![]() |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
(Post 12365539)
Ultra HD Blu-Ray does support 25p. No need for any interlacing tricks. In fact, there aren't any interlaced options at all in the docs I've seen.
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
(Post 12365539)
30p and 48p are the glaring omissions.
Any word on 3D capability? |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 12365563)
Any word on 3D capability?
The only thing conspicuously absent is 3D. While BDA reps assured us that the format (and new disc players) will be backwardly compatible to play current Blu-ray 3D Discs in 3D mode, there are not currently any plans to create or support a new 3D-capable native-4K option in the new format. I was personally a bit disappointed in this as I do occasionally enjoy 3D movies at home and would have loved the option of seeing "Avatar" or "Gravity" in 4K 3D. |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
(Post 12366012)
There is a 3D extension for HEVC, so maybe this is something that can be incorporated into players down the line...? |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 12365563)
It'd been nice if all UHD sets and players offered all the available frame rates without having to worry about which country your UHD TV set comes from.
What a frustrating format this seems to be. So many specs I wanted (10-bit color, 60p) are there, so many (3D, universal 25p support) are absent. What bugs me is that the missing functions aren't missing because of technical limitations or high design/manufacturing/implementation costs; they could all just as easily be included as not. :brickwl2: |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
How big would a 4k movie be? 4x the size of a blu-ray movie? Like 200GB? Pretty crazy.
What's the file structure like for blu-rays? Do they split them in 1GB blocks like with DVDs? I think Sony and Oppo are the only players that can do 4k using dual-core CPUs. Does that mean most basic blu-ray players use single core CPUs? |
Depends. Even DCPs use compression, I think that to get 4K masters onto a disc, you'd have to compress somewhat.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by Ranger
(Post 12367446)
How big would a 4k movie be? 4x the size of a blu-ray movie? Like 200GB? Pretty crazy.
What's the file structure like for blu-rays? Do they split them in 1GB blocks like with DVDs? I think Sony and Oppo are the only players that can do 4k using dual-core CPUs. Does that mean most basic blu-ray players use single core CPUs?
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
(Post 12367474)
Depends. Even DCPs use compression, I think that to get 4K masters onto a disc, you'd have to compress somewhat.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by Ranger
(Post 12367446)
How big would a 4k movie be? 4x the size of a blu-ray movie? Like 200GB? Pretty crazy.
Originally Posted by Ranger
(Post 12367446)
What's the file structure like for blu-rays? Do they split them in 1GB blocks like with DVDs?
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
(Post 12367506)
These discs will be using a different and much more efficient codec -- HEVC. They're talking about 66 gig and 100 gig discs, so they'll have to be smaller than that!
100Gb seems like it may just be doable for some of the shortest movies, ie under 90 minutes, with no extras. Remember, we're taking about extended audio formats also, and they may take 15-20 GB per movie. So, that's 20Gb less for the video encode on the disc. I think those who are willing to take the major plunge by investing in the technology will be picky, and cramming bits seems like a foolish thing to do at this point in the game. Give 'em breathing room -- 150 - 200 GB per disc will ensure that! |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by zyzzle
(Post 12368159)
Well, 66 GB seems way, way too small. Something will have to give when you've got 4x as many pixels and only ~1.25x as much disk space. More efficient codec or not, it means more information will have to be thrown away.
100Gb seems like it may just be doable for some of the shortest movies, ie under 90 minutes, with no extras. |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by PerryD
(Post 12368262)
Considering HD-DVD in 2006 was 15GB and held a two hour movie, I would think 66GB or 100GB with 2015 2x better codecs should be plenty of space for 4x pixels. But I agree, the more space, the better.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Oh, blu-rays use m2ts, not vob?
That's interesting they decide to use a new codec like h.265. I think it'd be kind of like the Apple h.264 movies, e.g., 2GB m4v from a 6GB DVD for a 2-hour movie. But, for BDXL, people would have to get a whole new player? A software update won't do it? |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by Ranger
(Post 12368556)
Oh, blu-rays use m2ts, not vob?
That's interesting they decide to use a new codec like h.265. I think it'd be kind of like the Apple h.264 movies, e.g., 2GB m4v from a 6GB DVD for a 2-hour movie. But, for BDXL, people would have to get a whole new player? A software update won't do it? |
I'm still looking for an inexpensive BD-ROM PC drive at this point.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Not trying to threadcrap it's just I've been wanting to add to this thread for a while now but I have nothing to say.
I have a Bluray player and most "new" titles are purchased on Blu, but I still have a ton of DVDs that will likely never be upgraded to Blu and we've also really come to appreciate streaming, either via Netflix/Hulu or outright purchasing on iTunes. I simply have no excitement for a new format. Hell, they still haven't fixed the "resume" feature on Bluray, what promise is there that this 4K thing will be any more consumer friendly? |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by milo bloom
(Post 12369300)
Not trying to threadcrap
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
(Post 12368926)
I'm still looking for an inexpensive BD-ROM PC drive at this point.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by milo bloom
(Post 12369300)
Not trying to threadcrap it's just I've been wanting to add to this thread for a while now but I have nothing to say.
I have a Bluray player and most "new" titles are purchased on Blu, but I still have a ton of DVDs that will likely never be upgraded to Blu and we've also really come to appreciate streaming, either via Netflix/Hulu or outright purchasing on iTunes. I simply have no excitement for a new format. Hell, they still haven't fixed the "resume" feature on Bluray, what promise is there that this 4K thing will be any more consumer friendly? |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
I don't see the big deal about the "Resume feature" which I've seen mentioned on several boards. I hardly ever watch movies in sections where I'd need to do that, and my Oppo player already can do that on discs that don't use Java (where you have to wait through those annoying loading screens) and even on several of those I've noticed if I stop a movie in the middle and play the disc again later, it will ask if I want to start from where I was last time. They do need to make it faster to just start and play a movie- some who advocate that streaming nonsense say they like that better because there's no forced previews or stuff at the beginning of those, but some still have the FBI warnings and I bet they'll start putting trailers on those too if more people buy them.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Bring on 4K. I'm not scared!
I don't plan to support it - unless it gets cheap really fast and has support and staying power from the studios (obviously a wait and see situation). but I like Technology, I like advancement in technologies and that's why I'm embracing 4K. |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
There's a difference between embracing a technology which is beneficial to consumers in the long term, and being a guinea pig for companies who simply want to sell something in the short term to simply make a fast profit, leaving your Embraced Technology in the dust, becoming a beverage holder.
I don't see any benefit to 4K for consumers at the moment. We've been promised enough times to know what's going to happen. Current Blu-ray discs could squeeze a lot of content on a BD-50, and whatever happened to BD-100s, anyway. We haven't even tried to master the Blu-ray disc, and now we have our usual folks marketing 4K to us. Current Blu-ray movies are still compressed. If you eased the compression on these movies, allowing for a video bandwidth that went into the 50+ Mbps, you'd get something which would probably be on the level with a 4K transfer. And fuck these FBI warnings. They're getting irritating. There's nothing more insulting than a goddamn plethora of warnings at the beginning of a fucking movie when you paid for the motherfucker. |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
4K is mostly getting pushed out so quickly because the electronics manufacturers demanded a new technology cycle to juice sales. Hollywood is only mildly enthusiastic about selling 4K content to consumers, they mostly realize it won't become a mass market format for years.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by PhantomStranger
(Post 12369571)
4K is mostly getting pushed out so quickly because the electronics manufacturers demanded a new technology cycle to juice sales. Hollywood is only mildly enthusiastic about selling 4K content to consumers, they mostly realize it won't become a mass market format for years.
|
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
(Post 12369566)
There's a difference between embracing a technology which is beneficial to consumers in the long term, and being a guinea pig for companies who simply want to sell something in the short term to simply make a fast profit, leaving your Embraced Technology in the dust, becoming a beverage holder.
Again, I'm just going to wait and see (for however long it shall take). If the finished product is awesome and looks nicer than my blu and is affordable, then...buy,buy if not then, I still got my blus. |
re: Let's talk about Ultra HD Blu-ray
Originally Posted by zyzzle
(Post 12368159)
Well, 66 GB seems way, way too small. Something will have to give when you've got 4x as many pixels and only ~1.25x as much disk space. More efficient codec or not, it means more information will have to be thrown away.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.