are already stored using 10-bit colour. There should never, ever be any 8-bit UHD content.



Honestly, that's it for my complaining. Essentially no movies have been archived in High Dynamic Range. That's a new thing that might be used moving forward, and perhaps some existing films will be re-graded in HDR form. No problem. I don't need the minimum to be set at anything higher than the 100 nit peak brightness that was used for virtually every film made up to this point.

Similarly, almost every movie up to this point was shot at 24fps. I certainly don't need the minimum for content mandated to be higher than that.

So basically, I just want all those archival digital versions and remastered films to be left alone! Don't crop or rescale them, don't change their colour gamut, and don't chroma sub-sample them at a lower rate! Just give me the darn archival versions!

But we won't get them. 3840 is already set. 8-bit is already all over the place because all of these so-called "4K" streaming services use 8-bit and so do virtually all of the "4K" TVs on the market. 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling looks like it's here to stay because it saves on bandwidth. And since none of the TV manufacturers can agree to just accurately hit P3 and leave it at that, we're probably going to get a bunch of Rec. 709 content. Scratch that, we already are! Again, all the so-called "4K" streaming content is actually just HD, but with more pixels.

What a stupid, frustrating mess that could all be so easily avoided if the movie and TV industries would just stop their moronic efforts to always delineate themselves from one another. One standard, one set of minimums, that's all I want. And when 90% of everything ever made already exists as 4096 x 2160 using the P3 colour gamut with 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling and 10-bit colour? Why in all of God's green goodness is that not just instantly chosen as the bare minimum mandated for all UHD content?

 

[markw]

So, all new hardware to keep the Pacific rim employed and give salesman new products to foist on Joe sixpack. Is it downward compatable to Blu-Rays and DVD's?

 

[FirstReflection]

All UltraHD Blu-ray players must also play Blu-ray discs. But playing DVDs is optional. And playing Blu-ray 3D may or may not be optional; I'm not sure if it has been 100% confirmed one way or the other.

Oh, and scuttlebutt is that there is no UltraHD 3D at all. So 3D dies with Blu-ray at 1080p resolution. I'm sad since I actually enjoyed 3D when viewed on a passive 3D display with enough pixels to show 1080 lines to each eye (I refuse to call my Sony XBR-65X900A a "4K" display since everything about it is regular HD except that it happens to have 3840 x 2160 pixels). But I know I was amongst the very small minority of people who actually liked 3D. And I don't blame anyone for hating on 3D - active 3D with the shutter glasses is fraught with crosstalk, passive 3D on a 1080p display looks like interlaced video because the vertical resolution is cut in half. And having to buy different glasses for every brand, or even different models of TVs from the same brand just made the entire 3D at home venture into a fiasco.

That's why I'm so upset about the way 4K is being rolled out. It's always "rush, rush, rush", and things aren't even ready! If 3D had launched with every brand's glasses working on EVERY TV, I'm certain it would have done better in the market. And now here we are, we have the 2160 resolution to make passive 3D look really, really good, and 3D is being killed off.

I said a long time ago that I predicted that Blu-ray is the best format we consumers are ever going to get. That even with higher resolutions and expanded gamuts and such, it will only be downhill after Blu-ray. And I honestly still think my prediction will come true. UltraHD Blu-ray might be capable of even better quality than Blu-ray, but because no one can agree on a single set of standards, it's just going to be a mess. Some studios will make use of the optional image upgrades. Others will just stick with Rec. 709, 4:2:0, 8-bit, and do nothing but increase the pixel count after having rescaled the 4096 x 2160 image. Consumers will see all of this on displays that can't even show the full potential, and they'll conclude that it's basically all a scam and UltraHD Blu-ray will die.

Blu-ray worked because it had a single, set standard for the content. You can't give the studios a choice. They can't be trusted with something like free will.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

If only there was a governing body which dictated very strict set of rules for uhd reproduction, so you that the consumer won't have to worry about things like Color bit depth of subchroma sampling. I even have a suggestion for a name : Tomlinson Holman Xover. Consumer might feel safer with such strong regulation for proper uhd experience

 

[GO-NAD!]

How about compatibility of the new discs with legacy equipment? If they stop producing the current BD discs, will we be able to play the new ones with our current displays and BDPs?

 

[FirstReflection]

UltraHD Blu-ray players require HDCP 2.2 copy protection in order to pass along higher than 1080p resolution. UltraHD Blu-ray discs will NOT play at all in regular Blu-ray players.

OK, so the second part makes sense - it's just like how Blu-ray discs do not play if you put them in a DVD player. UltraHD Blu-ray is a new format. So UltraHD Blu-ray players will play Blu-ray discs, but Blu-ray players will not play UltraHD Blu-ray discs. You need an UltraHD Blu-ray player to play UltraHD Blu-ray discs.

Now, the first part of the answer is the more interesting part. I honestly do not know what will happen if you put an UltraHD Blu-ray disc into an UltraHD Blu-ray player, but then connect that UltraHD Blu-ray player to a regular 1080p television. All of our existing 1080p HDTVs do NOT have HDCP 2.2 copy protection. So the best case scenario is that the UltraHD Blu-ray player detects that there is no HDCP 2.2 copy protection on the HDMI output, and it downscales the UltraHD Blu-ray disc's output to 1080p. But the worst case scenario is that it just refuses to play. And I honestly do not know what has been decided on that front.

Even more hilarious, though, is that there are a whole bunch of so-called "4K UltraHD televisions" already out there and sold that do NOT have HDCP 2.2 copy protection! So there are going to be many instances where someone already owns a "4K" TV. They buy a new UltraHD Blu-ray player and UltraHD Blu-ray discs. They connect everything, and best case scenario, the UltraHD Blu-ray player detects that there is no HDCP 2.2 copy protection, so it downscales the content to regular 1080p HD. And worst case scenario, it detects no HDCP 2.2 copy protection, so it just refuses to play. Won't that be a joy?

So because all of these TV manufacturers rushed to market and started slapping "4K" on everything they possibly could, now we have a situation where a whole bunch of "4K" TVs can't even accept the copy protected signal from an UltraHD Blu-ray player.

And on top of that, there are some "4K" TVs and AV Receivers that claim that they do support HDCP 2.2. That's all fine and well, but up until just a few months ago, there were zero HDMI boards that supported HDCP 2.2 at the same time as full 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0. Instead, basically every TV or AV Receiver that is out there right now that claims to support HDCP 2.2 copy protection is limited to 10.2 Gbps. And that lower bandwidth cap means being limited to 3840 x 2160 resolution at 30 fps max with 8-bit colour and 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling.

Did I mention that I think the way UltraHD has been rolled out is a complete mess?

 

[markw]

All UltraHD Blu-ray players must also play Blu-ray discs. But playing DVDs is optional.

Well, that would truly suck. I've got a lot of DVD's that don't warrant replacing with Blu-ray and to lose the ability to play them would really keep me from adopting this new format. But, I don't think it's beyond them for force the issue by having the manufacturers stop making blu-rays and DVD's.

Heck, even vinyl still allows the playback of 78's. The only thing you can't access with modern tech is cylinders.

 

[TLS Guy]

And we all wring our hands that the market for home AVR is shrinking. We do need sensible standards, or we will all be going back to the cinema, or watching movies on an tablet or smart phone!

This is a classic modern tower of Babble and will increase the chaos to total consumer resistance.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well, I can only hope that they continue to offer regular BDs alongside the UltraHD discs, as they currently do with BDS and DVDs. Otherwise, I expect that the industry will just be pushing more people out of HT setups.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Well, I can only hope that they continue to offer regular BDs alongside the UltraHD discs, as they currently do with BDS and DVDs. Otherwise, I expect that the industry will just be pushing more people out of HT setups.

Isn't that goal? Bring people back to movie theaters.

 

[JMJVK]

TVs aren't just the Cinematic industry's thing. You have a boatload of TV broadcasters both cable and o.t.a, and cable/sat distributors all over the world pulling in every direction to save on bandwidth requirements, equipments costs and backward compatibility.

If anyone thinks the MPAA is the only player the TV and movie have to contend with, I'd say that said person is most likely mistaken. I wouldn't be too surprised that they are trying to avoid having different standards for every continent or big loosely held population group, such as a standard for Europeans, one for the Asian market and another for the North American market.

It's easy to whine and complain, but if we get our full 4K and 32 bit color depth right away, our cable might go from 1500 channels back down to less than a quarter of that. There could be serious bandwidth issues for pay-per-view.

Anyone for some webcast-type artifacts, stuttering and drop-outs on a 40$ boxing gala broadcast ? I don't.

Besides, if they set the bar too high, another group might show out of the blue with a different and less demanding standards proposition, and given our past tech history, it would likely be adopted. (We always end up with the worst tech being adopted...)

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I disagree. TVs and rest of living room electronic for most part is very narrow margin market. It's the content is the royalty here. They decided on retrans price, quality and of course content.
Also disagree on technology adaptation. Hd-dvd was noticeably cheaper, but more technically advanced bd won.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Isn't that goal? Bring people back to movie theaters.

Hmmm...maybe. I think they want their cake and eat it too - have people go to the cinema and then buy the movie. I have no problem with improving technology. I'm just not going to dump perfectly serviceable components in order to support this new format. If they don't continue to produce regular BDs alongside the Ultra versions for at least a few more years, I guess I won't be viewing any movies at home that are only available as UltraHD - at least until my BD player dies.

 

[3db]

As long the Ultra/Uber 4K Players can play vinyl, I'm in

 

[Schurkey]

I see this as another pathetic attempt to gouge the consumer for a half-baked consumer video product; just exactly like the previous attempt to gouge the consumer with a half-baked video product...and the attempt before that. This is clearly not about "doing right" by We The People. This is a way to inflict ever-more-strict "digital rights management", with just enough fluff thrown in to make it palatable to the masses.

I've put money into playback. I'm not opposed to spending if there's some actual benefit; and if the product is well thought-out, and manufactured for an acceptable service life. Far as I'm concerned, they haven't fixed the easily-solvable problems with DVD; they have no business making things worse with newer formats.

I jumped out of the video disaster at the DVD level. I don't--and won't--own a Blu-ray. I have no expectation of owning an ultra-gee-whiz Blu-ray. When I can't get DVD-format content I want, things may change. For now, they can pound sand. I REFUSE to play that game; at least for now.

Completely unrelated: My mother owned a Blueray furnace. It was a hateful piece of junk.

 

[Nestor]

It's disappointing to see the industry move towards 4k when we are still languishing with 10 bit color space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tyhjaarpa]

Will most likely stay with blu-ray as long as they still make new movies for it.