1080p Question for Blu-ray Disc and HDTV's...
- Thread starter space86
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 3K
In terms of screens - there are monitors today with resolution above 1920x1200. TVs will follow, I think.
In terms of new movies produced 10+ years down the road - most likely Red One cameras (and similar) will get used more often.
In terms of movies made until now - there is hardly any more information in the film left (as in the motion picture original!).
I think more effort will be spent on "smart" upconverting.
Diogen.
In terms of new movies produced 10+ years down the road - most likely Red One cameras (and similar) will get used more often.
In terms of movies made until now - there is hardly any more information in the film left (as in the motion picture original!).
I think more effort will be spent on "smart" upconverting.
Diogen.
I think the answer is - of course. Computer tech, displays, and the media itself will continue its steady advance. Read about 2160P
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2160p"]QFHD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Vector_Video_Standards2.svg/350px-Vector_Video_Standards2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/e/e5/Vector_Video_Standards2.svg/350px-Vector_Video_Standards2.svg.png[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2160p"]QFHD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Vector_Video_Standards2.svg/350px-Vector_Video_Standards2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/e/e5/Vector_Video_Standards2.svg/350px-Vector_Video_Standards2.svg.png[/ame]
At some point, there is little to be gained by higher resolution in a home environment. And cost tradeoffs will probably ensure we never quite get there.
So they're still pushing HVD, eh? It's not dead, it's just delayed. Again.
Not likely we'll see much change in the ATSC standard. Certainly not as fast as technology advances. They might roll higher resolution options in when/if they add MPEG-4 support. Or OTA might be history by then.
So they're still pushing HVD, eh? It's not dead, it's just delayed. Again.
Not likely we'll see much change in the ATSC standard. Certainly not as fast as technology advances. They might roll higher resolution options in when/if they add MPEG-4 support. Or OTA might be history by then.
The problem is most people can't tell the difference on screens smaller than 50". Now when you have a very large screen such as in excess of 100 inches, having the 4K capability will add something.
It often amazes me how many people can't see the artifacting in RGB component vs. HDMI but then when I discover they are looking at a small screen it's no wonder.
As to the fundamentals, I'd have to say we still have room to grow on higher resolution using 35mm and 70 mm film conversions but the distribution media would need upgrading and since the improvements in smaller than 50" screens are too minor and recognized by too few, I doubt that will be the direction we go in. Rather, it is and will be 3D. CEA has already stated as such.
It often amazes me how many people can't see the artifacting in RGB component vs. HDMI but then when I discover they are looking at a small screen it's no wonder.
As to the fundamentals, I'd have to say we still have room to grow on higher resolution using 35mm and 70 mm film conversions but the distribution media would need upgrading and since the improvements in smaller than 50" screens are too minor and recognized by too few, I doubt that will be the direction we go in. Rather, it is and will be 3D. CEA has already stated as such.
The 2 largest theater chains have contracted with Sony to purchase over 12000 4K theater projectors (4000X2000). I'm not sure that is at 2 a year or it depends or what. UltraHigh Definition (8000X4000) is realistic enough it could cause psychological issues for the viewers. Then comes restraint on bandwidth by the carriers, most of whom are truncating much of their output , today
UltraHigh Definition (8000X4000) is realistic enough it could cause psychological issues for the viewers. Then comes restraint on bandwidth by the carriers, most of whom are truncating much of their output , today
I do not see it happening in 10 years in the main stream. Blu-Ray if it is successful will probably keep the same format just to keep the cost down and stay afloat. A better change in BD would be deep color before resolution increase. The problem is that BD just is not really catching on as fast as those in the industry would like. Downloads are probably going to be the next "medium". It will be a few years before downloads really have a chance of just equalling BD, much less passing it.
I have not seen complaints in DLP theaters where the resolution is 2k. Of course that is not the giant screen theaters, but the screens being successful in theaters at 2k are far, far, far larger than what will be in the average house (possibly ever). I just do not see 20' screens in an average home theater any time soon.
I have not seen complaints in DLP theaters where the resolution is 2k. Of course that is not the giant screen theaters, but the screens being successful in theaters at 2k are far, far, far larger than what will be in the average house (possibly ever). I just do not see 20' screens in an average home theater any time soon.
We'll agree to disagree about Blu-ray being successful. I think they are quite successful. But I agree about deep color- that's something I really want to see, and would pay to buy a new TV to get.
With expanding caps at ISPs, and the real possibility that net neutrality will not happen, I don't see HD downloads expanding very fast. And we already have bottlenecks in the current (overloaded?) system.
With expanding caps at ISPs, and the real possibility that net neutrality will not happen, I don't see HD downloads expanding very fast. And we already have bottlenecks in the current (overloaded?) system.
Yes.
Not part of the mandatory Blu-ray spec though, and what displays will support it?
I like HD for the higher resolution, the widescreen aspect, the much improved audio. And - I can see the slightly improved color gamut. I'd like to see more.
Not part of the mandatory Blu-ray spec though, and what displays will support it?
I like HD for the higher resolution, the widescreen aspect, the much improved audio. And - I can see the slightly improved color gamut. I'd like to see more.
It does.
And so do the latest HDTVs.
This is expected to be used extensively in gaming.
But the BD standard is a "castrated" 8-bit system [16-235], just like DVDs.
That means any BD player you buy today will not be able to take advantage of "deep color". Ever.
There is a - theoretical, at the moment - possibility that BD movies of the future will be recorded on the disk in two parts,
just like DTS-MA is today: core (what we have today) PLUS the extension that takes it to "deep color".
Old players will play just the core, new - the "deep color" version (core+extension).
Considering most of the interest today is in 3D, the likelihood of this to happen is very low and/or in the not near future.
Diogen.
Perhaps. But the 3D offered today is going to need a lot of improvement, or it will decline when the novelty wears off.
Sorry in advance for the long post.
I think we'll eventually see 4K-based movies in home theater. It isn't going to happen anytime soon however. My guess is a minimum of 7 to 10 years before any 4K movie material arrives in the home video marketplace. Right now not enough Hollywood movies that use digital intermediate are mastering at 4K resolution. Most are merely 2K. Really even for the 7-10 year time frame to be feasible various electronics companies would have to be hard at work getting the foundation of a new video format established now. The first work on Blu-ray began at the end of the 1990s.
A number of computer monitors are already operating well beyond the 1920 X 1080 HD standard. Toshiba announced they are developing a 4K resolution 52" HDTV monitor that can also double as a high resolution, giant sized computer monitor. The new Apple 27" iMac has 2560 X 1440 resolution. Their bigger, 30" monitor has a 2560 X 1600 desktop. These are just examples pointing out the possibilities of going well beyond 1080p HD.
A lot of HDTV sets can double as computer monitors. I could certainly make use of a 4K based computer monitor. Such a display would not show all the detail from images I can take with my Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera (it takes 5616 X 3744 sized images).
Certain movies are getting new digital masters created in really high resolution settings. Baraka established a new quality standard with its 5-perf 65mm footage being scanned at 8000 line resolution. The Wizard of Oz and South Pacific have received similar treatment. Some film scanners can go as high as 16K, although data storage requirements are massive for such an effort.
Yes. But to this date, I don't think any movie studios have released any movies on Blu-ray encoded at deep color bit depths. Even though Blu-ray can run at really high bit rates, the video is still very severely data compressed. A standard 1080p HD video stream uncompressed runs between 1.1 and 1.4 billion bits per second. That's a lot higher than the 20-40 million bits per second averages seen on Blu-ray. With various modes of deep color used, the video master could run at bandwidths over 3 billion bits per second. Squeezing the extra bit depth down into the bandwidth limits of Blu-ray would dramatically worsen data compression levels.
HDMI 1.4-based equipment will arrive in stores during 2010. The 1.4 standard will improve support for increased color bit depths as well as allow higher resolutions like 4K. It will also allow for dual 1080p video streams for full color 3D use. One thing I think is pretty cool is HDMI 1.4 will allow Ethernet over HDMI.
It depends the group of viewers whose opinion is being requested. Many average people just get snowed over by the "digital" buzzword and automatically think any sort of "digital projection" equals perfect picture quality. That's not really the case. A lot of variables are involved during production, post production and exhibition (showing the movie in theaters).
On average, digital projection is big step up for most theaters. It's not better than 35mm film projection done right. But digital projection is able to provide a more consistently good quality image when you don't have expert people running and maintaining the equipment.
4-perf 35mm film photography is still superior to any digital (video) based system both in terms of capturing image detail and resolving motion. Even if you under-expose a film frame you still get an absolutely discrete image on every frame. CCD and CMOS sensors are prone to ghosting and other sorts of smeary lag when used in low light situations. Major advances are being made with video camera sensors. So it's only a matter of time before they close the gap with film.
Plus film has its characteristic look. A lot of time consuming finishing work must be applied to electronic-based video footage to imitate the film look. It's not enough to simply shoot video in 24p. Nevertheless, as video camera sensors improve so will their color handling. In a few years they'll have the color depth needed to accurately imitate various kinds of film stocks.
Finally, a bit about Blu-ray.
I think Blu-ray is well on its way to quietly replacing DVD. Companies like Oppo have already announced they will no longer develop DVD-only movie disc players. The prices of BD players are dropping enough that it won't be long before most electronics companies dump DVD-only from their product lines.
It doesn't take long at all for anyone to get spoiled to the image quality of Blu-ray and HDTV in general. DVD is merely standard def, nothing more. I have a huge DVD collection that is now only gathering dust. I plan on selling nearly all of those discs over the next few months. I need to unload those things while I can still get at least some money for them. In another couple or so years I'd only be able to give them away for nothing.
I think we'll eventually see 4K-based movies in home theater. It isn't going to happen anytime soon however. My guess is a minimum of 7 to 10 years before any 4K movie material arrives in the home video marketplace. Right now not enough Hollywood movies that use digital intermediate are mastering at 4K resolution. Most are merely 2K. Really even for the 7-10 year time frame to be feasible various electronics companies would have to be hard at work getting the foundation of a new video format established now. The first work on Blu-ray began at the end of the 1990s.
A number of computer monitors are already operating well beyond the 1920 X 1080 HD standard. Toshiba announced they are developing a 4K resolution 52" HDTV monitor that can also double as a high resolution, giant sized computer monitor. The new Apple 27" iMac has 2560 X 1440 resolution. Their bigger, 30" monitor has a 2560 X 1600 desktop. These are just examples pointing out the possibilities of going well beyond 1080p HD.
A lot of HDTV sets can double as computer monitors. I could certainly make use of a 4K based computer monitor. Such a display would not show all the detail from images I can take with my Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera (it takes 5616 X 3744 sized images).
Certain movies are getting new digital masters created in really high resolution settings. Baraka established a new quality standard with its 5-perf 65mm footage being scanned at 8000 line resolution. The Wizard of Oz and South Pacific have received similar treatment. Some film scanners can go as high as 16K, although data storage requirements are massive for such an effort.
tigerfan33 said:
Yes. But to this date, I don't think any movie studios have released any movies on Blu-ray encoded at deep color bit depths. Even though Blu-ray can run at really high bit rates, the video is still very severely data compressed. A standard 1080p HD video stream uncompressed runs between 1.1 and 1.4 billion bits per second. That's a lot higher than the 20-40 million bits per second averages seen on Blu-ray. With various modes of deep color used, the video master could run at bandwidths over 3 billion bits per second. Squeezing the extra bit depth down into the bandwidth limits of Blu-ray would dramatically worsen data compression levels.
HDMI 1.4-based equipment will arrive in stores during 2010. The 1.4 standard will improve support for increased color bit depths as well as allow higher resolutions like 4K. It will also allow for dual 1080p video streams for full color 3D use. One thing I think is pretty cool is HDMI 1.4 will allow Ethernet over HDMI.
mike123abc said:
It depends the group of viewers whose opinion is being requested. Many average people just get snowed over by the "digital" buzzword and automatically think any sort of "digital projection" equals perfect picture quality. That's not really the case. A lot of variables are involved during production, post production and exhibition (showing the movie in theaters).
On average, digital projection is big step up for most theaters. It's not better than 35mm film projection done right. But digital projection is able to provide a more consistently good quality image when you don't have expert people running and maintaining the equipment.
4-perf 35mm film photography is still superior to any digital (video) based system both in terms of capturing image detail and resolving motion. Even if you under-expose a film frame you still get an absolutely discrete image on every frame. CCD and CMOS sensors are prone to ghosting and other sorts of smeary lag when used in low light situations. Major advances are being made with video camera sensors. So it's only a matter of time before they close the gap with film.
Plus film has its characteristic look. A lot of time consuming finishing work must be applied to electronic-based video footage to imitate the film look. It's not enough to simply shoot video in 24p. Nevertheless, as video camera sensors improve so will their color handling. In a few years they'll have the color depth needed to accurately imitate various kinds of film stocks.
Finally, a bit about Blu-ray.
I think Blu-ray is well on its way to quietly replacing DVD. Companies like Oppo have already announced they will no longer develop DVD-only movie disc players. The prices of BD players are dropping enough that it won't be long before most electronics companies dump DVD-only from their product lines.
It doesn't take long at all for anyone to get spoiled to the image quality of Blu-ray and HDTV in general. DVD is merely standard def, nothing more. I have a huge DVD collection that is now only gathering dust. I plan on selling nearly all of those discs over the next few months. I need to unload those things while I can still get at least some money for them. In another couple or so years I'd only be able to give them away for nothing.
As has been argued by the pros on AVS, going from 8-bit to 10-bit will have hardly any impact on encoding rates/bandwidth. The rationale behind it is simple: going to 8-bit triggers banding; dithering is used to eliminate it; dithering (i.e. noise) reduces encoding efficiency. Those two factors will cancel out when going 10bit.
But that train has left the station...
Diogen.
Digital Cinema Initiatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps the reason theaters do well with 2k DCI is that they use 12 bits/color, with up to 250Mbit/sec data rate. They might be doing 2k, but it is deep color and lightly compressed. Having a 3 panel $60-100k DLP projector helps too. I do not see pixels in the theater, of course I do not sit too close since I see the perforations in the screen if too close. 2k resolution on a 30' wide screen would be around .18" pixels, pretty hard to see from normal seating distances.
One could believe that some day a multilayer BD could match the spec. If they do a 12 layer disc, the bottom 2 layers could be the old BD format and they use the other 10 layers to do high bit rate deep color. Will this ever happen? One could argue it would be hard to download 250GB movies, so studios could view it as not increasing piracy.
Perhaps the reason theaters do well with 2k DCI is that they use 12 bits/color, with up to 250Mbit/sec data rate. They might be doing 2k, but it is deep color and lightly compressed. Having a 3 panel $60-100k DLP projector helps too. I do not see pixels in the theater, of course I do not sit too close since I see the perforations in the screen if too close. 2k resolution on a 30' wide screen would be around .18" pixels, pretty hard to see from normal seating distances.
One could believe that some day a multilayer BD could match the spec. If they do a 12 layer disc, the bottom 2 layers could be the old BD format and they use the other 10 layers to do high bit rate deep color. Will this ever happen? One could argue it would be hard to download 250GB movies, so studios could view it as not increasing piracy.
I think we'll see something along the lines of the current D-cinema standard for home theater in the long run.
In addition to the deeper color depths, d-cinema outclasses Blu-ray by not using any sort of inter-frame compression. A JPEG2000 based D-cinema "virtual print" is little more than an encrypted container file holding many thousands of JPEG2000 compressed still images. Every movie frame is a separate still image file. Each image has a mild amount of compression applied and no more than 3 transform blocks allowed.
That's not the case for Blu-ray or any form of broadcast HDTV. MPEG-4 AVC, VC-1 and MPEG-2 HD all rely heavily on inter-frame compression. Imagery is also divided up into many more transform blocks. Blu-ray can run at high enough bit rates to make those compression flaws less visible. They're more obviously noticeable in HD broadcast and certain cable channels that are more severely compressed.
In addition to the deeper color depths, d-cinema outclasses Blu-ray by not using any sort of inter-frame compression. A JPEG2000 based D-cinema "virtual print" is little more than an encrypted container file holding many thousands of JPEG2000 compressed still images. Every movie frame is a separate still image file. Each image has a mild amount of compression applied and no more than 3 transform blocks allowed.
That's not the case for Blu-ray or any form of broadcast HDTV. MPEG-4 AVC, VC-1 and MPEG-2 HD all rely heavily on inter-frame compression. Imagery is also divided up into many more transform blocks. Blu-ray can run at high enough bit rates to make those compression flaws less visible. They're more obviously noticeable in HD broadcast and certain cable channels that are more severely compressed.
I make an effort to see at least a few movies at good quality commercial theaters. I won't spend money at a dumpy theater. But I think it is important to support the theatrical side of the movie industry.
Without commercial movie theaters the movie industry as we know it would be a mere shadow of its former self. If every movie was made direct-to-video the result would be production budgets would be slashed to the bone and quality would suffer. There's already countless numbers of movies released direct to video. Most of those shows stink. The bigger budget features would have little if any way to separate themselves from that pack. The theatrical side is that big barrier of separation for legit features.
Without theaters TV and cable networks would become the main showcase venues for top tier feature content, and no TV network is going to fund $100 million to $200 million for a single 2 hour movie. Major movie studios would be reduced to mere production company brand names for TV and cable networks.
Without commercial movie theaters the movie industry as we know it would be a mere shadow of its former self. If every movie was made direct-to-video the result would be production budgets would be slashed to the bone and quality would suffer. There's already countless numbers of movies released direct to video. Most of those shows stink. The bigger budget features would have little if any way to separate themselves from that pack. The theatrical side is that big barrier of separation for legit features.
Without theaters TV and cable networks would become the main showcase venues for top tier feature content, and no TV network is going to fund $100 million to $200 million for a single 2 hour movie. Major movie studios would be reduced to mere production company brand names for TV and cable networks.
