|
Post by 2muchht on May 7, 2016 15:11:45 GMT -5
From what I understand, Dolby Vision is an HDR format which requires the corresponding flat panel display(LCD or OLED) to have a Dolby Vision decoder built-in. So as geebo stated above, since the video is simply passed through then it would be the flat panel displays responsibility to decode that information. Quite correct, as the way Dolby Vision works requires HDMI 2.0 only, though if anyone put out 1080p programming with DV, and based on what was seen and heard at NAB a few weeks ago that is a possibility, even HDMI 1.4. OTOH, the nature of how "plain vanilla" HDR-10 and the recently merged Technicolor/Philips systems works, HDMI 2.0a is REQUIRED so that the display knows what to do. Correct that the processor or AVR only passes through the video, but int he case of HDR the pass-through must carry the metadata as needed. Only HDMI 2.0a can do that for everything. Given Samsung's aversion to DV, this will take a while to settle, if it even does. Just for fun, the ATSC 3.0 audio standard, now out for ballot, had two systems and if it is approved that way we have yet another "you need both", but that is something on the OTA tuner side and does not impact processor or AVR as long as the audio output of the ATSC gateway can get to the audio system, as it really must, in any case. Are we having fun yet?
|
|
|
Post by alucard on May 8, 2016 8:51:32 GMT -5
Negative. I want to get a new bigger TV. I waited after the dust settled on 4k from 2 years ago, then waited on UHD/OLED, then HDR, now HDR10 and DV. I know tech changes and just buy or I'll always be waiting but are these tech changes coming quick or is it just me?
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,188
|
Post by geebo on May 8, 2016 9:39:51 GMT -5
Negative. I want to get a new bigger TV. I waited after the dust settled on 4k from 2 years ago, then waited on UHD/OLED, then HDR, now HDR10 and DV. I know tech changes and just buy or I'll always be waiting but are these tech changes coming quick or is it just me? Years ago I had a friend at work that was going to buy a PC for the family. It was when the 386 was the current processor. He said he was going to wait for the 25mHz version then buy. But then the 486 was rumored and he decided to wait for that. Then it was the 486DX2. Oh, then the Pentium was just down the road a bit so he thought it best to wait for that. I don't know if he ever got a computer after I left there but I know his family had no benifit of a computer for years because of waiting for the next greatest processor on the horizon. Technology will not stand still. If you want a new TV now, then get one with the features available that you want and enjoy it now.
|
|
|
Post by audiogeek on May 9, 2016 21:04:08 GMT -5
I agree with Geebo... I bought last years Sony XBR850C for a hell of a deal before Christmas and the family has enjoyed a phenomenal picture ever since. The 4K content on Netflix and other apps is impressive. This set is HDR ready but was not expected to work as well with HDR content as a newer set. But I just went back and watched Marco Polo in HDR and it looks even better than the reg 4K content so my "old" TV must be doing something right.
|
|
|
Post by Axis on May 9, 2016 21:10:17 GMT -5
I was reading just the other day that Sony was not jumping into the Blu-ray 4k players, not because of HDR but because they believe Blu-ray 4k may be short lived and streaming HDR is the future.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,495
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 9, 2016 22:09:57 GMT -5
I was reading just the other day that Sony was not jumping into the Blu-ray 4k players, not because of HDR but because they believe Blu-ray 4k may be short lived and streaming HDR is the future. I tend to agree, I don't think 4K bluray media will be around long at all.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,188
|
Post by geebo on May 10, 2016 7:34:35 GMT -5
I was reading just the other day that Sony was not jumping into the Blu-ray 4k players, not because of HDR but because they believe Blu-ray 4k may be short lived and streaming HDR is the future. I tend to agree, I don't think 4K bluray media will be around long at all. I believe you're right but hope your wrong...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on May 10, 2016 8:42:12 GMT -5
"Coming quick" is an understatement...... the dust NEVER settles.... If you count non-HDR-4k as being different from 4k with HDR, then "regular 4k" would historically be the first new format that was already "obsolete" BEFORE A SINGLE DISC WAS AVAILABLE FOR SALE. Personally, I'm waiting to see how many HDR discs really look better than the non-HDR versions - and how many "low end HDR sets" end up looking worse than "high-end non-HDR sets". Bear in mind that "being HDR" isn't going to make a panel any brighter, or improve its color gamut, if the limit is the hardware itself. HDR only lets you take advantage of higher brightness levels and a wider color gamut IF the content contains them to begin with and IF the display is capable of displaying them. There seems to be a common misconception that HDR "makes the picture better"; the reality is that, if you start with a master that wasn't filmed in HDR, then "convert" it to HDR, nothing will change..... HDR only ENABLES you to display higher brightness values and a wider gamut IF THEY'RE ALREADY THERE IN YOUR ORIGINAL. Of course, since it's "the latest thing", all of next year's sets will almost certainly be HDR, and so will all of next year's discs, which will spare us all any embarrassing comparisons about whether it really matters or not. And what's next.... how about "Smell-O-Vision".... ? Sadly, I'm still waiting for a few movies to come out in 4k...... (so far there are only a half dozen that are worth the bother to me). Negative. I want to get a new bigger TV. I waited after the dust settled on 4k from 2 years ago, then waited on UHD/OLED, then HDR, now HDR10 and DV. I know tech changes and just buy or I'll always be waiting but are these tech changes coming quick or is it just me?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on May 10, 2016 8:56:47 GMT -5
I don't know what sort of media will end up winning - but I sure hope it isn't streaming. Of course, that all depends on what you mean by "winning". An awful lot of people watch NetFlix, or Amazon Video, or even cable, but we all know that none of them match the quality of a real Blu-Ray disc. In fact, even regular cable TV doesn't deliver the same picture quality as a disc... which is why most people still buy the movies they care about on disc. Likewise, the highest quality 4k streaming anyone seems to even be talking about has about 1/4 the bandwidth of a 4k Blu-Ray disc... and so the quality isn't nearly as good. Personally, I don't care how MANY discs they sell, as long as it's enough that the high quality version remains available. (I occasionally already see situations where a new audio album is ONLY available in compressed format on iTunes, and not as a CD; I don't want to see that happen to movies.) The very idea that "streaming is good enough" is the exact antithesis of the quest for better quality.... you might as well suggest that higher-bit-rate MP3 files are good enough, and we shouldn't bother with high-res files, or even CDs, any more. Note that there are "online-delivery" formats that would match discs (for example - Vidity); if they really come to pass; and there's no reason why streaming couldn't equal discs... It's just that, historically, streaming always lags behind physical media in terms of available bandwidth - physical media always has bandwidth to spare, while streaming is always trying to scrimp and save on bandwidth to enable a few laggards with slow Internet connections to subscribe. I will say, though, that I've seen a few 4k movies on Amazon Prime Video that look VERY good (and I can't wait to see one or two of them on a REAL disc). I tend to agree, I don't think 4K bluray media will be around long at all. I believe you're right but hope your wrong...
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 10, 2016 12:43:02 GMT -5
I've had Netflix 4k for over a year but just recently got a UHD BD player, the quality difference is enormous! Having said that, I have enough Internet bandwidth to stream 10 simultaneous BD quality streams and I hope we'll see more of high quality streaming soon.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on May 10, 2016 13:51:30 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see what quality levels are offered - and by whom. I read an article (about two years ago now), that stated that only about one half to one third of US Netflix subscribers had fast enough connections to stream Netflix HD at its highest quality setting. 4k is going to require at least double that bandwidth just to maintain equivalent quality at 4k. (A blu-ray disc can deliver somewhere around 40 mBits/second and the new 4k ones are somewhere around 80 mBits/second.) However, you need to remember that the biggest limitation is NOT going to be your Internet connection. The limitation is going to be the infrastructure belonging to the streaming service. If your cable provider plays a movie at 8 PM tonight, and 100,000 viewers "tune in", they're still only broadcasting a single stream - which is then being distributed to 100,000 people (all seeing the same picture). And, if you pause the picture using your DVR, your cable company is still streaming that one stream - and your local DVR is recording a copy for you to play back later (that's why you can't fast forward past the current time/spot). In contrast, if NetFlix has 100,000 viewers at 8 PM tonight, somewhere there is a server playing EACH movie that EACH of them is watching. (Each of those viewers can independently fast forward, rewind, or change to a different movie.) Now, in reality, that's a horrible oversimplification.... If you're watching a movie that's popular, and so two dozen of your neighbors are also watching it, odds are what you're seeing is being cached locally somewhere - probably on an Akamai server- so Netflix actually only had to send one copy for the two dozen of you. However, it's still true that they are sourcing a lot of different data streams, which are then being "handled" by a massive amount of infrastructure equipment. And, simply going from HD to 4k has doubled the necessary equipment and bandwidth - and raising the quality from "regular streaming 4k" to "the same quality as a 4k blu-ray disc" would QUADRUPLE that requirement again. However, what this means it that, just like cable has compromised, and broadcasts a quality level not quite up there with a blu-ray disc, it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to want to stream 4k at "full 4k disc quality" either. (Cable could quite easily deliver full blu-ray quality.... all they'd have to do would be to cut the zillion channels they offer by about 3/4... but their customers seem to prefer quantity over quality.) The reality there is that the vast majority of cable subscribers today settle for "blu-ray disc minus" quality, and the vast majority tomorrow will settle for "4k blu-ray disc minus" quality. (And, if you want full quality, you'll have to buy the disc - or seek out one of the higher quality not-quite-real-time download options like Vidity.) And, yes, the battle will continue.... by the time you can stream 4k at full disc quality, you'll be able to buy 8k discs, or 16k discs, or 16k sticks, or holo-storage-cubes...... because physical media always seem to stay a little bit ahead of streaming... and I see nothing to suggest that the march forward (progress?) will ever stop. I've had Netflix 4k for over a year but just recently got a UHD BD player, the quality difference is enormous! Having said that, I have enough Internet bandwidth to stream 10 simultaneous BD quality streams and I hope we'll see more of high quality streaming soon.
|
|
|
Post by socketman on May 10, 2016 14:56:14 GMT -5
Something that concerns me is that as the streaming gains traction the ISP's are going to really want to put the hurt on someone for handling all that bandwidth. It may be sorted for now in the US wit net neutrality but depending on who gets elected that could easily change. Much remains to be seen. I have watched some shows in 4K from Netflix and they look pretty darn good, it will be interesting to see how a 4k player will look compared to upscaled 1080p or streamed 4k. I don't like the looks of samsungs player so I am waiting for an Oppo which I hope they are working on.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on May 10, 2016 15:33:45 GMT -5
Well, to put it bluntly, SOMEONE has got to pay for it. At the moment there is ongoing competition for more and cheaper bandwidth. Here in Nashville, everyone is waiting for Google fiber to arrive, which promises 1 gB bandwidth for a pretty low price, and XFinity is rolling out 1 gB service (I don't know the price). However, at the moment, XFinity does in fact have a data cap - or you can get unlimited data for an extra $35 a month. (Bear in mind that "plain old" 100 mBit service is plenty to stream 4k quite solidly - as long as you're only watching one thing at once. I have a recent Samsung 4k TV, and upscaled HD content looks noticeably better than on my old HD TV, streamed 4k content looks noticeably better than that, and "true" uncompressed 4k content (from some high quality demos I have) looks better yet. I haven't invested in a player yet - probably waiting for the Oppo - and for a few more discs I actually want to buy. My TV isn't that large - only 50" - and, yes, it is noticeably sharper from my couch six or seven feet away, and the colors are better. Something that concerns me is that as the streaming gains traction the ISP's are going to really want to put the hurt on someone for handling all that bandwidth. It may be sorted for now in the US wit net neutrality but depending on who gets elected that could easily change. Much remains to be seen. I have watched some shows in 4K from Netflix and they look pretty darn good, it will be interesting to see how a 4k player will look compared to upscaled 1080p or streamed 4k. I don't like the looks of samsungs player so I am waiting for an Oppo which I hope they are working on.
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 10, 2016 15:34:43 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see what quality levels are offered - and by whom. I read an article (about two years ago now), that stated that only about one half to one third of US Netflix subscribers had fast enough connections to stream Netflix HD at its highest quality setting. 4k is going to require at least double that bandwidth just to maintain equivalent quality at 4k. (A blu-ray disc can deliver somewhere around 40 mBits/second and the new 4k ones are somewhere around 80 mBits/second.) However, you need to remember that the biggest limitation is NOT going to be your Internet connection. The limitation is going to be the infrastructure belonging to the streaming service. If your cable provider plays a movie at 8 PM tonight, and 100,000 viewers "tune in", they're still only broadcasting a single stream - which is then being distributed to 100,000 people (all seeing the same picture). And, if you pause the picture using your DVR, your cable company is still streaming that one stream - and your local DVR is recording a copy for you to play back later (that's why you can't fast forward past the current time/spot). In contrast, if NetFlix has 100,000 viewers at 8 PM tonight, somewhere there is a server playing EACH movie that EACH of them is watching. (Each of those viewers can independently fast forward, rewind, or change to a different movie.) Now, in reality, that's a horrible oversimplification.... If you're watching a movie that's popular, and so two dozen of your neighbors are also watching it, odds are what you're seeing is being cached locally somewhere - probably on an Akamai server- so Netflix actually only had to send one copy for the two dozen of you. However, it's still true that they are sourcing a lot of different data streams, which are then being "handled" by a massive amount of infrastructure equipment. And, simply going from HD to 4k has doubled the necessary equipment and bandwidth - and raising the quality from "regular streaming 4k" to "the same quality as a 4k blu-ray disc" would QUADRUPLE that requirement again. However, what this means it that, just like cable has compromised, and broadcasts a quality level not quite up there with a blu-ray disc, it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to want to stream 4k at "full 4k disc quality" either. (Cable could quite easily deliver full blu-ray quality.... all they'd have to do would be to cut the zillion channels they offer by about 3/4... but their customers seem to prefer quantity over quality.) The reality there is that the vast majority of cable subscribers today settle for "blu-ray disc minus" quality, and the vast majority tomorrow will settle for "4k blu-ray disc minus" quality. (And, if you want full quality, you'll have to buy the disc - or seek out one of the higher quality not-quite-real-time download options like Vidity.) And, yes, the battle will continue.... by the time you can stream 4k at full disc quality, you'll be able to buy 8k discs, or 16k discs, or 16k sticks, or holo-storage-cubes...... because physical media always seem to stay a little bit ahead of streaming... and I see nothing to suggest that the march forward (progress?) will ever stop. I've had Netflix 4k for over a year but just recently got a UHD BD player, the quality difference is enormous! Having said that, I have enough Internet bandwidth to stream 10 simultaneous BD quality streams and I hope we'll see more of high quality streaming soon. "640 KB is all anyone is ever going to need" BTW, it's not all about US.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,495
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 10, 2016 18:09:35 GMT -5
I tend to agree, I don't think 4K bluray media will be around long at all. I believe you're right but hope your wrong... I hope I'm wrong as well, since I'm going to invest in 4K bluray movies. I do like that a reg blu-ray copy is coming with the 4K blu-ray, so I'll start buying the 4K version now when the movie is worth adding to the library.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,188
|
Post by geebo on May 10, 2016 18:49:29 GMT -5
I believe you're right but hope your wrong... I hope I'm wrong as well, since I'm going to invest in 4K bluray movies. I do like that a reg blu-ray copy is coming with the 4K blu-ray, so I'll start buying the 4K version now when the movie is worth adding to the library. Same here. I'm buying Deadpool this week in the 4k package.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,495
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 10, 2016 18:51:34 GMT -5
I hope I'm wrong as well, since I'm going to invest in 4K bluray movies. I do like that a reg blu-ray copy is coming with the 4K blu-ray, so I'll start buying the 4K version now when the movie is worth adding to the library. Same here. I'm buying Deadpool this week in the 4k package. I just ordered that on Amazon this morning.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,188
|
Post by geebo on May 10, 2016 18:52:44 GMT -5
Same here. I'm buying Deadpool this week in the 4k package. I just ordered that on Amazon this morning. Great minds think alike...
|
|
|
Post by socketman on May 10, 2016 19:49:41 GMT -5
I recently bumped up to 400 gig package, $190 Canadian. It would be cheaper to just buy the movie lol
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on May 10, 2016 21:00:17 GMT -5
Same here. I'm buying Deadpool this week in the 4k package. I just ordered that on Amazon this morning. Crap!!! I totally didn't see the 4k version available. I got the regular Blu-ray. Sorta like that time all the kids got paid in gum and I got cash.
|
|