4K Blu-ray playback on Mac?

[BerryCarol]

It's said that 4K Blu-ray is arriving in 2015 Spring, so is that possible to play directly on Mac?

 

[itareanlnotani]

You'll need a Mac Pro Desktop (with a decent 4k supported graphics card) / Trashcan Mac Pro or Macbook Pro Retina to playback 4k.
If its playing back over DP connection you can get 60hz, if over HDMI 30hz (30 frames a second).

HDMI2.0 supports 60hz @ 4k, but there still appear to be a dearth of sets or graphics cards that have chipsets that support it.

Mac's don't have blueray players either, so you'll need a usb3 or similar connectivity 4k bluetooth player.

Probably better off playing h.265 4k rips to be honest.

 

[charlieharper]

My little Macbook Pro 13" plays 4k videos h.264 (mp4) format fine, without any issues. Looks beautiful on the retina display!

 

[SauRoNZA]

My little Macbook Pro 13" plays 4k videos h.264 (mp4) format fine, without any issues. Looks beautiful on the retina display!

Which does seem a little pointless on a 13-inch.

You need a really large display to really justify 4k in the first place. (For video)

 

[Space_Chief]

Which does seem a little pointless on a 13-inch.

You need a really large display to really justify 4k in the first place. (For video)

Unless you want to zoom in on various particular scenes.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Unless you want to zoom in on various particular scenes.

In which case I would assume you aren't a consumer but someone in the industry.

So again not really relevant.

 

[Space_Chief]

In which case I would assume you aren't a consumer but someone in the industry.

So again not really relevant.

I can imagine ordinary film buffs, wildlife/nature and even perverted porn/erotica viewers wanting to zoom in on various scenes.

 

[itareanlnotani]

My little Macbook Pro 13" plays 4k videos h.264 (mp4) format fine, without any issues. Looks beautiful on the retina display!

Actually thats not 4k. You have a 2560x1600 screen.
4k is 3840 x 2160.

I have a few 4k screens, and over HDMI 1.4 its acceptable (30fps/hz). Still need to splurge and buy me a DP based 4k screen, so I can get proper fps..

4k is worth it - clearer for movies etc, although there is a lack of content still.
For computer use, its awesome - more screen space, which is always needed.

 

[creeper]

iMac Retina (new model) should be able to do this.

 

[sn3rd]

Actually thats not 4k. You have a 2560x1600 screen.
4k is 3840 x 2160.

I have a few 4k screens, and over HDMI 1.4 its acceptable (30fps/hz). Still need to splurge and buy me a DP based 4k screen, so I can get proper fps..

4k is worth it - clearer for movies etc, although there is a lack of content still.
For computer use, its awesome - more screen space, which is always needed.

If we want to be pedantic (of course we want to be pedantic!), 4k is actually 4096x2160; UHD is 3840x2160

 

[itareanlnotani]

Pedantic moi would like to point out that I'm not incorrect, and neither are you.

UHD is generally known as 4k. In fact, if one talks about 4k in a consumer grade device, its going to be 3840x2160.
Hence all the advertising as "4k sets".

UHD hasn't caught on as a naming mechanism, but 4k has. So, pretty much all UHD tv's are referred to as 4k tv's.
As for why that particular resolution?
Mostly I suspect due to Broadcast tv being 1.78:1 aspect ratio, and 4096 x 2160 would be 1.9:1
3840x2160 keeps it at 1.78:1.


4096 x 2160 is also 4k, but not tv display resolution "4k". In the video industry, 4k is 4096 x 2160 (or higher), as there are still a few competing resolutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

4K has become the common name for ultra high definition television (UHDTV), although its resolution is only 3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio), which is lower than the 4K industry standard of 4096 x 2160 (at a 19:10 or 1.9:1 aspect ratio).

 

[SauRoNZA]

Either way you are both right and wrong in that he stated he is playing 4K video just fine.

He didn't say he is playing 4K video at a 1:1 pixel ratio on his screen.



Pedantic moi and all that.

 

[Space_Chief]

4K is overhyped. 720p honestly is good enough. But extra detail can be useful sure, just mostly for eye candy stuff.

But hardware and programme producers need this. They need to repackage the same stuff and sell it to people again. If you have the DVD, now buy the bluray and now you can stream 4K or even buy 4K bluray. Because more pixels and supposedly better colour gamut but not on current gen 4K TVs.

 

[Space_Chief]

A little off topic. I had to install Kodi to play back an H.265 1080p video with Opus encoded 5.1 audio. VLC even though it says it can play such would not touch it. MplayerX also wouldn't touch it, neither would QT with Perian. MacGo Bluray player and the Wondershare media player also bombed out. On the PC MPC would play it back. It seems that Kodi is the only thing on a Mac which can play back such files.

 

[itareanlnotani]

There are a few players that support h.265 on Mac, you do need codecs installed though for some.
Perian is pretty obsolete these days.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend HEVC (h.265) playback on a non-hardware solution, as the cpu usage can be excessive.
My 4k (3840 x 2160) tv's for example have h.265 decoding built into the SoC so are more suitable for playing stuff.
That does leave me stuck with android based players though on the tv itself (usually I go with Plex).
That said, there still isn't much h.265 or 4k content to play unless you roll your own.

Players - suggest

http://www.libde265.org/blog/2014/04/02/hevc-4k-ultra-hd-media-player-vlc-for-mac-os-x/

(has an h.265 plugin for vlc).


Plex can do h.265 too, although its still a bit bleeding edge flaky. I have a thread or three in the plex forums about that..

 

[Space_Chief]

There are a few players that support h.265 on Mac, you do need codecs installed though for some.
Perian is pretty obsolete these days.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend HEVC (h.265) playback on a non-hardware solution, as the cpu usage can be excessive.
My 4k (3840 x 2160) tv's for example have h.265 decoding built into the SoC so are more suitable for playing stuff.
That does leave me stuck with android based players though on the tv itself (usually I go with Plex).
That said, there still isn't much h.265 or 4k content to play unless you roll your own.

Players - suggest

http://www.libde265.org/blog/2014/04/02/hevc-4k-ultra-hd-media-player-vlc-for-mac-os-x/

(has an h.265 plugin for vlc).


Plex can do h.265 too, although its still a bit bleeding edge flaky. I have a thread or three in the plex forums about that..

Neither h.265 nor Opus audio decoding worked with the latest VLC (2.0.4). I had to use Kodi, which is not a bad program but runs at full screen.

Playback of 1080p on my 2.3 GHz i7 rMBP 15 is very good. It uses h/w acceleration, I guess via the Nvida GT650M.

Edit: I just saw my version - is not the latest - will try to update and see.

OK 2.1.5 works on the video. No Opus audio support though. Kodi beats VLC as it appears to play more formats out of the box.

No suitable decoder module
VLC does not support the audio or video format "undf". Unfortunately there is no way for you to fix this.

 

[Maverick Jester]

4K is overhyped. 720p honestly is good enough.

In part I agree, but it really depends on usage and viewing distance.

 

[Space_Chief]

In part I agree, but it really depends on usage and viewing distance.

Yeah for eye candy and large screens - sure.

 

[genetic]

4096 x 2160 is also 4k, but not tv display resolution "4k". In the video industry, 4k is 4096 x 2160 (or higher), as there are still a few competing resolutions.

4096x2160 is cinema 4k while UHD 3840x2160 is consumer 4k.

They aren't competing formats, just different aspect ratios.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Good thing I never mentioned that at all, or did I...

Mostly I suspect due to Broadcast tv being 1.78:1 aspect ratio, and 4096 x 2160 would be 1.9:1
3840x2160 keeps it at 1.78:1.