4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

Technically-oriented discussion of classic films on everything from 35mm to Blu-Ray
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostSun Sep 06, 2015 7:36 am

A new Blu Ray Player able to run vídeos in 4K, and use the same space of a full HD vídeo ?

We know that compression kill details, create trouble with grain, with fast motion... It's already a problem for HD...
Now they said the new compression can handle 4K with the same space of a full HD.

I already did not believe in DVD (due compression issues).
HDTV was even worse, compression killing details.
Blu Ray full HD also can have problems, despite superior to DVD and HDTV.

Now they ask to beliueve in a compression for 4K, in the same space of a ful HD.

They should focus in better detaisl preservation instead of 4K, or 8K...

If we make a mosaic to fit several SD images into a 4K image, I do not believe the compression can handle it preserving details. I don't believe a vintage film, grainy and with scratchs and dust, can run in this 4K preserving these characteristics.
I don't believe thse suposed 4K will make a 16mm film look real. I bet it will look like a waxy digital vídeo.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostSun Sep 06, 2015 3:20 pm

Bitrate is an extremely poor way to judge quality. Codecs keep getting better and better, and if you base your impression of compression on experiences from fifteen or twenty years ago, your opinions will be sadly obsolete. There is a point of transparency in any compressed file... that is the point where it is identical with the original file. You can heap a whole lot more bandwidth on it, but it isn't going to get any better.

Most modern formats are already well into the range of overkill. Compression really isn't a serious issue. More serious is the quality of the transfer in the first place and the mastering of the disk.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostSun Sep 06, 2015 6:12 pm

When you get more and more on texture, things get trouble.
Do you think the texture you see in most BD are real?

Texture, grain, it's random, and you can't really turn a random thing into a redundant thing to compress well.

Most films on BD are not really real, are more like vídeo processed, smoothed, a misture of softness with sharpness during filtering processing.


I'm sad with such dumbess of the market.
People talking in 4K, some in 8k, but we still have artifacts, poor bit depth (only 256 tones for channel), and not a single digital TV with a digital player able to alter the frame rate/projection seed, still forcing to silly things as interpolation of frames, ghost frames.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

Phototone

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:59 pm
  • Location: Van Buren, Arkansas, USA

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostMon Sep 07, 2015 10:45 am

Some people are going to be unhappy no matter what. So be it. For me....watching a well mastered BluRay on my full HD video projector gives me the same experience (or better) than watching 35mm film at the movie theaters I used to own. I am very happy.
Offline

jazzbo

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:15 am
  • Location: Bangor, ME

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostMon Sep 07, 2015 3:30 pm

All Darc wrote:A new Blu Ray Player able to run vídeos in 4K, and use the same space of a full HD vídeo ?

We know that compression kill details, create trouble with grain, with fast motion... It's already a problem for HD...
Now they said the new compression can handle 4K with the same space of a full HD.

I already did not believe in DVD (due compression issues).
HDTV was even worse, compression killing details.
Blu Ray full HD also can have problems, despite superior to DVD and HDTV.


This thread might be better in the tech talk, but I don't know what you mean by "in the same space of the full HD," blu-ray uhd is scheduled to ship on 66GB and 100GB discs, not the 25GB and 50GB of bluray so there is considerably more headroom as far as data size, and obviously the resolution will be larger. But yes, the new HEVC algorithm used for UHD, both online such as with netflix and on the new discs, is also considerably better at compression than the h.264/avc or VC-1 typically used in bluray or the mpeg-2 of DVD.

I don't believe a vintage film, grainy and with scratchs and dust, can run in this 4K preserving these characteristics.
I don't believe thse suposed 4K will make a 16mm film look real. I bet it will look like a waxy digital vídeo.


I think we should all give each format a chance, before passing judgment.

Just curious, but how would you have the average person watch films in their own home if not in some consumer format?

People talking in 4K, some in 8k, but we still have artifacts, poor bit depth (only 256 tones for channel)


Care to explain this? Part of the new format encompasses an expanded color range and depth.
Offline

Marr&Colton

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostTue Sep 08, 2015 5:00 am

16mm film is NOT theatrical standard (other than remote area village theatres of under 100 seats), and seldom has the clarity and depth of field than 35mm and larger gauges.

For digital transfer in ANY resolution, 16mm is NOT desirable unless no other existing copies of a movie in 35mm are available.

WHY wouldn't we want to accept DVD and Blu-Ray? As a former film collector from the 1970s through the early 1990s,
I am so happy to no longer invest huge sums of money in film, take chances on the sellers' honesty,
deal with the storage of film, possible vinegar syndrome and live with the very limited selection of classic titles---even more scarce now. How many times can you run a $500 or $1000 print of a film to get your money's worth? Or will you have thousands of dollars of film sitting on shelves with no easy way to ever recoup the full investment should you need to?

Digital video now has a fantastic selection of older titles, usually in sharp, clear transfers. I project on a large home theatre screen with an HD digital projector and Blu-Ray player and get fantastic quality and sound.

PERFECT? No---but light years better than our fuzzy quality VHS tape of the 1970s.

For several years I had presented movie classic film series at local theatres using digital media with excellent sharp and clear quality on the big screen.

I agree 100% with Phototone's comment above--and co-incidentally used to own a movie theatre too. (ah..happy days!)
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostThu Sep 10, 2015 7:56 am

I did not said DVD or Blu-Ray are useless !!!
It's a blessing comprared to 8mm and VHS times.

I said technology is focusing too much in higher "resolution", 4k, 8k, (exagerated unless you think in IMAX and giant displays), and not in certains aspects.

Most films until couple years ago was finalized in 2K
Grain reduction kill details making real resolution even lower.
There is no real "great digital sytem", cause they have limitations, and still require interpolate frames, uncapable of change frame rate without such silliness

I'm saying what they are making a marketing to trick people, once again.

They could creat a 2K system, with better compression, better resolve of grain, better colors.


It's just that I simple don't like lies. That's it.
First they start digital era with lies, sayiong digital sound and image had no loss (bullshit, it have with compression), that images were cristaline. Today people listen to basically only MP3, that is worse than good LPs.

HDTV TV broadcast, for example it's not a cristline digital thing, it's not a very good digital photo. I see skin spots or small birth marks disappear when a character moves or rotate the head very slowly. It's really distracting and anoying to me.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Great Hierophant

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostWed Oct 28, 2015 9:19 am

The amount compression that cable companies use on their HD channels and the streaming services use on their HD streams is often pretty bad, making content feel closer to an upscaled DVD than an HD Blu-ray.

Uncompressed HD video is simply not feasible at the present time. At 1080/24p, assuming 24-bit color, you have a bit rate of almost 150MB per second. Consider a film with a 2hr runtime and you need 537GB to store that film, over five times the maximum size of a triple-layer Blu-ray disc. No go to 4K/24p at 36-bit color and you will need a hard disk drive to hold the film. However

Better scanning, mastering and restoration techniques, more available prints, higher definition support and better compression methods all combine to make for far superior releases of films than what we had 10 years ago. Don't get me started on what we had 15 years ago, (pre-Anamorphic DVD letterboxing, pan & scan, VHS was not yet dead) we were still in the dark ages when it came to home video.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostWed Oct 28, 2015 6:16 pm

Great Hierophant wrote:The amount compression that cable companies use on their HD channels and the streaming services use on their HD streams is often pretty bad, making content feel closer to an upscaled DVD than an HD Blu-ray.


Yes, and that's what I call "lie to consumer".
Sometimes such "HDs" worse than a prime DVD.
A digital sat system here (SD package), initially advertised as "DVD like image", today have many channels that looks like VHS in terms of image detail.

Great Hierophant wrote:Uncompressed HD video is simply not feasible at the present time. At 1080/24p, assuming 24-bit color, you have a bit rate of almost 150MB per second. Consider a film with a 2hr runtime and you need 537GB to store that film, over five times the maximum size of a triple-layer Blu-ray disc. No go to 4K/24p at 36-bit color and you will need a hard disk drive to hold the film.


I agree, a vídeo free of any compression it's not viable. But I believe that maybe they could think about a much less agressive compression, instead of talk about 8K and very heavy compression, that in the end would not be really 8K in definiotion and real details.
That's a marketing to force people to spend a lot of Money when 8K TVs arrive.


Great Hierophant wrote:Better scanning, mastering and restoration techniques, more available prints, higher definition support and better compression methods all combine to make for far superior releases of films than what we had 10 years ago. Don't get me started on what we had 15 years ago, (pre-Anamorphic DVD letterboxing, pan & scan, VHS was not yet dead) we were still in the dark ages when it came to home video.


Yes scanning and mastering make a lot of difference. I once watched a early HD scanning of the movie "The Sting", and it, despite better than DVD, had a lot of aliasing, like when it showed a close image of a clock's pointers.

There are today better compression than the now silly MPEG2 (used in DVDs). You can watch a good film from, for example Torrent, with practically the same details of a DVD (typical SD) with much less space in disc, or even than DVD get better image if was ripped from a good Blu Ray to SD . But such compressions require more processing power.

One problem is that there is no decent HD TV yet. LED TVs are not real LED but LCD witrh LED backlight, another sh... lie of marketing.
They all have limited dynamics range, most models still distort image if you change the angle just a bit, and all the model blown-up the highlights a lot if you increase contrast.
I never saw a CRT TV blown out highlights when the contrast was increased.

Another problem is that the backlight adjust in LDC/"LED" TVs, is separated, so the contrast adjust it's only in the image signal and not related to the power of the light of the TV. In CRTs the contrast adjustment also increased the power of the light emited.

You may say thet there are now the OLED TV, that are somehow like each pixel was a LED... but it's ultra expansive.[/u]
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Great Hierophant

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostMon Nov 02, 2015 7:52 pm

The price on OLED TVs have come down quite a bit. The LG EC9300 55" Curved Screen OLED TV started retail at about $3,500, but these days you may be able to get it for about half that price.

Honestly, on my 47" 4K LED/LCD TV, I have yet to see much of a difference between 1080p and 4K, but my 4K has been limited to the Netflix streaming service. I think I will need a 4K Blu-ray player and an A/B comparison to really notice a difference. 4K Blu-ray might be the savior of the home projectionist, if there are discs and transfers to match.
Offline
User avatar

azjazzman

  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:04 pm

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostMon Nov 02, 2015 11:25 pm

Color bit depth, or the number of possible shades of color increased 4,000 times in the 4K standard. Our current standard is eight-bit, which equals 256 shades per color. That's 256 red x 256 green x 256 blue, for a total of 16.78 million colors. The Rec 2020 standard mandates 10- or 12-bit color: 10-bit offers 1,024 shades per color for a total of 1,073,741,824 colors, while 12-bit offers 4,096 shades per color for a total of 68,719,476,736. Even if your eyes can't see the step up in resolution between 1080p and 4K, almost everyone will be able to see this combination of higher bit depth and wider color gamut.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostTue Nov 03, 2015 7:30 am

If there is a TV that do not blown-up highlights... OLED still expansive, and itcosts 60% more on Brazil, due absurd taxes, and our coin related to dólar devalueted a lot in last year. And OLED use organic dyes, something like that, and the durability it's very reduced compared to LCD.


I once found web tests for color accuracy of view, our eyes. I did great in both. One was similar to test made for daltonism, but more more difficult, with colors much more close, and other was about put in order (color spectrum like a rainbow) many colored blocks. In the fiurst test I was informed that I had a color accuracy capability that less of 5% of people have.

But I supose everyone should be able to see the disgusting blown-up of highlights that happens in LCD LED-LCD etc...
I don't unbderstand why so much people accepted the shit side effects of LCD displays so easily.

I have a Samsung LED backlight LCD monitor, and I hate it... I look direct in frotn of it, in the center of screen and the sides and edges gret less bright. I more a little to the sides, each one at the tiome, and the oposite side get even darker. I say it's horrible, but people says they don't notice or don't care.

Marketing it's so strong today, that people got blinde, like they only care if have someting that consumism tell they to have, and not trully if that thing is good or not.

azjazzman wrote:Color bit depth, or the number of possible shades of color increased 4,000 times in the 4K standard. Our current standard is eight-bit, which equals 256 shades per color. That's 256 red x 256 green x 256 blue, for a total of 16.78 million colors. The Rec 2020 standard mandates 10- or 12-bit color: 10-bit offers 1,024 shades per color for a total of 1,073,741,824 colors, while 12-bit offers 4,096 shades per color for a total of 68,719,476,736. Even if your eyes can't see the step up in resolution between 1080p and 4K, almost everyone will be able to see this combination of higher bit depth and wider color gamut.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostTue Nov 03, 2015 7:40 am

I bet the suposed 4K materials, films or whatever, it's not trully 4k, but like a interpolation. And a 4K from 35mm it's not really like a image shot in 4K, since there is just some few more relevant details compared to 2K in most 35mm films. A film shot in 70mm would be more relevant.
And I bet 4K cameras are not really 4K, in the same way a câmera of 4mp did not have the same same quality of a 16mp, even if you convert the higher resolution image to get the same pixels number of the lower resolution. The higher resolution, even after converted to lower resolution, would still look better than the image originally shot in lower resolution.
This without talk about loss due compression, grain reduction...

But in the end people will rush to buy 4K TVs because the consmism tells to... Only to say: "Hey, I have a 4KTV"

Great Hierophant wrote:The price on OLED TVs have come down quite a bit. The LG EC9300 55" Curved Screen OLED TV started retail at about $3,500, but these days you may be able to get it for about half that price.

Honestly, on my 47" 4K LED/LCD TV, I have yet to see much of a difference between 1080p and 4K, but my 4K has been limited to the Netflix streaming service. I think I will need a 4K Blu-ray player and an A/B comparison to really notice a difference. 4K Blu-ray might be the savior of the home projectionist, if there are discs and transfers to match.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

coolcatdaddy

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:05 pm
  • Location: Mebane, NC

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostSun Nov 29, 2015 7:53 am

According to some news reports I've seen online, the first 4K blu-ray players and movie titles are supposed to be coming to market in early 2016.

I'll wait and see how this develops. The format might make a difference with some of the detailed restorations that have been done on classic films like "Gone With the Wind" or "Casablanca" or films shot in Cinemascope or large film gauges like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Bridge on the River Kwai". However, while a 4K "Lawrence" would probably be nice, I'm not sure it's worth the expense to upgrade my projector and player to 4K just for a handful of classic movies that I've seen many times already. I doubt any classics will make it to 4K blu-ray beyond the usual suspects.
Offline

fwtep

  • Posts: 498
  • Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:55 pm

Re: 4K Blu Ray Player. I do not believe.

PostSun Nov 29, 2015 11:29 am

"Lawrence" and "Bridge" have, I believe, already been announced for 4k Blu-ray. "Lawrence" alone is almost enough to make me upgrade, but then I think of how absolutely amazing the1080p Blu-ray looks when I project it 10 feet wide and I realize it's just not necessary-- it couldn't look any better. Well, unless I decided to watch from six inches away from the screen.

Return to Tech Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest