"Ultra HD Blu-ray" will be 60GB dual-layer, 100GB tri-layer and support up to 60fps amongst other st - Polidicks

[url]http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/010615_1530[/url] [quote]I've just spent the last hour on the phone with BDA spokesperson Dan Schinasi and Ron Martin of Panasonic Hollywood Labs, and I can confirm that 4K Blu-ray will officially be known as Ultra HD Blu-ray. The logo has not yet been finalized, but Dan and Ron were able to offer significant new details about the format.[/quote] The rest of the article is filled with edit-breaking Unicode characters so you'll have to click the link soz

60fps movies. What a time to be alive.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46874342][I]4K Blu-Ray[/I] has a better ring to it.[/QUOTE] Especially since it rhymes.

[QUOTE=Hogie bear;46874348]60fps movies. What a time to be alive.[/QUOTE] 60fps PORN not that I am ever going to get porn on a piece of physical media but STILL [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] well I kinda don't really plan on getting a lot of disposable physical data media period, but whatever

The future is not far away friends.

I don't think 60 fps needs to become a standard but dang does it look nice.

Would help if we had something more reliable than disks.

rather call it deep blue

[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;46874413][B]60FPS should be used in good action based films.[/B] I could sure as hell appreciate a smooth 60 fps James Bond combat scene.[/QUOTE] Bad action films, however shall be limited to 30.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46874380]Kinda like a certain username if pronounced correctly. I'll see myself out.[/QUOTE] You-essay-oh-kay?

60fps is nothing new dammit, stop pretending it is. A lot of DVDs and Blu-ray have 60fps content on them. Hell even VHS is 60fps. Of course it may be interlaced, but let's not get into that.

[QUOTE=Warship;46874586]60fps is nothing going new dammit, stop pretending it is.[/QUOTE] For movies it is.

Yeah but if we wanted 60fps movies we could have done that decades ago, assuming there were movie cameras for it. A lot of TV shows are 50/60fps, which you can get on DVDs or whatever.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;46874438]Bad action films, however shall be limited to 30.[/QUOTE] no they should be limited to hand crank motion cameras and given a sepia tint.

Isn't everything digital these days anyway?

[QUOTE=Hogie bear;46874348]60fps movies. What a time to be alive.[/QUOTE]It'll be great for sports. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Warship;46874586]60fps is nothing new dammit, stop pretending it is. A lot of DVDs and Blu-ray have 60fps content on them. Hell even VHS is 60fps. Of course it may be interlaced, but let's not get into that.[/QUOTE]Ah, sort of. If the content was shot on interlaced video not film and if you have a decent deinterlacer, then yeah.. you'll get a 50/60fps effects. For example play a DVD of british TV show from before 2005 or one that was shot in front of an audience in VLC player and you use linear as the deinterlacer. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Warship;46874608]Yeah but if we wanted 60fps movies we could have done that decades ago, assuming there were movie cameras for it. A lot of TV shows are 50/60fps, which you can get on DVDs or whatever.[/QUOTE]Well they had the film cameras which could do 48FPS on film, but you'd double the amount of film used and the projectors would have to be run faster and require more film changes during the movie. It was just used for slow motion.

[QUOTE=Warship;46874586]60fps is nothing new dammit, stop pretending it is. A lot of DVDs and Blu-ray have 60fps content on them. Hell even VHS is 60fps. Of course it may be interlaced, but let's not get into that.[/QUOTE] The point is that people film at 24/30fps instead of higher frame rates. A 60Hz TV could play 60fps footage back, but it doesn't matter if most films are below that in frame rate.

[QUOTE=Warship;46874586]60fps is nothing new dammit, stop pretending it is. A lot of DVDs and Blu-ray have 60fps content on them. Hell even VHS is 60fps. Of course it may be interlaced, but let's not get into that.[/QUOTE] you are mistaken. the highest you'll see is pal which is 25 fps vs the standard of 23.976 when you say a lot, there are actually none. there is not one. even interlaced or interpolated it would be no higher than 48 or 50, and that's only the perceived framerate, not the actual amount of frames there are on the disc. vhs on the other hand i'm not sure about but I doubt that too. but there are certainly no 60fps dvd's or blu-rays. unless it's a special feature on a blu-ray and the content is 480p and even that would be a rarity.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46874787]you are mistaken. the highest you'll see is pal which is 25 fps vs the standard of 23.976 when you say a lot, there are actually none. there is not one. even interlaced or interpolated it would be no higher than 48 or 50, and that's only the perceived framerate, not the actual amount of frames there are on the disc. vhs on the other hand i'm not sure about but I doubt that too. but there are certainly no 60fps dvd's or blu-rays. unless it's a special feature on a blu-ray and the content is 480p and even that would be a rarity.[/QUOTE] I don't even know how to reply to this. Just to clarify, when I say frames I mean frames as they appear when it's played back and not how it is stored. Even then, the NTSC standard is 29.97 or 59.94 (often referred to as 30/60, however). Pal is 25 or 50. I'm not sure if Blu-rays can be 1080p60, but I know they can at least be 1080i which will look like 1080p albeit lower resolution. I may not be entirely correct in my explanation, but the point I am trying to make is that 60fps in home video is not a new thing at all.

Moving up to a new disc type, eh? I wonder if there will be another format war. It'd be fun to get another HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing going. It's been about a decade now.

[QUOTE=Warship;46874586]60fps is nothing new dammit, stop pretending it is. A lot of DVDs and Blu-ray have 60fps content on them. Hell even VHS is 60fps. Of course it may be interlaced, but let's not get into that.[/QUOTE] VHS tapes are 30 fps though in america. In PAL format it's 24. Same with DVD, I'm not 100% sure about blue rays. 24 FPS was a good number decades ago as if you recorded a movie that was almost three times that the reel would have been crazy and a pain in the ass. [QUOTE=Jeremie. B;46874642]Isn't everything digital these days anyway?[/QUOTE] I've got 5 mbps at my father's house, and with many other people in the same or similar boat, high quality digital media isn't feasible for everybody yet.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;46875005]Moving up to a new disc type, eh? I wonder if there will be another format war. It'd be fun to get another HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing going. It's been about a decade now.[/QUOTE] I doubt we'll ever see another physical format war, at least not on the scale of VHS vs Betamax or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. Physical media is going to become the niche fairly soon and no big company is going to want to dump money into a new format that will never reach the popularity of it's predecessors.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;46875099]VHS tapes are 30 fps though in america. In PAL format it's 24. Same with DVD[/QUOTE] PAL is 25 or 50fps, certainly not 24. VHS refreshes just as often as a TV. TV standards are 50Hz or 60Hz. Again, it is interlaced like some digital formats but this is not relevant when watching the material. Remember how high frame rate material is often associated with homemade video? Well, that is because a typical consumer camcorder records in TV standards, i.e 50/60fps. Regardless of it being a vintage VHS camcorder or what have you.

[QUOTE=Warship;46874949]I don't even know how to reply to this. Just to clarify, when I say frames I mean frames as they appear when it's played back and not how it is stored. Even then, the NTSC standard is 29.97 or 59.94 (often referred to as 30/60, however). Pal is 25 or 50. I'm not sure if Blu-rays can be 1080p60, but I know they can at least be 1080i which will look like 1080p albeit lower resolution. I may not be entirely correct in my explanation, but the point I am trying to make is that 60fps in home video is not a new thing at all.[/QUOTE] Let me just clear something up. If you're not getting 60FPS from the content, you're not getting 60FPS. Not really. No. Interpolating frames doesn't mean "better quality", it really just means "there are not enough frames to fit the refresh rate, so the remaining frames will be filled with the difference"-ish. Which isn't at all the same, it really just adds some blur effect to the image, and that's all you get. With 60FPS content you won't have any interpolation, but just a constant flow of smooth frames. You saw that even in The Hobbit 48FPS trailer, right? Right.

I didn't say anything about frame interpolation. That's something entirely different, and it's also irrelevant to video storage media.

The name "Ultra HD Blueray" just sounds dumb.

[QUOTE=Oizen;46875466]The name "Ultra HD Blueray" just sounds dumb.[/QUOTE] The HD term has always pissed me off. "High" doesn't mean shit.

[QUOTE=Warship;46874949]I don't even know how to reply to this. Just to clarify, when I say frames I mean frames as they appear when it's played back and not how it is stored. Even then, the NTSC standard is 29.97 or 59.94 (often referred to as 30/60, however). Pal is 25 or 50. I'm not sure if Blu-rays can be 1080p60, but I know they can at least be 1080i which will look like 1080p albeit lower resolution. I may not be entirely correct in my explanation, but the point I am trying to make is that 60fps in home video is not a new thing at all.[/QUOTE] Home video, yes. But there's not a single consumer blu-ray or DVD (that I am aware of) that is 60fps. So it is something new. 60fps footage would simply not fit on current discs, unless it was below feature length material. This was your original argument: [QUOTE=Warship;46874608]Yeah but if we wanted 60fps movies we could have done that decades ago, assuming there were movie cameras for it. A lot of TV shows are 50/60fps, which you can get on DVDs or whatever.[/QUOTE] Which is wrong, because until these new discs, there is no way 60fps content would have fit on a disc, as each additional frame creates a larger filesize. You can't get any DVD's that actually have 50-60fps footage on them. They don't exist. You can put some on yourself, of a small amount of footage. But it's simple too big (and pointless) for anything sold. All you're saying right now is that the TV's are capable of it. But discs aren't capable of fitting it on.

Does this require a new player?

[QUOTE=Warship;46875495]The HD term has always pissed me off. "High" doesn't mean shit.[/QUOTE] au contraire