Pages



Saturday, 28 February 2015

Blu-ray Disc Releases : 4K



I just read about 4K blu-ray discs. Am I going to have to replace all my blu-rays with 4K? I am now going to have to replace my portable blu-ray player? I spend money upgrading from VHS to DVD & DVD to blu - ray. Now I have to upgrade all over again! UGH!

Samsung BD-F7500 4K Upscaling 3D Wi-Fi Blu-ray Disc Player

Samsung BD-F7500 4K Upscaling 3D Wi-Fi Blu-ray Disc Player

Person B
Only if you plan to upgrade to a very large 80" or larger 4k Ultra-HDTV, or if you plan to sit right up close to the screen of your smaller than 80" 4k Ultra-HDTV, or if money is no object, which is clearly not the case. Otherwise, don't waste your money; you'll see very little difference.

In my opinion, blu-ray is more than clear enough for the average home cinema viewing experience (60" or smaller screen) to make movies immersive, wash over you, for these old eyes tired of working anyway. Maybe younger kids will have a different opinion.

I'm wondering how many of us really care about pixels when we're trying to enjoy, be entertained

I spend money upgrading from VHS to DVD & DVD to blu - ray. Now I have to upgrade all over again! UGH!

I'm with you. After being around this home entertainment thing for a few decades, buying laserdiscs (I was never into VHS), DVD and now blu-ray, I'm of the hard-learned-through experience opinion that 4k makers are just trying to get us to spend more of our hard-earned money, because there's no profit in 1080p hardware and media for them anymore. I'm of the opinion that this is not about art or technical perfection; it's about money. Unless I happen to win million$ in the Lotto and can thus afford to build a dedicated home cinema room with a front-projector capable of throwing a 10-foot image on the wall, blu-ray is IT for me.



Person A
For future blu-rays that will be only available in 4K, I won't be able to watch them on my portable blu-ray player.

Person B
Maybe in 20 years blu-rays will only be available in 4K, and, provided we're even here, are living and have good eyesight, 4K products will be a lot cheaper at that time, so don't worry about it.

DVDs of every new release are still being made despite blu-ray being on the market since 2006, because there's still a "Wal-Mart" segment of the population that can't afford or doesn't care enough to upgrade to 1080p blu-ray.

As "entertainment on the go" seems to be the increasingly normal movie viewing choice these days, I'm amazed there are even portable 1080p blu-ray players! I would think portable media players would only play DVDs, Ultraviolet, digital copies, highly compressed youtube clips and such, and that the screen of a portable device would be too small to even show the resolution of 1080p! Maybe a tablet would have a big enough screen to see the resolution advantages of blu-ray...?

Person A
There are some portable blu-ray players but not many.

Person C
I wouldn't even expect my current BD player to last much more than 10 years, going

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

Person B
Yeah, Marmaduke, my old Sony blu-ray player pooped out too. Thankfully, I was able to get a new Sony blu-ray player for $36 all in, including shipping, from Amazon. It has a much quicker load time and even offers Wi-Fi and ability to access internet downloads. Technology is a beautiful thing, if you can wait for it to get cheap.



Person D
4k is just a bonus for collectors. So no, you don't have to worry about transferring from Blu-Ray to 4k Blu-Ray, that doesn't even make sense. 4k is basically the blu ray equivalent of the "Superbit" DVD craze that promised quality above standard DVDs.

Unless you have a large home theater screen above 80", you wont even be able to notice the difference between Blu Ray and 4k Blu Ray.

Person A
Thanks for letting me know!

Person E
Even those "Superbit" DVDs were crap.. still had blocky picture and half-bitrate DTS at best. I have a couple of old HK kung fu movies in "Ultrabit" editions and the only difference is they max out out the video bitrate, but even with bitrates around 9mbps it still looks fuzzy due to the low pixel count and outdated codec.


Person F
1. Superbit did in fact offer better image quality than releases that used some arbitrarily low bit rate. Granted not every viewer may have noticed the difference, but given the choice, I'd always choose "better".

2. 4K is completely different than using less lossy compression. But once again, just because you might not be able to notice any difference is not a good reason to deny the rest of the world the benefit.

3. That stupid movie theater chart that so many people think is Gospel is not. There's an obvious alternative to using ridiculously large screens: sit closer. Works just fine. Anyone who knows simple math should be able to figure it out.


Person E
Oh believe me i'll be able to see the difference, and I know damn well that once I see the difference it will be glaringly obvious. At least enough to force me to upgrade a fair portion of my collection all over again...


Person B
Sit closer: Sounds easy enough, until you realize HOW MUCH CLOSER you'll have to sit to a 60" screen to reap the benefits of 4k you'd see on an 80+" screen, basically right on top of the screen, impractical for most easy chairs and living environments.

A WALL-SIZED image from a front-projection system in a dedicated home cinema room is really the benchmark to ascertain the visual benefits of 4k. 4k is digital CINEMA and a cinema screen is LARGE.

Person F
4k is digital CINEMA and a cinema screen is LARGE.


That's the thing -- it's not "CINEMA". It's a TV format, an extension of 1080p. TV stuff like raster scanning is still there. And, like it or not, it is being used in places other than movie theaters. On the production end it's very common to see ~24" 4K monitors in use

The future doesn't care who accepts it and who doesn't; it just keeps on coming. Trying to apply old rules to new things is pointless.


Person B
4K may be a FORMAT, but the RESOLUTION of 4K can only be SEEN on a CINEMA-sized screen. 4K stands for 4,000 lines of resolution, almost 4x 1080p. 4K used to be only the domain of 35mm or larger negative film, and yes, now video technology has evolved to 4K as well. 4K resolution commands a large-screen viewing experience.

Those production crews who sit right on top of a 24" 4K monitor may be able to accurately judge color and contrast on that small 4K monitor, but not resolution; they will happily only SEE roughly 720p on that little 4K screen. Maybe 720p is enough to tell if a 4K shot is in focus, but it is not enough to really languish in and enjoy the fine detail of 4K.

If as an end user you want to spend double your money on technology that you won't see, go right ahead. Me, I'll wait until 4K price drops lower than 1080p and then, even though I won't see the benefit of 4K on a small screen, 4K price will no longer be an issue.

It's not rules; it's common sense.


Person F
4K may be a FORMAT, but the RESOLUTION of 4K can only be SEEN on a CINEMA-sized screen.


Prove it.

I'm tired of this bone-headed rumor-mongering. So put up or shut up.


4K used to be only the domain of 35mm or larger negative film...


Please list the different "4K" films sold over the ages. Precisely how do they make the film grain into exactly square shaped pixels?


Those production crews who sit right on top of a 24" 4K monitor may be able to accurately judge color and contrast on that small 4K monitor, but not resolution; they will happily only SEE roughly 720p...


So you're saying in essence that all of the engineers and other industry professionals are idiots and fools, and are just wasting money. Well, show us the math, big boy. Prove to us with actual numbers and equations how your intellect is so superior.


It's not rules; it's common sense.


Oh, so the laws of nature can just be ignored when you apply what you call "common sense", eh? I'm going to make a bold prediction. You're not going to produce any formulae to back up your claims. Why? Because "common sense" makes them irrelevant? No, it's because you're wrong.

Person B
Prove it.

Give me a 24" 4K monitor and give me an 80" or larger 4K monitor and I'll prove it.

Yes, this is tiring. I'm out.
Why Person B is Wrong


Person F
Since I'm here not particularly to win debates, but primarily to share knowledge, I'm going to answer the questions that Person B cannot. Hopefully my thumbnail sketches of how optics work will put to rest a lot of the false myths that are propagating around here.

4K may be a FORMAT, but the RESOLUTION of 4K can only be SEEN on a CINEMA-sized screen.

This is wrong because the human eye doesn't care about linear screen size, it cares about arcs of vision. The well-known "20/20 vision" uses an arbitrary 20 feet of distance, but most people know that they can successfully focus on objects at distances other than 20 feet. The actual measure is 1/1 arc min, and can be applied to eye charts of any size. That's why those machines at the DMV aren't 2 stories tall! It's also why you don't need a gigantic movie screen in order to see higher resolutions.

If 20 feet was truly magical, movie theaters would have only one row of seats, and the arbitrary chart-makers might have a point. But that's not the case, so it's foolhardy to pretend otherwise.

Human vision is a matter of angles, not linear measures. As long as the human eye can focus on a screen, it's a perfectly acceptable size. And, as we have seen with virtual reality goggles and Google Glass, we can use optical lenses to greatly extend the range of what the eye can focus on. In short, screen size simply isn't a factor as long as the pixels are there.

In the past there have been practical reasons for having lots of people sitting in large darkened rooms to watch movies. Most of the reasons had to do with the cost of the projection equipment and media. Well, times change. Now its possible for individuals to own and possess smaller versions of the classical movie theater! This is a Good Thing! Today it's possible to watch movies with exceptional resolution in a much smaller space than before. Tomorrow the average size of this viewing space will be even smaller! We already see young people preferring to watch movies and TV programming on small screens. It's already happening. The reason why is because technology has advanced to put more pixels into ever-smaller areas. "Future is now!"

The truth is that companies like Ortus Technology are selling full 4K (4096 V-line) screens smaller than 10", and smart phone makers like LG and Samsung are producing "Quad HD" (1080 * 2 V-line or 1920 * 2 H-line) screens that come mighty close to the 4K standard. These can't be viewed with full clarity with the naked eye (unless the viewer has 20/16 vision), but with the addition of a simple lens...they can, and


4K stands for 4,000 lines of resolution, almost 4x 1080p.

Actually "4K" stands for 4 *2^10, or 4096 vertical lines of of presentation. (Those of us who have been involved in computing for some time now know what a "K" is.) Notice that I say "presentation", not "resolution". I do that because those lines are not a function of the visual acuity of the beholder; they exist no matter what. The lines don't magically go away if the beholder is blind (willfully or otherwise) to them. Likewise, they don't magically disappear because someone doesn't believe in the technology.


4K used to be only the domain of 35mm or larger negative film...

The truth is that there is no such thing as "4K film", and never was. The 4K construct was thought up in the age of electronic imagery, and is only 12 years old.


...now video technology has evolved to 4K as well.

Actually it's the video technology that carries 4K entirely. The Dalsa Origin, the first 4K camera, is a video camera, not film. All 4K cameras use electronic imagery and digital representation. Film plays no role in 4K.


Those production crews who sit right on top of a 24" 4K monitor may be able to accurately judge color and contrast on that small 4K monitor, but not resolution; they will happily only SEE roughly 720p on that little 4K screen.

This has already been debunked, but suffice it to say that the (mostly Panasonic) 4K monitors used in 4K production actually do show the full 4K resolution when set to do so. And yes, people with normal vision can indeed use the full resolution of these screens to check focus and other detail-oriented tasks. The people who make the movies and TV shows that you watch are not the fools.


It's not rules; it's common sense.

Actually is is the rules. And while popular-but-wrong notions may be common, they certainly are not sensible! In the past, many people have believed that:

1. The earth is flat.
2. The sun and planets revolve around the earth.
3. There are 4 elements: earth, air, water and fire.
4. "Bad air", not germs spread disease.
5. Stomach ulcers are caused

Here's a nice "top 10 list":

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wro ng-widely-held-scientific-theories/

PersonG
Assuming normal vision, if your viewing distance is at least twice the diagonal size of your TV, you will get no benefit from 4K. To see the FULL benefit of 4K, your viewing distance needs to be about equal to the diagonal size of your TV. Anywhere in between and you'll get some benefit from 4K but won't be able to see all the detail.

Screen size doesn't matter

Person B
Assuming normal vision, if your viewing distance is at least twice the diagonal size of your TV, you will get no benefit from 4K. To see the FULL benefit of 4K, your viewing distance needs to be about equal to the diagonal size of your TV. Anywhere in between and you'll get some benefit from 4K but won't be able to see all the detail.

Thank you, dusso, my point exactly. And "assuming normal vision": That's the kicker. How many of us have perfect 20/20 vision near and far? Resolution and screen screen size factors have to be adjusted to our eyes and the practicality of our living space.

Speed: A cinema screen is at least 50 feet diagonal, so it's very easy to see the detail of 4K on a cinema screen, even in the back row of the cinema. On a 24" 4K TV, your eyes will strain to see the same detail, unless you sit 24" away, and is that practical in a home viewing environment?

And let's not forget and take into consideration the issue of ambient light around the screen. In a cinema, once the movie starts, the only light in the cinema is the light coming from the image on the screen; the rest of the cinema is pitch-black. This makes it very easy for your eyes to fixate on just the image on the screen. At home, or in a production environment, chances are it's highly likely that there will be a lot more ambient light around the screen, in the form of table lamps, daylight and/or fluorescent light fixtures. This ambient light makes it much more difficult for the eyes to perceive not only resolution, but color and contrast on the screen. As you said, Speed, yes, these things can be controlled, with add-ons.

I don't care about being right or wrong, Speed, I'm just trying to paint a picture for you so you can (hopefully) see and understand what I'm talking about. I see and understand what you're talking about.

Person F
I think that you and several other people who post here think that "cinema" is magical, and that newer technologies somehow can't match it. I maintain that that sort of magical thinking is wrong, and I can prove it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

International Shipping Eligible