Blu-ray, in General

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2551 Post by aox » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:13 pm

jindianajonz wrote:David- I saw something a while back that said for most people, the change from blu-ray to 4k isn't even noticeable until you get to around 80 or 100 inch screen size. How accurate is this?
From what I understand, that is being pretty generous. I've seen the math point to 125".

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2552 Post by EddieLarkin » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:21 pm

It all has to do with viewing distance. I'm sure if you're stood in front of a 65 inch UHDTV in a store, the difference compared to the HDTV next to it will be obvious. But then you get it home, and you place it where your old HDTV was, which just happens to be 15 feet away from where you sit, and well, suddenly the difference is less obvious.

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2553 Post by David M. » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:00 pm

jindianajonz wrote:David- I saw something a while back that said for most people, the change from blu-ray to 4k isn't even noticeable until you get to around 80 or 100 inch screen size. How accurate is this?
It depends on the content and your eyesight. I've personally stood 40 feet away from a prototype 65"-70" (I forget which) OLED panel and could tell the resolution was much higher than 1080p.

With that said, the content was 100% digitally shot with very sharp optics and was specially designed to show off ultra-high res devices. For most films (where selective focus is the norm) the jump won't be as visible.

But it's coming, and while I'm not clamoring for it, I don't understand why some people have a vested interest in fighting it. More resolution is always nice, even if it's not the most important attribute of pq.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2554 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:07 pm

Image

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2555 Post by TMDaines » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:45 am

I'm glad you posted that. I'm always puzzled by these discussions because you clearly see differences in resolution even on small screens, such as iPads and laptops, but of course that will be down to viewing distance.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2556 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:05 am

Irony in all of this: If you live in a small apartment like myself, there's probably more benefit to something pricey and extravagant like a 4K television, but if you've got a nice large home theater room where you're a good distance from the screen, and have the cash to throw at a 4K television, there's arguably less benefit depending on the size of the screen.

LavaLamp
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2557 Post by LavaLamp » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:45 pm

OK - this is excellent information, everyone. Thanks for taking the time to post. To sum it up, here is the way I see this - please correct me if I'm wrong/misinformed here:

4K PQ is superior to 1080p - however, you need a very wide/large TV to see the difference. Also, though the difference is notable if you have a very large TV, it is not as obvious as, say, the superior PQ distinction when comparing BD's (or most BD's) to regular DVDs.

I guess the issue I have with 4K is this: How much better does PQ actually need to get? It may also be a matter of perspective on my part: I grew up with VHS tapes, and when I saw my first DVD in 2000, I was stunned at how much better the picture was when compared to VHS. Then, when I saw my first BD years later, I was equally stunned at the improved PQ over DVDs. My point is that the PQ of most BD's on an HD TV are fine with me.

Plus, there is such a thing as PQ being too good. I noticed that the CGI in some flicks looks even worse in HD since the picture is so clear & distinct (however, this usually this occurs with 10+year old CGI-heavy films when the technology wasn't as good). And, at times I do like to see some film grain in older films; the Taxi Driver BD has the perfect balance of excellent PQ & some film grain...

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2558 Post by David M. » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:17 pm

My point is that the PQ of most BD's on an HD TV are fine with me.
Well done BD is enough for me, also. I'm very happy that we surpassed the resolution of release prints (not that those were ever a benchmark, but they were still the best available to us for awhile).

I'm not sure what the point of the question is though. 1080p is not going to be the highest resolution around forever. We don't need higher, we don't NEED HDTV, and we don't *need* TV at all.
Plus, there is such a thing as PQ being too good. <...> And, at times I do like to see some film grain in older films; the Taxi Driver BD has the perfect balance of excellent PQ & some film grain...
I'm not sure why you'd think that 4K is somehow the antithesis to film grain, or are you suggesting that film grain is a detriment to picture quality? That's certainly not the case. Higher resolution better resolves and preserves grain.

You would certainly enjoy seeing Taxi Driver in 4K. Maybe not *that* much more than in 1080p. I don't understand why anyone would have a vested interest in fighting or saying 'no' to technological progress though.

Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy here, but I sat through the exact same discussions when 1080p was up and coming and I'm surprised at how short sighted the AV press in particular can be: "what's the point", "we'll need huge screens", "720p is good enough" etc etc. It's coming and will one day be the standard, and you'll surely own a 4K display some day.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2559 Post by Zot! » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:58 pm

David M. wrote:Well done BD is enough for me, also. I'm very happy that we surpassed the resolution of release prints (not that those were ever a benchmark, but they were still the best available to us for awhile).
BD cant really can't compare to a release print though David? Perhaps you mean a 16mm release print?

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2560 Post by David M. » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:41 pm

I should be less specific perhaps and say "cinema experience". When there were still films projected from 35mm here, I saw some truly crap presentations which were absolutely worse than BD (in most ways).

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2561 Post by Drucker » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:01 pm

Interesting piece from Kevin Drum today about what is apparently region-coding in E-Books (that's a thing?). If I'm reading this right, Masters of Cinema has to change their region coding screen!

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2562 Post by David M. » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:10 pm

Yes, it's true. I can't buy UK Kindle books because I joined the US side. You can change your address back and forth but it destroys the convenience which was supposed to be the entire point.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2563 Post by MichaelB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:32 pm

David M. wrote:I'm not sure why you'd think that 4K is somehow the antithesis to film grain, or are you suggesting that film grain is a detriment to picture quality? That's certainly not the case. Higher resolution better resolves and preserves grain.
Yes, absolutely. This is why you ideally need to go as high as 8K (I've met one archivist who says 16K) to be sure of preserving everything, because even if 35mm's resolution is notionally nearer 4K than 8K, the grain structure is different across the two media - with digital media, it's a perfect grid, and with a chemical medium, it isn't.

So in order to genuinely preserve every speck of information on the chemical medium, you ideally have to whack the resolution of the digital medium up to what initially seems to be a much higher level than you nominally need, just to make allowances for this.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2564 Post by FrauBlucher » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:50 pm

MichaelB wrote:
David M. wrote:I'm not sure why you'd think that 4K is somehow the antithesis to film grain, or are you suggesting that film grain is a detriment to picture quality? That's certainly not the case. Higher resolution better resolves and preserves grain.
Yes, absolutely. This is why you ideally need to go as high as 8K (I've met one archivist who says 16K) to be sure of preserving everything, because even if 35mm's resolution is notionally nearer 4K than 8K, the grain structure is different across the two media - with digital media, it's a perfect grid, and with a chemical medium, it isn't.

So in order to genuinely preserve every speck of information on the chemical medium, you ideally have to whack the resolution of the digital medium up to what initially seems to be a much higher level than you nominally need, just to make allowances for this.
As someone who is no where near an expert in this area, I would have thought the opposite. The higher the res the more of a chance the grain can overwhelm the picture. When you talk 8K and higher is there that possibility of this?

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2565 Post by swo17 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:06 pm

The grain is the picture.

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2566 Post by David M. » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:15 pm

The higher the res the more of a chance the grain can overwhelm the picture.
Not really. A low-light scene shot on high speed film is going to have a lot of grain regardless of the resolution it's been scanned at. Higher resolution scanning will give you higher resolution details, and that also means higher resolution grain - but not more of it.

You might be thinking of old SD telecine transfers where the grain was reduced as a matter of routine (in part because older telecine designs themselves added their own noise). Fortunately that isn't the way any more.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2567 Post by Zot! » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:59 pm

David M. wrote:I should be less specific perhaps and say "cinema experience". When there were still films projected from 35mm here, I saw some truly crap presentations which were absolutely worse than BD (in most ways).
Ah, I understand, yes, definitely. Honestly even dvd was far preferable to the missing reels, unreadable subs, and faded and damaged prints I've seen projected at times.

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2568 Post by David M. » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:32 pm

Steady on now, I wouldn't go that far ;)

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2569 Post by tenia » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:41 am

LavaLamp wrote:4K PQ is superior to 1080p - however, you need a very wide/large TV to see the difference. Also, though the difference is notable if you have a very large TV, it is not as obvious as, say, the superior PQ distinction when comparing BD's (or most BD's) to regular DVDs.
Regarding BD, it has also been agreed everywhere that if your TV is smaller than 40 inches, you might not be able to see a big difference between a DVD and a BD, because the pixel density is already high with a DVD. The same should be done here, and you would need a big TV to see the difference between 2K and 4K.

I'm quite sure if your have a 65" screen, or maybe even a 55", the difference might already be noticeable.
From what I've seen, in video projection, the improvement is very noticeable, even at a simpler upscale stage (a BD upscaled in 4K).

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2570 Post by FrauBlucher » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:22 am

David M. wrote:
The higher the res the more of a chance the grain can overwhelm the picture.
Not really. A low-light scene shot on high speed film is going to have a lot of grain regardless of the resolution it's been scanned at. Higher resolution scanning will give you higher resolution details, and that also means higher resolution grain - but not more of it.

You might be thinking of old SD telecine transfers where the grain was reduced as a matter of routine (in part because older telecine designs themselves added their own noise). Fortunately that isn't the way any more.
Thanks David, after I posted I remembered that I saw Dr Strangelove (I think Sony's first transfer) in 4k screened in a theater. It looked great. Grain was lovely. As to your first point, made me think about The Third Man blu ray (Criterion). The grain was a bit distracting for my taste. Many dark, low lit scenes. Got it. Thanks again.

LavaLamp
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 am

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2571 Post by LavaLamp » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:47 pm

David M. wrote:You would certainly enjoy seeing Taxi Driver in 4K. Maybe not *that* much more than in 1080p. I don't understand why anyone would have a vested interest in fighting or saying 'no' to technological progress though.

Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy here, but I sat through the exact same discussions when 1080p was up and coming and I'm surprised at how short sighted the AV press in particular can be: "what's the point", "we'll need huge screens", "720p is good enough" etc etc. It's coming and will one day be the standard, and you'll surely own a 4K display some day.
Yeah, I'm right with you there, and appreciate all of this info. It took me a while to be convinced that BD was worthwhile - when it was first released in the late 2000's, I thought it was just a money-grab for the BD companies to sell consumers a product that wasn't much better than regular DVDs. Now that I actually own a BD player & have seen many BD's, I am extremely impressed at how much better BD's look (with some exceptions).
tenia wrote:Regarding BD, it has also been agreed everywhere that if your TV is smaller than 40 inches, you might not be able to see a big difference between a DVD and a BD, because the pixel density is already high with a DVD. The same should be done here, and you would need a big TV to see the difference between 2K and 4K.

I'm quite sure if your have a 65" screen, or maybe even a 55", the difference might already be noticeable.
From what I've seen, in video projection, the improvement is very noticeable, even at a simpler upscale stage (a BD upscaled in 4K).
Yes, very true - large flatscreen TV's are becoming more advanced & have gone down significantly in price, so the differences here are more evident than they would have been in the past. I remember considering getting a large, widescreen TV in the early 2000's, and not doing so because of both the extremely high price & it being very obvious that the larger the set was, the worse the PQ was. Obviously, these days they have solved this PQ issue....

LavaLamp
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 am

How much longer will physical BD's be around?! See link

#2572 Post by LavaLamp » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:54 am

I recently read an opinion article that suggested that BD players will be obsolete in the next five years. Note this is not my opinion - here is the link:

http://techland.time.com/2014/01/02/5-t ... ?hpt=hp_t3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally, I truly hope that BD's are around for a long time to come. I'm familiar with streaming, but it's definitely not my preferred way of watching films/TV shows. I like having the physical BD (or DVD) to watch films, and having a High-def BD is, IMHO, far better than having to stream something.

That all being said, I understand why streaming has become (and is becoming) attractive to so many. First of all, you don't have to worry about going out and renting/buying a BD/DVD. Secondly, you don't have to worry about a BD/DVD being potentially scratched or otherwise defective & therefore not working properly.

That also being said, I have yet to see a stream that is of BD PQ. I'm not saying they aren't out there, I'm just saying I haven't seen this.

What do others think about this? Thanks in advance for any input here...

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2573 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:20 am

All of the numbers linked in that piece seem deceptive- it claims blu-ray discs are slipping, and then uses numbers like North America's market share of discs relative to the rest of the world, and decreased revenue from all discs (we all know that DVD sales are slipping, and have been for years.) Sure, blu-ray players are going to keep selling at the same rate, but that's a matter of market saturation, not of obsolescence. Criterion never reports specific numbers, but they've said that their disc sales revenue has grown steadily for the last few years- and they've got streaming options that are at least as attractive as Netflix's.

Saying simply that Netflix is going to destroy physical media is lazy and stupid- Netflix simply doesn't carry everything, and it's been bleeding libraries of titles ever since everyone else found out how valuable streaming can be. I'd be a little more convinced if Netflix had a lot of strong competitors and people seemed willing to subscribe to five streaming services at once to get everything they wanted, but I haven't seen that.

Even if that were the case- laserdisc survived for a decade or more on the basis of a small market of people willing to pay premium prices for superior movie experience, and it's difficult to believe that the same won't happen with blu-ray. Streaming means you don't get to keep the title forever, they still haven't gotten around to adding special features to nearly all streaming experiences, it sucks for anyone with a less than stellar internet connection, and it doesn't have the physical commodity that appeals to collectors. I'm sure it will get bigger for a few years, but I don't see it destroying physical media, at least not for a good long while.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2574 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:36 pm

And just the fact that the latest generation of games consoles has just been released, trumpeting downloads and focused heavily on on-line interaction, yet still including Blu-ray players (the Xbox for the first time and the new Xbox having to pull back on some pushes to being even more on-line focused after a backlash), means that some of the biggest tech companies aren't ready to junk the disc format yet.

It is likely going to come down to the joy of statistics - who is collecting the data, what is being collected and how that data is interpreted. You can justify anything you need to from that.

(I also just got my dad a stand-alone in-car GPS unit for Christmas :P )

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Blu-ray, in General

#2575 Post by jindianajonz » Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:38 pm

Well, Playstation is obviously going to hold onto blu-ray since it's Sony's baby, and I think X-box got some flack for not supporting the format in the last generation (I know a lot of X-box gamers who grumbled about having to buy and make room for another box to play Blu-rays when the PS3 could do it all with a single player)

I think there will always be a demand for physical media, but my big fear is that even with that demand, studios will see enough benefits in streaming to override that demand. I mean, why sell something when you can rent it? Streaming gives them much more control over the product than sales do, and I think the whole idea of unlimited streaming at a monthly rate will eventually give way to some sort of pay-per-view "premium streaming" for popular titles similar to what cable companies already do.

Post Reply