4K Resolution (Ultra HD) Blurays - Are They Worth It?

[SpacePhoenix]

Has anyone watched any 4K blurays on either a normal Full HD TV or an Ultra HD TV? Did you notice any significant increase in picture quality? I remember reading somewhere that you really need an 80" or bigger screen for it to be worth it, does that hold true?

 

[chris11256]

i have a 43" 4K TV and 4K Blu-rays are worth every penny. Picture is outstanding!

 

[455driver]

Do you have 4K UHD eyes?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will I need a "4K bluray player" to see then at 4K quality or will i get the same quality from a 4k disc when played on a "normal" bluray player?

I'd assume (hope) that Power DVD on the PC would handle 4K bluray films ok.

I wonder if James Cameron filmed Avatar with a 4K camera, if he did I reckon Avatar would look awesome in 4K

 

[Ash Bridge]

Will I need a "4K bluray player" to see then at 4K quality or will i get the same quality from a 4k disc when played on a "normal" bluray player?

I'd assume (hope) that Power DVD on the PC would handle 4K bluray films ok.

I wonder if James Cameron filmed Avatar with a 4K camera, if he did I reckon Avatar would look awesome in 4K

You will, regarding Avatar it's quite likely it was made using equipment capable of far higher resolutions than 4K/UHD, even in pre digital days when movies were shot on film this could also easily exceed today's 4K standard.

 

[Howardh]

Just as a total aside - found some old DVD's that my dad had in his garage, but other than the laptop connected to the TV (fiddly) he's nothing to watch them on.

So went to Argos to buy their cheapest DVD player, set it up etc. Now his TV is a 43" 4k set where he watches 4k videos I produce myself or download off youtube.

Put his DVD's on via the new DVD player - oh they're awful by comparison! SD at best and upscaled look weak and blurred. But he enjoyed watching them again!!

Someone can chip in here, would that be because the player is so cheap, or has TV and discs improved so much anything around the 1990's will look awful? BTW the cheap player doesn't have all the whistles of today's more expensive ones, but it does have an USB port.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Just as a total aside - found some old DVD's that my dad had in his garage, but other than the laptop connected to the TV (fiddly) he's nothing to watch them on.

So went to Argos to buy their cheapest DVD player, set it up etc. Now his TV is a 43" 4k set where he watches 4k videos I produce myself or download off youtube.

Put his DVD's on via the new DVD player - oh they're awful by comparison! SD at best and upscaled look weak and blurred. But he enjoyed watching them again!!

Someone can chip in here, would that be because the player is so cheap, or has TV and discs improved so much anything around the 1990's will look awful? BTW the cheap player doesn't have all the whistles of today's more expensive ones, but it does have an USB port.

By what means is the DVD player passing the videosignal to the TV, assuming it's HDMI then check what format it's sending the signal e.g. 1080p, 1080i, 720p etc. try all these settings to see which delivers the best image as the highest resolution setting isn't always the best, the processing/scaling on on cheap DVD players is usually very poor and at best barely average.

 

[GB]

Will I need a "4K bluray player" to see then at 4K quality or will i get the same quality from a 4k disc when played on a "normal" bluray player?

I'd assume (hope) that Power DVD on the PC would handle 4K bluray films ok.

I wonder if James Cameron filmed Avatar with a 4K camera, if he did I reckon Avatar would look awesome in 4K

4K Blu ray discs are not backwards compatible with normal blu ray players so you will need a 4k capable player (or xbox 1s). However you can use normal blu rays in the 4K player to upscale them.

 

[dosxuk]

You will, regarding Avatar it's quite likely it was made using equipment capable of far higher resolutions than 4K/UHD, even in pre digital days when movies were shot on film this could also easily exceed today's 4K standard.

But with Avatar, so much of the film is CGI there's a very good chance it won't have been produced any higher than 2K. Even today, much cinema CG work is done in 2K because of the cost, storage and time requirements of rendering in 4K. Cinema projection has only recently started to move to 4K+ resolutions, so there has been little point in doing your final renders at that resolution.

 

[najaB]

But with Avatar, so much of the film is CGI there's a very good chance it won't have been produced any higher than 2K.

The rendering was done at 4K for the IMAX release, AIUI.

 

[Howardh]

By what means is the DVD player passing the videosignal to the TV, assuming it's HDMI then check what format it's sending the signal e.g. 1080p, 1080i, 720p etc. try all these settings to see which delivers the best image as the highest resolution setting isn't always the best, the processing/scaling on on cheap DVD players is usually very poor and at best barely average.

Scart. There is no HDMI connection! I simply wanted the cheapest option to play dad's DVD's. The point I was alluding to was when DVD's came in and there was only a scart to an SD set, and FTA TV was in analogue - we thought what a superb picture it was!

When I link the TV to a laptop with HDMI and show the same DVD's there appears to be little difference; I'm techologically lost now but they were designed for SD via scart so I don't think they can be improved by using HDMI.

Can any techie clarify that?

If I went out and bought a DVD today I suppose 4k (maybe even 8k) would be available for the correct player - so back tot he OP if you have a 4k set, then yes, get a suitable player. I find that with dad'd 43" 4k set, you can tell when you watch 4k and then go back to HD, the picture does look a bit bluury and washed-out by comparison. Anything less than 43" and you virtually have to have your nose by the screen!!

This is my verdict on 43" sitting 2.5m away...
SD - poor
720 - big jump from SD and noticeable difference.
1080 - not that much better than 720
4k - significant improvement on 1080.

Haven't the foggiest about i's and p's, I just compare what's in front of me. As a discussion, I feel we should drop the 1080 and SD from TV and have all freeview/sat channels in 720, and start to run channels in 4k where the spectrum permits.

Stll, nowt wrong with 405 lines. 4k doesn't mean the programme content is better....

 

[najaB]

As a discussion, I feel we should drop the 1080 and SD from TV and have all freeview/sat channels in 720, and start to run channels in 4k where the spectrum permits.

There's nowhere near enough bandwidth available for that.

 

[Howardh]

There's nowhere near enough bandwidth available for that.

There would be if we could have a cull of all the rubbish channels. QVC+1?? Ye Gods! Put it on the web and free up some space!

BTW how much more bandwidth does 720 take over SD, and if all the HD channels went to 720 wouldn't that free up bandwidth?

Also, if it couldn't be organised for freeview, what about freesat? mor space there??

 

[najaB]

There would be if we could have a cull of all the rubbish channels. QVC+1?? Ye Gods! Put it on the web and free up some space!

I think the same that things like QVC are a waste of spectrum, but they pay good money for the space and make other more useful channels more commercially viable.

BTW how much more bandwidth does 720 take over SD, and if all the HD channels went to 720 wouldn't that free up bandwidth?

It varies depending on encoder settings, but as a rough estimate SD is 1.25Mb/s, 720p is about 3Mb/s and 1080i is about 4Mb/s. So the space that would be freed up by removing the 1080i/p content wouldn't be nearly enough to upscale all the SD content.

Also, if it couldn't be organised for freeview, what about freesat? mor space there??

Yes, there's more spectrum available via Satellite but you'd need to convince Freesat that it is worth the increased uplink costs.

 

[trainmania100]

My mate brags about his 4K TV and it drives me up the wall
I wouldn't say they're worth it

 

[SS4]

I've not watched blu-rays in 4K but I've watched 4k content on Amazon and Youtube and you can certainly tell the difference between it and HD (i.e 1080p).

I would wait for more content to come out in 4K though

 

[GB]

I've not watched blu-rays in 4K but I've watched 4k content on Amazon and Youtube and you can certainly tell the difference between it and HD (i.e 1080p).

Same here. But I find once you get passed the initial wow factor and start actually watching the content you will soon not notice the extra definition.

 

[DaleCooper]

DVD is good enough for me, my eyes are 405 line VHF.

 

[AM9]

Same here. But I find once you get passed the initial wow factor and start actually watching the content you will soon not notice the extra definition.

I shoot UHD video myself and there is a lot of difference between it and HD (1080p). The colour space is greater meaning that viewable colours cover a greater proportion of human visible colours.
UHD Colour TVs also are appearing with HDR capability giving much better dynamic range where shot. The BBC demo that is offered when opening the iplayer, (only on devices that can handle HDR video) is an excellent part of the Planet Earth II footage.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'd be surprised if Ultra HD takes off on broadcast TV given how few channels even broadcast in "normal" HD. My gut feeling is that maybe they'll be a Sky Movies channel and maybe a Sky Sports channel at some point.

There's probably quite a few programmes that have only ever been released on DVD

 

[najaB]

I'd be surprised if Ultra HD takes off on broadcast TV given how few channels even broadcast in "normal" HD.

I doubt that there will be much on broadcast TV due to the bandwidth required, but BT TV already has a UHD sports channel and Netflix has a selection of UHD content.

 

[Howardh]

I doubt that there will be much on broadcast TV due to the bandwidth required, but BT TV already has a UHD sports channel and Netflix has a selection of UHD content.

I suppose it depends on how quickly TV via ultra-fast broadband comes. In ten years could linear TV (areial or satellite) be a thing of the past? For that to happen everyone would need speeds of 30Mbs+ for the right price, and that looks a long way off now. However, tech moves so quickly even out-of-the-way places should have that as a minimum by 2025, even if the broadband (ironically!) comes via satellite!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I suppose it depends on how quickly TV via ultra-fast broadband comes. In ten years could linear TV (areial or satellite) be a thing of the past? For that to happen everyone would need speeds of 30Mbs+ for the right price, and that looks a long way off now. However, tech moves so quickly even out-of-the-way places should have that as a minimum by 2025, even if the broadband (ironically!) comes via satellite!

I remember reading once, can't remember where that it's possible for Virgin to get way more speed out of their existing infrastructure, it was an insanely fast potential speed. The article was I think was published 2 maybe 3 years ago.

Found this article about BT doing simialr (don't know if by the same method as Virgin): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25840502

'Fastest ever' broadband passes speed test

The test was carried out between BT's central London tower and its site in Ipswich

The "fastest ever" broadband speeds have been achieved in a test in London, raising hopes of more efficient data transfer via existing infrastructure.

Alcatel-Lucent and BT said speeds of 1.4 terabits per second were achieved during their joint test - enough to send 44 uncompressed HD films a second.

The test was conducted on a 410km (255-mile) link between the BT Tower in central London and Ipswich.

However, it may be many years before consumers notice any effect.

The trade-off is the more you squeeze into a fibre line, the more potential there is for interference and for error
Oliver Johnson, Point Topic

But the breakthrough is being seen as highly important for internet service providers (ISPs), as it means a greater amount of information can be sent through existing broadband infrastructure, reducing the need for costly upgrades....

 

[Howardh]

I remember reading once, can't remember where that it's possible for Virgin to get way more speed out of their existing infrastructure, it was an insanely fast potential speed. The article was I think was published 2 maybe 3 years ago.

Found this article about BT doing simialr (don't know if by the same method as Virgin): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25840502

Thanks - 3 years ago! Firms are advertising 100Mbs but at a cost; I could get around 50Mbs with Sky if I went with fibre - I'm sure I would if the price wasn't much more than I am paying now, to be honest if I'm downloading a 4k youtube video or something if it takes 5 mins or an hour it doesn't bother me.
But if 4k live sport was available, then I'd be more inclined to up my b/b speed; but again the price has to be right.
I don't mind sport in SD - I can sit further away from the screen to make the picture sharper, but if we have the tech then let's make sure it's not priced out.

 

[najaB]

Thanks - 3 years ago! Firms are advertising 100Mbs but at a cost; I could get around 50Mbs with Sky if I went with fibre...

You'd get the same speed from any ISP offering fibre (with the exception of Virgin Media) as they all use Openreach GEA products.

 

[Howardh]

You'd get the same speed from any ISP offering fibre (with the exception of Virgin Media) as they all use Openreach GEA products.

Indeed.

 

[WatcherZero]

If you have a larger tv yeah you will notice how blocky old SD stuff is. Whats really funny is I have some old 90's TV rips that are half SD (320x240), you cant really see a thing watching on modern 26+" screens unless viewing from a very large distance.

Takes me back remembering about the old video codecs used to use all the time in the 90's and early 2000's which have now mostly faded in to history. Intel Indeo, RealMedia, DivX, Apple Quicktime, WMV, etc...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is the "Ultra, Ultra HD" (8K HD) that I've heard about 7,680 x 4,320 resolution?

 

[AM9]

Is the "Ultra, Ultra HD" (8K HD) that I've heard about 7,680 x 4,320 resolution?

That is just doubling the resolution of UHD so it gives the tech media somthing to talk about. Aside from the problems of distribution of such a large data streams or files, there is evidence that even viewers with perfect sight will get little benefit from the additional resolution.
Japan and South Korea, of course will always be among the first to prove that something can be done and then use it as a technology driver, but outside of film production, special installations at events and a few flagship cinemas, I doubt that 8K, or anything like that will enter the lives of consumers for decades, if ever. One only has to look at the abrupt halt in audio quality improvement offered and accepted by the mainstream market, once mp3 was popularised.

 

[najaB]

Is the "Ultra, Ultra HD" (8K HD) that I've heard about 7,680 x 4,320 resolution?

Sounds about right - though I doubt it will catch on any time soon. That level of detail is greater than the resolving limit of the human eye.