VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Thread
  1. FWIW, nearly all UHD BD are encoded as 3840x2160p24, BT.2020, and 10-bit YCbCr 4:2:0.

    Who said we no longer live in a bandwidth limited world?
    Quote Quote  
  2. I am still limited here in the boonies of Oregon. But that's a different bandwidth (internet) then just playing the BD on a UHD BD player which is designed to do it.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -Carl Sagan
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    I honestly have no idea what this thread is about...

    All I can think is that maybe he's complaining that all the major Hollywood studios are still producing all of their films at 24fps...
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    He's bored and feels the need to start another flame war.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  5. Rancid User ron spencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ish-ka-bibble
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    FWIW, nearly all UHD BD are encoded as 3840x2160p24, BT.2020, and 10-bit YCbCr 4:2:0.

    Who said we no longer live in a bandwidth limited world?
    Comcast is limiting:

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13192832/comcast-xfinity-home-internet-data-caps-one-terabyte

    With all the streaming that is going on (music, video, etc.) there will come a time that unlimited plans will disappear.

    from Cookie Marenco:

    As we moved to cloud storage, we were suddenly hit with an 'excess transmission of data' from Comcast, our provider. After a call to Comcast, we learned that starting in December 2016, there would be a charge for use above 1000 gigabytes of data monthly. With our current systems, we will be headed to thousands of dollars in excess transmission fees for backing up our music files and archiving for future generations.

    We have heard that Netflix has created a lawsuit against Comcast for this new charge from Comcast. Comcast says they may offer unlimited data transmission for a fee (another $200 per month or more). What crossed my mind was the number of people listening to streaming music... and the cost of higher resolution music and video as we move into the future with thoughts of DSD streaming.

    It made me think that downloading music could still be a viable (and perhaps cheaper) method of enjoying your music in the future.
    'Do I look absolutely divine and regal, and yet at the same time very pretty and rather accessible?' - Queenie
    Quote Quote  
  6. Cloud is just one of those traps set for us along the way ... it will help you, it will help you, until everyone uses it and then, bang ... ... ... you fill the dots

    I'm actually happy having cheap Android that feeds TV with 720p to keep traffic down, why the heck would I need to stream 4k , ... 4k will be paid for, not sure if I want to pay for it. As of now.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Rancid User ron spencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ish-ka-bibble
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    Cloud is just one of those traps set for us along the way ... it will help you, it will help you, until everyone uses it and then, bang ... ... ... you fill the dots

    I'm actually happy having cheap Android that feeds TV with 720p to keep traffic down, why the heck would I need to stream 4k , ... 4k will be paid for, not sure if I want to pay for it. As of now.
    You are right....the ISPs are planning for it. There will be a reckoning in the future and the end user will pay big time to stream. The Cloud is no panacea.
    'Do I look absolutely divine and regal, and yet at the same time very pretty and rather accessible?' - Queenie
    Quote Quote  
  8. Kids are using google drive for home work, that is a start, ... , I cannot wait when my son is a candidate for something applying for a job and they check him up overthere how did he do then when he was a kid etc.
    Quote Quote  
  9. I just thought I would share what a large sampling of UHD BD has revealed.

    My bandwidth limited comment was actually directed towards the fact that the chroma subsampling is still 420.

    EDIT: I guess on further reflection, my comment could be construed as a criticism of 24p. But, my understanding is that 24p is an aesthetic choice, not a limited bandwidth constraint. But one thing I know for sure, Hollywood is not shooting anything in 420.
    Last edited by SameSelf; 3rd Jan 2017 at 20:05.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Shooting, no. Distributing, not surprised just disappointed.
    Even with UHD's improved/updated copy-projection, Hollywood doesn't want to give away their golden goose, so they'll likely never distribute any discs to consumers which have what might amount to master quality. As corporate owners, they probably feel they've got to hold "something" back.
    AFA 4:2:0, I'm guessing that decision has more to do with the reality that, despite the futurist-looking hype from industry press, the bulk of current TVs still don't have the wide dynamic range to be able to take advantage of the improved spec.
    That, and they probably feel the need to constrain bandwidth in some way. For all its increase in bandwidth, the UHDBD spec isn't infintite (agreeing with what you first postulated). So that seems to be the area they can fudge without too many consumers complaining. And truly, if you aren't expecting the material to be re-edited/composited (they aren't), it shouldn't make a big difference. Our eyes shouldn't be able to tell the loss of resolution - heck, it still is HD rez in the chroma domain.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  11. Finally some worthwhile discussion. I am sure some of this is inaccurate, but I thought the UHD BD spec supported more than 420. For HD, the signal chain looks something like this: video is upsampled to Y'CbCr 4:2:2 by the player because HDMI v1.4 does not support 4:2:0, then the TV upsamples to 4:4:4 and converts to RGB. However for UHD, at 10-bit/24p HDMI v2.0 ONLY supports RGB24, not YUV 420, while at 10-bit and 50p/60p, HDMI v2.0 ONLY supports 4:2:0 which clearly implies some bandwidth limitations. However, HDMI v2.0a is reportedly supposed to add support for 422 at 24p. So at the end of the day, it is a bandwidth issue, and the people in charge of determining just how much bandwidth to build into HDMI end up debating whether the source or the TV should do the upsampling. But maybe all this is moot if h.264/5 don't even contemplate 422 video, and the UHD BD spec doesn't support it.

    Also, your comments about studios being reluctant to release near master quality to the masses is not without merit. The moves from 8-bit to 10-bit and from SDR to HDR are huge leaps forward, but masters are still higher quality.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Selfie returns to UHD Blu-ray like a dog to its vomit every time he wants stir things up for fun.

    10 minutes browsing the results from a decent search engine would have revealed details about the UHD Blu-ray spec published on various websites, including chroma subsampling. All UHD Blu-ray should be 4:2:0 on the disc. 4:2:0 was the only chroma subsampling format allowed in the spec when it was released. The spec would need to be amended to allow 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, and that does not appear to have happened

    One of the sources I read even stated the BDA decided on 4:2:0 chroma-subsampling to be able to squeeze more minutes of video onto a disc. My guess is that that Selfie read it too and that is where the band-width crack came from.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 4th Jan 2017 at 09:20. Reason: clarity
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Who said we no longer live in a bandwidth limited world?
    Until video joins audio in the lossless realm... NO ONE.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    One of the sources I read even stated the BDA decided on 4:2:0 chroma-subsampling to be able to squeeze more minutes of video onto a disc.
    Which we know is wrong. 4:4:4 is more efficient in this regard.
    Otherwise I agree. We've known for a long time that it's 4:2:0 only. No news here.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    Finally some worthwhile discussion.
    There was no discussion going on before, you need to ask a question to get answers.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    There was no discussion going on before, you need to ask a question to get answers.
    FTFY: This is the video news sub, not a Q&A sub.
    Quote Quote  
  17. well, ok then, here we go
    I would care less if they choose 4:1:1 or whatever . Not dismissing any discussion, this is not some derogatory opinion, just opinion. Sure this is discussion. But, it is their "proprietary spec" sheet. Movie delivery system. Exclusivity -> 4k, possible true HDR on TV, possible 2020 on TV, check for exclusivity.
    It is some business guy next door business model, why would I need to analyze it and elaborate on it if not be able to do what he does anyway. Meaning having a delivery scheme like their model has.

    We can shoot weddings and kids and unique events like we want, it is not like it used to be. Anyone can bring a specs for himself like he pleases, not following any particular model. For 10-15 year practically we can do whatever we want. You can make 4k 4:2:2 for yourself if you want to. On the other hand we can care less these sort of things because trust me , exclusivity is really in the uniqueness of the content in a sense, not 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2. So Hollywood has really no exclusivity, just shiny useless box of something.
    Look at brassplayer threads, he gets bombarded what c*** he is making (sure he might do it better) but it is him that he has exclusivity at the end, some guy playing trumpet, where otherwise that footage might be lost forever, not like movie Martian shot with 4k camera (btw for that movie , special effects were rendered at 2k 4:2:2, then they upscaled it to 4k 4:2:0 so your question is partially answered a bit right there as well)
    Quote Quote  
  18. Rancid User ron spencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ish-ka-bibble
    Search Comp PM
    Average person could care less of 4.1.1 or 4.99.99 (whatever). Real improvement would be to trash 24p and start 60p at all times. In the end Hollywood will pander to the lowest common denominator and ignore forums such as these. I won't support UHD until Redfox breaks the protection.
    'Do I look absolutely divine and regal, and yet at the same time very pretty and rather accessible?' - Queenie
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    FTFY: This is the video news sub, not a Q&A sub.
    Not anymore. Personal observations/opinions about a spec released over a year ago apparently don't qualify as the "Latest Video News".
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads