4k Blu-ray Discs and Players to Arrive 2015 - An Analysis

[admin]

The Blu-ray Disc Association announced at IFA that the Blu-ray 4k spec will be ready by summer 2015 with products hitting the stores in time for the holiday buying season the same year. The technical improvements over Blu-ray (much less DVD) are not debatable. The new 4k discs and players are superior to existing technology in almost every way. We look at some of the hurdles 4k Blu-rays face and we look to the future.

4k Blu-ray Discs and Players to Arrive 2015 - An Analysis

 

[TLS Guy]

The Blu-ray Disc Association announced at IFA that the Blu-ray 4k spec will be ready by summer 2015 with products hitting the stores in time for the holiday buying season the same year. The technical improvements over Blu-ray (much less DVD) are not debatable. The new 4k discs and players are superior to existing technology in almost every way. We look at some of the hurdles 4k Blu-rays face and we look to the future.

4k Blu-ray Discs and Players to Arrive 2015 - An Analysis

This issue just highlights everything that is going wrong in the industry currently.

The best TVs we had are no more. First we lost Pioneer Kuro and then the high end Panasonic TVs.

So you can't go out and buy a screen as good as you could last year.

Now they expect us to buy 4K.

Now I have looked at these 4K screens and none of them have pictures that are remotely close to the two Panasonic screens I bought before their demise.

I just love the picture of my Panny 65" in the studio. It is so detailed and realistic.

So the first job of the industry is to produce TVs as good as the ones we have lost, at a price that sells and still makes a profit.

Thinking about ditching players, TVs and receivers, and putting up with more onerous and likely glitchy HDCP codes when we have retreated from the quality we had, is not progress, but terminal insanity.

 

[markw]

Great. Now all the lemmings will ditch their perfectly functional current equipment and spring for all new stuff. Just like they did when SACD and 3D hit.

Actually, my take on this is that acceptance won't be as financially rewarding as they hope. As the current stuff dies, it will get replaced so it may take a few years.

I'm still waiting to see what Atmos does.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I still can't quite believe how easily the public gets fooled by 4k. It's been shown time and time again to see it's benefits besides 20/20 (or better) vision one needs to stand few feet away not from 50" screens, but 80" ones. I am at stage on my life that even thinking about price tag on 80" 4k TV scares the crap out of me.

As TLS mentioned - Very unfortunately both Kuro's tech, which later on was blended with high end Panny's plasmas is lost

I recently demoed near high-end Samsung 65" 4k TV - while the image was very vibrant - I could tell easily the calibration was WAY off.
The compression artifacts were horrible, even on Netflix "4k" - it was easily noticeable. The default motion compensation settings were terrible.


DVD was huge step up. BD was a major improvement. 4k?? - A minor one at best and it requires very significant investments to even see some benefits.

Only yesterday I was watching first season of Seinfeld. It was in 4:3 SD quality. Compressed with H.264 and AAC stereo (175mb for about 22mins episode)
it was perfectly watchable on my 1080p 55" plasma at 14' away. Most action movies are practicably indistinguishable 720p from full 1080p. Only time I do notice any difference is with high quality Discovery content, like "Frozen Planet" BD.

I think 4k, just like 3D is a fad, which I will not pay a dime extra for it (if I have a choice - I didn't and had to buy TV with 3D, which I never used nor expect to ever use)

edit:
Heck, Even most unreliable Tech news source ever , says 4k is stupid:
Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid - CNET

 

[TheWarrior]

Is it safe to say that our consumers are just getting dumber, and flashy marketing can persuade anyone if they can find identity in always have the latest and 'greatest' or align themselves with an image they saw holding an mp3 player that taught them to like compressed music cause they like the 'style'. Similarly with 4k, latest and greatest and bragging about how you have TWICE the pixel count of your friend, make the sacrifice of quality much more palpable.

Woof..... Its these depressing thoughts that also encourage my love of crafting a room capable of transporting me far away with the right media, whether it be game, music, or movie.

 

[scattershot]

I am glad I bought a bought a 60" Plasma from Panasonic that was their last gen produced last year. It seems like the wait for affordable OLED tv's is going to be LONG!
(Wish Panasonic would have made an 80" ST series TV before they exited...)

 

[Vincent Sauve]

I can see the difference

My vision is sharper than 20/20 so I see the pixels on a 1080p screen. At a equivalent distance for a UHD screen I don't see the pixels. I know that if I sit back far enough they both will look the same as far as detail goes. But I like to sit closer to get a bigger screen effect without paying the bigger bucks for a giant TV that wouldn't look good in our smallish room.

The rest of the article provided me with some good information as to why I should put off my UHD TV purchase for another year.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

My vision is sharper than 20/20 so I see the pixels on a 1080p screen. At a equivalent distance for a UHD screen I don't see the pixels. I know that if I sit back far enough they both will look the same as far as detail goes. But I like to sit closer to get a bigger screen effect without paying the bigger bucks for a giant TV that wouldn't look good in our smallish room.

Let me demonstrate your point a bit more clearer:

you see? I can spot pixels on high def screens as well !!! Whoo hoo - my vision must freaking amazing
/sarcasm

Like I said at normal TV watching distances of about 10-12' - 4k TV with sized below at least 80" are useless and fully indistinguishable from 1080p even you are eyesight of the eagle.
Last time I checked 82" LG 4k TV (which is cheap crap and I would never ever buy such crap again) cost $20k - I would rather get a pre-owned luxury sedan and still buy 80" 1080p TV with change.

For example only: (not fully researched, just giving one example)

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/used-cars/for-sale/2010_BMW_3-Series/VIN_WBAPH5C58AA439869/?uid=4758526&range=75&zip=08857&make=BMW&orig-model=3+Series&model=3+Series&year_min=&year_max=&purge-search=&price_min=9500&price_max=17000&mileage_min=0&mileage_max=150000&body_style=&color=&transmission=&engine=&drivetrain=&fuel_type=&page=1&sort=

and

http://www.costco.com/Vizio-80"-1080p-240Hz-3D-Smart-LED-HDTV-M801D-A3.product.100055150.html

 

[Bizarro_Stormy]

Drm

• Updated DRM

Thank God..!

All my Dead Rabbit Maggots are turning into flys...
plus the smell... blech...

 

[zhimbo]

If I sit *in front* of our couch on the ground, I can see the pixels on our 60inch HD screen. I do this occasionally, but at this point I'm less than 5 feet away from the screen. But, just like megapixels on digital cameras, increased resolution is easy to explain and understand, even if there's no substantial benefit to go along with the bigger number.

 

[maiden_trooper]

My first post on this forum...

I hope these new Blu-Ray discs are backwards-compatible with existing players.

Imagine the mess we would have on our hands if this is not the case - you would choose between the 1080p and 4K versions of the same movie - with Dolby Atmos or DTS UHD or Auro3D.

The movie industry will have a whole new set of reasons to blame the 'pirate' for the dwindling sales of Blu-Ray media.

 

[Vincent Sauve]

Seeing is the proof

To the boredsysadmin,

I don't care what people claim I can or cannot see. When I go into an actual store and look at the TV screens of say a 65" 1080p and a 65" UHD screen side by side there is a real difference. I'm not going to debate the viewing distances because I agree that if one sits far enough back the screens will look the same as far as resolution goes. But for our sitting situations where we can pull up our recliner chairs up close to the screen pixel size and count definitely does matter. Does resolution improve when playing 1080p content? No. But at least I'm not seeing pixels at that close seating position. Another benefit not mentioned in the analysis is the ability to view ones high resolution camera images on the screen.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

To the boredsysadmin,

I don't care what people claim I can or cannot see. When I go into an actual store and look at the TV screens of say a 65" 1080p and a 65" UHD screen side by side there is a real difference. I'm not going to debate the viewing distances because I agree that if one sits far enough back the screens will look the same as far as resolution goes. But for our sitting situations where we can pull up our recliner chairs up close to the screen pixel size and count definitely does matter. Does resolution improve when playing 1080p content? No. But at least I'm not seeing pixels at that close seating position. Another benefit not mentioned in the analysis is the ability to view ones high resolution camera images on the screen.

I got the feeling I'm wasting my breath here or simply arguing over exactly same thing

- YES -

Given large enough screen - like 65" 4k TV and distance of 2-3' - YES - the difference SHOULD be noticeable.
If you are used to sit 2-3' from your TV then by all means get 65" 4k TV if you can afford it.

I feel that most of other members of this forum more used to 8-12' distance at which the difference in TV resolution sized about 65" is a moot point.

btw: Same thing applies to High resolution photos - If you can see the pixels on the TV - ether you sit too close or really need 4k TV.
Because if you don't (see the pixels) the scaled down photo will look just as great.

 

[TLS Guy]

I got the feeling I'm wasting my breath here or simply arguing over exactly same thing

- YES -

Given large enough screen - like 65" 4k TV and distance of 2-3' - YES - the difference SHOULD be noticeable.
If you are used to sit 2-3' from your TV then by all means get 65" 4k TV if you can afford it.

I feel that most of other members of this forum more used to 8-12' distance at which the difference in TV resolution sized about 65" is a moot point.

btw: Same thing applies to High resolution photos - If you can see the pixels on the TV - ether you sit too close or really need 4k TV.
Because if you don't (see the pixels) the scaled down photo will look just as great.

You are right on target. We all sit back 10 to 12 ft to get good audio.

As I said before, I can't find a TV in the stores that is a patch on the one I have. Unless they bring back screens of the quality of the ones I own, 4K will make NO difference.

If you are going to go this route, then you have to start with TVs that are good. There are no TVs around currently of quality I have been used to for the last 9 months. That's the problem, not the pixel count.

Bottom, line I could chuck over board my TV, BD and pre pro and get 4K and have a lower quality picture. That would be the certain result of that course of action.

 

[Vincent Sauve]

Not 2-3 feet

When I was viewing the screen of two TVs, one UHD, one 1080p, both 65", my viewing distance was about 5 feet and I could see a difference. According to that chart that was referenced we should all be happy with 480i, because we all supposedly put the TV on one side of the room and our couch on the other side. Well that would ruin surround sound. I put our chairs in the middle of a 13 foot (smaller dimension) room. I agree that if I replace my current 40" TV with an UHD TV of similar size it wouldn't matter. But I'm looking to go up to 55" and when we walk by the TV or sit closer than the middle position we won't see the pixels and that will be appealing to me.

 

[markw]

I don't know what chart you're looking at but five feet is not a typical viewing distance for a five and a half foot screen.

 

[sawzalot]

I don't know what chart you're looking at but five feet is not a typical viewing distance for a five and a half foot screen.

I would lose my eyesight at that range/distance.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

My first post on this forum...

I hope these new Blu-Ray discs are backwards-compatible with existing players.

Imagine the mess we would have on our hands if this is not the case - you would choose between the 1080p and 4K versions of the same movie - with Dolby Atmos or DTS UHD or Auro3D.

The movie industry will have a whole new set of reasons to blame the 'pirate' for the dwindling sales of Blu-Ray media.

My biggest frustration with BDs are the FBI WARNINGS, other warnings, poor menus, lack of resume playback etc. Hate.

 

[mjsmith]

resolution is not the upgrade

It is good to understand the benefits of resolution but as it was stated in the article the higher resolution will not benefit the person who sits 10 - 12 feet from the 50" screen. The real win for everyone is the increased color gamut. Rec2020 will make a noticeable difference that all users will benefit from. I just hope the TV manufactures can produce TVs that can reproduce that color gamut!

 

[ArnoldLayne]

I have a 50" 720p Pioneer plasma from 2009 that looks fantastic. But I may replace it with a 55" [as large as I can go] UHD within 6 months. No hurry, no biggie, would like the thinner bezel styling and slightly larger screen. Full LED and full local dimming. UHD is coming so I'll take it.
But I AM looking forward to 4K discs and projectors for my 120" home theater! That will be awesome! Cheers to some rather pedantic grumpy posters.