Blu-Ray: The last big jump?

[PhantomStranger]

Blu-ray will be the only HD format for at least a decade. If you listen carefully to the studio insiders, most of them are very leery of giving the consumer unrestricted digital access to the equivalent of master quality resolution. Most of the current Hollywood movies do not even exist at 4k yet and would entail huge costs at the moment anyway.

[mzupeman2]

Originally Posted by mhg83

There are plans to make a 1tb bd by 2012. That makes one wonder if a higher resolution will be released by then.

As been said, it would have to be a new player, a new format, etc. This is not going to happen. Just because it 'can' be made, doesn't mean it will be implemented. Let's remember just a year or so ago, two years, more. There was a big format war going on. TONS of money was dropped into both formats, and Blu-ray won. They're not going to drop that format in a matter of a few years. Blu-ray is high def, looks fan-friggin-tastic, and HDTV's are still infiltrating the market, as well as Blu-ray players. It will take time before it's common for most households to have an HDTV, let alone the player to play the HD discs. There's no way they'd risk spending so much more money on a new disc format, as well as new TV's with a new insanely high resolution, it would be financial suicide.

[bluetoast]

Blu-ray will be around for a while, but that doesn't mean it's the last big jump.

This chart shows a list of different resolutions, not that any of the higher ones ones will necessarily be feasible for home viewing in the near future.

[ctyankee]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

BD isn't even that big of a jump compared to DVD. If you have a decent up-converting DVD player, BD doesn't look that much better unless you are looking for it. A lot of people can't see much of a difference between the two.

Agreed. At least for the majority of us. If you are projecting on a 108" screen, then ... yes, BD is a big difference.

For the many buying their 32" or 42" inch flat screen at Costco, the difference isn't much.

[Qui Gon Jim]

Great chart.

[Qui Gon Jim]

I don't think the successor to BD will be disc based. I think that flash or something similar, solid state is the future.

[Drexl]

I don't like the rectangle comparisons because they don't actually show you what an image looks like compared to another at the same size. The meaningful comparisons show SD blown up to HD resolution next to a real HD image.

[shaun3000]

Format maybe. HDTV maxes out at 1080p which is plenty for consumer-sized televisions. I'm sure we'd see an increase if 100+ inch projection screens start taking off but I sincerely doubt that will happen.

Now for professional applications, such as digital cinema, etc., higher resolution is definitely a plus. 1080 is just too low for such a large screen.

[DthRdrX]

Most of the 2K DLP cinema films I have seen have looked really good.

[Jericho]

I see it as the last big jump, at least anytime soon. Most people don't have big enough TVs to appreciate anything bigger. Some people here do, but they're in the minority. You're gonna need a reasonably big screen to tell much of a difference with 1440p, depending on how far away you sit. And how many people have that kind of screen?

[DVD Polizei]

Originally Posted by darkside

Its not the last big jump. 4K is the end all. The question is when will 4K TVs become available and will studios take the risk of releasing a 4K format. Definitely not going to happen for many years.

If there's a way to make money off it, the studios will do it. I don't see how releasing 4K content is anything different than the current 1080 content. Just what the fuck is somebody gonna do with a 4K transfer that hasn't been done already.

10 years from now, we'll all be laughing at the notion of 1920x1080 being the final say.

[DVD Polizei]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Actually, Pioneer did not state that it was compatible with current players. That was misreporting by overzealous journalists. And even if it were, there would have to be massive advances in multi-layer replication to make anything beyond a dual-layer BD viable for pressed content. There's a reason DVD-18s are so scarce: as you add more layers, the replication yields drop considerably and those problems have still never been solved.

Overzealous journalists. Where the hell did you read that. Anyway, I didn't read that particular article. Pioneer says compatibility on their Japan website.

http://pioneer.jp/press-e/2008/0707-1.html

In addition, I have read it might require a firmware update to your existing Blu-ray player.

Originally Posted by kefrank

NTSC was around for decades. Broadcast resolution is what ultimately drives mass consumer display technology and I seriously doubt a standard beyond 1080p will be established for many, many years. The infrastructure changes required to go to ATSC were extremely significant and no one is going to be eager to do it all over again anytime soon. Displays with higher than 1080p resolution will surely be released, but I seriously doubt they will make inroads in the mass consumer area, because broadcast TV will still be at ATSC.

Broadcast is what ultimately drives mass consumer display technology? Consumers have been watching superior content on their DVD players for over a decade. How the hek do you come to this conclusion. Broadcast technology will always be BEHIND the current consumer display technology. The ATSC just doesn't have a 1920x1080 protocol. They have a shitload of other variations, so consumers won't be getting true HD broadcasts--I'm going to guess--most of the time. You're gonna have stations squeezing channels into the same bandwidth to save money, all while having a nice little HD icon thingie, fooling consumers.

Originally Posted by kefrank

It would take a lot more than greater capacity for Blu-ray to support any resolution greater than 1080p. It would take higher maximum bitrates, changes to the Blu-ray spec, and ultimately, new hardware. I'm confident that BD50s and Blu-ray players capped at 1080p are here for the long haul (at least 10 years) in the mainstream consumer market.

Like the BDA hasn't changed a spec a time or two since its inception? You do remember profile 1.0, right? And what, profile 3.0 is lurking in the future horizon I think.

I agree, 1080 will be capped for a while, but certainly don't think we will have an industry which will not want to capitalize off of better, higher-quality equipment. Hell, we're already seeing some damn good prices on quality 1080p HDTVs. They were around 3x this just two years ago.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

Overzealous journalists. Where the hell did you read that. Anyway, I didn't read that particular article. Pioneer says compatibility on their Japan website.

http://pioneer.jp/press-e/2008/0707-1.html

In addition, I have read it might require a firmware update to your existing Blu-ray player.

The only thing that link says is that the optical system is "possibly" compatible with current BDs. The demo was done with a hardware- and software-modified player. Furthermore, this website inquired for further clarification and received this response from pioneer:

This is a technology exhibit only, and is not being proposed as a candidate for addition to the Blu-ray Disc format at this time. Current BD players and drives would not be able to play/read these discs. Current Blu-ray optical pickup designs could be utilized in new players/drives designed to read these discs. At present, this is a read-only technology. Recordable versions could eventually be possible.

Broadcast is what ultimately drives mass consumer display technology? Consumers have been watching superior content on their DVD players for over a decade. How the hek do you come to this conclusion.

Superior to what? NTSC? I think you're confused. NTSC (in the U.S.) is 525 lines of resolution. DVD does not have superior resolution to NTSC. Anamorphic DVDs take advantage of the increased resolution of 16:9 TVs that were being brought to market because of the ATSC standard. DVD did not drive any new display technology. What consumer display resolutions were higher than NTSC before the ATSC standard was established?

Broadcast technology will always be BEHIND the current consumer display technology. The ATSC just doesn't have a 1920x1080 protocol. They have a shitload of other variations, so consumers won't be getting true HD broadcasts--I'm going to guess--most of the time. You're gonna have stations squeezing channels into the same bandwidth to save money, all while having a nice little HD icon thingie, fooling consumers.

I think you're confused again. ATSC is what defines the resolutions that can be classified as "true HD" namely 720p, 1080i, and 1080p at various frame rates. Until another standard is established, I really don't think you're going to see mass consumer displays hit, because the primary thing TVs are used for is broadcast television.

Like the BDA hasn't changed a spec a time or two since its inception? You do remember profile 1.0, right?

The BDA defined the profile 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 specifications before launch and defined dates when the hardware had to meet the various profiles. I'd like to think they've learned their lesson, as the different profiles have been cited as a hindrance to adoption. Additionally, none of the various profiles affect the playability of the movie itself. The changes you're talking about would affect that.

And what, profile 3.0 is lurking in the future horizon I think.

Not exactly. Profile 3.0 relates strictly to a BD-Audio format.

I agree, 1080 will be capped for a while, but certainly don't think we will have an industry which will not want to capitalize off of better, higher-quality equipment. Hell, we're already seeing some damn good prices on quality 1080p HDTVs. They were around 3x this just two years ago.

There are plenty of advances in display technology that the CEs can capitalize on for years to come without increasing spatial resolution. You seem to be taking a very simplified view that something will be technically possible in a few years, so it's going to happen. There are many, many factors that influence what kind of technology gets released to consumers and a display greater than 1080p will only have a business case if there is significant content to drive it. Broadcast standards aren't going to change anytime soon and consumer response for Blu-ray hasn't exactly given the CEs and studios confidence that consumers will be willing to make yet another jump to something new in the next few years.

[Shaka2K6]

Originally Posted by mhg83

So before i purchased an hdtv and blu-ray i didn't really see a huge difference between standard definition and high def. Since watching a few movies in hd i can really tell theres a huge difference in picture quality. So It also had me thinking about the current video game consoles. There's always been a big leap in graphics to each generation. From Atari 4 bit to nintendo 8 bit to 16 bit to 32 bit and so on. You could really tell the difference in graphics capability. But then the current generation of consoles came out. from ps2 to ps3 or xbox to xbox 360 there wasnt that much of a leap in graphics. I still go back to my old ps2/xbox and the games still look really good. i think the next generation of gaming the improvement will be hard to see.

On the home video side the same can be applied. Going from vhs to laserdisc to dvd to hd dvd and blu ray theres big jump in picture quality. I really cant see how they can improve on the current p.q. in the next format. Will blu ray be the last big jump in picture quality?

There can always improve on anyhing, Picture and Sound on Blu-ray is totally amazing, since i bought my 1st Blu-ray in 2006 i never had bought a single dvd since then, its old outdated and horrible technology now the picture and sound quality is just awfull.

About the gaming consoles sure games like MGS4,Killzone 2 and MotorStorm,Gran Turismo 5 - Prologue almost look life-like but they can still improve so much the the AI, the physics the realism ect.

[DVD Polizei]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Superior to what? NTSC? I think you're confused. NTSC (in the U.S.) is 525 lines of resolution. DVD does not have superior resolution to NTSC. Anamorphic DVDs take advantage of the increased resolution of 16:9 TVs that were being brought to market because of the ATSC standard. DVD did not drive any new display technology. What consumer display resolutions were higher than NTSC before the ATSC standard was established?

And how much of this resolution has Broadcast Television taken advantage of over the last 20 years. You were getting more like half that resolution OTA. Which is why DVD was superior and broadcast was BEHIND, even though they had the POTENTIAL to deliver more resolution.

I didn't say NTSC has superior resolution to DVD. I'm saying what the consumer got from broadcast televison vs. DVD, was significantly different, and broadcast television has always been behind in terms of quality delivered to the consumer. Regardless of what their potential broadcast spec is.

We could argue specs all day long, but what the consumer actually got from broadcast television, has been significantly INFERIOR. And I will argue IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE THIS WAY. If you've watched a good amount of HD material on OTA or even via Cable, you'll see how much compression the national and local networks are shooting out to you (hell, I've even watch 4:3 on my plasma HDTV and the fuckers said I was watching 1080i--how the fuck is that possible--oh, well, we, the great broadcasting gurus of the US, decide to fill the rest of your screen with black pixels, so technically, it's still a 1080i picture).

This is certainly not in parallel to what you're getting when you buy a Blu-ray title (on the most part anyway, as their are exceptions). If we had 1080p content on Blu-ray titles and they were all in fullscreen, I'm sure we'd have a few angry consumers out there.

As to the 400GB Blu-ray discs compatibility, I'll just say "No Contest" as Pioneer can't seem to get across a proper news release, and if we continually have to squeeze more info out of them to get an informative press release, then whatever.

However, given we have new Blu-ray player models coming out every year and sooner, I highly doubt a 400GB disc is going to be out of reach entirely.

So, again, I say having higher resolutions on larger Blu-ray discs will indeed be feasible and an "updated" Blu-ray player won't be so difficult for manufacturers. At least what we do know (unless Pioneer is outright lying or being misleading), is the 400GB disc has the same optical specs, which is a good thing and should require much less effort to modify the lasers for future Blu-ray players.

But back to the broadcast "standard" or whatever it is. Overall, we will continue to have better image quality watching movies directly from our home players than what OTA and Cable wish to provide us. I can only recall very few instances over the last few decades in seeing NTSC-quality via Cable and thinking it was on par with my DVD player. Very few instances. And it was certainly not the norm. Compression was present most of the time, and to think broadcasters aren't going to do it now is ridiculous.

There will be times you may get a nice broadcast, but in most cases, you will not. And this is what the consumer needs to be aware of. Because they will erroneously conclude this is all what HD can deliver.

So, broadcasters better get their act together and stop compressing their fucking broadcasts. They're already beginning to give a bad name to HD. Just because your HD tuner says "1080i" or "720p", does not mean you're getting it. And the ATSC says this is ok. Because upconverting to a 1080i is...1080i. The ATSC doesn't say broadcasters have to put "this 1080i broadcast has been upconverted", now do they. No, they don't.

Just as an aside...remember how "digital cable" was supposed to be so great? Yeah, look how that turned out. Compressed to all hell. Get ready for more, folks.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

And how much of this resolution has Broadcast Television taken advantage of over the last 20 years. You were getting more like half that resolution OTA. Which is why DVD was superior and broadcast was BEHIND, even though they had the POTENTIAL to deliver more resolution.

I didn't say NTSC has superior resolution to DVD. I'm saying what the consumer got from broadcast televison vs. DVD, was significantly different, and broadcast television has always been behind in terms of quality delivered to the consumer. Regardless of what their potential broadcast spec is.

The actual quality delivered by any particular broadcast is unrelated to my point. My point was that the broadcast standards (NTSC and now ATSC) drive consumer display technology much moreso than packaged media. I thought that was obvious from the context of my original post, but maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, because the actual quality (level of compression, etc) of most broadcasts has nothing to do with my position.

[The Bus]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

BD isn't even that big of a jump compared to DVD. If you have a decent up-converting DVD player, BD doesn't look that much better unless you are looking for it. A lot of people can't see much of a difference between the two.

What?

Originally Posted by B5Erik

I still don't think that the human eye can see the difference between 1080P and 4K on any screen under 60".

This.

You guys are acting like physical media will win over downloads in the end.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by The Bus

You guys are acting like physical media will win over downloads in the end.

When is this end you speaking of coming?

Pro-B