Originally Posted by TheBang

So, I certainly think that there's a good chance that the initial waves of UHD BD's will be better quality than the initial waves of DVD and BD.

Originally Posted by TheBang

Exactly. There were too many using MPEG-2, low bitrate VC-1, and single layer Blu-rays.

For UHD Blu-ray, the only UHD codec supported is HEVC. AVC is not an option. And discs will be at least dual-layer (66 GB), which should be enough for high enough bitrate encodes. So, it'll mostly a matter of the quality/efficiency of the HEVC encoders. I'd like to think that they've learned a lot about encoding from MPEG-2, VC-1, and AVC, so that the first generation of HEVC encodes out of the gate will be higher quality.

So, I certainly think that there's a good chance that the initial waves of UHD BD's will be better quality than the initial waves of DVD and BD.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I disagree. I think any "stigma" around home 3D in the consumers' eyes is associated only with the abortive launch of 3D hardware (and its accompanying hype). People were only upset by the 3D hardware launch for the usual reason ("but you've only just sold us the current format!"). In the case of the 4K disc format, the leading bullet-point (4K, itself) will fulfill that role as the target of consumers' upgrade-fatigue ire, while 3D (unless they were real fools and went out of their way to promote it) would be seen as just another 'feature' in the player, like DTS or progressive scan or internet connectivity or "smart tv" apps. 3D is no longer 'new' to the home hardware market and it doesn't have the marketing push behind it. It won't stink of failure (or anything else, for that matter) to anyone; it'll just be another little icon in that long row of logos on the side of the player's shipping box.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Wow- that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by fitprod

Well, one major sequel that was released last year was shot in HFR, but everyone involved with the production was told to not talk about it... And the studio never bothered to release it in HFR.

Originally Posted by fitprod

(And why bother adding it up front, when the industry doesn't have a standard for 4K 3D delivery, or that many 3D films that were completed with a full 4K workflow?)

Originally Posted by Dan

I'm guessing there's no way you'll tell us which movie you're talking about, eh? Not even in a PM? It's really interesting to me, and I wouldn't be too surprised if there were a couple titles like that...

Originally Posted by davidlynchfan

4K Porno is going to be Deee-licious.

Originally Posted by My Other Self

Useless without 3D.

Originally Posted by zyzzle

Yes, everything does point to better quality compression / encode jobs at initial launch. But, I wonder if there will be pressure from the studios to set the bar low, ie, keep bitrates artificially low, because after all, they don't want to make it truly great because there's no financial incentive for them doing that. 4k, to them, is the end of the line, and if they make it look too good, nobody will go to the theatres to see films on initial release anymore!

Originally Posted by Josh Z

The picture quality at most movies theaters is already inferior to Blu-ray, and many are inferior even to DVD. Aside from IMAX, movies in the cinema are not marketed on the basis of being a high-quality or high-fidelity visual medium anymore. They're marketed as being a bigger screen than you can get in your house and a social experience, as well the exclusivity of premiering in theaters a few months before a video release is available.

Originally Posted by Dan

This.
If I could figure out how to make theatre-style popcorn,

Originally Posted by Dan

Good questions, Adam. Personally:
- similar size packaging as Blu-ray. Actually, a BIT shorter would make me happy. Like standard Blu-ray cases, but without the height of the banner at the top. Which brings me immediately to:
- DROP THE FUCKING BANNER. A lot of the cardboard cases have dropped it. Slipcovers don't seem to have it too often anymore. Criterion never used it (bless them!). It looks stupid. 4K discs don't need it.

So with both of the above, instead of this:
We'd have this:

- CLEAR should be the standard colour for the plastic, but they should use whatever they want. This isn't like the HD war where colour helped identify the competing formats.

- Stickers/specs that show that it's 4K, and not just HD, on the cover. Ideally, nothing that is permanently emblazoned over the front-facing artwork, but still clearly indicated on the back is fine.

Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson

The chipsets to support HDMI 2.0 at full bandwidth and HDCP 2.2 are already in products, but how can you tell?

Up until CES this month, I was under the distinct impression that products with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 copy protection—which is required for most 4K/UHD content—were limited to the lower HDMI 2.0 bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps, because the chipsets to support the full bandwidth of 18 Gbps with HDCP 2.2 were not yet implemented in current products. However, a visit to the HDMI section of the South Hall show floor proved me wrong—though not without some lingering questions.

I spoke with Steve Venuti, president of HDMI Licensing, the organization that licenses the HDMI spec to manufacturers. He told me that the required chips with HDMI 2.0 at 18 Gbps and HDCP 2.2 have been selling for the last six to eight months, and these are now in shipping products, including various Panasonic devices and Samsung TVs. I had thought it would have taken longer than that to integrate the new chips into products.

A demonstration of this capability was running in the booth, labeled "4K@60" as seen in the photo above. A Panasonic DMT-BDP700 Blu-ray player (identified on the player itself) was sending HDMI to a Panasonic SU-HTB880 soundbar, which conveyed the HDMI signal to a Panasonic UHDTV (we couldn't see the model number, since the TV was affixed to the wall), all at 18 Gbps with HDCP 2.2.

According to Steve, Panasonic had created custom content for the demo at 1080p/60. But the Blu-ray spec does not include the ability to encode 1080p/60, only 1080i/60 or 1080p at lower frame rates. I suppose Panasonic Hollywood Labs might be able to step outside the official Blu-ray spec, but how could a stock player deal with it? Until I hear otherwise from Panasonic, I'm going to assume that the content was 1080p/24 or 1080i/60 on the disc.

Steve went on to say the player was upconverting that content to 4K (actually, 2160p) at 60 fps with 12-bit 4:2:2 color, which can, in fact, be conveyed by HDMI 2.0 at 18 Gbps but not at 10.2 Gbps. Of course, upconverting Blu-ray players are common these days, but I would be very surprised if any of them output 12-bit 4:2:2—after all, the data on a Blu-ray is 8-bit 4:2:0, and I know of no consumer TVs that can accept 12-bit 4:2:2, so why do that much upconversion?

Then there's the TV—as I mentioned, we were unable to determine the model number, and Panasonic has not revealed it in subsequent communications. Obviously, it was a UHDTV, perhaps one of the models introduced at CES. But again, I am unaware of any consumer TV that can accept and display 12-bit video. I've asked Panasonic to clear up some of these questions, but I have not yet heard any definitive responses.

In any event, it is now more difficult than ever to determine if a given product is capable of supporting HDMI 2.0 at 18 Gbps with HDCP 2.2. Manufacturers do not seem eager to reveal the actual bandwidth of their HDMI connection, and many representatives simply don't know, which is very frustrating. The full 18 Gbps bandwidth is critical for wide color gamut and increased bit depth at 50 and 60 fps, so it is imperative for savvy consumers to know if the products they buy can support these attributes.

Steve also hinted at the next HDMI spec, which I speculate will be announced in roughly a year. He couldn't give me much detail, but he did say it would increase the bandwidth to allow for high dynamic range and immersive/object-oriented audio, and it would provide power for low-power devices such as media players, smartphones, and tablets, but not TVs, AVRs, or power amps.

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+

Originally Posted by caligulathegod

That appears to be relatively new and somewhat rare (like 4K projection itself). Still, you would lose the primary benefit of 4K TVs with 3D, using (cheaper and lighter) passive glasses. Regular HD 3D TVs with passive glasses only show half resolution to each eye (540p). The 4K TVs with 3D, since it has twice the vertical resolution, can present a full 1080p to each eye. You would be forced to go with active shutter glasses to get 4K 3D.