4K Video, Why do we even need Blu-ray or HD DVD?

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just read in Sound & Vision Mag about Warner Bros making their Master Digital Copies at 4K Resolution. They say that 35mm Film approaches 3K-4K resolution. Then for Blu-ray & HD DVD, the 4K resolution is DOWNCONVERTED to 2K.

So why even bother with this war between BD vs HD DVD? They are only 2K Resolution.

Why not just wait for 4K Video?

We already have MASTER QUALITY AUDIO: PCM, TrueHD, & DTS-MA.

Let's bring on MASTER QUALITY VIDEO: 4K!

 

[emorphien]

I just read in Sound & Vision Mag about Warner Bros making their Master Digital Copies at 4K Resolution. They say that 35mm Film approaches 3K-4K resolution. Then for Blu-ray & HD DVD, the 4K resolution is DOWNCONVERTED to 2K.

So why even bother with this war between BD vs HD DVD? They are only 2K Resolution.

Why not just wait for 4K Video?

We already have MASTER QUALITY AUDIO: PCM, TrueHD, & DTS-MA.

Let's bring on MASTER QUALITY VIDEO: 4K!

I'd say because people tend to sit quite close in some movie theaters, that 4k projection is needed in some situations. You can clearly outresolve the digital projection used in some cinemas currently.

For home use though, I don't generally like a screen-size to distance ratio great enough to warrant resolution too far beyond 1080p.

 

[Gimpy Ric]

I just have a 50 inch DLP that is 1080i, and when I play a Blu ray movie for my friends they are just blown away with the quality of the picture. For example I watched "The Shooter" last night with a sweet young lady, and she could not believe the sound and picture quality.

I am 43 years old, and I can't justify spending any more money on my system as my eyes and my ears grow older. I think that the current standards work very well for the home enthusiast. But if you want more, it's just your money

 

[Hi Ho]

Adopting 4K video would require everyone to buy a new TV. Also, There is currently no cheap mass producible media that can hold the huge amount of data that would be required.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I hear you but, that ever present but

Mastering, archiving is a different issue from theaters or home environment viewing. Similar to audio mastering and archiving at the hi res yet not audible.

4k res would not be seen at most if not all home applications. TV stations will not upgrade as it would be a tremendous issue of bandwidth needed, let alone the FCC adopting a new standard when the HD TV standard is not even fully mandated until 2008/9, maybe.

And then, the data storage limitations.

Be my guest and wait for 4k

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No, I would never wait either.

But if Blu-ray can handle 100 GB, perhaps it can handle 4K Video.

I would not expect broadcast TV to go 4K either.

Just thinking out loud.

But I did not realize film is capable of 4K resolution!

 

[mtrycrafts]

No, I would never wait either.

But if Blu-ray can handle 100 GB, perhaps it can handle 4K Video.

I would not expect broadcast TV to go 4K either.

Just thinking out loud.

But I did not realize film is capable of 4K resolution!

Well, I don't have the numbers but I bet that 100 GB may not be enough either.
35mm film might be. I need to find the papers where film was converted to such numbers and get back.

Not sure the TV makers will want to have two or more resolution TVs to manufacture and market to consumers, may be another hurdle.

 

[AdrianMills]

Well, if they are storing 4K masters maybe in 10 years we'll be seeing releases like the Director's final cut ultra hi-res Transformers on Sony UHR-Bluray to play on our 4096p 110" OLED screens.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, if they are storing 4K masters maybe in 10 years we'll be seeing releases like the Director's final cut ultra hi-res Transformers on Sony UHR-Bluray to play on our 4096p 110" OLED screens.

Now we're talking!

They keep on changing, don't they?

I mean just when we think we've had enough, they come out with something else.

In terms of AUDIO, how can you possibly beat MASTER AUDIO? I mean the ORIGINAL MASTER QUALITY?

So for Home Theater, I just don't see audio changing at all. But just knowing that they already have 4K Resolution Master VIDEO Copies, I just have to wonder when we will see Master Hi-Def Video in Home Theater.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, I don't have the numbers but I bet that 100 GB may not be enough either.
35mm film might be. I need to find the papers where film was converted to such numbers and get back.

Not sure the TV makers will want to have two or more resolution TVs to manufacture and market to consumers, may be another hurdle.

Just knowing that the movie theaters have up to 4K Video Resolution and we only have 2K Res at home makes me feel that something is missing.

I mean right now we are way ahead of the movie theaters in terms of sound. Most theaters only have DTS and DD, and we have PCM, TrueHD, and DTS-MA at home.

But the movie theaters are 2K ahead of us in terms of Video?

 

[mtrycrafts]

But the movie theaters are 2K ahead of us in terms of Video?

Yes, and they do have a huge screen, usually.
Not even a 114" will benefit from it at 13ft

Here is another resolution chart:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/distance_chart.html

Has THX distances included, res and screen size up to 125"

 

[BMXTRIX]

Let's get some facts and ideas straight before we get to excited about any of this.

1. Movie studios make their print films from the master films. These final films rarely have the equivalent video resolution anywhere near 4K video files, but instead are closer to 2K video files.

2. When you go to the theater, you usually are sitting at THX recommended distances in the middle of the theater - this is 1.5x the screen width.

3. Digital cinemas usually have 2K digital projectors, not 4K digital projectors. Those are barely higher in resolution than your 1080p displays at home.

4. To see any improvement in video quality to the human eye (20/20 vision) you have to be sitting closer than 1.5x the screen width. In your family room, if you are 12 feet away, you will need a screen LARGER than 110" diagonal to appreciate any advantage above 1080p video!

5. The archival studio masters of the highest quality are 4K, and they take up over 1,000 terabytes of storage space. (Not a typo - we're talking Petabytes) There is a long way between that and a portable disc you can throw into your home movie player. 10+ years away - minimum. The hardware decoding of AVC and VC-1 already require very serious horsepower for these HD optical disc players.

It isn't realistic, within the next 10+ years, to see any sort of push towards UHD displays or technologies at the consumer level. Theatrical? Military? Yes, those will continue to grow with UHD displays, but not consumer level. We may have realistically peaked at 1080p for what we can appreciate.

 

[AdrianMills]

It isn't realistic, within the next 10+ years, to see any sort of push towards UHD displays or technologies at the consumer level. Theatrical? Military? Yes, those will continue to grow with UHD displays, but not consumer level. We may have realistically peaked at 1080p for what we can appreciate.

Actually I don't think it really matters if it's possible to discern the difference between 1080p and some other much higher resolution format; if it becomes technically feasible at a reasonable cost they will manufacturer it and sell it. Just look at the numbers of 1080p LCD TVs that are much smaller than 42" - there is no way anyone can see the differences between them and 720p screens at normal living room viewing distances and yet people will still buy them over the alternative just because they have a "bigger number" attached to them.

Look at the now common misuse of the term "full HD" that's been propagated by LCD marketing departments - as far as I’m aware there is no such standard as "full HD". 720p is as much "full HD" as is 1080p. They are just different vertical resolutions defined by the HD standard. But marketing people are always on the look out for the next big selling point and going to "Ultra super-duper HD" will be used just as they used the consumer confusion surrounding 1080p "full HD".

I want one of those 4k OLEDs though.

 

[WmAx]

Actually I don't think it really matters if it's possible to discern the difference between 1080p and some other much higher resolution format; if it becomes technically feasible at a reasonable cost they will manufacturer it and sell it.

I think you are further supported by observing the digital camera market. People will go for the biggest 'MP' camera they can get, even though they only print 4" x 6" prints.... and even though higher MP usually results in lower image quality in compact cameras.... the bigger number wins....

-Chris

 

[BMXTRIX]

Actually I don't think it really matters if it's possible to discern the difference between 1080p and some other much higher resolution format; if it becomes technically feasible at a reasonable cost they will manufacturer it and sell it. Just look at the numbers of 1080p LCD TVs that are much smaller than 42" - there is no way anyone can see the differences between them and 720p screens at normal living room viewing distances and yet people will still buy them over the alternative just because they have a "bigger number" attached to them.

I didn't say it was impossible, just unrealistic. Sure, it could happen, but it took years for HD displays to really start to propogate the market, and 1080p is really coming full stride with HD optical discs and the reality of 1080i programming/scaling to match. 4K displays, of course, don't match up perfectly to 1.78:1, so that's an issue in itself, I image we will see 4XTrue displays or something...

But, as far as them being practical to produce... I'm just not as sure about in the next ten years. Especially if everyone is speaking out against it. Almost nobody spoke out against 1080p other than those making the erronous statements of 'under 60" doesn't matter' - instead of the proper seating distance vs. screen size arguement.

Look at the now common misuse of the term "full HD" that's been propagated by LCD marketing departments - as far as I’m aware there is no such standard as "full HD". 720p is as much "full HD" as is 1080p. They are just different vertical resolutions defined by the HD standard. But marketing people are always on the look out for the next big selling point and going to "Ultra super-duper HD" will be used just as they used the consumer confusion surrounding 1080p "full HD".

Full HD is no different than HD - it's a marketing term. It is used to promote and sell consumers on the concept of 1080p - or HD in general. HD was also the term used 30+ years ago for what we now call 'SDTV' (from what I have heard). HD, by a non-marketing meaning, refers to the distance a person stands from an image where visual acquity matches image resolution. So, it's all relative. But, HD, and TrueHD are simply marketing terms thrown around to sell product.

I have no issue with the terms as they are used now, other than the term HD which can be used on ANY display with more than 720 lines of vertical resolution and capable of displaying ONE of the standard ATSC formats (720p or 1080i) - If you think about it, a display that is 1 pixel wide, by 720 pixels tall, and can accept and display, as unwatchable as it is, a 720p signal, would be marketable as an 'HDTV'.

Go figure.

I want one of those 4k OLEDs though.

I have a 60" Kuro - it's gonna have to be pretty darn impressive for me to ever want to upgrade my display... and the price will have to be right.

 

[AdrianMills]

I have a 60" Kuro - it's gonna have to be pretty darn impressive for me to ever want to upgrade my display... and the price will have to be right.

I have a 50" Kuro and although it's impressive it's far from perfect and I think it will be beaten this year or next by Pio or someone else; actually, from what I've seen and heard, the current crop of mini OLED screens beat it now for at least static picture quality.

 

[Antus]

i think computer world can give us some idea what to expect in the near future. right now, computer screan is top out at 2560X1600, which is 4MP. comparing with current HD at 1920X1080 = 2MP. it's double the pixel count. i guess we "might" see 4MP TV first.

what's the resolution on 4K video? is it 3840X2160? if that's the case, it will have 8MP resolution. which is 4 times the current Full HD. if that's the case, a 200GB disk can hold one movie. i would say the technology is quite feasable in 5 years time.

i think human will demand more and more. not too long ago, people were WOW on the DVD quality and now dvd looks fuzzy and out of focus. a 40inch FULL HD looks nice, imagining a 80inch 4K video will looks like. right now, we are "watching" tv or movie. if a 80inch 4K become available, we will feel like we are right there within the scene.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Let's put it this way, if they came out with a 4K HDTV for $3,000 and a 4K HD player for $500 in 5 years, who would NOT want to buy them?

Especially when EVERY SINGLE TV out there is already 2K?

Marketing: "For the first time ever, you can now enjoy Master Quality Video IDENTICAL to the orignal Master Studio Copies!"

It won't matter if broadcast TV is only 1080i.

 

[mtrycrafts]

i think computer world can give us some idea what to expect in the near future. right now, computer screan is top out at 2560X1600, which is 4MP. comparing with current HD at 1920X1080 = 2MP. it's double the pixel count. i guess we "might" see 4MP TV first.

what's the resolution on 4K video? is it 3840X2160? if that's the case, it will have 8MP resolution. which is 4 times the current Full HD. if that's the case, a 200GB disk can hold one movie. i would say the technology is quite feasable in 5 years time.

i think human will demand more and more. not too long ago, people were WOW on the DVD quality and now dvd looks fuzzy and out of focus. a 40inch FULL HD looks nice, imagining a 80inch 4K video will looks like. right now, we are "watching" tv or movie. if a 80inch 4K become available, we will feel like we are right there within the scene.

Well, yes, the DVD looked super on those 25" TVs and 12 ft viewing
But, research shows what resolution can be detected at what distance so not even that 80" will help, nor my 114"
But, I am pretty sure that in a movie house, it will look like 70mm film, maybe

As to storage, BMX above had an input on this:
5. The archival studio masters of the highest quality are 4K, and they take up over 1,000 terabytes of storage space.
That is a huge storage tank

 

[BMXTRIX]

i think computer world can give us some idea what to expect in the near future. right now, computer screan is top out at 2560X1600, which is 4MP. comparing with current HD at 1920X1080 = 2MP. it's double the pixel count. i guess we "might" see 4MP TV first.

what's the resolution on 4K video? is it 3840X2160? if that's the case, it will have 8MP resolution. which is 4 times the current Full HD. if that's the case, a 200GB disk can hold one movie. i would say the technology is quite feasable in 5 years time.

You are incorrect. Not that you are completely 'wrong', but technologies take years to develop, and often many more years to bring to market. Blu-ray took about 3 years to bring to market after being bantered about for several years prior to that. It is actually a product about 5 years into itself, yet is still struggling against a competitor (HD DVD). So, we run into huge issued with new formats, like "Can we make money on this?" - That's the biggest one of all. If there really isn't a huge lot of consumer demand, then it goes to the specialty arena, and it will be devloped, but not at mass consumer levels.

FYI: 4K resolution is already used in digital cinema with projectors available that are 4086 x 2160 - they are in use. UHD more likely will be 4x 1080p - or 3840x2160 as you noted above.

This is what 100 grand will get you...
http://www.projectorcentral.com/Sony-SRX-R110.htm

i think human will demand more and more. not too long ago, people were WOW on the DVD quality and now dvd looks fuzzy and out of focus. a 40inch FULL HD looks nice, imagining a 80inch 4K video will looks like. right now, we are "watching" tv or movie. if a 80inch 4K become available, we will feel like we are right there within the scene.

This, on the other hand, is just incorrect. The human eye is only capable of actually resolving a certain amount of resolution. But, the fact that you believe that the impossible is possible, I guess it would sell.

Just not likely anytime soon.

FYI: I did work on a project utlizing 3200x2400 resolution which used video wall processing technologies and four headed video cards with four displays for strategic mapping - it was pretty nifty, but slow as heck. The processing power simply isn't there yet - and this room ran about a million bucks.