Oppo's First UHD Blu-Ray Player, Coming Soon

[laminutederire]

2 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

Yup more then bitrate there is also the Codec used, hence why I have mentioned the 10 bit main color and h.265 (if you had bothered to not just skip to the end and start trolling). Also good for you on having space for multiple drives of high capacity, not everyone has or wants that, i'm going for a super clean desktop build and will be using strictly the m.2 ssd for the files pertinent to that system and what digital media I have is being aggregated to my external drive that is QUICKLY running out of room, I don't want to have to go out and spend several hundred dollars to buy yet another hard drive just for movies, when I might only buy a few a year, also I have no intention of buying into the UHD scene just yet, i'll wait for players and discs to drop in costs just like DVD and Bluray did, but as it stands now I don't have the disc capacity to hold multiple movies at 50GB + and all the lower bitrate 4k content like you see in streaming artifacts bad on low light and other scenes.

 

But seriously if you don;t want it then WHY ARE YOU HERE???? Is it just to troll people that do like it?

People call you fanboy because you accuse us of trolling because we didn't like you imposing your point of view.

So? How is that our fault that you only want to have a m.2 ssd? You make your choice, we make ours, but just don't say yours is better than ours because it isn't. Both have their pitfalls, but yours isn't better, it's equivalent.

(Especially people on this forum don't like when arguments are thrown our without proper justifications, which you were doing at the very beginning)

[Daniel644]

5 minutes ago, Monte_Carlo said:

500 dollars is a bit much for a one trick device.  Xbox One S still seems to be the better value since it does 4K blu-rays, and manages to do some gaming on the side.  

 

Anyway... due to my current situation of living in a tiny apartment, digital downloads do hold a certain attraction to me.  I'd gladly pay up for a digital storage option if it means saving in terms of space otherwise taken up by shelves.  Biggest fear remains catastrophic data loss.  NAS and off site back ups are where it begins to get noticeably expensive.  

 

While digital prices aren't cheap, I need to point out... harddrives can be cheaper than nice shelves... unless you keep your disks around on the ground...  And since we're talking about UHD content and playback... If you can't afford ~50 dollars of something... maybe time to cut back on some costs? 

I never said 500 wasn't crazy money, personally I had sorta had my eye on the One S for it's 4k drive, but in seeing this I ending up reading that the One S lacks the audio Bitstreaming required for Dolby Atmos (i'm working to build an "ultimate entertainment center" over the next year or so after I finish my house remodel) so i've decided to wait until the UHD price point drops.

[Daniel644]

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

People call you fanboy because you accuse us of trolling because we didn't like you imposing your point of view.

So? How is that our fault that you only want to have a m.2 ssd? You make your choice, we make ours, but just don't say yours is better than ours because it isn't. Both have their pitfalls, but yours isn't better, it's equivalent.

(Especially people on this forum don't like when arguments are thrown our without proper justifications, which you were doing at the very beginning)

YOU came into a thread about a UHD Player when you want NOTHING to do with physical media just to carry on an argument, that is the shear definition of trolling. My comments are based on FACT yours on OPINION,

 

FACT:

1. Streaming or Downloading 4k content requires TONS of bandwidth, that not everyone has access to

2. Downloading requires MASSIVE amounts of hard drive storage (at current about 10-12 movies per Terabyte of storage), relatively speaking compared to the 4-9 GB per movie for uncompressed DVD rips this is MASSIVELY more data.

 

OPINION:

 

1. Once above a certain bitrate there is no perceivable difference (and I'm by no means saying I disagree with this statement)

 

Point is I want what I want, I am in no way saying you can't do what you want, but you seam hell bent on telling me what I should do. So AGAIN, MOVE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I've got to go to bed now and am DONE dealing with your crap.

[ThreePinkApples]

8 hours ago, dexxterlab97 said:

As if we gonna go buy disc that can be scraped and scratched later on. Plus digital downloads is cheaper always than physical disc

Higher quality through much higher bitrate, and better audio formats (with higher bitrates too). Also, you don't get HDR from digital downloads yet, just through streaming services and UHD Blu-ray, and the selection of 4K HDR movies are much bigger on UHD Blu-ray than on streaming. 

When ripping is possible, you don't have to worry about the discs getting scratched
The discs doesn't scratch that easily either, so you would have to handle them bad, or let them near children (which is kinda bad handling), for them to take any damage. 

[alpenwasser]

Jesus, people take this stuff so seriously, one might think it actually matters. 

 

Seriously, calm the fuck down folks. No reason to get personal. You want to argue the cons and pros of optical disks vs. HDDs, fine, but either do it like civilized people, or don't do it at all.

[michaelocarroll007]

11 hours ago, Daniel644 said:

well unless the Digital Downloads are 60+ GB files (which would QUICKLY fill up most hard drives) encoded in full 10bit h.265 HEVC (anything less would be dropping the bitrate of the UHD standard) and you have a PC powerful enough to handle decoding that file, since something of that bitrate typically needs a Hardware Decoder which is coming in KabyLake CPU's to play smoothly then your digital Download still won't be as good as Disc, plus (while not me) MANY people have DATA CAPS on there internet and downloading MASSIVE files like that would quickly eat there bandwidth up, Disc is ALWAYS BETTER! Streaming just tends to be more convenient.

I Wish there was a option to get 60gb 4k  Movies Cause i have no interest in getting a uhd player and then getting discs, Seems like they could offer both options. I dont have the Fastest internet but 50Mbps overnight will get it done and i dont have data caps in NY USA .  video games  hit 50gb in size all the time plus many 5gb updates ect. when i play on my xbox and ps  Os & Game updates frequently so i dont see movies as much different 

 

Seems like they could also do something like starting the movie at 30% downloaded like a buffer while a fast internet connection can download the rest.

 

overall just seems like torrents of 4k blu rays might be my only hope to decent 4k files if they happen at all. 

[Daiyus]

I wouldn't consider myself poor by any stretch of the imagination; I can afford a gaming PC which is more than a lot of people can, however the cost of HDD storage to hold my entire DVD/BD movie library would be astronomical. If I replaced it all with UHD versions it'd be stupidly more so. I also have pretty decent internet but UHD streaming just wouldn't be realistic, and I certainly couldn't do multiple streams at once (my wife likes to watch on demand TV on the laptop while I watch my movies she's not interested in). 

 

There will always be a place for physical media, anyone with a half decent movie/music collection who cares about quality will see that. 

[escape093]

It would take me a full 24 hours straight to download a 60 GB movie. Discs won't be going away for a while, yet.

[TheKDub]

19 hours ago, dexxterlab97 said:

As if we gonna go buy disc that can be scraped and scratched later on. Plus digital downloads is cheaper always than physical disc

 

Keep in mind not everyone has the internet available to stream videos, or download them in a reasonable amount of time.

And some people just prefer physical media over digital media.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Daiyus said:

I wouldn't consider myself poor by any stretch of the imagination; I can afford a gaming PC which is more than a lot of people can, however the cost of HDD storage to hold my entire DVD/BD movie library would be astronomical. If I replaced it all with UHD versions it'd be stupidly more so. I also have pretty decent internet but UHD streaming just wouldn't be realistic, and I certainly couldn't do multiple streams at once (my wife likes to watch on demand TV on the laptop while I watch my movies she's not interested in). 

 

There will always be a place for physical media, anyone with a half decent movie/music collection who cares about quality will see that. 

I just care about data rot - Blu-Ray Discs (if made archival-grade) would be an elegant solution to such problems.

[bobhays]

On 9/21/2016 at 6:28 PM, Daniel644 said:

well unless the Digital Downloads are 60+ GB files (which would QUICKLY fill up most hard drives) encoded in full 10bit h.265 HEVC (anything less would be dropping the bitrate of the UHD standard) and you have a PC powerful enough to handle decoding that file, since something of that bitrate typically needs a Hardware Decoder which is coming in KabyLake CPU's to play smoothly then your digital Download still won't be as good as Disc, plus (while not me) MANY people have DATA CAPS on there internet and downloading MASSIVE files like that would quickly eat there bandwidth up, Disc is ALWAYS BETTER! Streaming just tends to be more convenient.

Umm... no. just no. Any decent computer can decode h.265 with software decode. Also the density of hard drives is much higher than discs. It will take you 50 discs to match a single 3tb drive (which are only like $90 anyways). Disc is not always better, period. It's the same if you can download it because data is data. The issue with streaming is internet bandwidth and server load, but assuming there is a service providing it and you have the bandwidth, it's still the same.

 

In short, download = disc if you get the same copy.

[bobhays]

23 hours ago, TheKDub said:

 

Keep in mind not everyone has the internet available to stream videos, or download them in a reasonable amount of time.

And some people just prefer physical media over digital media.

Discs are still digital media. And downloading onto a hdd would be physical by your definition. Also if the download is made cheaper you can easily buy a HDD for the money you save. 3TB drive costs 90 dollars. Holds 50 blu-rays comes out to less than $2 a movie. And normal blu-rays are only 25GB not 50GB so thats only $1 a movie.

 

The only time where discs are better is when you don't have internet speed to download overnight.

[Daniel644]

24 minutes ago, bobhays said:

Umm... no. just no. Any decent computer can decode h.265 with software decode. Also the density of hard drives is much higher than discs. It will take you 50 discs to match a single 3tb drive (which are only like $90 anyways). Disc is not always better, period. It's the same if you can download it because data is data. The issue with streaming is internet bandwidth and server load, but assuming there is a service providing it and you have the bandwidth, it's still the same.

 

In short, download = disc if you get the same copy.

NO JUST NO, you do understand there is a difference in software decoding between a h.265 running at a bitrate of 1 or 2 megabits (like most torrents run at) and one running at 100 megabits, try taking one of those ultra high bitrate files and SKIP around, here do this, download MakeMKV and rip a bluray down then play the uncompressed bluray and look at the lag just moving around from scene to scene, now DOUBLE that difficulty and you might be getting close to the performance of a software based decoding of a high birate 4k h.265, sure the low birate stuff plays fine on most machines but I'm talking like 30 times the bitrate here of those torrents you got. you need like an i7 to play those software decoded high bitrate files, when we get a hardware decoder with the next gen an i3 will play it. Also I could give a damn about data density i'll just build more shelves, better then having to remember which hard drive I put a movie on.

[Deletist_Jerk]

I don't know why people think Xbox One S is the best 4K Blu-ray player. It only has a support for HDR10, which is the most basic spec in any 4K player! Of course it's one of the cheapest options! 

 

If you already have a great audio setup, or a TV with Dolby Visions, getting a Xbox One S is the worst thing you could do for a home theater!

 

With the Oppo, we're at least getting both HDR10 and Dolby Vision, most likely Atoms and maybe DTS X. It is worth the extra $200 over the Xbox One S.  

[bobhays]

5 hours ago, Daniel644 said:

NO JUST NO, you do understand there is a difference in software decoding between a h.265 running at a bitrate of 1 or 2 megabits (like most torrents run at) and one running at 100 megabits, try taking one of those ultra high bitrate files and SKIP around, here do this, download MakeMKV and rip a bluray down then play the uncompressed bluray and look at the lag just moving around from scene to scene, now DOUBLE that difficulty and you might be getting close to the performance of a software based decoding of a high birate 4k h.265, sure the low birate stuff plays fine on most machines but I'm talking like 30 times the bitrate here of those torrents you got. you need like an i7 to play those software decoded high bitrate files, when we get a hardware decoder with the next gen an i3 will play it. Also I could give a damn about data density i'll just build more shelves, better then having to remember which hard drive I put a movie on.

I actually do rip blu rays and I have 0 trouble skipping around, also current gen GPU's support HW decode. Of course it would be great when it's included in the integrated graphics but I mean there is no issue right now, it'll just be cheaper in the future. Also unless you literally have bookshelves filled with movies you can just put them all in your computer/HTPC or w.e. If you do have bookshelves filled with movies then maybe its time to think about a mini server?

 

That being said another advantage of discs is you can take it to anyone's place and just watch it, but of course if it was on an external HDD or something you could do that as well. Also it's not that hard to just write down what movies are on what HDD, literally just takes a page. It's actually faster to read names off the page then to look at the whole library of movies then.

[RexinOridle]

[AshleyAshes]

6 hours ago, Daniel644 said:

NO JUST NO, you do understand there is a difference in software decoding between a h.265 running at a bitrate of 1 or 2 megabits (like most torrents run at) and one running at 100 megabits, try taking one of those ultra high bitrate files and SKIP around, here do this, download MakeMKV and rip a bluray down then play the uncompressed bluray and look at the lag just moving around from scene to scene

'Sup.

 

Disclaimer: The clip was only 30s long, the 100% spikes you see are when the clip starts playing over again.  Also, keep in mind that this is using the open source FFMPEG project for decoding which will likely see improvement as the years and development continues as we saw with FFMPEGs h.264 performance.

 

 

 

 

 

[Daniel644]

6 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

'Sup.

 

Disclaimer: The clip was only 30s long, the 100% spikes you see are when the clip starts playing over again.  Also, keep in mind that this is using the open source FFMPEG project for decoding which will likely see improvement as the years and development continues as we saw with FFMPEGs h.264 performance.

 

 

 

 

 

and you have an i7 with 32GB of ram, thats hardly the case for the average user, which was my point. once Kaby Lake is out you won't need HIGH END hardware to do it.

[AshleyAshes]

Ahem, i7 Extreme, thank you very much.  Though only 50% or so of it's resources are being used.  It's also three generations old.  And, let's be honest, the vast majority of that 32GB of RAM isn't being used, as you can see and only a tiny bit of it is being.

 

Also, a lot of those UHD BDs, particularly of RECENT movies, aren't really in 4K.  You're buying upscale.  I actually WORK in in the film industry, on major AAA motion pictures, and as I crawl through DPX and EXR sequences using 8-25mb per FRAME, I gotta tell you... they're 2K  Movies I've worked on, the entire workflow at 2K, are going on to UHD BD as '4K'.  I can't tell you which I've worked on in 2K but seen released on UHD BD because I'll lose my job, but yeah, there actually is VERY little -real- 4K content out there, yes, even being projected on the silver screen, you're getting something marginally better than 1080p.  Some stuff is 4K, sure, most of it's FILMED at 4K, but the post production work flow is 2K for the VAST majority of film still.

[Daniel644]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

Ahem, i7 Extreme, thank you very much.  Though only 50% or so of it's resources are being used.  It's also three generations old.  And, let's be honest, the vast majority of that 32GB of RAM isn't being used, as you can see and only a tiny bit of it is being.

 

Also, a lot of those UHD BDs, particularly of RECENT movies, aren't really in 4K.  You're buying upscale.  I actually WORK in in the film industry, on major AAA motion pictures, and as I crawl through DPX and EXR sequences using 8-25mb per FRAME, I gotta tell you... they're 2K  Movies I've worked on, the entire workflow at 2K, are going on to UHD BD as '4K'.  I can't tell you which I've worked on in 2K but seen released on UHD BD because I'll lose my job, but yeah, there actually is VERY little -real- 4K content out there, yes, even being projected on the silver screen, you're getting something marginally better than 1080p.  Some stuff is 4K, sure, most of it's FILMED at 4K, but the post production work flow is 2K for the VAST majority of film still.

i'm aware of that, there are sites online that tell you which are TRUE 4k and which where done at 2k then upscaled to 4k and all the other stuff.

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

i'm aware of that, there are sites online that tell you which are TRUE 4k and which where done at 2k then upscaled to 4k and all the other stuff.

*checks out realorfake4k.com, filters for 'Real 4K', quickly finds two listings for movies she worked on in 2K*

 

...Yuh huh...

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

*checks out realorfake4k.com, filters for 'Real 4K', quickly finds two listings for movies she worked on in 2K*

 

...Yuh huh...

I just want to consoles to not hold gaming behind because they can't handle 4K games natively XD.  Or run 4K Blu-Rays, either (PS4 PRO, I'm looking at you).

[OptimisticRealist]

I f-ing hate oppo, my dad put it in the family and now games run with so much input lag that its unplayable >:(((

[Kimmers]

Still in awe that the PS4 Pro doesn't play 4K blu-rays. I mean, I'll never use it since I'm fine with stream quality but for those with really nice TVs having that glorious high bitrate 4K bluray is surely amazing.

 

 

[VagabondWraith]

6 hours ago, Kimmers said:

Still in awe that the PS4 Pro doesn't play 4K blu-rays. I mean, I'll never use it since I'm fine with stream quality but for those with really nice TVs having that glorious high bitrate 4K bluray is surely amazing.

 

 

Stupid decision by Sony. They pioneered bluray on PS3 before anybody knew what it was. 4K streaming will never ever match the quality of 4K discs. There's no point to 4K if it's half-assed like streaming is.