Blu-Ray vs DVD

[Oso Blanco]

The theatrical cut of TMP alone is worth the money of the box set, considering that it's last release was on VHS. It could only be topped by the SLV!

Regarding 4K, I'm asking myself: How much resolution do we really need? Would it make a difference big enough on a normal tv set to convince people to buy their favorite movies yet again? I don't think so. To be honest, on my 32" tv set even the BDs look only marginally better than the DVDs, so 4K wouldn't improve anything for me.

 

[Belz...]

Really ? I can see the difference on my 24", on most movies (that I purchased, anyway).

There's a limit to the human eye, but 8k isn't it. So yeah, it could be interesting to see how far they can take it.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

The theatrical cut of TMP alone is worth the money of the box set, considering that it's last release was on VHS. It could only be topped by the SLV!

Regarding 4K, I'm asking myself: How much resolution do we really need? Would it make a difference big enough on a normal tv set to convince people to buy their favorite movies yet again? I don't think so. To be honest, on my 32" tv set even the BDs look only marginally better than the DVDs, so 4K wouldn't improve anything for me.

Assuming 20/20 vision, to gain maximum benifit from 4K on say, a 65" screen, you'd have to be sitting approximately 4 feet away - with diminishing returns as you move further back! I think 4K is something for the medium term future - when 85"+ screens become widely available at reasonable cost to Joe Public. For comparison, full 4K glory could be viewed from around 6 feet away from a 100" screen.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Really ? I can see the difference on my 24", on most movies (that I purchased, anyway).

There's a limit to the human eye, but 8k isn't it. So yeah, it could be interesting to see how far they can take it.

I think that 4K and 8K would only matter on a really big screen. And since only a minority of people have those huge screens, Blu Ray will be here to stay for a while. That's what I think, anyway ...

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

For anyone who's interested, here's a resolution/distance chart. Full credit goes to Carlton Bale.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Assuming 20/20 vision, to gain maximum benifit from 4K on say, a 65" screen, you'd have to be sitting approximately 4 feet away - with diminishing returns as you move further back! I think 4K is something for the medium term future - when 85"+ screens become widely available at reasonable cost to Joe Public. For comparison, full 4K glory could be viewed from around 6 feet away from a 100" screen.

Only 6 feet away from a 100" screen? That's like first row in the cinema ... I could never sit that close in front of the screen!

And even if such huge screens were cheap as dirt, I simply wouldn't know where to put that monster!

 

[Belz...]

I think that 4K and 8K would only matter on a really big screen. And since only a minority of people have those huge screens, Blu Ray will be here to stay for a while.

That sounds contradictory. Could you clarify ?

For anyone who's interested, here's a resolution/distance chart. Full credit goes to Carlton Bale.

Interesting. That's why I stick my face 1 foot from my 24" when I want to see detail. I wonder how 8K figures into that.

Assuming that graph is correct, there's no point of going above 1080p for such a small television.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

For anyone who's interested, here's a resolution/distance chart. Full credit goes to Carlton Bale.

Interesting. That's why I stick my face 1 foot from my 24" when I want to see detail. I wonder how 8K figures into that.

Assuming that graph is correct, there's no point of going above 1080p for such a small television.

Based on 20/20 vision, I think the graph is an extremely good guide. If a 24" 8K screen is ever produced - I would think you'd have your nose on the screen to experience the full monty!!!

 

[Belz...]

Challenge accepted.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I think that 4K and 8K would only matter on a really big screen. And since only a minority of people have those huge screens, Blu Ray will be here to stay for a while.

That sounds contradictory. Could you clarify ?

What I meant is that 4K will only improve picture quality on really big screens. And since very few people have such big screens, most people will stick to Blu Ray or even DVD.

 

[BillJ]

I think that 4K and 8K would only matter on a really big screen. And since only a minority of people have those huge screens, Blu Ray will be here to stay for a while.

That sounds contradictory. Could you clarify ?

What I meant is that 4K will only improve picture quality on really big screens. And since very few people have such big screens, most people will stick to Blu Ray or even DVD.

Just depends how expensive the larger screens will cost. A couple decades ago very few people had TV's larger than 25", now I don't think I know anyone with a main set smaller than 37".

And with the failure of 3D sets, the manufacturers will likely have to move onto 4K.

 

[Belz...]

I think that 4K and 8K would only matter on a really big screen. And since only a minority of people have those huge screens, Blu Ray will be here to stay for a while.

That sounds contradictory. Could you clarify ?

What I meant is that 4K will only improve picture quality on really big screens. And since very few people have such big screens, most people will stick to Blu Ray or even DVD.

Oh, so you mean that people who _don't_ already have a big screen will stick to the lower resolution ? But people WITH big tvs would have to change anyway, because those are not compatible with the 4K or 8K stuff. I still don't follow.

 

[Talos]

Oh, so you mean that people who _don't_ already have a big screen will stick to the lower resolution ? But people WITH big tvs would have to change anyway, because those are not compatible with the 4K or 8K stuff. I still don't follow.

I don't think he means any intrinsic incompatibility between 4/8K and smaller TVs, just that they are small enough that people won't notice much difference. Like how I can watch a bluray on my second monitor/TV across my home office (only a 24") and not notice much different in resolution compared to a DVD, but on my larger main set it is clear as day, as it is on my 23" computer monitor right in front of me.

They are coming down in price though, and I do see more and more people upgrading to larger TV sizes in the future.

 

[SpHeRe31459]

I think that 4K and 8K would only matter on a really big screen. And since only a minority of people have those huge screens, Blu Ray will be here to stay for a while.

That sounds contradictory. Could you clarify ?

What I meant is that 4K will only improve picture quality on really big screens. And since very few people have such big screens, most people will stick to Blu Ray or even DVD.

A couple of different points to consider about 4k:

1. UltraHD (consumer format of 4k) is about the be pushed as the next big thing. Regardless of the fact at most normal TV sizes people can't resolve the differences in resolution, TV makers are going to make a big marketing push for UHD sets as the next cool thing to have. We'll have to see how the public responds. I know people already salivating over the 65" Sony sets out now, even though it you'd need to sit like 4 feet away from it. But for the forseeable future nearly all content is going to 1080p upscaled to 4k. So good quality Blu-ray discs are going to be important for quite some time.

2. Having a 4k remaster, even if it's only then published on Blu-ray, is still a benefit because it means a brand new scan of the film was done, with newer tools to clean up film dirt and debris at a higher resolution than before. This is always a good thing and starting with a higher detail source nearly always translates to a better presentation when scaled back down.

 

[SpHeRe31459]

They are coming down in price though, and I do see more and more people upgrading to larger TV sizes in the future.

Correct. The average TV size in the US and the UK has gone up faster in the last few years than ever before.
People in the US and UK are also replacing their TVs a bit sooner than they used to. For example: putting a new 55" TV for their living room and moving their 42" to their bedroom.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/time-replace-your-tv

 

[Belz...]

I don't think he means any intrinsic incompatibility between 4/8K and smaller TVs, just that they are small enough that people won't notice much difference.

The fact that they don't have enough pixels for Ultra HD makes them incompatible with it. Watch an HD movie from a BluRay player on an old projection TV for comparison.

 

[SpHeRe31459]

I don't think he means any intrinsic incompatibility between 4/8K and smaller TVs, just that they are small enough that people won't notice much difference.

The fact that they don't have enough pixels for Ultra HD makes them incompatible with it. Watch an HD movie from a BluRay player on an old projection TV for comparison.

Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Just depends how expensive the larger screens will cost. A couple decades ago very few people had TV's larger than 25", now I don't think I know anyone with a main set smaller than 37".

It's not just a matter of price, it's also a matter of space. I simply don't have the space for anything larger than a 37" screen. I wouldn't even want a 60" screen when I'm only sitting three metres away from it.

Oh, so you mean that people who _don't_ already have a big screen will stick to the lower resolution ? But people WITH big tvs would have to change anyway, because those are not compatible with the 4K or 8K stuff. I still don't follow.

Well, I don't know about the US ... but here in Germany only a handful of people have those huge screens. For practical and space saving reasons, most people stop at the 37" mark. The question I am raising is: Are there enough customers for the 4K/8K market? Not everyone is crazy enough to put a theatre sized screen into their living room, you know ...

 

[Belz...]

Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.

I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.

 

[Talos]

Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.

I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.

It won't be any worse, it will just play at the TV's definition. My parents have a bluray player connected to an almost twenty year-old CRT (4:3 too) and they play just fine. If anything the bluray still tends to look better. Using TNG as an example, you have the much (MUCH) improved colors still, and the higher-quality compositing. That all still shows up in SD.