Will it catch on /g/?
>>53751784
>disc
>physical
No
>>53751784
yeah, with the ps4k maybe.
I personally wont buy any until I can play them on a PC
>>53751821
The switch to Bluray was quite the bumpy ride to say the least and now they want everybody to go run out and buy 4K Blu Ray players?
These manufacturers are really out of touch and banalised the switch to HD 1080p Televisions around 2007-2010 to a mere people were so impressed with 1080p and now they think gramps will rush out and buy a 4K TV.
>>53751845
>and now
it's been a decade, much longer than the switch from DVD to blu ray was
the appeal of 4k is that it's the final form. Very, very few movies are shot in above 4k and about half today are shot in lesser quality. Essentally if you own a 4k HDR copy of a film you will never, even in 50 years, be able to play a higher quality version of it.
>>53751784
I hate blueray with a passion because of the drm on it.
I don't think it will. We are moving more and more non physical media. But then again 4k is way to much to stream so it may.
>>53751907
That's only true for digital films. Real film prints still can't be 100% replicated in 4k, especially 70mm.
I don't think I've ever actually watched a blu-ray movie.
>>53751784
How much storage can a 4k bluray hold? It might be a good way to offload some storage.
>>53752379
Technically its the same as the Blu Ray XL which is around 100-120 GB... not sure, I think you better off with an External HDD
>>53752270
>But then again 4k is way to much to stream so it may.
too much to stream right now, you mean.
>>53752310
oh yeah I absolutely know that. But 35mm seems to have a quality ceiling of 4k and only the few 70mm films there are will be able to take advantage of future scanning techniques for 8k or even 16k. But even THEN with super future quality film transfer techniques they STILL wont be useful for the home because no one will have a 200' screen in their house
>>53752411
>Technically its the same as the Blu Ray XL
Unfortunately it actually isn't, it is in fact slightly different, BD-XL players are NOT assured to read UHD blurays.
>>53752451
>because no one will have a 200' screen in their house
Virtual displays will become the primary medium in the next decade anyway.
a 16k VR headset with an 8k or 16k res. film would be pretty sweet.
>>53752500
probably the same format but a new codec
remember that nearly all bluray players are computers with designated apps, the 4K codec is going to require a lot more power than "currently exists", most the fucking dvd players lag changing the menu.
>>53752523
Well all current UHD bluray releases have been released on BD50 normal dual layer bluray discs, with AACS 2.0 so no current software can play it back. So they can be read by SOME bluray drives (not many). But because of the AACS 2.0 DRM it can't be played back. For actual playback however you do need one of the 3 UHD bluray players currently on the market.
As for future UHD bluray releases the specification says there is a 66GB disc and a 100GB disc. 100GB could be done with existing BD-XL. I am unsure what type of disc they will use for 66GB (smaller triple layer or more advanced denser dual layer?)
Requires HDMI 2.0
So no
>>53753062
or display port 1.3/4
>>53753075
Well DP isn't in any high end TV just a 'PC display' tech aint it?
and even the 'highest end' of 2014-2015 has mostly pseudo HDMI 2.0 (doesn't support full color bandwith 0-255)
So I don't think this will catch on unless electornics become a hell of a lot cheaper
>>53753098
Well that's kinda the point, it isn't meant to catch on right now, there are only 3 UHD bluray players and they are all $400+ and any TV to watch UHD content is expensive too.
Not to mention there are only a handful of titles even available in UHD resolution.
It's meant for 4-5 years down the line when the tech becomes cheaper there will already be UHD titles released and on the market, as well as having the technical bugs worked out by the enthusiast over the next year or two.
Besides, HDR and rec. 2020 will require OLED or similar panels which right now cost $5k+. So might as well wait for that shit to come down below $1k for a panel.
Well, Blu-Ray has caught on despite what dumb retarded memester say, because BluRay had a fuckton of releases and is profitable, which is why there is a new format on the market. As long as it is profitable, of course it'll exist. The videophile and collector crowd never left their discs for inferior digital releases or streaming services.
>>53753163
> oled
Why did we get this shit instead of SED
>>53751907
Decade or not the switch to Blu Ray was bumpy as fuck and today the market is even different now streaming services are relevant threats on the field.
All of these things are connected in one ugly ass daisy chain though
We got the TV broadcaster some of these assholes did not even do a good job going over to HD(tons of networks chose 720p only) they wont be changing their equipment in quite the time. We got the TV manufacturers who deluded themselves into thinking that what made people go nuts for HD was only the higher resolution 1920x1080p this was not quite the case it's a gross simplification.
4K Bluray will remain a videophile format until eventually after a few years all this technology gets cheaper. But they can forget trying to replicate the whole VHS to DVD jump.
