Another new optical format in development

[Flint]

No specifics other than a capacity of 300GB.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/07/29/ ... JBlog&mod=

However, I remember BluRay supposedly being layered to get up to 200GB of capacity without changing the physical reading technology. Maybe they are just developing a standard for creating the media and altering firmware for readers/players. Of course, if the goal is to get 4K video into the home, then higher reading rates than current BluRay will be needed.

 

[Towen7]

 

[Rope]

I certainly hope this means updating media players!

Rope

 

[Akula]

The other article I'd read indicates this is more for archive storage. Not that Blu-Ray will last forever, but I am a bit skeptical that we'll be seeing any real successor soon. Unless and until we start maxing out Blu-Ray (maybe 4K will do it, maybe not, but even then 4K needs more market penetration before there's a major move afoot) it's going to be an even harder sell than Blu-Ray. We already have lossless audio... there's really nothing more to be gained on that front. The boost would be solely for video.

 

[Haywood]

I am perfectly happy with 1080p and do not find the advantages of 4k compelling on TV-sized displays, even ones as big as mine. I have no plans to replace my collection for a third time.

300GB discs for archiving, on the other hand, are very appealing. I need a better way to back up all the crap I download off the torrents.

 

[Akula]

I am perfectly happy with 1080p and do not find the advantages of 4k compelling on TV-sized displays, even ones as big as mine. I have no plans to replace my collection for a third time.

You and me both. Going to 4K would require a really huge TV for any real benefit... and even then I doubt it would be a more significant (comparatively) improvement than the SD to HD switch. If the manufacturers couldn't sell 3D, I don't see them pulling off a move to 4K.

 

[Flint]

HA! I remember the hoards of people on S&V claiming that upscaled SD content was more than good enough. DVD was fine! Why would anyone need 1080i or 1080p...

Just wait. All of you will have a 4K TV and source component in 3 years.

 

[DIYer]

Just wait. All of you will have a 4K TV and source component in 3 years.

And post on the forum about the difference when compared to blu-ray is dependent on the release and crap shoot... etc. Also about the audio quality of the two versions and etc. :eusa-whistle:

 

[Rope]

I'll lay odds it will be more than 3 years before 4k media is available.

Rope

 

[MatthewB]

Today I actually got to see my first foray into 4K displays at my local Magnolia. They had two 65" displays running side by side one playing an Eagles concert shot on 4K video and another nature show shot on 4K. Although the picture was awesome I felt the nearby Sony 1080p and Sharp Elite were just as good. I had a very hard time telling the difference but also feel 4K is made for displays larger than 92" to notice the difference. Still way to costly.

 

[Akula]

HA! I remember the hoards of people on S&V claiming that upscaled SD content was more than good enough. DVD was fine! Why would anyone need 1080i or 1080p...

Just wait. All of you will have a 4K TV and source component in 3 years.

Could be. But then again, unlike regular HD resolutions (720p and 1080i, which themselves still look rather good), 4K isn't on its way to be a broadcast resolution. It maybe COULD be one, but I've not seen a word about TV stations preparing for 4K or content providers working toward making that happen. Heck, there's still channels in regular old SD resolution. So at most, in the foreseeable future it's going to be a standard for use on disc or by download.

If the price drops enough and one looks good to me I could see buying a 4K as a replacement if/when my RPTV finally blows up. But that's a ways in the future.

"Good enough" is always good enough until one gets well exposed to that which is indeed better. I just don't know if 4K is enough better for everybody to make that jump. Because, after all, the moment we all get 4K going there's going to be something else waiting in the wings to replace it.

 

[Flint]

In Japan they are already broadcasting in 4K. Also, I know of no fewer than 6 online content providers with big plans to roll out 4K content in the next two years.

4K will be available to us. The question is if we and our consumer neighbors are going to use it or if it will fail like 3D did.

 

[Haywood]

This is where I will be watching my little experiment with UltraViolet. Many studios let me get a 1080p copy of a DVD I already own for $5 (during beta, $2.50 if I do 10 or more at a time). If 4k takes over and I can pay another $2-5 to upgrade my existing movies, great. What I don't want is the "Disney" scenario in which they expect you to re-purchase the movie at full retail every time the technology changes. I've spent over $20,000 on the media I have and there are limits on how many times I am willing to buy the same movie. I don't mind paying for the movie once and I don't mind paying reasonable incremental fees for technology upgrades, but that's where I draw the line.

 

[Akula]

In Japan they are already broadcasting in 4K. Also, I know of no fewer than 6 online content providers with big plans to roll out 4K content in the next two years.

4K will be available to us. The question is if we and our consumer neighbors are going to use it or if it will fail like 3D did.

Then there may indeed be staying power if content providers are going to be in on it.

Much will depend on the price of the equipment... I'd think 3D may be a different animal here, since it did require other equipment (glasses) to make it work. Still, I don't know that it will be all that fast an adoption curve... maybe it will be more prevalent in larger displays while smaller ones (say, 40" or so and under) stick with 1080p (is less noticeable at smaller screen sizes) while bigger ones make the shift to 4K.

But to bring it back around to topic, is a Blu-Ray successor actually needed to accommodate a 4K movie? HD resolutions can already be put into fairly reasonable sizes (a few GB), so I just wonder if a 4K video transfer really needs a 300GB disc... as said, with lossless audio already available there's no extra space going to be needed there. Lossless is as good as we'll get. So the question becomes how much more room the video needs.

And that's assuming we are still using media by the time that shows up. Internet connection speeds are rising and storage becoming ever cheaper.

 

[Haywood]

I suspect that we are going to lose the disc option entirely at some point and it will all be cloud-based. It will be interesting to see if 4k is the format change that takes us there, although the bandwidth requirements are a bit extreme.

 

[bmwuk]

I haven't purchased a single Blu-ray disc that I owned on DVD. I just simply refuse to get caught up in the hype again. Yes DVD was so much better than VHS. And yes Blu-Ray is better than DVD but I have so much purchased from DVD I feel silly to purchase it all again. Then again we don't watch much beyond Netflix rentals and the current movies I wish to own on Blu-Ray.

 

[Towen7]

Physical media is dying. Sure, there will always be a relatively small number of enthusiasts and early adopters but the vast majority will consume their entertainment content from streaming providers. It's been proven time and time again over the years that convenience trumps quality.

My kids, in their late teens/early 20's, love music but will likely never buy another CD or DVD or BD. For better or worse they simply don't see any value in ownership of a physical copy of media.