I Want to Burn 4K UHD BluRays on PC and Play Them on a 4K BluRay Player. Does it Work?
- Thread starter jagermain
- Start date
Solution
To play them you will need:
The requirements are...
1. Windows 10 or above
2. Intel SGX Technology (CPU/Main Board)
3. Intel Management Engine Software
4. 6 GB System Memory (Ram)
5. HEVC-10bit/AVC Codec (GPU)
6. HDCP 2.2 (GPU/Display)
7. Advanced Protected Audio/Video Path (GPU)
8. UHD-BD Optical Disc Drive
9. Windows Media Player 9 or Above
Recommended Requirements (Optional)
10. HDR - High Dynamic Range (GPU/Display)
11. PowerDVD 17 Ultra (This is what I have) or Above
The requirements are...
1. Windows 10 or above
2. Intel SGX Technology (CPU/Main Board)
3. Intel Management Engine Software
4. 6 GB System Memory (Ram)
5. HEVC-10bit/AVC Codec (GPU)
6. HDCP 2.2 (GPU/Display)
7. Advanced Protected Audio/Video Path (GPU)
8. UHD-BD Optical Disc Drive
9. Windows Media Player 9 or Above
Recommended Requirements (Optional)
10. HDR - High Dynamic Range (GPU/Display)
11. PowerDVD 17 Ultra (This is what I have) or Above
King Dranzer
Splendid
- Aug 16, 2016
- 5,122
- 330
- 29,140
It works but not all bluray writers support BDXL format. Choosing one which supports BDXL format is important. ASUS BW-16D1HT is one that supports. Get that Blu-ray writer and SONY BDXL disc or Verbatim BDXL M disc and you can burn them and play on 4K bluray player.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
First of all, if you are using any copyrighted movies you won't get very far. Even if you circumvent the protection to be able to RIP the content you can't play most on modern BluRay players (2013+) as they'll implement Cinavia audio protection which keeps MUTING the audio.
(not sure how many movies do this, but probably most by now. if the movie has Cinavia it's POSSIBLE to watch on PC but not on a modern BluRay player)
Compressing the audio doesn't fix the issue either.
I'm not sure what else you could be referring to.
*Now, the COST of these discs is prohibitive anyway so you might as well just buy the movies.
Also, the diminishing BENEFIT of video means that you can easily compress high quality video anyway (I'll assume it's legally obtained) and easily fit it on a normal BluRay, dual-layer disc that may cost about $2 in bulk.
4K BluRay players support H265 (HEVC). I did a little experiment and took my Avatar BluRay (1080p, not 4K) and compressed it down to the point where I can start to tell in some scenes that it's not BluRay. I sat about 1.6x the diagonal of my high-res monitor.
(Yes, it was much more obvious sitting even closer but you wouldn't do that. just trying to find the low-point. I'd probably go 2x higher file size to be safe)
Size?
1GB for two hours. Yes.
So that's basically the low-end for "almost" BluRay quality. Now, 4K doesn't need 4x the size. Again, diminishing returns. It's hard to tell the difference. I'll give it at MOST about 2x (including HDR content).
So that puts the minimum for 4K (HEVC) quality content at about 1GB per hour, or 2GB for a 2-hour movie. (UPDATE: add DTS-HD or whatever audio you want on top of that but it's not going to change the type of DISC you burn to. Adds 1GB or so for highest?)
You have something like 44GB on a $2, normal BluRay disc. There's absolutely no need to get 100GB discs unless you want a straight copy (if you even can) without compressing.
*I really wonder who will bother making 100GB discs for content though for 4K machines. Again, they support HEVC/H.265 so it makes much more sense to simply compress the data with that encoder.
(FYI, when I compressed my BluRay collection the most I ever needed with H.264, not H.265 which is about half, was 4GB per hour. Sitting 1:1 to my high-res monitor I can't tell the difference between original movies and 8GB movies that I compressed myself. Or 4GB for a two-hour movie using HEVC though I don't do that since it doesn't work on my other devices)
UPDATE:
I revisited my HEVC compression (based on 10 minutes). I calculated the total size it would be which is about 1.4GB for a 2h40minute movie.
Remember, that's "almost" BluRay quality as I discussed above. Now, let's round that to 2GB and then 2x more for 4K HDR. That's plenty if compressed properly to get to the maximum (arguably) that a human can see sitting close to a good 4K HDTV. L
Add another 2GB more for super good audio (I compressed it though it sounded great to me) and we're looking at roughly 6GB needed for a 2h40min, HEVC, 4K movie.
Even if you argue that's not enough due to certain types of compression errors we're still talking about 6GB size so even 25GB (22.3GB or so usable) is plenty for a movie.
(not sure how many movies do this, but probably most by now. if the movie has Cinavia it's POSSIBLE to watch on PC but not on a modern BluRay player)
Compressing the audio doesn't fix the issue either.
I'm not sure what else you could be referring to.
*Now, the COST of these discs is prohibitive anyway so you might as well just buy the movies.
Also, the diminishing BENEFIT of video means that you can easily compress high quality video anyway (I'll assume it's legally obtained) and easily fit it on a normal BluRay, dual-layer disc that may cost about $2 in bulk.
4K BluRay players support H265 (HEVC). I did a little experiment and took my Avatar BluRay (1080p, not 4K) and compressed it down to the point where I can start to tell in some scenes that it's not BluRay. I sat about 1.6x the diagonal of my high-res monitor.
(Yes, it was much more obvious sitting even closer but you wouldn't do that. just trying to find the low-point. I'd probably go 2x higher file size to be safe)
Size?
1GB for two hours. Yes.
So that's basically the low-end for "almost" BluRay quality. Now, 4K doesn't need 4x the size. Again, diminishing returns. It's hard to tell the difference. I'll give it at MOST about 2x (including HDR content).
So that puts the minimum for 4K (HEVC) quality content at about 1GB per hour, or 2GB for a 2-hour movie. (UPDATE: add DTS-HD or whatever audio you want on top of that but it's not going to change the type of DISC you burn to. Adds 1GB or so for highest?)
You have something like 44GB on a $2, normal BluRay disc. There's absolutely no need to get 100GB discs unless you want a straight copy (if you even can) without compressing.
*I really wonder who will bother making 100GB discs for content though for 4K machines. Again, they support HEVC/H.265 so it makes much more sense to simply compress the data with that encoder.
(FYI, when I compressed my BluRay collection the most I ever needed with H.264, not H.265 which is about half, was 4GB per hour. Sitting 1:1 to my high-res monitor I can't tell the difference between original movies and 8GB movies that I compressed myself. Or 4GB for a two-hour movie using HEVC though I don't do that since it doesn't work on my other devices)
UPDATE:
I revisited my HEVC compression (based on 10 minutes). I calculated the total size it would be which is about 1.4GB for a 2h40minute movie.
Remember, that's "almost" BluRay quality as I discussed above. Now, let's round that to 2GB and then 2x more for 4K HDR. That's plenty if compressed properly to get to the maximum (arguably) that a human can see sitting close to a good 4K HDTV. L
Add another 2GB more for super good audio (I compressed it though it sounded great to me) and we're looking at roughly 6GB needed for a 2h40min, HEVC, 4K movie.
Even if you argue that's not enough due to certain types of compression errors we're still talking about 6GB size so even 25GB (22.3GB or so usable) is plenty for a movie.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
(I used Handbrake BTW. Small learning curve. I ripped my own movies with MAKEMKV first to create a single file with chapters, then dragged into Handbrake.
I tried OTHER programs but found all to be confusing or just wouldn't do what I wanted. The level of control with Handbrake is amazing, and once you understand it, it's simple. )
I tried OTHER programs but found all to be confusing or just wouldn't do what I wanted. The level of control with Handbrake is amazing, and once you understand it, it's simple. )
King Dranzer
Splendid
- Aug 16, 2016
- 5,122
- 330
- 29,140
Not sure if the question is answered, but for OP's original question of whether or not BDXL (100GB Quad layer discs) are UHD Blu-rays, the simple answer is:
No, it's not.
Blu-Ray and UHD Blu-ray are not the same format, the former is 25GB per layer, the latter is approx 33GB per layer, so the latter is completely incompatible with the former, so you will need a BR drive that specifically supports UHD Blu-ray for it.
I have NO idea why they STILL call it blu-ray, since it's an entirely different format, and the fact they are incompatible.
No, it's not.
Blu-Ray and UHD Blu-ray are not the same format, the former is 25GB per layer, the latter is approx 33GB per layer, so the latter is completely incompatible with the former, so you will need a BR drive that specifically supports UHD Blu-ray for it.
I have NO idea why they STILL call it blu-ray, since it's an entirely different format, and the fact they are incompatible.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
4K BluRay players still support regular BluRay and DVD. I think calling it a new format would be far too confusing. As long as you are aware that 4K BD discs need to be played on 4K BluRay players that's pretty much all you need to know.
I suspect many of the 4K movies will come on normal 50GB (dual-layer) BD discs. They are hardware compatible with existing BluRay players but wouldn't work since there's no support for 4K (even if they used H264 which they likely will not. they'll use H265/HEVC).
What's sort of funny is that normal BluRay players have plenty of space, even if you use H264 for 4K. As I said I've done actual compression tests so have real numbers.
If they had built 4K support into BluRay in the beginning we wouldn't need new machines, and by that I mean just up to 50GB and not BDXL (though obviously that would have needed better chipsets etc and there was an HD-DVD competition so it wasn't realistic to do so).
So I get the fact that manufacturers do stupid things, but like it was said before 25GB per layer 4 layer discs should in theory support 4K, all we are talking about is space requirements. Encoding and De-Coding should be as simple as a firmware update to the optical drive.
Now if they went to 33GB per layer , which they may have, that is the dumbest thing I have heard of. I mean, for instance; Going from 128gb optical disc's to 1TB optical disc's that would make sense, but 25GB to 33GB?
What are they thinking. Flat out dumb if they did that when they already have the space on the 25GB/ layer discs.
Why do people think the PlayStations were so popular..... find a disc that is not compatible because of some new format, do a software or firmware update and your done. You don't have to buy a new drive.
Now if they went to 33GB per layer , which they may have, that is the dumbest thing I have heard of. I mean, for instance; Going from 128gb optical disc's to 1TB optical disc's that would make sense, but 25GB to 33GB?
What are they thinking. Flat out dumb if they did that when they already have the space on the 25GB/ layer discs.
Why do people think the PlayStations were so popular..... find a disc that is not compatible because of some new format, do a software or firmware update and your done. You don't have to buy a new drive.
got it ... verbatim 100gb disc - asus bd16d1ht ... burn it (imgburn 2.5.7.0) ... and no results ... i can play it on pc, make an iso and backup to hard drive ... but xbox one s and sony 4k player dont work ... the structure of folders its the same a uhd disc 80gb .. but i have no idea why dont work
otherwise another 40gb uhd disc (burn on a dual layer 50gb verbatim ) works fine on pc , xbox and uhd player .... same structure . burning with img burn 2.5.7.0 anyone with same problem .. anyone solved this problem ???
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question ARRGGGH!!!! Looking for help finding a replacement screw.
- Started by Franknj229
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram