|
||||||||
4K Blu Ray Standard Confirmed |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
They're not. At least, the Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and LGs ones I've seen have only one HDMI 2.0 4kp60 compatible socket.
![]() And while I've fitted two 4K sets on walls, with no 4K sources available yet it wasn't of any concern. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
They're not. At least, the Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and LGs ones I've seen have only one HDMI 2.0 4kp60 compatible socket.
Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,272
|
Quote:
What a stupid post. Basically you are stating you either illegally get this content, or you do not care about the quality of the video and audio quality.
Those of us you have a good quality AV amplifier with decent speakers and a decent display know that there is no comparison. Frankly if no one bought any films on disk they would not be on sale, They are so your post is ridiculous, If you are watching on a HD TV and using a legal streaming source then you are totally missing the point. Get a quality Audio source and a good display, then the picture and audio will be way better than you can get from any illlegal source. Blu-ray is superior in both picture quality and audio than anything you can get from a broadcast source. If you don't know this then I guess you have a el cheapo TV, with a poor picture and really poor audio. Are you a pirate or simply a punter that does not have a clue ? So to answer your bizarre question - Yes I buy optical discs ( only Blu-ray and for content that I know I will want to see again). I rather doubt I am alone )What he was getting at is that more people are choosing streaming options these days, and that is hitting physical format sales dramatically. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
Talk about jumping down somebody's throat.
What he was getting at is that more people are choosing streaming options these days, and that is hitting physical format sales dramatically. I cannot see the point in dumbing down the picture quality that is available from 4K by streaming compared to a physical storage media with adequate capacity. It would be far more sensible to devote these resources to a high quality 1080p service. The number of users of 4K kit that will gain much from 4K is small. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I cannot see the point in dumbing down the picture quality that is available from 4K by streaming compared to a physical storage media with adequate capacity. It would be far more sensible to devote these resources to a high quality 1080p service. The number of users of 4K kit that will gain much from 4K is small.
Rationally the resolution isn't at all important to the PQ for most people given their viewing distances and TV sizes and an improved 1080p would be better than 4K but that won't happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,272
|
Quote:
Streaming has significant impact on picture and audio quality due to the comprimises required to restrict bit rates. . Some people will watch and listen to anything, look at the music channels on satellite.
I cannot see the point in dumbing down the picture quality that is available from 4K by streaming compared to a physical storage media with adequate capacity. It would be far more sensible to devote these resources to a high quality 1080p service. The number of users of 4K kit that will gain much from 4K is small. Blu-ray never took off like DVD, proof that the mass market is not driven by the best quality available. Streaming is cheap and convenient and will continue to mercilessly eat into physical format sales until they're as niche and retro as the VCR. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
The quality of streaming may be inferior but it's a very simple fact that video- and audiophiles are a very small section of the market. You may keep buying the physical format but the market at large will put convenience ahead of marginal gains in visual and aural quality. Hence physical sales continue to decline sharply year on year.
Blu-ray never took off like DVD, proof that the mass market is not driven by the best quality available. Streaming is cheap and convenient and will continue to mercilessly eat into physical format sales until they're as niche and retro as the VCR. That precludes so many who aren't fortunate enough to be able to access decent broadband. What do you think of ITV player on a 3Mbps connection ? All my grandson who lives on the edge of Bridgwater (So by no means rural) can manage if he's lucky. In this case the difference is anything but minor. I agree that the difference can be small but only with existing 1080i sources. iplayer at 1280 x 720 25 fps is pretty good, but a lot of the population cannot even watch this let alone a 4K stream. It's costs a similar amount of money to rent disks from services like Amazon, and this is often the only way to watch decent quality. It always amazes me that those who get decent broadband, stick there heads in the sand and make glaring observations that do not apply to many others. They forget much of the population don't even have broadband at all. The industry must think there's a place for a 4K optical disk source, at the prices they charge compared to the production costs there will be still money to be made. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,570
|
Quote:
It always amazes me that those who get decent broadband, stick there heads in the sand and make glaring observations that do not apply to many others. They forget much of the population don't even have broadband at all.
Regardless, the tech will advance and it will be the main delivery of 4K content. It's not a matter of sticking heads in sand, it's recognising the way it will pan out. There is a generational gap forming as much as anything else. Those that can't see past the physical CD/DVD/Bluray and the generation that don't buy any of them. Most people I know download or stream all their media and have no physical copies of any of it. I can't remember the last DVD/Bluray I purchased. You are right, that those with, don't really consider those who don't have, decent BB. But, why should they? There are millions with a decent BB connection, no doubt enough to satisfy the business case for streaming. As tech is continually moving forward, delivery will only improve as time goes on. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,272
|
Quote:
Only if you are lucky enough to live in a area that has a decent broadband service.
That precludes so many who aren't fortunate enough to be able to access decent broadband. What do you think of ITV player on a 3Mbps connection ? All my grandson who lives on the edge of Bridgwater (So by no means rural) can manage if he's lucky. In this case the difference is anything but minor. I agree that the difference can be small but only with existing 1080i sources. iplayer at 1280 x 720 25 fps is pretty good, but a lot of the population cannot even watch this let alone a 4K stream. It's costs a similar amount of money to rent disks from services like Amazon, and this is often the only way to watch decent quality. It always amazes me that those who get decent broadband, stick there heads in the sand and make glaring observations that do not apply to many others. They forget much of the population don't even have broadband at all. The industry must think there's a place for a 4K optical disk source, at the prices they charge compared to the production costs there will be still money to be made. http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/superfast-bb-surge/ Broadband is not a stationary technology. You can keep arguing that niche areas of the market (video- and audiophiles, those with no/poor broadband) will prop up the Blu-ray market, but that is to put your own head in the sand and ignore completely the trend in technology and of end user behaviours. Call100 is right, it's a generational thing in the main. There will be many a youngster who has never purchased a CD, DVD, Blu-ray disc etc etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 407
|
Quote:
Call100 is right, it's a generational thing in the main. There will be many a youngster who has never purchased a CD, DVD, Blu-ray disc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Optical discs are obviously declining. Try buying something from the top 20 as a CD Single! However... Quote:
Streaming is cheap and convenient and will continue to mercilessly eat into physical format sales until they're as niche and retro as the VCR.
Writeable disc formats can live on in the smallest of niches. Haven't you heard of burn on demand / cook-to-order discs? I haven't bought any DVDs that way, but several (legitimate, legal) CDs I've bought recently have been on CD-Rs. I guess that tells you how niche my music tastes are. ![]() Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 94
|
Ultra HD on Freesat and Freeview
Any news on Freeview or Freesat for Ultra HD transmissions?
What was the result of the BBS World cup test via freeview? I guess we will need new Ultra HD tuners for any transmitting method. I currently have both freesat and freeview tuners on my PC so am waiting with anticipation for an Ultra HD tuner. Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
|
Quote:
Any news on Freeview or Freesat for Ultra HD transmissions?
What was the result of the BBS World cup test via freeview? I guess we will need new Ultra HD tuners for any transmitting method. I currently have both freesat and freeview tuners on my PC so am waiting with anticipation for an Ultra HD tuner. Frank I highly doubt anything will happen in 2015 and 2016 looks far more likely imho. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 357
|
Quote:
Yes you will need new hardware chips that can take decode HEVC H.265 for any 4K output. Good chance SKY will be first with 4K broadcasts as their customers will pay a premium and it is in their interests to compete with Netflix and Amazon on the 4K front.
I highly doubt anything will happen in 2015 and 2016 looks far more likely imho. I'm surprised they have not already announced plans as their commitment to 3D has decreased by a massive amount recently. Not even football is shown in 3D anymore. This suggests to me that all their R&D must be in 4K now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
This suggests to me that all their R&D must be in 4K now.
3D was always going to be a flop, it has been every time it's been launched. 4K? - who knows? - but as sets are likely to gradually all become 4K over the next few years, it's likely that some kind of 4K broadcasting will appear. I still think it's a total waste and not needed though
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,570
|
Quote:
As I've said repeatedly, when 4K sets first appeared in the UK we were told by Sky that they were developing a new 4K box 'just in case' they decided to launch a 4K option.
3D was always going to be a flop, it has been every time it's been launched. 4K? - who knows? - but as sets are likely to gradually all become 4K over the next few years, it's likely that some kind of 4K broadcasting will appear. I still think it's a total waste and not needed though ![]() As for Broadcasting in 4K. It'll be pure economics that drive that. Sooner or later Sky et al will want to curb Netflix and Co's 4K lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
The TV's or the Broadcasting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Devon
Posts: 1,568
|
I would agree with you Nigel if it was just an increase in resolution. If they are going to increase the frame rate and increase the colour bit depth and gamut then that might well be worth having.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
I would agree with you Nigel if it was just an increase in resolution. If they are going to increase the frame rate and increase the colour bit depth and gamut then that might well be worth having.
![]() Not that an increase in frame rate might be somewhat beneficial though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
I think when people see a decent picture with higher dynamic range and wider colour gamut, then the kinds of pictures we've been watching all our lives until now (which haven't changed much in these respects for decades) are suddenly going to look quite old fashioned.
More pixels per frame and more frames per second are the kind of picture quality improvements that us geeks will love (if we sit close enough to see them ) but the completely different look that HDR and WCG gives to images will appeal more widely, almost on a "fashion" level - regular TV pictures will just look out-of-date, like last decade's clothes.It's like when you have a phone or tablet with a really nice display, people think it looks great. 4k/HDR/WCG TV is going to have the same impact. I could be wrong of course ![]() Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:01.




