This is topic 4K at home next year (2016) Dolby HDR also coming in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001104
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-16-2015, 02:02 PM:
 
From the UK's The Register and Faultline:
quote:

No 4King way: Dolby snuggles its high-def TV tech into MStar SoCs

16 October 2015

Will 4K TVs become obsolete as soon as next year?

Dolby Laboratories seems to be one step closer to pushing its version of High Dynamic Range into the TV ecosystem, with a collaboration announced this week with mega smart TV player MStar Semiconductor, which said it would deliver a Dolby Vision 4K Ultra HD SoC (System-on-a-Chipset) to go into TVs next year.

This fits in with our assertions at Faultline that next year all 4K TVs will become obsolete with the release of HDR-ready devices in 2016.

Dolby says that MStar has been working with it for the past two years to optimise Dolby Vision for integration into its MStar video processing engine, and will begin delivery of a SoC within the next year.

Given that MStar claims a 70 per cent market share for the chips that drive smart TVs, Dolby’s presence on the device is a significant boost. However, you could also make the argument that as a chip-maker MStar has to offer this HDR variant, as well as the two other popular ones – from the Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers and from Technicolor – in order to satisfy all of its customers.

But the Dolby Vision VS10 universal HDR playback solution supports both dual-layer and single-layer Dolby Vision streams and other HDR profiles so it includes the SMPTE ST 2084 standard. This enables displays to take full advantage of a combination of peak brightness, local contrast, and wider colour gamut.

“As early adopters of Dolby Vision, MStar has collaborated with Dolby for the past two years to optimise the HDR engine with MStar’s expertise in display technologies, which will enable the delivery of Dolby Vision to a broader range of TVs,” said Sean Lin, general manager, TV Business Unit, MStar.

Just a few weeks ago Dolby Laboratories announced that China’s HiSilicon had agreed to offer Dolby Vision 4K UHD in its SoC for set tops in the DVB, IPTV and OTT markets, including on Android set tops, which use the HiSilicon Hi3798C V200 chipsets. This was the first global Ultra HD set top chipset solution to support Dolby Vision HDR.

Back in June, Technicolor submitted its own HDR process for standardisation to the Motion Picture Experts Group and said that testing is underway with chipmakers including Marvell and STMicroelectronics.

 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-01-2015, 10:49 AM:
 
I'm a little late posting this, but here we go. From Blu-ray.com:
quote:

Fox Reveals First 4K Blu-ray Titles...

3 September 2015

Twentieth Century Fox has revealed the first batch of titles that will be released on 4K Blu-ray. They are Exodus: Gods and Kings, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fantastic Four, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Life of Pi, The Maze Runner and Wild.

At IFA in Berlin, Mike Dunn, president of Fox Home Entertainment said: "We are committed to releasing our slate of movies going forward in Ultra HD with high dynamic range, day and date, with the Digital HD and Blu-ray release. We believe it is critical to have rich, compelling content available to consumers as the UHD TV market continues to grow."

Also at IFA Samsung introduced its first 4K Blu-ray player, which is expected to arrive on the market in early 2016.

Hanno Basse, chair of the UHD Alliance and CTO at Fox, who attended the press event for Samsung's new player commented: "We've made a lot of progress. We're getting close to finalizing our technical specifications, as well as our certification and logo programs. Since the announcement of the Alliance earlier this year, we've almost tripled our membership, and we now represent a large segment of the device and content industry from around the world. And we hope to share a lot more details in the coming months on the launch of our licensing program and the availability of new products in the market."
I don't care much about the Samsung 4K player since I intend to upgrade my HTPC to 4K some time soon. But I am bugged a bit by Sony with their muddying of the waters of this impending 4K release wave - Sony is releasing 2K Blu-ray titles labeled as "Mastered in 4K". Some consumers may buy into those Sony titles thinking they're getting 4K performance on a 2K disc. Annoying, at least to me.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2015, 05:24 PM:
 
Yeah, I agree Sony's "mastered in 4K" Blu-ray titles that are really just regular 1080p standard Blu-ray discs does stink of another double-dip. However, most of those titles are from new masters, which would offer a visual improvement on Blu-ray. On top of that some of those titles are even boasting new mixes in Dolby Atmos.

Nevertheless, anyone who bought a 4K capable TV set recently might be kicking themselves over it. All current 4K TV sets only support the REC 709 color standard. New TV sets that support REC 2020 color gamma are going to be available soon. It's likely a bunch of those TV sets will support Dolby Vision. The Dolby brand is pretty well known. I'm thinking Dolby Vision might get more attention from the average consumer than the techie sounding REC 2020 thing.

Nevertheless, new UHDTV sets are set to look even more awesome than ever along with being crazy thin. Some of these OLED screens look like they could break if you touched it the wrong way.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-13-2015, 11:32 AM:
 
as of November 10, Sony has now jumped into the fray:

"Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (SPHE) today announced the studio's first releases in the next-generation 4K Ultra HD™ Disc format, which will arrive in early 2016.

"By some estimates, consumers will own over 100 million Ultra HD television sets by 2019. Sony Pictures' 4K Ultra HD Discs will deliver consumers the ultimate home theater experience, with stunning picture and sound quality," said SPHE president, Man Jit Singh.

Singh continued, "Ten years ago this month, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment authored the world's first feature film on Blu-ray Disc™, and we continue to bring consumers the most innovative, immersive home entertainment experiences available."

SPHE's first 4K Ultra HD releases will include The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Salt, Hancock, Chappie, Pineapple Express, and The Smurfs 2, followed by a growing roster of titles including new release film and television content.

SPHE's 4K Ultra HD Discs feature four times the resolution of HD and include high dynamic range (HDR), which produces brilliant highlights, vibrant colors and greater contrast on compatible displays. Many titles will also support next-generation immersive audio formats.

Sony Pictures has an extensive library of 4K content, including newer films and television shows, as well as classic catalog films restored from original film elements, including Fury, Captain Phillips, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Men In Black, Ghostbusters, The Fifth Element, Bad Boys, The Da Vinci Code, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Leon: The Professional, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Guns of Navarone, Taxi Driver, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and many others.

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (SPHE) is a Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) company. Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) is a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Sony Corporation. SPE's global operations encompass motion picture production, acquisition and distribution; television production, acquisition and distribution; television networks; digital content creation and distribution; operation of studio facilities; and development of new entertainment products, services and technologies"
 
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-13-2015, 08:51 PM:
 
In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an interesting article about the newest TVs coming, the HDR sets. This is a rapidly-developing technology (aren't they all?) but I'll share this now since it expands the discussion here "up to the moment". (I'll provide a link as well, so you might be able to see the accompanying graphics, but WSJ is pretty fussy about refusing access to non-subscribers, so it very likely won't work. You can try it WSJ here )

Article:

quote:
This Year, Buy a TV That’s Actually Better
High dynamic range, or HDR, is a bigger deal for picture quality than Ultra HD 4K or more gimmicky TV upsells

By Geoffrey A. Fowler Nov. 10, 2015 -- The Wall Street Journal

sub-headline: High dynamic range, or HDR, allows this year’s top TVs to show more colors, lights and darks. WSJ Personal Tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler explains why, when it comes to picture quality, HDR is a bigger deal than Ultra HD 4K.

Can you spot the difference between someone on TV and a person actually standing in front of you? Of course, but it’s hard to put your finger on why. A screen wipes out the little details—the glint in an eye, the spring of a curl.

TV’s next leap takes it closer to real life. It’s not 3-D, or more pixels. Instead, new screens can show the highs and lows that color reality: the reflection in an eye that’s 500 times brighter than the pupil next to it, the countless gradations in a head of hair.

Called high dynamic range, or HDR, this lust-worthy feature is available in the fall’s best TVs from Samsung, LG and Sony. It may sound like some geeky perk, but unlike with Ultra HD 4K TV sets, normal humans don’t have to scoot the couch closer to notice HDR. From what I’ve seen, it’s the best argument in years to upgrade your set.

HDR will become standard in the coming years. The price for getting it first is $2,000 and up. Way up.

The term HDR may be familiar from a shooting mode on your smartphone camera. On a TV, HDR screens do a better job of reproducing the astonishingly wide range of colors our eyes take in. High-end cameras, the ones Hollywood already uses, capture much of this information. But to make video compatible with standard TV’s narrow range of tones, a lot of this detail gets thrown out.

What does HDR look like? You’ll know it when you see it. Nothing I can show you here—in video or photos—can quite reproduce it.

It helps to view it side-by-side with a standard video, as I’ve been doing with a few movies in my gadget vault for the past three weeks. A standard video might look brighter overall, but the HDR version is more heightened and detailed.

Spider-Man’s costume becomes a more intense red, even in darker scenes. “The Lego Movie” characters look like they’re actually made of plastic. HDR video can get so bright that an on-screen explosion can actually be, momentarily, uncomfortable.

My aha moment came watching the movie “Life of Pi.” There’s a scene where young Pi is attacked by flying fish. By the end, he looks like he’s covered in beads of water. But when I watched it in HDR, I realized that wasn’t water—those were fish scales, remnants of his battle. The HDR version could show enough of the tones in each scale for me to make it out.

In many of these sets, the extra colors are made possible by awesomely named quantum dots, which emit more colors on an LCD screen. (Kudos to Samsung for figuring out how to do this on its SUHD TV line without the toxic metal cadmium.) LG produces HDR images using a more expensive technology called OLED, which can show even more colors.

These TVs are also much brighter. To geek out for a moment, we need to pick nits—no, they’re not lice, but units of measurement to gauge brightness. Back in the 1990s, when our current video standards were set, the assumption was that a TV could produce, at most, 100 nits. Flowers in the noonday sun are closer to 14,000 nits.

A TV doesn’t need to be that bright. Samsung’s latest SUHD TVs can put out 1,000 nits. That’s enough for a neon sign to look like it’s glowing amid the inky dark pixels of night.

There’s just one problem, and it’s a familiar one: TV makers are much further along than Hollywood in adopting the new technology. There’s no HDR broadcast TV or live sports, at least not yet. (Can you imagine how awesome it would be to watch the Olympics in HDR? Please get on that, NBC.)

Here’s what you can get today: Amazon streams HDR versions of a handful of movies, including “Amazing Spider-Man 2,” and original shows (“Transparent,” “Mozart in the Jungle”) to compatible smart TVs. Netflix plans to offer HDR, too, but it wasn’t live on any sets I tested.

Other sources don’t exactly make it easy for early adopters. Online movie store M-Go sells HDR films, including “Life of Pi.” You can play them on Samsung TVs—if you have a compatible external hard drive. The app is buggy, and it took me three days to download a file before I could watch my movie.

To make matters worse, there are competing HDR formats. (Seriously, again?) Samsung, Sony and LG are all behind HDR 10, which Amazon is using.

But the entertainment wizards at Dolby Laboratories, largely responsible for jump-starting the idea of HDR, have their own system, Dolby Vision, which could lead to better images. So far, in the U.S., Dolby has only signed up Vizio, which has been promoting a TV I saw in prototype, but wasn’t able to test. Netflix and Wal-Mart ’s movie service, Vudu, are early Dolby Vision content partners.

Still, there’s plenty of reason to be hopeful for HDR. Unlike Ultra HD 4K video, HDR doesn’t require creators to use new cameras. Distributors don’t really have to pick a side in the format war—they can offer both Dolby Vision and HDR 10 over the Internet. And HDR doesn’t take much more bandwidth to transmit to your home. 21st Century Fox has already committed to making all new movies available in HDR. And Samsung announced a Blu-ray disc player that supports 4K and HDR.

Samsung’s 65-inch $4,000 JS9500 uses quantum dot nanotechnology to enhance the color on an LCD panel.

Before recommending my favorite HDR sets—all of which are also 4K—I want to warn you about shopping. Many retailers don’t have HDR demos in stores, and since they usually set all their TVs to a garish vivid mode, it would be hard to spot genuine HDR content amid all the shock and awe. HDR isn’t bright all the time—just when it should be.

If money is no object, the year’s best HDR-capable TV, hands down the best TV of 2015, is LG’s 9500 OLED line. Its prices run $3,000 for a 55-inch model, and $5,000 for 65-inch. With max brightness of 400 nits, these OLEDs aren’t as bright as competing LCD models, but because OLED can get as dark as the old plasma sets, both HDR and non-HDR video look more lifelike. They’ve got stunning color, and I can confirm the screen is viewable from every corner of the man cave. I also prefer LG’s snappy WebOS 2 interface.

Vizio’s $6,000 Reference Series set looked great when Dolby showed it to me, but Vizio wasn’t able to deliver me a shipping TV. (They’re now on sale at Best Buy ). I can’t recommend a TV without testing it first.

The HDR TV with the most impressive color came from Sony, but the $3,800 65-inch X930C model I tested came in last in darker scenes. Sony says its 75-inch $8,000 X940C model doesn’t have that problem thanks to a different backlight technology.

If spending more than $3,000 on a TV might put you in divorce court, I can recommend Samsung’s JS8500 ($2,500 for 65 inches) as a good compromise with the best lineup of HDR content.

And what if you just wait? That’s always the rub with TV tech. This year’s models will surely be on sale by Super Bowl 50, even if the game won’t be ready for HDR until Super Bowl 51 or later. And I’m sure next year’s models will show even more colors, with better processors to handle HDR in any format. They’ll also likely get brighter, especially LG’s OLED models.

After years of dubious upgrades—how many times did anyone actually watch “Avatar” in 3-D?—there’s finally a TV technology improvement that’s instantly obvious to the naked eye. With HDR, the pieces are finally in place for TVs to compete on what mattered all along: the most realistic picture.

 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-14-2015, 12:19 PM:
 
Backwards compatibility, or is the TV manufacturers gonna keep in business for a while making 4K TV's?
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-29-2015, 09:48 PM:
 
new Warner Home Video news:

"The first available titles will be Mad Max: Fury Road, San Andreas, The Lego Movie and Pan. Following quickly will be theatrical new release titles available day and date with their initial home entertainment release as well as a selection of catalog titles throughout the year including Man of Steel and Pacific Rim. By the end of 2016, Warner Bros. will have over 35 titles available on Ultra HD Blu-ray.To complement the disc releases, Warner Bros. will also expand the titles available on 4K Ultra HD with HDR via digital retailers. Dolby Atmoswill also be included on select titles for a truly immersive home theater experience."

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/MAD-MAX-THE-LEGO-MOVIE-More-Among-WBs-First-Ultra-HD-Blu-ray-Offerings-20151229
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2015, 10:39 PM:
 
I'll eventually get a new TV (which unfortunately will ONLY have HDMI inputs, nothing else... I really REALLY hate that). The problem is getting rid of the old TV. Never fun. Probably will only rebuy a few movies.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2015, 11:04 PM:
 
The technology press and press in general is trying to hype "HDR" over 4K, but without offering an accurate portrayal of just what kind of TV sets are currently available or will be in the near future. They also don't say much about playback requirements either.

None of the TV sets currently being sold fully support advanced color spaces like REC 2020, XYZ or DCI-P3. It's not clear when exactly such TV sets will become available (and just how much they will cost). I think that's a big problem with all this HDR hype. And then there's the issue with HDR standards, there isn't just one. Instead there are multiple competing standards, with Dolby Vision having the most name brand recogition.

There are new UHDTV TV sets out now that claim to support HDR, but they're not offering the whole enchilada. It's more like enhanced REC 709 function.

Even though the press seems totally disinterested in regular UHDTV and "4K" the whole UHD thing is very quickly becoming a standard feature in new TV sets, not just high end models. Earlier this evening I was picking up a couple grocery items at "Wally World." I saw some 55" UHDTV sets on an end cap display. The TVs were priced at $598. I wouldn't expect to get a great quality big screen TV for $600, but the fact "4K" is getting down into that price point is impressive.

I kind of wonder if there isn't some sort of agenda going on against regular 2160p TV sets. The emerging UltraHD Blu-ray format will be the best playback platform to show off 4K in the home. But some people and certain big technology companies really hate anything involving physical media. So maybe if they poo poo UHD and tell consumers they don't need it and just wait for HDR it might derail that new Blu-ray format. Never mind the fact consumers are still going to need something like an UltraHD Blu-ray player in order to play movies with HDR imagery. Or do these tech press people and certain tech companies expect consumers to stream HDR in 720p?
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-29-2015, 11:18 PM:
 
I'm really hoping Disney makes a big announcement of it's plans in releasing UHD discs at next month's CES conference
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-06-2016, 12:19 AM:
 
while Fox didn't detail whether they'd side with Dolby Atmos or DTS-X - they have announced that the object based mixes will be exclusive to the UHD editions and not their bluray releases:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/CES-2016-Fox-bietet-Rundum-Sound-nur-auf-Ultra-HD-Blu-ray-3061663.html

['Google Translated']:

"While already other studios such as Universal, Parmount, Sony and Warner movies with Auro-3D, Dolby Atmos and DTS: offer X-Sound on Blu-ray Disc, will Fox the new 3D sound formats as a lure for the coming Ultra HD Blu-ray use.

The home theater division of the Hollywood studios 20th Century Fox wants, according to continue to offer films with "3D sound", but only on Ultra HD Blu-ray discs (UHD-BD) and not for the titles released on Blu-ray Disc become. This was stated by President Worldwide Mike Dunn told heise online at the edge of a previous event at CES.

As this format seems "Dolby Atmos" to be sure already set; next "at least a second" surround sound format will support loudly Dunn. Whether further Auro-3D, DTS now: X or both are, he would not betray the other hand also on multiple demand.

20th Century Fox announced at the event on the new "Ultra HD Premium" that they publish around 100 4K titles on VoD and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc by the end -. With increased contrast and an extended color space the initial target of the titles " The Martians ", a concrete release date, there is, according to Dunn not First matching players would be available;.. currently the spring was in 2016 in an interview to The Ultra HD Blu-ray discs from Fox initially always bundled with the respective Blu-ray version appear."
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-06-2016, 09:18 AM:
 
if the trend is correct from SHOUT Factory their IMAX titles releases will include the 3D 2K bluray as a bonus disc - 'Journey to Space' cover art has confirmed this --- hooray!

Foxconnect and Best Buy have the Fox UHD (streeting at the beginning of March) up for preorder. MSRP $39.99 / discounted of course
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-08-2016, 05:44 PM:
 
That Google Translation makes my head hurt. I end up having to re-read it in order to sort through the broken English, and afterward, I'm not confident that I've gotten the actual intent of the Fox rep that was interviewed.

In my mind, there are three issues at play with all this:
I think by blocking people from buying a UHD player and hooking it up to the equipment they already own, the market for UHD will be stunted.
Another reason that people would begin buying the UHD Combo Packs would be to enjoy the Atmos/DTS:X soundtrack on the UHD disc or the bundled Blu-ray.

If they can't do these things, they would be required to buy a lot of expensive equipment before they can start building their library of titles.

Case in point: The Martian gets released in March. The current pricing on Amazon makes the UHD Combo Pack $7 more than the Blu-ray Combo Pack. I would happily pay that $7 in order to get the UHD disc for future use, especially if I could play its Atmos soundtrack on my existing equipment.

If the Atmos soundtrack isn't going to be on the bundled Blu-ray, then at least I could think about purchasing a UHD player and enjoying the content on the UHD disc (Atmos soundtrack, any extras they have on that disc that may not make it to the Blu-ray disc) even if it needed to be down-rezzed to 1080p because I don't have a 4K display yet.

As it stands now, it appears that they may be going to an all-or-nothing approach, which will make it a very steep hill for the new format to climb.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-09-2016, 06:12 PM:
 
The UHD format doesn't support 3D, yet a large percentage of the initial titles are 3D movies. No thanks.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-09-2016, 07:01 PM:
 
I'm not convinced that the world really wants another disc based storage medium. People are definitely moving away from storing things on bits of plastic.

I also don't think people will be pitching or being upset at their recent purchases of even circa 2015 4K TVs. MOST people just are not all that into the high-end hoopla. They buy what they think looks (or sounds) good and is within their budget.

Certainly, the latest and greatest UHD and HDR stuff is going to be FAR pricier than the stuff in 2017 and beyond. As Bobby notes, even 4K has become relatively cheap. Even "better" or mid-line 4K sets are below $1000 now. If I had to do over again, I'd probably go for a the next level up (I bought Samsung last year for a house we are renting rather than move a CRT based TV so I was more price conscious). The next tier up has notably better contrast but I saw the dreaded "3D" feature on it and, at first, thought that was why it was more money. In later reading, I see it had the next tier better contrast too. Oh well. It isn't horrible at all and overall, we are quite pleased. It will just be one of the TVs in our new house next year, it is just a 55"
 
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 01-09-2016, 09:48 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
I kind of wonder if there isn't some sort of agenda going on against regular 2160p TV sets. The emerging UltraHD Blu-ray format will be the best playback platform to show off 4K in the home. But some people and certain big technology companies really hate anything involving physical media. So maybe if they poo poo UHD and tell consumers they don't need it and just wait for HDR it might derail that new Blu-ray format. Never mind the fact consumers are still going to need something like an UltraHD Blu-ray player in order to play movies with HDR imagery. Or do these tech press people and certain tech companies expect consumers to stream HDR in 720p?
I think a couple of things have happened behind the scenes. The technologists and also some creatives have for awhile wanted to move past the original 1080p standard, which was an extension of the 1080i standards developed for broadcast HDTV. That process started a *long* time ago, so there has long been a recognition that with improved compression schemes and the help of Moore's Law, a *much* better experience can be delivered.

Meanwhile the TV manufacturers have been pushing 4K, because 3D was such a flop - they needed *something* to convince consumers to upgrade their TVs. So, the people pushing for the next-generation video standards adopted the 3840X2160 pixel array, since that was where the TV manufacturers had already landed. But the timing of all of this is very unfortunate, since as was noted upthread the 4K sets that people have been buying for the last 2 years don't have the capabilities that are being built into UHD Blu Ray (and are being proposed for the next generation of HDTV broadcasts with the ATSC 3.0 standard being drafted).

Oh, and I do think you'll see HDR streaming. I'd be wiling to bet Netflix will be pushing it, and probably Amazon as well.

TL; DR I don't think it's all a genuine conspiracy, just a lot of different companies all pushing the state of the art forward and not everything arriving at the same time...
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-11-2016, 11:47 AM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
The UHD format doesn't support 3D, yet a large percentage of the initial titles are 3D movies. No thanks.
It's unfortunate that the format isn't supporting 3D, but I have to believe that it's the economic reality that 3D home video just hasn't taken hold and for it to have been dropped, it must be deemed insignificant to the format's partners.

I have several 3D movies on Blu-ray (22 according to my records), but I rarely watch them in 3D. Its absence on UHD doesn't really bother me all that much, but I can sympathize with your position.

quote: Steve Guttag
I'm not convinced that the world really wants another disc based storage medium. People are definitely moving away from storing things on bits of plastic.
I like having physical media. I like having something that I know will play when I want to play it. Over the holidays, this position was reinforced as my wife really wanted to watch The Queen (with Helen Mirren). It's not at Redbox, local stores don't carry catalog titles like this, and it was too late to get it on blu-ray from Netflix.

Checked Netflix streaming. Nope. Vudu and Amazon Instant Video had it, and I already had Amazon set up on my player, so I rented it, and started playback.

And almost immediately, was struck with the dreaded "buffering" symbol, and a stutter-start, followed by a warning message that my Internet connection was too slow to continue playback. Tried again, this time I was able to watch about five seconds of the movie in some really bad SD before the same message popped up.

Checked my Internet speed. 36 Mbps down, 6 Mbps up. Not a problem there. My PS3 is hard-wired, so it wasn't a Wifi problem.

Thinking that maybe the app on the PS3 was the culprit, I pulled the Amazon Fire TV Stick from the TV upstairs and tried that.

That worked better, with just a warning that my low speed would cause the playback to be in SD. It started to play in SD (streaming SD is not something anyone should be subjected to on a large screen), and then it eventually shifted into HD and the rest of the movie played fine.

That whole process of failure, testing, failure, workaround, and success, took 10-15 minutes, all while the family was waiting to enjoy the movie. I spent much of the movie waiting for the stupid buffering message to come back and planning what I was going to do if it did.

Streaming is great as a TV replacement (streaming equivalent of channel surfing, looking for something to watch when bored), because if it doesn't work, I'll just do something else. But when I want to watch a movie, I want to see it in the best quality possible, and with the least amount of fiddling possible.

Was it the app in the PS3? Was it a temporary glitch in Time Warner's routes to Amazon's servers? Was it an issue with the particular Amazon server that the app was trying to access? Maybe some setting in my router that I could change to make the stream more reliable? My family didn't care, and I certainly didn't want to try to figure that out.

With a shiny plastic disc, I could just pop it in, and get to enjoying the movie.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-11-2016, 12:58 PM:
 
I totally get what you're saying about wanting to have physical media when I really want to watch something. The problem is I rarely have a physical media for something I haven't already watched. And of the several hundred DVDs and BluRays on my self, I have maybe 3-4 which I have watched more than once. For the most part they just sit there collecting dust.

The biggest problem I see with streaming content is it's becoming so fragmented. Rather than having just a handful of places to view most content, you now need an app/channel for each provider. And increasingly you need to pay a subscription for each.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-12-2016, 01:46 PM:
 
LIONSGATE ANNOUNCES FIRST 4K ULTRA HD BLU-RAY™ RELEASES

SICARIO, THE LAST WITCH HUNTER, ENDER'S GAME AND THE EXPENDABLES 3 WILL NOW BE AVAILABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON ULTRA HD BLU-RAY DISCS

SANTA MONICA, CA, January 12, 2016 - Lionsgate (NYSE:LGF), an industry leader in the marketing and distribution of packaged media and digital entertainment, announced today the arrival of its first four home entertainment releases presented in state-of-the-art 4K Ultra HD (UHD) resolution. Sicario, The Last Witch Hunter, Ender's Game, and The Expendables 3 will be available March 1, 2016, timed to Ultra HD Blu-ray players' market availability.

In addition to 4K UHD resolution which offers 4x the resolution of conventional HD, the new high-impact discs pack even more of a visual punch with High Dynamic Range (HDR) imagery available on television sets supporting HDR. HDR provides a dramatic improvement in brilliance, contrast and breadth of colors that must truly be experienced to be believed. The combination of 4K Ultra HD with HDR provides a more vivid and realistic visual experience than ever before.

For optimal sound quality, the discs for the critically acclaimed box-office success Sicario, Ender's Game and The Expendables 3 feature next-generation object-based Dolby Atmos audio, while The Last Witch Hunter delivers cinematic audio with advanced, object-based DTS:X™ Audio.

"As we were with Blu-ray, we are proud to again be at the forefront of a new format and excited to offer consumers the highest quality home viewing experience possible with the 4K disc being the premiere showcase," said Ron Schwartz, President, Home Entertainment. "These four films are uniquely suited to show consumers how incredible this new format can be with a truly immersive experience complementing the new hardware capabilities."

Each 4K UHD release will be packaged with a Blu-ray and Digital HD copy and will contain all previously released special features. Sicario and The Last Witch Hunter will be available at the suggested retail price of $42.99. Ender's Game and The Expendables 3 will be priced at $22.99 SRP.
 
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 01-12-2016, 03:30 PM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
The problem is I rarely have a physical media for something I haven't already watched. And of the several hundred DVDs and BluRays on my self, I have maybe 3-4 which I have watched more than once. For the most part they just sit there collecting dust.
I have exactly the same problem. Other than Back to the Future on October 21, I haven't watched anything off a disk in a very long time. In addition to the "collecting dust" aspect, when i look at the DVD and BR collection I muse on how much money that represents.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-11-2016, 11:50 AM:
 
and in true Fox Home Video form (i.e, "Epic Fail")- encode their first batch of UHD titles with DTS-HD MA 7.1 not in Atmos or DTS-X

Martian
Life of Pi
Fantastic 4
The Kingsman
The Maze Runner (first and second film)
Exodus: God and Kings
X-Men: Days of Future Past

was 'The Hitman Agent 47' released theatrically in Atmos, I thought it wasn't

... god I hate you Fox.
 
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 02-12-2016, 12:53 AM:
 
Well....... there is a silver lining to this. If you've been holding out on getting a 1080p high end projector, those prices will most likely plummet.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-13-2016, 08:08 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
and in true Fox Home Video form (i.e, "Epic Fail")- encode their first batch of UHD titles with DTS-HD MA 7.1 not in Atmos or DTS-X

Martian
Life of Pi
Fantastic 4
The Kingsman
The Maze Runner (first and second film)
Exodus: God and Kings
X-Men: Days of Future Past
And FOUR of those titles are 2D presentations of 3D movies (the 2nd Maze Runner was released in converted 3D in some countries, but I'll generously exclude that from my count.) Watching Life of Pi in 2D is especially pointless.
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-15-2016, 07:04 PM:
 
From what I understand, at the very least The Martian not being released in Atmos or DTS:X was a deliberate choice by Fox, and not a result of the lack of time or resources.

Whether or not news of a possible upcoming Special Edition release of The Martian later this year is related to that is up for debate.

Fox can get away with that for this first round of releases, as people are clamoring to get anything in the format to play, but they'll be expecting more next time.

Thankfully, it appears that Lionsgate and Sony are going to do better with their first round of releases.
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-19-2016, 04:05 PM:
 
I think this whole phenomenon is a joke.

There are still major network TV shows that are only shot in 2K, films mastered in 2K, projectors at only 2K (that's how I saw Star Wars - don't worry, I was theatre hopping, not a paying customer).

Also, the small size of the screens it is really hard to see anyway. My 1080 set and BluRay player are just fine.

35mm prints for anything else.

This whole industry seems to do everything bass ackwards. Samen nonsense with 3D, make the sets without any content!

If they were smart they would have paid the TV shows, movies, and post houses for the extra storage and ensured 4K masters FIRST, instead of bringing out sets and players with nothing to screen on them.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-19-2016, 10:58 PM:
 
^ I see otherwise - a lot of movies that are shot on film, deserve to be scanned and retained in 4K; true the studios are still bound to 2K since DI work is done at that resolution (as well as the 3D conversions and special effect's work) - it's apparent that theatrical exhibition and home 'theater' applications could be best described as 'apples to oranges' they're are definitely not on the same page.
 
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 02-20-2016, 12:29 AM:
 
On physical media versus streaming, I'm now finding a fair amount of content available on Netflix on DVD/Blu ray, but not streaming. I suspect there's a licensing issue. They probably have to pay continuously for streaming rights while they buy the disk once and rent it forever. I don't know this for sure, but have definitely seen a fair amount of content only available on disk.

Harold
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-20-2016, 09:32 AM:
 
Jonathan Goeldner:

You're trying to paint a contrary point of view that I have.

I don't.

4K is a great resolution, for theatres.

At home from a distance, it's mostly unnecessary.

I think the standard still is 2K mastering for all TV, rescans of film shows, movies.

I think some DI work is done at 4K. Spielburg has at least since 2010. "The Omen" was in 2006, so there's at least 10 years.

I think it was Fantasia, 1994, 4K remaster. 22 years, almost a quarter century.

I'm not saying 4K is pointless. I'm saying 4K TVs are mostly pointless, and, in light of quality, mostly useless in most home viewing environments.

I still know HD TV owners without HDTV. That stupid streeeeeeeeetch.

Couldn't care less about 3D. Was a gimmick in the '50s, '80s, '90s, and it's a gimmick now. They forced Hitchcock to shoot a movie in 3D, think it was Vertigo?

They used 3D as an excuse to get digital projection in theatres, then forced movies to shoot digitally.

When it comes at the cost of half of the resolution, it's a real jip. At least in the Hitchcock days, there was a camera for left and a camera for right.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-21-2016, 02:06 PM:
 
Actually 4K can look pretty damned great on new UHDTV sets. Obviously 4K is going to make a more noticeable difference on bigger monitors. Nevertheless, 4K imagery does have a lot more tack-sharp "pop" to it than 1080p. I wish I had waited a year longer to buy my 65" TV set. I'll probably end up selling it to get a 4K (3.8K really) UHDTV set.

The thing that worries me for the movie business is the 4K picture quality on these TV sets is so good it puts some movie theaters to shame. The imagery can look razor sharp on these TV sets. Meanwhile the average d-cinema movie theater is showing imagery that isn't quite so sharp, kind of soft actually.

Movie theaters are still getting technically superior movie files to play. But for whatever reason not all that extra color depth and image detail is getting onto the screen.

In the end that can equate to people not visiting movie theaters nearly as often. I don't go to theaters as often as I did in the past. The movie has to be something I really wants to see (or it's something my girlfriend really wants to see) and not wait a season for it to come out on Blu-ray.
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 09:37 AM:
 
LOL where do you put a SIXTY-FIVE INCH SET?!?! I think I have a 36" or a 40". Still only 1080i.

That is huge.

Which kinda gets to my point: Unless you sit very close (like I do) and/or have a huge set, like you do, you can't actually see 4K past a certain distance.

As it comes to (at least film-shot) TV shows and movies, you would think/hope that they are scanning in 4K already.

But then, who ever said the human race was logical.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2016, 03:00 PM:
 
quote: Ari Leedsw
LOL where do you put a SIXTY-FIVE INCH SET?!?! I think I have a 36" or a 40". Still only 1080i.
My 65" TV set fits just fine in my living room. TV sets these days have ditched the ornate bezels, making the screen real estate extend almost edge to edge. This TV isn't physically any bigger than the 52" Sony Bravia XBR TV I had years ago. That one just had a big, elaborate bezel on it. I could have fit a 75" TV in my living room with space to spare, if I wanted to blow the extra money on it.

Huge HDTV sets, even ones with 4K resolution, have reached affordable levels. You'll still have to pay extra for certain bells and whistles, but a good quality TV with 120Hz refresh rate, lots of USB & HDMI connections and plenty of smart TV functions can be had for well under $2000. Some huge TVs even go for under $1000.

quote: Ari Leedsw
Which kinda gets to my point: Unless you sit very close (like I do) and/or have a huge set, like you do, you can't actually see 4K past a certain distance.
The pixel grid is something that shouldn't be visible at a reasonable viewing distance. The imagery ought to appear as a continuous tone image not textured with a Bayer pattern pixel grid. A 4K TV set showing 4K content does that pretty well. Even better, 4K UHDTV sets will be better equipped to fight moiré and other Bayer pattern issues thanks to the much tighter pixel grid.

quote: Ari Leedsw
As it comes to (at least film-shot) TV shows and movies, you would think/hope that they are scanning in 4K already.
Some TV series are indeed shooting, posting and even distributing in 4K. House of Cards is one example. If you have a fast enough Internet connection you can stream it from Netflix in 4K.
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 03:06 PM:
 
You're getting into the realm of the angular resolution of the human eye if there is too much of a distance and or not enough size on the screen with 4K

Same phenomenon as sitting in the back row of the theatre or trying to focus without a set of binocs.

So you can have a 4K set, especially a smaller one and be getting essentially zero bang for your buck over a 1080P.

There've been a few papers; sorry I don't have a link to one handy at the moment. Will see if I can throw one up today.
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-23-2016, 01:26 PM:
 
Initial impressions from those that have been watching UHD Blu-ray discs is the impact that HDR has on the picture is just as important as the extra resolution.

The sample size is quite low, as we only have one player available and a handful of titles from just one studio (Fox), but more releases are coming next week from Sony and Warner Bros., but the general consensus has been very positive so far. As time goes on, the production people are going to get better, which bodes well for the future.

Technology has changed quite a bit since the days of 1080i 40-inch sets being the state of the art, and it's not showing any signs of slowing down. With many movies still being limited to 2K because of the production process, the capabilities of consumer equipment is outpacing the capabilities of the source material.

Maybe it will be the home market that finally gets the industry to move fully to 4K (and better) production techniques.
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 11:45 AM:
 
HDR?

What matters is white to black ratio, not artificially-pumped-up contrast ratio.

They shouldn't toy with dynamic range against what the filmmakers' intended looks are, any more than they should pan and scan 2.35 to 1, more than a decade after widescreen TV became the norm!

HDTV (now UHDTV) was supposed to put an END to [bs] like this!

EDIT: Take this with a large grain of salt, as these are 4K [dlp] fanboys at work, but the science of the angular resolution of the human eye, coupled with viewing of 4K TV is analyzed in depth here.

If you're sitting farther away, than your rated vision permits, you are getting ZERO added benefit from an UHD set.

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-24-2016, 03:25 PM:
 
quote:
They shouldn't toy with dynamic range against what the filmmakers' intended looks are, any more than they should pan and scan 2.35 to 1, more than a decade after widescreen TV became the norm!
The fact that a set can display more than just Rec. 703 doesn't automatically imply it's going to mess with the source material. As a matter of fact, a set capable of displaying HDR will be able to better reproduce most DCI based source material.

And maybe there are filmmakers out there that just love to use the possibilities of HDR?
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 06:12 PM:
 
If the filmmakers want a certain expanded range, it's one thing. Clicking the "HDR" filter for "Minority Report" or "Saving Private Ryan," however, is something else again!

They similarly [fu] 'ed with "Eyes Wide Shut" taking all the grain out. Like Kubrick shot the entire thing at ISO 2000 and pushed the film two stops by mistake???

Studios should never toy with the filmmaker's finished look, but they do it anyway.

Kinda like how FB mobile defaults to "enhanced" (i.e. [fu] 'ed with) color saturation whenever you go to upload an image there, the assumption being that people don't color correct their own photos prior to uploading them.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-24-2016, 09:26 PM:
 
Most people DON'T color correct their photos before uploading them. Hell, many people upload every picture they shoot; they don't even edit the stack of pics, let alone edit the pics themselves.

As to the above debate about picture size and resolution: the average TV watcher doesn't give two craps about resolution. All they care about is the picture must be as big as possible, and that it must fill the screen at all costs. That drives me completely nuts. I can almost never stand to watch a TV in an airport anymore since they're all playing SD content that's image-stretched.

For the record we have 50" and 55" TVs at home, and I would like to trade the 50 for a 70 (at least) since that's the one we watch most often, but it's also the newest, so we're probably stuck with it for awhile. We don't watch enough TV to constantly invest in the latest'n'greatest right away when it comes out.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2