Blu-Ray Present and Future =====>

Even though more than a few have given up on optical discs (OD), for many of us that want an economical alternative to streaming and secure storage, they're still alive and well. In fact, as recently as last month the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) has confirmed development of 4k discs that should be available by years end.

For anyone that's interested in the ultimate picture quality and sound available, blu-ray is the ONLY choice. This thread is dedicated to the present technology of the blu-ray disc, and the developments yet to come.

 

I guess it also depends on how many more layers will be needed to encode a 4K movie into a BD-R. I know the BDXLs can have 4 layers with up to 128GB of data. Question is, is that enough for a 4K movie?

 

They're estimating that to be the projected range for a two hour 4k movie if they settle on the new H.265 codec. The blu-ray technology is purported to support up to 8 layer or 200GB, but the new codec is the key.

If they're smart, they might want to design in some head room either way. That way any additional features or future enhancement would be a lot easier to implement, and hopefully, without the need for a total upgrade of hardware.

Since I already have a 100+ GB blu-ray XL burner, I'm wondering if that would be able to play the new disc when they come out? If a firmware upgrade to current player can be converted to play them (albeit not in 4k) then I'm thinking it should.

 

I always believed the video standard to operate on the same tick-tock principles in as in the Intel architecture roadmap.

In this case:

CD: Tick (new digital media disc...aka new micro architecture)

DVD: Tock (Laser wavelength change without changing the disc's data architecture...aka die shrink)

Blu-Ray: Tick (New laser wavelength)

BDXL for 4K: Tock (more layers added and a new codec to support 4K)

 

That is all good but the other side of the story is DVD is still around and will be for some time to come. And another part they failed to tell buyers is unless all your equipment is to match 4k playback it is a failed effort. 4k is only good as the equipment you play it on play 4k on non 4k and it doesn't give much benefit back. 4k is good but we need to inform buyers unless your system is 4k setup your viewing experience is going to be very lacking.

 

I think people pretty much know that audio and video work as a system. However, now that you mention it, how many times do we see advertised that streaming may cause your cable bill to increase? They only talk about the merits, not the limitation:Inferior quality picture when compared to blu-ray. No extras. And finally, you're at the mercy of your ISP and their throttling?

You may get 4k on Netflx, but you almost certainly will pay more! They don't put that in the add. With a blu-ray disc you pay once, and that's it. Unlimited viewing; no throttling issues; no increase cost, and the highest quality picture and sound w/extras.

 

could you please elaborate on what i've emboldened?

 

Excuse me but OD are far better economical value then streaming - it is a limited system and ISP limited bandwidth. I rather have a dvd/bd and have all the viewing pleasure I want without having to plead with my ISP to give me more bandwidth. Streaming and secure storage...that's got to be a April Fool's joke.

Explain that to me please?

I highly doubt your old BD will work this is how they make money making peps buy new hardware for their 4K.

Highly unlikely if the movie was a old move converted to BD your viewing experiences isn't going to be any better then the original format it came in. So let's not say something that isn't entirely true shall we.

 

I think 4k will take A LONG TIME to become mainstream. The original media needs to be in at least 4k (any big budget movies nowadays, but how many TV shows are? A lot of older content will see no benefit). People need to have 4k screens. Good luck on this one. Maybe in 5 years 4k televisions will begin to outsell 1080p ones, maybe not. Computer monitor and laptop screen resolutions need to increase too. Internet bandwidth needs to improve immensely too. 4k resolution can't depend on only blu-ray. Most HD stuff on television or streamed is 720p. Good luck on 4k which is what, 9 times as many pixels as even that? Long time.

 

4K will be a niche for a while. But they basically need to get to the point of 300 dpi for their largest consumer screens. Assuming a 60" screen is their bogey, they've got a long way to go.

300 ppi with 4k is only on a 15" screen. 60" would require 16k (15360x8640) or 8x 1920x1080 to be close to the ideal PPI.

 

I agree with that.

Simple. Go beyond 4k. In the days of CRTs the resolution was always far superior to the technology of the signal. Some models were even capable of 2X the maximum signal that was available at the time you bought them. All we had to do back in the day was purchase the new player. The TV/monitor was already resolution capable.

Remember when monitors were advertised as HD ready? We didn't need to purchase all the equipment at once. That was a relief and a great sales tactic, since that's a big burden for average households.

Its undoubtedly a money making scheme, but the cats out of the bag now. And making people hesitant to upgrade for fear of the next revolution as soon as the do or shortly after.

Pessimist.

Incorrect. There's more to BD that just resolution. Dynamic range and deep color are two non resolution dependent advantages. Enhance audio is another.

True. Its a one step at a time process. But that's better than stagnation. The uber rich can afford to enjoy 4k right now.

I don't think it needs to get that high to appreciate the benefits. But it will improve significantly. But particularly on the larger screens.

Sure. What's the oldest form of high fidelity data storage on the average household? Many folks have 30 year old technology that sound as good as the day it was produced. Can you think of anything at that price to match that?

 

What? How close do you plan on sitting in front of a five foot screen?

 

He's obviously pulling your leg. The hocus-pocus ~300 PPI number that gets thrown around as the limit for eye resolving power is assuming 20/20 vision and viewing distance 12 inches from the screen. Now I don't know how practical it is to sit a foot from a 60+" TV, unless you happen to work at Fox News.

 

The same can be said about HD when it was first introduced. The difference is the average joe won't be able to tell the difference between the FHD and the 4K unless they sit 1 ft away from their screen/TV and try staring at the individual pixels. HD is plenty sharp enough to where most normal people will be satisfied with. I get the feeling 4K will be nothing more than another industry-driven fad.

 

I doubt that. The same was said about switch to HDTV. Now if you look at an SD broadcast you'd think we were living in the stone ages. 1080p is not that fine of a resolution considering the 60-70"+ TV's that people are buying and sitting only 8-12ft from their TV's. People want large and up close to get that "being there" peripheral vision effect. Don't give me the "ideal viewing distance" drivel because reality is so few people abide by that. And not everyone have living rooms 20 ft long to set up and meet that criteria anyhow.

 

And how many people do you know who have a 60"-70" HDTV? Cause I don't know any. And I sit about 7" back from my 42" TV. Friends of our have a 55" HDTV and closest you can sit is on the floor about 3 ft from it. At that distance, no one will be able to tell the pixel difference between 1080 & 4K (not even you).

 

I know a lot of people that have a 60-70" HDTV (including me). But bring me that 4k TV and challenge accepted!

 

Uh, huh. Just give me a day to sell my soul on eBay in order to finance such a venture.

The real question is how far back do you sit from your 60"? Don't guess...I didn't guess when I quoted you my number (87" from eyes to screen). Sit 9 feet back from the screen (humor me).

Now for a normal human, they should be able to separate contours 1.75mm apart at 20ft.

At 9ft, humans with 20/20 vision should be able to clearly see lines which are 0.81mm apart.

Now for a 70" HDTV, estimating the width, it should be 1549.7mm wide. That should give your 70" a ppi density of 31.47ppi, or a 0.81mm dot pitch (wow, what a coincidence).

That means you should be able to tell the difference between each pixel cluster at 9 ft.

Can you see each individual pixel at 9ft????????

...

...

...

(say it clearly and out loud)...

 

OK, I lied, my TV is actually only 47"... but it sounded nice (give me a brownie point for 'fessing up), but I do know a couple people with 60" TV's that I see fairly regularly. This is like the whole "eyes can't see faster than 60fps" or "faster RAM makes for a more 'snappier' system" debate. Or even speaker sound quality to an audiophile. A lot of it is not quantifiable and frequently perception of the user. Where my eyes sit in relation to my TV is about 7 feet. It's not about seeing individual pixels but about the quality of the image. If you've seen a 4k display and can't honestly tell the difference between a 1080p and 4k then you aren't wearing your proper corrective lenses. It's like some people have told me there's no difference between 720p and 1080p, until they see my TV compared to their 720p TV and ask why it looks so much more crisp and clear.

 

anyone know what types of monitors those are?

 

What monitors?

 

You're only mistake was trying to out-lie me. As a practiced liar, I know when folks are fibbing.

"Faster RAM makes for a more 'snappier' system" is only a retail sales pitch. And we can perceive motion at greater than 60fps. But I would argue if a group of folks was to watch a 4K TV, then went and watched an FHD TV (both TVs the same diagonal size), 50% of the folks would say the FHD is clearer, and 50% would say the 4K was clearer. The point being, if a person does not know a TV is 4K versus FHD, then their brain may not perceive the clearer image, even though their eyes can see the sharper detail.

 

So higher screen resolution is just a social and psychological perception and not anything tangible? Alrighty then.

 

If pixels on a 1080p TV are already too small to see when I am sitting at a normal viewing distance, there is no way I could see the difference between that and a "4k" 2160p screen.

 

You can't see the individual dots on an inkjet printer yet higher dpi inkjet images look more refined.

Beamed from my G2 Tricorder

 

i think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

 

the big white ones in the studio. huge touchscreen displays.

 

? That has nothing to do with this. You cant see individual dots because it is drops of liquid ink mixing on the surface of the object you are printing...

 

wikipedia has a relevant sample of an (actual size) <del>.25" × .25"</del> .403 cm ², 150 DPI inkjet printer sample. i think it's a totally fair analogy.

 

Gave me a good chuckle. :laugh:

Sorry not seeing how that is like this:



OK they both have a lot of dots...

 

right -- visible ones. you apparently got a good chuckle at something you misread. (and please don't tell me how far away you sit from your TV, laptop, printer, etc.)

 

Touche.

But I stand firm that it's all in your head. In the case of printers, a printer that can do higher dpi isn't necessarily sharper, just more accurate. We see straighter lines and think sharper resolution.

 

Why would it matter how far I sit from my printer? I don't even like looking at that beige HP thing. It's an eyesore.

 

i guess you can't troll a troll, troll. my HP's more gray.

 

Actual size 150dpi? Sorry, but no. My monitor is 130 or so dpi, and it makes that image look like 10 dpi. And to top it all off, you can see the dots pretty clearly....

The analogy is bad because the dots blend in with each other. Individual dots of ink can't be picked out, but the dots of ink are still larger than the minimum the human eye can resolve when looking closely at it. Also each dot does not represent one pixel on a computer. Each dot must be one of only a handful of solid basic colors.

Anyway, there is a good test to see if the monitor's resolution is higher than your eye's ability to resolve. Display a checkerboard pattern of white and black pixels across the whole screen. If it looks gray, a higher resolution screen isn't going to help you.

 

Bottom line is ability to see or not see pixels with the naked eye has nothing to do with whether or not the image looks more crisp or refined. That's like saying you can't see molecules so it has no impact on us. That's like pre 18th century perception.

 

I'm a bit skeptical of the prospects for 4K Blu-Ray since regular Blu-Ray isn't even ubiquitous yet. When Blu-Ray and HD-DVD came out, DVD was already standard and well-established. When DVD came out, VHS was well-established. However, you still see a lot of computers sold with DVD players, and a lot of standalone DVD players available in stores. If you go to buy a film on disc, you'll often see both DVD and Blu-Ray options. If 4K Blu-Ray is introduced, that's just going to fragment the market more. How many stores will want to carry DVD, Blu-Ray, and 4K Blu-Ray versions? For big-name films it may be worth it, just like carrying a 3D version of Avatar probably was worth it, but for the most part it probably won't be.

If the pricing on Blu-Ray were lowered so that it were an easy choice to get it over DVD, and 4K Blu-Ray was the new premium product, I'd be more optimistic about this. But right now, at least for desktop drives, it's $15 - $20 for a DVD burner vs $50 for a Blu-Ray player. So it's not an obvious upgrade like spending $15 for a DVD burner instead of $14 for a mere DVD player. If Blu-Ray gets down to around $30, I think it would start to eclipse DVD in new computers pretty thoroughly.

 

Wait, 8GB vs 50GB? That's more than a 6X increase? Now you do the math and let us know what you come up with.

 

No, it doesn't? We are talking about a display screen made up of columns and rows of many thousands of individual pixels that you are looking at with your eyes. If your eyes are not capable of resolving the difference between two pixels and instead sees them as one, further making the individual pixels smaller will not improve image quality. There isn't any magic behind it like you make it seem. It really is pretty simple. In some situations, 1080p is already at or close enough the limit of human perception that 4k isn't noticeable.

 

Would you notice the difference between a Bentley and a Toyota? In fact, there's a huge difference.

Its just that some might not think its worth it; they're just interested in the cheapest means of transportation from A to B. But that doesn't mean they can't tell the difference.

Just like an SSD, if cost wasn't an issue, I'd wager that 10 out of 10 people would choose the higher quality. If you're honest, I'm sure you'd agree.

 

You must still be very young and believe that numbers can explain the world to the nth degree.


When I saw a 4K screen for the first time, I almost cried (I'm a photographer). Nothing has ever been that good before.

Didn't matter if I was 2 feet from it or 20 feet away. The image was golden. It almost made looking at real objects hard to do (because they aren't all lit properly...).

1080P? Yeah; pure and utter garbage.