Will Blu-Ray support UltraHD? Would you buy a UltraHD TV and a new Blu-Ray player? (1 Viewer)

[Richard V]

After attending a "seminar" on 4K this weekend at my local high end home video store, I must say that I really don't see all that much difference in quality resolution between BD and 4K, except for maybe at the most minimal improvement in color saturation. Even this is best appreciated at closer distances, not intermdiate or distant viewing. The one area where I think 4k holds an edge over BD is on 3D performance. There seems to be much better "depth" and brightness to the screen. Other than that, I see no reason to "upgrade", at any price.

 

[RolandL]

Joe Kane said he did a demo of 2160p vs 1080p on a 84 inch screen to a group. They could not see any difference. Everyone said you needed a bigger than 84 inch screen to see the difference.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Joe Kane said he did a demo of 2160p vs 1080p on a 84 inch screen to a group. They could not see any difference. Everyone said you needed a bigger than 84 inch screen to see the difference.

It's simple psychophysics - we are already nearing the limits of what can be perceived by the human eye under normal viewing conditions. Whilst there can still be improvements, they will not be as massive as what we have seen so far.
I think the next really big thing will not be picture or sound quality but the physical nature of the screen. If I had to hazard a guess I would say the next really big change in our home viewing will be OLED screens that can be rolled up, so that when you aren't watching TV, you don't have a big dead screen dominating the room. I know this is a few years off yet, but it will come.

 

[Peter Neski]

well there's plenty of room for improvement ,all flat screens could use improvements ,then there's 4K ,to say you need a bigger screen for anything better than
1080p is plain insane

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Joe Kane said he did a demo of 2160p vs 1080p on a 84 inch screen to a group. They could not see any difference. Everyone said you needed a bigger than 84 inch screen to see the difference.

It's simple psychophysics - we are already nearing the limits of what can be perceived by the human eye under normal viewing conditions. Whilst there can still be improvements, they will not be as massive as what we have seen so far.

It's is funny the perception that people have and with some hyperbole I'll say the following.
This forum is replete with people screaming for the ultimate in lossless audio that seem to claim that they can hear a gnat flap its wings at 50 yards in a hurricane. However from my perspective on video, I think many of the same people must have 2" thick glasses given what they claim they cannot see.
From my perspective, HT has achieved 98+% of what is even possible to hear and replicate when it comes to audio but we are only at maybe 10% on the video side. The problem for video is that companies only focus on is resolution (the easiest), which is no longer the biggest gap or even the second biggest gap compared to our eyes. They need to focus on color depth and color space. I guarantee that if there was a 1080p display that could show the full visible spectrum at a true 16-bit depth, people would think it had infinite resolution and truly looked real.

 

[Worth]

The problem for video is that companies only focus on is resolution (the easiest), which is no longer the biggest gap or even the second biggest gap compared to our eyes. They need to focus on color depth and color space. I guarantee that if there was a 1080p display that could show the full visible spectrum at a true 16-bit depth, people would think it had infinite resolution and truly looked real.

I don't really understand the obsession with resolution. I'd take a stellar 720p image over a mediocre 4K one any day.

 

[Peter Neski]

"I'd take a stellar 720p image over a mediocre 4K one any day " stellar 720p image should mean super 4k ,if they screw up chances are the 720p image is poor too
Anyone who seen the Lawrence screening in 4k knows that it was better than 720p ,

 

[Dave Upton]

It's is funny the perception that people have and with some hyperbole I'll say the following.
This forum is replete with people screaming for the ultimate in lossless audio that seem to claim that they can hear a gnat flap its wings at 50 yards in a hurricane. However from my perspective on video, I think many of the same people must have 2" thick glasses given what they claim they cannot see.
From my perspective, HT has achieved 98+% of what is even possible to hear and replicate when it comes to audio but we are only at maybe 10% on the video side. The problem for video is that companies only focus on is resolution (the easiest), which is no longer the biggest gap or even the second biggest gap compared to our eyes. They need to focus on color depth and color space. I guarantee that if there was a 1080p display that could show the full visible spectrum at a true 16-bit depth, people would think it had infinite resolution and truly looked real.

Chuck,
An excellent point (though I still think there's a lot more room to improve in audio too!). We saw the Dolby PRM (Professional Reference Monitor) which is 12bit at their HQ, and I have to say that led to several conversations last week where I asked folks "4K or color depth". Most voted for 4k, but I personally would rather have true life like color rendition any day of the week. I think it's long past due to have this conversation and I think many in the industry ignore it because they have unwittingly marketed resolution and 3D as the only valid improvements. Average Joe consumer has no idea that his TV is only showing a portion of the true color gamut.

 

[Rob Willey]

Since there won't be substantial native 4K content for home theater in the foreseeable future, I think it comes down to a single point whether I would think of upgrading : 1) the upsampling of 1K (esp. 1080p) content would have to be discernibly improved in 4k over native 1K or NO SALE. And that would have to be in a reasonable screen size such as the current 120" screen for projection.

 

[cafink]

Since there won't be substantial native 4K content for home theater in the foreseeable future, I think it comes down to a single point whether I would think of upgrading : 1) the upsampling of 1K (esp. 1080p) content would have to be discernibly improved in 4k over native 1K or NO SALE. And that would have to be in a reasonable screen size such as the current 120" screen for projection.

When resolution is referred to in "K" terms--2K, 4K, etc.--that's actually a reference to the horizontal resolution, not the vertical resolution, as in 1080p. A 1080p image actually has 1920 pixels of horizontal resolution, and so it is basically a 2K image (because it's just shy of 2000 pixels), not a 1K one.

 

[Peter Neski]

they say they will keep offering 4k Movies on BR Data discs which can be uploaded to some player(computer?) So Maybe Lawrence?

 

[Mark Oates]

I thought all the major Japanese electronic manufacturers were skipping 4K for displays and going straight to 8K.

 

[Peter Neski]

"color depth and color space"
Theres always plenty of room for improvement in LCDs and Plasmas ,but from what I seen the 4kTV (or almost 4k) Color is simply improved because the dots are
closer together

 

[RolandL]

With the negative reviews of the 4K Hobbit, I would never buy a 4K Blu-ray.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by RolandL /t/324723/will-blu-ray-support-ultrahd-would-you-buy-a-ultrahd-tv-and-a-new-blu-ray-player/30#post_4013942
With the negative reviews of the 4K Hobbit, I would never buy a 4K Blu-ray.

That is based on frame rate and not image quality, the soap opera effect which you can get by turning on interpolation features on your TV/Projector.

 

[GregK]

I think is very important to note the BDA mentioned their task force was not only exploring 4K and other resolution variants, but frame rates as well. This weekend, THE HOBBIT opened in select theaters in 48fps. What consumer delivery format can play back 1080p/48? None. James Cameron will be making AVATAR in either 48/60/ or 72 fps. Again - once the theatrical run ends, what consumer playback devies can reproduce this experience at home? None. The BDA made it clear they were aware of these issues and were working on a flexible platform that would address all of these requirements. The BDA is also exploring new codec options like H265. Just as VC1 and AVC showed the progress possible in compression technology, H265 is looking to do that again. And I'm not talking low bitrate applications, but reference quality uses of these new codecs. This too has not escaped the BDA.
To be honest I went into the dinner expecting to hear about the triumphs of a kid who has been off the training wheels for a while now. Instead, I was happy to hear the BDA instead is still looking forward. At this time, 4K is of mild interest to me. But if the BDA delivers a new tier format with increased frame rates and an even more officiant encoding system, then it could make for a very enticing package.
I know the subject title specifies UltraHD. But what the BDA is exploring is far more than that.
On a personal side note, I was happy to have the chance to thank Andy Parsons for his groups efforts with the 3-D Bluray format. Too often throughout history, 3-D has been given the short end of the stick, being compromised in some form or another. The 3-D Bluray format as implemented is one of the rare exceptions.

 

[Frank Ha]

I appreciated the time we spent with the BDA at the dinner and enjoyed listening to their discussion. Their discussion about 4K was interesting. However, from the way it sounds to me, I don't think I would be very interested in upgrading to 4K. First of all, I'm not that interested in 3D. Also, if the improved resolution is only obvious on very large displays, then that doesn't help me much unless I someday can afford a very nice projector. Of course I would want to see a demonstration with my own eyes first before I summarily dismiss it. In other words, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[Peter Neski]

'if the improved resolution is only obvious on very large displays," you mean 80 inch or higher?
LCD and Plasmas need help ,any help any size,4k is clearly better,and a new OLED
or whatever would be great ,of course the price has to come down too.

 

[Frank Ha]

'if the improved resolution is only obvious on very large displays," you mean 80 inch or higher?
LCD and Plasmas need help ,any help any size,4k is clearly better,and a new OLED
or whatever would be great ,of course the price has to come down too.

No, I was thinking of displays of 120" or more. More like what some people with projectors have. None the less, for me, even if you could tell a significant difference with plasmas and lcds with over 80" displays, I wouldn't be that interested because I just don't ever see myself with that big of a TV. Don't get me wrong. If it will give a big improvement for people with displays of 80" or more, then I'm all for it for those who want it. Also, if I'm wrong and people with displays less than 80" will be able to see significant improvement, then that's great, too. By the way, I'm no expert. It's just that, from what I'm reading on this and other threads, it appears that it will not.

 

[RolandL]

'if the improved resolution is only obvious on very large displays," you mean 80 inch or higher?
LCD and Plasmas need help ,any help any size,4k is clearly better,and a new OLED
or whatever would be great ,of course the price has to come down too.

See post #42.