Blu-ray UHD Spec Released

[newpball]

....at least now there is no signs of progress.

Yes the world is ignorant and stands still.......

[pandy]

....at least now there is no signs of progress.

Yes the world is ignorant and stands still.......

list those signs please - i can show easily that we are not going as fast - h.265 is pure evolution of h.264 - complex, more exhaustive, more brute force and all this effort give improvements but next stage? - do you see any reasonable future video compression standard or CPU and other processing solutions capable to provide 8k, Physics also apply - more pixels (like 8k) with high framerates means less light available for conversion to electric current... slowly we reaching physical limitations for silicone industry - so... any reasonable proposals? - any reasonable signs of progress? are CPU are clocked faster (AFAIR CPU clocks are not rising from few years), FLASH memories start loosing data after few months without power, they deteriorating very fast also... We slowing... sad but true...


Aaa forgot to ask - what with computer graphics - list few affordable solution (in terms of power, cooling and price) capable to create decent 4k 60 fps and soon 8k 120fps.

[newpball]

Sometimes people lose the goals.

Progress is less lossy compression not more!

Or do you perhaps think that ac3 is progress over PCM?

Lossy compression is a (sometimes) necessary evil, but obviously you would want to minimize the loss rather than calling more loss progress.

Progress is higher bandwidth, faster computers, faster IO, not how to lose more information by tricking the eye.

[pandy]

Sometimes people lose the goals.

Progress is less lossy compression not more!

Or do you perhaps think that ac3 is progress over PCM?

Lossy compression is a (sometimes) necessary evil, but obviously you would want to minimize the loss rather than calling more loss progress.

Progress is higher bandwidth, faster computers, faster IO, not how to lose more information by tricking the eye.

Bandwidth especially in data transmission is not unlimited - not sure why you ignoring this but electromagnetic spectrum is precious and very limited good - side to this there is PHYSICS and trust you can't cheat physics.
So more efficient compression is goal for everyone (at least for video industry) - lossless customers are niche market...

Where is your faster computers ? AFAIR latest CPU from Intel are 10 - 15% faster than previous generation (and this is due refining architecture, adding more cache and many similar small things - doubling number of transistors to gain 20%...)

Faster IO? yep, twice maybe four times faster but your data size increasing 16 - 64 times... good luck with this kind of progress...
Imagine now 8k with 120 - 300fps... do you see GAP?

btw
AC3 is a HUGE progress over PCM as in 1/2 bandwidth you can send instead stereo a 5.1 channel audio with high quality (as 99/100 people will be not able to say difference between AC3 and PCM)

So finally after many years we can have widely available surround audio in homes...

[newpball]

AC3 is a HUGE progress over PCM as in 1/2 bandwidth you can send instead stereo a 5.1 channel audio with high quality (as 99/100 people will be not able to say difference between AC3 and PCM)

AC3 is progress? No kidding.

And now we get it in 5.1?

Yeah, that's like eating 5 bowls of bad soup instead of eating two.
Hardly an improvement.

[pandy]

AC3 is a HUGE progress over PCM as in 1/2 bandwidth you can send instead stereo a 5.1 channel audio with high quality (as 99/100 people will be not able to say difference between AC3 and PCM)

AC3 is progress? No kidding.

And now we get it in 5.1?

Yeah, that's like eating 5 bowls of bad soup instead of eating two.
Hardly an improvement.

Not sure how to answer - don't want to be rude but probably you will not perceive difference between PCM 16 and 14 bit and you will also not perceive difference between PCM and AC3... no offense but...

From my perspective i prefer stereo for music but for movies AC3 gives me significantly better entertainment... and don't hear any significant difference in terms of quality so AC3 is huge achievement in terms of delivered entertainment quality.

[flashandpan007]

UHD Blu-ray spec is released, but I can't find a list with supported frame rates, audio codecs, video codecs, container format, different resolutions, bit depth on both audio and video, sampling rate of audio, ...

[sneaker]

I assume you have to pay to get the specs so that isn't really surprising. You have to wait for others to gather all informations that leak. That said, a few months ago parts of the spec were leaked. If there were no changes here is part of it:


For audio I would not expect any changes except official addition of Atmos and DTS:X which did not exist when the original BluRay hit the market.

[flashandpan007]

What is HDR on the new video formats? I read of more colors, so the bit depth is higher than 8bit per color?

[Cornucopia]

Unlike current HDR formats (OpenEXR, Radiance, LogLuv, 32bitTIFF, etc.), which are 32bitInt/16FP/32FP monolithic frame image sequences, in order to simultaneously accommodate both HDR (high dynamic range) and SDR (standard dynamic range) monitors, one has to use a dual SDR+enhancement signal (which enhancement signal can be ignored by SDR-capable-only monitors) combination. This means the SDR portion uses 10bit (in rec2020 or rec709, most likely rec2020), while the enhancement signal covers the extended-exposure elements (either/or/both higher and lower), as well as the FALL (frame-average light level) "global" signaling, and the finer floating point extensions.
(Besides being somewhat less efficient space-wise, there is some loss using this method, compared to using a standard HDR format, particularly in the Overall Dynamic Range, but most of the engineers who have tested HDR monitors believe that, at this time, power-hungry 20k NIT and >16-18 stops of dynamic range is costly, wasteful & unnecessary, especially since only a very small minority of images might take advantage of that full capability.)

An SDR monitor only recognizes the SDR signal and shows it as normally. An HDR monitor sees both SDR & Enhancement portions and combines them first before displaying the HDR signal, which may also be automatically globally adjusted/compensated based on ambient light levels.

These follow the SMPTE ST-2084 & SMPTE ST-2086 guidelines, and UHD-BD does too. AFAIK, they haven't decided on one particular technology, but are mandating that any technology in use must fit within those guidelines to be usable for UHD-BD. This includes DolbyVision (expected to be the favorite choice), as well as competitors. Of course, this has to do with including those techs in the display (and their supporting SOCs) and that means licensing, of which Dolby is a shark in their approach, so it could end up where they are the de-facto single player in the game.

...Does that answer your question?...

Scott

[flashandpan007]

Thank you for the good explanation. What is the practical benefit of HDR, when the SDR signal already use 10 per color which is already great for me?
Do you think there are videocodecs beside HEVC for 3840x2160p on UHD-Blu-ray? I am also waiting for 48 fps. HOPEFULLY the tv and htpc do have a matching refresh rate.

[Cornucopia]

If you lived in a Black-and-White world, you would also question what the benefit of Color was.

If done right, an extended dynamic range can give you much more impactful, vibrant & realistic levels that are even further engaging, without the longstanding (and institutional) compromises that have heretofore been necessary in order to accommodate difficult real-world scenes. Whether you can fully appreciate it or not depends on your image-reproducing system as well as your acuity/sensitivity & taste/appreciation/discernment of those differences. While not quite as monumental a change as B/W->Color, it is still a BIG DEAL.

This is often coupled with the expansion of color gamut (More, richer colors).

These 2 have to do with step size, step length & area/direction.

Let me elaborate with an (hopefully close enough) analogy:

As part of my honeymoon, I went to Chichen Itza, with its stepped Mayan pyramids. Being the uncautious monkey that I was at the time, I climbed to the top of El Castillo (it was still allowed at the time). It has 91 steps per side of its 4 sides plus the final step of the center altar area = 365 steps (one for each day of the year). Those steps are BIG and STEEP (~>10.5" rise + run, compared to common stairs of 7.0"rise + 10" run - or similar). And, being a standard pyramid, as you go higher, it gets smaller.
Just think if it was both bigger in base, had 100 times the # of steps to climb, was 10x taller, and was a multiple pyramids in different directions! But with reasonable steps! You might get tired out from all the walking/climbing, but what a view!!
The Width of the base & different directions are the Gamut, the overall height is the dynamic range and the step size & incline is the bitdepth.

The increased bitdepth makes for comfortable transitions, the increased dynamic range allows for more sweeping vistas (from a much higher perspective).

If you just make the step size smaller (to be more natural & comfortable), but don't do anything about the height (or the width/direction), you've only improved one aspect of a multi-aspect adventure.

*****************************

HEVC is currently the ONLY codec to be used for UHD streams in UHD-BD (AVC, MPEG2, VC-1 will still be available for HD & SD portions). It's not clear whether HEVC will also be allowed with those HD/SD portions, however. Other codecs wouldn't be added until there was a compelling reason to once again rewrite/revamp their BD STANDARD.

48FPS ought to be technically possible (since it's under the 60/59.94 expected limit for 4k/UHD material), but AFAIK it is not currently listed as one of the acceptable options. Since there is literally only a handful of commercial titles that exist at 48FPS, it's not a big surprise. I'm all for it being added, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Scott

[flashandpan007]

OK, I see.
So to summarize the benefits of HDR to a list:
- higher nits -> light can be displayed brighter on the screen
- Color space Rec. 2020 has way more colors
- better usage of 10-bit/color in Rec. 2020

=> Result: much more realistic picture. Did I miss something in the list?

But to get HDR, I need:
- TV which supports that
- Connection must be HDMI 2.0a
- content shot with that spec


I just read this article -> no 48p

BTW, are there "two" 48p like 23.976P and 24p?

[Cornucopia]

Well, Wikipedia has been known to royally screw up a topic or two... but in this case, I'm guessing they're correct.

Until NTSC countries decide that fractional frame rates (those based on the slight slowdown needed to maintain analog compatibility between color and black-and-white) are a legacy that no longer need be worried about, then YES, there would be two 48FPS.
My guess is that by the time 48 or 72 or 96 (all integer multiples of 24) are included in the standards, the standards will not care about maintaining (and thus perpetuating) that legacy, so we would only have to deal with one version of those frame rates.

That is all hypothetical though, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Continue shooting/editing/producing/converting using a high quality superset of current or imminent standards and you'll do fine.

Scott

[El Heggunte]

Well, Wikipedia has been known to royally screw up a topic or two...

IF by "a topic or two" you mean, let's say, *33.33333% of their articles*, then I will agree with you

[KarMa]

Still no FLAC support I see.

[Cornucopia]

Still no FLAC support I see.

And I doubt there ever will be one, but that isn't really necessary, since, if you're going to the trouble & expense of converting & authoring & pressing a UHD BD (especially one that made use of HDR, WCG, or Atmos), it would be inconsequential to convert to MLP/Dolby TrueHD or to DTS-HD-MA or even to LPCM. Remember, this will probably not be a "roll-your-own" format for at least 5 years or more (if Hollywood has any say in it - I'm guessing more like a decade). So far as I have researched, only Scenarist and Sony's proprietary tool (like Blu-studio?) are able to (and they are of course $$$$).

Scott

[SameSelf]

"roll-your-own", lol, didn't think I would see that term used for authoring. What does that exactly mean? You sound a little butthurt that neither Hollywood nor the MPAA refuse to cater to indies when it comes to BDMV/BD-J. But for basic BDMV, Sony's Movie Studio 13 is only $80 and now supports XAVC S. Getting the consumer to flock to UHD BD is about putting the format in their hands, not keeping it out. My Sony cellphone shoots in 4K. While I don't care for the vfr, it holds up surprisingly well to grading in Resolve. So look for MS14 to offer burning to UHD BD well within your 5-10 year hurdle.

[Cornucopia]

WTF? I think you must be just enamoured with saying "butthurt". There have been and are a number of consumer authoring solutions (aka DIY or roll-your-own) for standard BD, which are well-known here. We've been talking about UHD BD!

I could be proven wrong in time, but currently all data points to UHD BD creation (encoding + authoring) being kept the exclusive domain of major commercial players, not consumers, hobbyists, indie producers, and even smaller production companies. IOW, pressed discs only, using only expensive proprietary, commercial software. Just like SACD has been (DSD discs don't really count, since they aren't authored and there isn't a straightforward consumer sharing solution for them).
While it may be extremely shortsighted (and stupid) for the big studios to keep things out of the hands of consumers, they don't see it that way. They believe the superlative quality and luxury cache' will be enough of a draw as a mass consumption only device.

And I believe you're mistaken about Sony MS. It may support XAVCS (a consumer format which may allow 4k support but doesn't necessarily enforce/require it) as one of the supported input & render formats, but it would be foolish to assume they wouldn't charge an arm & a leg for commercial h265 encoding (xavcs uses h264), or 4k projects (NOT available in MS, I checked, only Vegas Pro), and especially not UHD BD authoring (not even expected soon in DVDA Pro).

Reality check!

Scott

[_Al_]

I think Studio can work with 4k , and if export is not possible, frame server allows it (it exports project properties). Platinum version perhaps yes. I tested Studio last year I think I had Studio version, demo available iirc.

Who the heck would want to export 4k in Vegas anyway. Two pass to what bitrate 50.000 or 100.000, how much is enough? Or CBR ?

But I agree with this planning stalling game, it suppose to be perhaps exclusive deal, meaning only buying this and this you'll get true UHD and HDR, if movie is shot towards that, not old style movie (lighting and shadows).

[Cornucopia]

Sony's own comparison documents clearly state that 4k projects are not supported in MS13, only in Vegas Pro. Without the project being in 4k, a 4k (upsized) export is a pointless waste.

I would want to export 4k from Vegas Pro, but I would probably expect to use a lossless codec and very high bitrate (Gbps range).

Again, since a good portion of the benefit of UHD BD goes beyond simple 4k capability (including HDR, HFR, and WCG/rec2020), it's not surprising that it will be at first geared only toward the big producers, as it will require greatly expanded feature support throughout the workflow chain, even including gear like cams and monitors.

Scott

[_Al_]

ok, searched this, because I do not remember what I did just half a year ago , http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3662910 , all my demos are non functional now, Studio version would load 4k, but by default, it suppose to start to create lower resolution file, proxy, and perhaps it is not a proxy per say, but a file that software would use as a base for further render (needs to be verified) , most likely, which is better for editing but one looses 4k. No 4k exports perhaps for sure. I do not remember this happening, (proxy rendering), so I guess, I did not tested 4k in Studio version but rather in,
Platinum suppose to load 4k as is, so there is a chance that frame server is exporting 4k as well, even if it is not supported for exports or it is limited in a way (frame rates etc). If anyone having Platinum, could confirm it.
Not mentioning difficulty to edit originals, just elaborating on working with 4k.

[SameSelf]

WTF? I think you must be just enamoured with saying "butthurt". There have been and are a number of consumer authoring solutions (aka DIY or roll-your-own) for standard BD, which are well-known here. We've been talking about UHD BD!

I could be proven wrong in time, but currently all data points to UHD BD creation (encoding + authoring) being kept the exclusive domain of major commercial players, not consumers, hobbyists, indie producers, and even smaller production companies. IOW, pressed discs only, using only expensive proprietary, commercial software. Just like SACD has been (DSD discs don't really count, since they aren't authored and there isn't a straightforward consumer sharing solution for them).
While it may be extremely shortsighted (and stupid) for the big studios to keep things out of the hands of consumers, they don't see it that way. They believe the superlative quality and luxury cache' will be enough of a draw as a mass consumption only device.

And I believe you're mistaken about Sony MS. It may support XAVCS (a consumer format which may allow 4k support but doesn't necessarily enforce/require it) as one of the supported input & render formats, but it would be foolish to assume they wouldn't charge an arm & a leg for commercial h265 encoding (xavcs uses h264), or 4k projects (NOT available in MS, I checked, only Vegas Pro), and especially not UHD BD authoring (not even expected soon in DVDA Pro).

Reality check!

Scott

I see my first response came off a little too snarky.

My point was that it is fruitless complaining that Hollywood and the MPAA lock out consumers and indies from slick UHD BDs production á la the way slick BDMV/BD-J is currently out of reach for most unless you are willing to pony up the thousands required. So just be content with the stripped down versions they do unlock rather than expressing a view that reflects some inner angst towards the studios based on the past.

Case in point, MS currently supports 4K XAVC S (native formats supported). MS may not support 4K timelines or UHD BD authoring, but several things tell me this will not be the case in the near future: 1) Sony is pushing 4K hard 2) 4K has been an OOBE in their smartphones since the Xperia Z3 (circa 2014) 3) Sony is phasing out HDTVs and 4) BDXL burners and media have been available for a while.

So the pieces are slowly coming together for UHD BD to be the new standard, not some niche Hollywood product.

[_Al_]

Sony phone video is just 4k, that's it. Or other 4k cameras, camcorders. Just like most of video footage there will be. Just using rec709, keeping resolution, encoding 10bit, using CRF and storing on whatever there is available, except a system that asks for a menu creation and $1000 software to do it .

Exclusive delivery system, whole chain for now in that UHD is not a Sony phone camera output. But footage that was shot with HDR in mind or master footage that has color resolution for 4k. Latest Martian Movie for example was up-scaled to 4k from 2k. Sure that 2k had colors , guessing 4:4:4 or 4:2:2? So up-scaling to 4k 4:2:0 is ok. Just mentioning it, home 4k scenario are not the same. It is day and night. And Rec.2020 perhaps will be here in 5 years? And for home users also? Etc.Etc. Nothing to worry about anytime soon.

UHD format has no significance for an enthusiast, perhaps even for videographer for now, it is a a studio, Hollywood thing, delivery of movies. Why would be someone be waiting for some UHD specs to cut, edit, even deliver 4k? You know, as I said, you can make sure to give someone a footage in MP4 (H264), --fastdecode to be sure in one extreme , done. Or on the other side of spectrum even trying HEVC in MP4, 10bit, telling parties that WMP will not play it , might give an info what devices and players will play it , done.

[SameSelf]

Try explaining any of that to the average consumer. 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 or 10-bit vs 8-bit etc etc and their eyes will glaze over. The only thing they understand is SD, vs HD, vs 4K.

[_Al_]

That was my point actually. Just to encode 4k to 8bit H.264 , BT.709 into MP4 or MKV. There is nothing to know. These are defaults.

Concerning HEVC, 8bits and 4:2:0 are I guess defaults in GUI's, not sure, so nobody makes any mistake or messes up anything, perhaps knowing to rather choose 10bit is a way to go. Media players handle those too.

[Cornucopia]

If all Sony, et al is going to promote UHD BD over standard BD to "the average joe" is 4k, then they will have already lost (to standard BD and to streaming). Average joe screen sizes and average joe viewing distances won't reveal 4k's detail benefits over HD.

So thanks for proving my point.

Scott

[_Al_]

To not give this "refusing" impression only, as it may seem. - It is exiting time for a movie viewer (basically all of us at some point) but those having huge screen, and viewing well done 4k UHD movie with proper equipment. To be able to "lurk" into every corner, shadow and be able see all those new details, dynamics in brightness and shadow, with this technology. It is another step to see things differently, seeing new "worlds" at home. Real quality (meaning ratings) of those products is another thing, but irrelevant to this topic. I see this HDR and colors as a new thing, something almost unreal to see, something they were looking for basically, filmmakers, not marketers, sure they like the idea foremost,... so when filmmakers learn to use it and together with all those colors (2020), when screening devices could deliver it. We look for magic like that, we want to be even thrown overboard with things like that. As a humans, it is all about visual input, well at least for something that is 3 feet away, or out of our personal space. 3D is flawed in a sense, as they have it now, because what you see is somehow crippled, focus could be way off or none if I look anywhere and it does not compute with brain, "real" is broken anyway so why not continue with this new magic available and imagine for a bit longer until new........ Pretty good marketing, heh.

[SameSelf]

If all Sony, et al is going to promote UHD BD over standard BD to "the average joe" is 4k, then they will have already lost (to standard BD and to streaming). Average joe screen sizes and average joe viewing distances won't reveal 4k's detail benefits over HD.

So thanks for proving my point.

Scott

Not sure what "point" you feel was proved. First hating on the studios now "the average joe". Someone's not buttering your bread.

[usually_quiet]

I agree with Cornucopia that UHD Blu-ray authoring for the masses is not going to be available soon, and authored UHD Blu-ray might remain a studio format forever.

Average Joe and Average Jane are moving away from optical media and towards files on HDDs and USB sticks for storing their personal videos. Samsung's current UHD Blu-ray player has the ability to play 2160p video files.