4K 3D Movies Not Included in Ultra HD Blu-ray Format

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) has apparently sounded the death knell for 3D movies, according to a leaked PowerPoint slide that purports to show the near-finalised specifications for its next-generation Ultra HD Blu-ray format.

Ultra HD Blu-ray

According to the slide, which was posted by Japanese tech site AV Watch, the soon-to-be-released Ultra HD Blu-ray format ensures that future media will be able to handle higher resolution content of up to 3840×2160, plus higher frame rates of up to 60fps. In addition it will also support a much wider colour gamut than the current Blu-Ray disc format, up to Rec.2020 or BT2020 colour space, 10-bit colour depth, and a peak video bit-rate of 100Mbps.

While it’s great news for anyone who’s itching to get their hands on native 4K content to watch, the proposed specs won’t please everyone – because there seems to be no mention whatsoever of 3D in ultra high-definition (UHD) resolution.

Admittedly 3D TV has proven itself to be a bit of a lame duck in the living room – it’s not as if there’s legions of fans out there screaming for it, but this piece of news will further aggravate the few aficionados of stereoscopic films out there. The implication is that viewers will be forced to choose between watching their movies at either 4K in 2D, or regular full HD resolution in 3D, despite the fact that HDMI 2.0 has more than enough bandwidth to support 3-D at 4K Ultra HD resolution.

That may be so, but given the overall disappointing reception 3D has had among consumers, it’s hardly surprising. The overall consensus with most home viewers is that 3D just doesn’t quite cut the mustard, mainly because no one enjoys wearing those ridiculous goggles while sitting on the couch. In other words, movie makers just can’t be bothered persevering with something that few people like, which means the current 1080p frame-packed 3D Blu-rays will be the highest resolution for whatever handful of 3D fans left…

Source: AV Watch Japan

46 comments

  1. Noticed the 10 bit applies for standard dynamic range. Hopefully, we’ll get 12 bit for HDR.

  2. 4:2:0 only !

  3. I was hoping for UHD disks of The Hobbit and Avatar sequels in 48fps 3D – that would be a game changer! Hopefully some other format will support it, because UHD Blu-ray sounds like it’s going to be a big disappointment.

    The only reason 4K had my interest was its ability to deliver better passive 3D, but I might just skip this phase and stick with my 1080p TV until something worth upgrading to comes out – The way I see it, most movies are in 2K anyway, so why would I pay so much for a digitally “enhanced” image?

    Full HD is much closer to the intended image, albeit with a lower colour gamut. There are very few native 4K movies out there. Even films (like The Hobbit) that advertised themselves as 4K were actually digitally graded and finished in 2K. So all the UHD TVs are doing is making up digital information and sharpening in an attempt to make the image look more detailed than it’s intended to be.

  4. @AndyB: HDR is limited to 10-bit too, according to the same slide.

    @John: I know! Not very encouraging, right?

    Warmest regards
    Vincent

  5. @Benny: 48fps movies can be encoded inside 60fps. Seems weird they didn’t just make 48fps native a choice though!

  6. From what I’ve heard, it wouldn’t cost anything to include 4k 3D. Heck, I would sure like to be able to see The Hobbit and upcoming Avatar movies in HFR, 3D and with Atmos sound. Well, hopefully these movies will be released in HFR and one of the object based decoded systems.

  7. Oh, I meant to add that the “ridiculous goggles” line wasn’t even necessary as the glasses are no where near goggles territory and aren’t ridiculous. That makes you look like a hater from birth which I’m assuming you are.

  8. In 2/3 years 4K UHD 3D format will be anounced so we buy new TVs again.

  9. This article just annoys me with its anti-3D bias.

    What has been killing 3D is all the negative articles from sites like this that constantly put it down, Hollywood movies have also shown a complete lack of ambition when it comes to using 3D, too many depth only productions and not enough fun use of 3D, they fail to use pop out correctly in too many films and people who genuinely enjoy 3D want depth AND popout, that’s positive and negative parallax.

    For all you naysayers i suggest you go watch Thunder and the House Of Magic or A Turtles Tale or a great live action title like The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet and then tell me how 3D “sucks”.

    Try building up the format instead of constantly knocking it, trust me when i say the Avatar sequels in 2017 will build new interest in the format and it would be short sighted of them to not have a 4K 3D blu ray format, those movies are being shot at 60fps HDR.

    In the meantime there will be some great titles coming out this year and next, some film classics like Kiss Me Kate will be released.

    As for 4K, in practice it sounds great but for the film fan they are going to need to get those projector prices down even more and i still think studio’s will not support it, if they do support it they will over price the product and since many people are still happy with DVD and Blu ray then i think it will kill off 4K, indeed it’s the ridiculous price of some 3D titles that have damaged that format, not the glasses people have to wear.

  10. @foxymulder, I’m tired of retaliating at articles such as this one on hdtvtest but your spot on, I agree 100% with your comments, just such a shame 3D is not appreciated.

  11. @JM: Glasses have consistently been cited in surveys as the biggest reason why viewers don’t like 3D:

    http://hdtvtest.co.uk/news/3d-glasses-japanese-20100702766.htm

    @FoxyMulder & panman40: I know you guys love your 3D, but there’s no bias here, just reporting the facts. Would you like me to just shelve this article/ leaked PowerPoint slide and hope that no one notice?

    There’s a reason BBC has stopped 3D broadcasting; Sky has stopped filming sports in 3D; and many other dedicated 3D channels have been shut down. The interest among your average consumer is just not there, and it’s nothing to do with media reporting.

    Warmest regards
    Vincent

  12. Gotta say, if it’s 10 bit 4:2:0, that’s a pretty feeble effort.

    Wasn’t much interested to start with but even less so now.

  13. @AndyB: how come? Do you think 10-bit and 4:2:0 won’t be sufficient, and why not? Do you find yourself troubled by the chroma subsampling on current BD often? Do you think double the chroma resolution we currently have will be lacking?

    For pretty much all content, 1920×1080 chroma is going to look great, and I can elaborate as to why. I often show people 4:2:2 masters and then knock the chroma down to 4:2:0. Almost nobody can tell the difference, unless we’re talking red text on a black background.

    More is better, but they have other real-world considerations too. Sorry to ask, but I find most people are just attracted to high numbers alone.

    Regarding 3D, I’ve had some fun 3D experiences at home. I do like 3D done right, but if you think it’s been a market success, you’re sorely mistaken. I don’t know any CE company that is still putting R&D money into 3D.

    BTW FoxyMulder: look into the UHD Alliance.

  14. Yes there is bias on this website, always has been Vincent. Almost every reveiw of a display has some negative comment or at least a non positive comment about 3D. People read these reveiws, if you never say anything positive about 3D and only pick up or report on the negative things like ill fitting glasses or crosstalk or the bbc pulling out of 3D then most readers go away with these thoughts on board, oh and you mention the bbc pulling out of 3D … I don’t think they ever really gave it a chance did they ?, a few tennis matches at Wimbledon in sbs half resolution. Not really a big attempt at putting 3D out there really.
    It’s almost like your embarrassed to say anything positive about 3D Incase the website is seen to go ‘off course and be different’.

    If I unsubscribe from your Facebook posts I will not bother the website again with my comments .

    Regards,

  15. The reason the BBC stopped broadcasting 3D was to do with money, they never gave 3D a fair crack of the whip, not a single film was broadcast in 3D, not one, they needed the space for the BBC regional channels and BBC 3 and 4 in HD.

    The studio’s made the mistake of pricing 3D blu ray higher than 2D blu ray, people don’t like paying more, one could argue that’s the reason DVD still exists too because many ordinary people just buy the DVD instead of purchasing the blu ray, if 3D media is priced more competitively i think it would generate more sales.

    Glasses free 3D will kill off any interest i have and i suspect many who are interested but don’t like the glasses will be disappointed when they watch a film on one of those sets and discover negative parallax is nowhere to be seen, to me that’s 2.5D.

    People wear sunglasses all the time in the summer, 3D glasses are lightweight these days and resemble sunglasses, i can’t believe that is a reason for avoiding 3D and i do firmly believe the price of the discs is a problem, you can’t sell something to consumers if you price your product out of the marketplace and try to ask a premium for it when in all fairness the product costs about the same as conventional 2D to put out on disc.

    If you want to use the argument about the average consumer then lets also argue the average consumer is just not interested in blu ray or ultra high definition content, that’s why streaming is taking off and people watch on their tiny cell phones and it’s why DVD still sells.

    I still think you guys have a general dislike of 3D based on the reviews i have read and the general lack of serious testing for crosstalk, you use very easy titles that most televisions and projectors do good with, put some difficult titles on, develop some serious tests and let us know the crosstalk values, such tests already exist, the fact you don’t use them tells me you place little value in 3D, even if as you say the market is small it is big enough that the people who frequent sites such as this want to know about the 3D aspect of the product they are buying, i doubt your average consumer reads HDTV Test.

  16. @David

    I know the UHD alliance has film studio’s onboard, no need to research it as i am well versed in all this but that doesn’t mean lots of 4K content, put it this way, they licence all their catalog titles to other companies now, they refuse to put it out themselves, even Sony does that, sales of catalog titles are small, that’s why you get 3000 limited titles, 1000 limited titles, 5000 limited titles etc etc for various titles.

    The point i am making is how many 4K titles will they sell, more than the catalog titles. ? I doubt it.

    So if they make less money than the catalog titles, if they overprice the content like they did 3D, then it will flop, i fully expect it to flop.

  17. @Panman40:

    “Almost every reveiw of a display has some negative comment or at least a non positive comment about 3D. People read these reveiws, if you never say anything positive about 3D and only pick up or report on the negative things like ill fitting glasses or crosstalk”

    Are you suggesting that we should pretend the 3D display modes were flawless?
    If so, that would absolutely not be unbiased or balanced reporting.

    HDTVtest is either the only site, or one of less than a handful of sites, that ever bothered calibrating 3D displays to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them. We quite literally reviewed them in the best possible light – and some gave us very good experiences.

    If you’re upset about our reports of the performance of past reviews of 3D TVs, direct your frustration towards the manufacturers. They are the ones who put these products out on the market and sold them. All HDTVtest does is give the facts on their performance. It’s up to the individual to decide whether or not a product is right for them as a result.

    Of course, none of this changes the fact that they launched 3D displays without enough good content to watch on them. The glasses didn’t help either. Foxymulder, your comment about sunglasses holds true, with one big problem: nobody is used to wearing sunglasses indoors.

  18. @panman40: We are the most thorough TV review site around, of course we will have something negative to say about any aspect that we test, including 3D. Have you ever read a review on this site that’s entirely positive without negatives? Why should we make an exception for 3D?

    And for the record, we do praise good 3D performance where it’s due. For example:

    “The JVC X500 put in a wonderful tri-dimensional performance which ranks among some of the best we’ve seen from a non-DLP projector. 3-D depth was excellent with bags of detail, owing to full HD 3D resolution granted by the active-shutter glasses (ASG) system” … snippet from:

    http://hdtvtest.co.uk/news/x500-201403303680.htm#3d

    “With the oversaturated colour gamut out of the way, we had only good things to say about the 3D picture quality. It’s surprisingly bright, and the darkening effect of the 3D glasses brings about a welcome improvement to perceived black depth. The facts that the 3D display mode is full resolution, and also completely free of motion judder, also help tremendously.”… snippet from:

    http://hdtvtest.co.uk/news/epson-eh-tw9100-201211242375.htm?page=Picture%20Quality

    “We’ve been really impressed with the tri-dimensional picture quality on this year’s Samsung LED TVs, what with their bright, natural and gorgeously full-res images, plus absent flicker despite the use of active-shutter glasses (ASG) 3D display technology. The KE-55S9C not only retained these positives, but also improved upon them with a crosstalk-free presentation owing to OLED’s fast response time.”… snippet from:

    http://hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ke55s9c-201310273395.htm#3d

    @FoxyMulder: We already carry out more 3D-centric tests than any other AV publications including technical ones. Do any other sites/ magazines test for 3D resolution and 24p/ 50p judder? We are operating on limited resources and have to allocate our time and efforts wisely – we skipped 3D testing on several reviews as a trial and there wasn’t even a single complaint…

    Warmest regards
    Vincent

  19. Stop the bad news , pleaaaaaaaaaase ?

    vt60 will just arrive here to my country in APRIL { YEAY TWO YEARS LATER } But thank to god, it will be around 4000$ only , i think i will stick with it 4 years until 3d4k oled tvs arrive and in affordable prices .

  20. @Vincent

    You may indeed carry out some 3D tests but the all important one for me is crosstalk, its a 3D killer, it’s why i went DLP despite worse black levels than some other projectors out there, introduce a crosstalk test into your reviews and it will impress me greatly.

  21. @benny you say films are in 2k and inhanced but in 2006 superman returns was filmed on a 4k camera which means the original raw data is there

  22. @Bradley

    Superman Returns was filmed on the Panavision Genesis camera, unfortunately it is not 4K, it uses a process called pixel binning, all those extra pixels are never actually used and are just there to improve dynamic range of the camera, the final output is just 1920×1080.

  23. Wow! Not bad plenty of reaction to this article and hopefully it will generate action by industry professionals? I still enjoy 3d Blu Rays and looking forward to the improvement 4k can give to passive sets. Still don’t know how much more impressive active 4k discs would look? Why would you want to remove a feature as unique as this? I am still using a basic 5.1 surround as new improvements are regularly added to audio. Meh

  24. Any word on weather Deep Color compatible displays that are non HDCP 2.2 compliant can be fed a 10-bit stream ?

  25. @polanofesky

    What country will the VT60’s be sold ?

    Deffo get one. I have the GT60 and never looked back.
    It willl be a while before OLED can match a VT60’s lifespan, uniformity, motion & input lag.

  26. We had no Blu-ray 3D when Blu-ray came into existence. It took couple of years for Blu-ray 3D to come out. So chillout guys.

    I still think 4K is for the Projector or big screen people (75″+) as I don’t know if the casual viewers would be able to discern any major differences between HD and UHD content.

  27. @David

    4k Blu-ray will be the last disc based format that is ever made, it is therefore important that it supports as many advanced features as possible.
    I do not personally care about 4:4:4 but some do. I very much care about bit depth and 12 bit (also 16 bit) should be included, as should p120 and 8k. 10 bit is pushing it for HDR and p3/rec2020.

    Based on this document and other rumours, this looks like a feeble effort on behalf of the BDA. I am hoping the launch will give us more.

    Having said all that, I’m pretty much sold on streaming. What’s the betting that Netflix will launch a higher bit rate, DTS MA, 10 bit service to coincide with the Blu-ray launch.
    And yeah, I know BR has 100 Mb/s but let’s see how much difference that makes on TVs under 90 Inches.

  28. Do we know yet if the 100 Mb/s bit rate is the physical gross/net bitrate or the rate after HEVC has been added to the equation?

    If the latter then 50 Mb/s might be a better comparison with Netflix.

  29. @Morgs

    We have only one panasonic distributor here in { kuwait } they hide vt60 to sell it later, after all vt20, 30 and 50 units sold out [ yeah they still exist ] , and i expect them to sell it for around 4000$ , { things works differently here } and no one appreciate plasma here , for example : LX5090 still in the corner of Best Alyousifi showroom since 2008 , and no one has ever think of purchasing it .

    yeah, oled can’t match plasma uniformity, life span, and input lag , but of course it will improve upon it in the future .

    & please , don’t talk to me about motion performance again, because i don’t care about what david mackenzie can measure with his { measurement tools } i do only care about what my eyes can detect .

  30. @polanofesky

    Interesting. I will try to remember in future that your a sample and hold person.

  31. @Morgs

    I prefer sample and hold over impulse modulation , it is much better usage for those who use their big hdtvs screens as pc monitors, if only lg succeed to satisfies you { impuls guys } and improve things alittle, i will be more than happy .

  32. Glad to see I’m not the only one who prefers sample and hold over multiscanning.
    The reality is that all 3 methods of dealing with low framerate are rubbish, it’s just a matter of which one annoys you the least.

    I think the best compromise will come from getting control over the frame display time. By displaying a frame once but not for the entire time period (ie. reducing the hold time), there will be a sweet spot between blur and flicker that will give a really good image.

  33. @polanofesky

    Even for monitor use it depends on the person and application. If you could have the perfect geometery, high resolution and screen real estate of an OLED but combined with the impulse time of CRT I think many would adopt it esepcially for 3D and smooth text scrolling.

  34. As it stands now, I’m more confused than ever before.

    With UHD Blu-ray comes HDR and a wider colour gamut, both of which the old 2014 models don’t support. But what I’ve read so far, only the absolute high end models support HDR. Also not all sizes seem to cover DCI completely, only 90% DCI on the 55 inch sets. I neither have the money, nor the room for a 65or even 75 inch TV. When will I be able to get a mid range UHD TV that supports all the features UHD Blu-ray is supposed to have? 2016? 2017?

    I also feel royally screwed by LG for not planning to release a flat 1080p OLED in 2015. I was counting on it, but didn’t expect them to focus UHD with their OLEDs that much. Weren’t they aiming to bring OLED to the masses? Yeah, right. Obviously not like that.

  35. @Alex

    me too , i was aiming at 65″1080p flat oled release from lg { to cut down prices } but lg surprised me by not doing that , and i dissapointed that prices will likely still sky high in 2015 , i think it will be 2018 when you can find mind-rang oled tv, that fully support the new uhd standards .

  36. @AndyB

    I imagine the flicker on 24fps films would look awful.

    Games may be problematic because when the frame rate is a low you would either have to hold a frame, so you didnt see the black frame insertion. Or repeat frames to keep up motion resolution. Either of which might provide an unsatisfactory result due to the inconsistency.

    I’d be in favour of user controls for weather or not frames are repeated, how many times and for how long they are held for. Then anyone can pick their own poison.

    If sufficiently bright OLED’s or an alternative can deliver CRT level impulse motion I think it would sway a lot of buyers on the show floor with the side by side comparison of panning shots especially for 24fps films. The SED & FED demo’s suggest the difference would be quite drastic and at 4 or 8K even more so, I imagine.

  37. @AndyB

    I think that what samsung do with its high-end tvs .

    @Morgs

    After thinking for a awhile, i find out that an improved impulse modulation method will be the best solution, because it will bring two advantages :

    1- No blur at all

    2- better preservation to resolution .

    TO ME : this is all small issues, that we better think about other things { thanks to oled } I think future oled tvs will solve our problems , to a large extent .

    & TO ME : FUTURE SAMSUNG 3d4k oled tv with impulse modulation will be { flawless } :

  38. @morgs

    No, not at all.
    It’s not about the framerate, you can have zero flicker with 1 frame per second.
    It’s all related to how long each frame is displayed for.

    If you are running p24 and each frame is displayed for only 1/48 second, you will see flicker but 3/96 second you will see much less (possibly none).

    There is a great deal of confusion about framerates, flicker and motion blur and a lot of the stuff you read on the net is plain wrong.

    Take OLED, 300 lines of motion res on an OLED is not the same as 300 on an LCD, it looks better on the OLED. That’s because the OLED changes state 1000 times quicker than LCD, it doesn’t fade out.
    If you go to p60 on an LCD, it’ll struggle, an OLED won’t.
    I recently saw someone on AVS wanting an OLED with p120 and BFI, completely failing to understand that p120 on an OLED, without BFI will be flawless. The BBC has done research to suggest p140 is the sweet spot for general viewing but p120 is so close as not to matter.

  39. @AndyB

    3/96 ? Please explain.

    OLED certainly doesn’t suffer from the transition artefacts of LCD but even with 120fps content it’s only 600 lines of motion resolution without BFI. Certainly not flawless.

    In addition a 120hz sample and hold OLED will not improve the motion resolution of 60fps and under material though. Not without motion interpolation that it, which brings it’s own artefacts.

    The BBC research suggested 2000fps to appear completely continuous.

  40. On 3/96-

    A single frame of a p24 movie is 1/24th of a second, 4/96 is the same as 1/24 so for each 1/24th sec frame, you display the picture for 3 quarters(3/96 sec) of the time and a blank screen for 1 quarter(1/96th sec).

    Not sure where you got the 600 @ 120Hz figure from as there is no way to pass p120 into this set. The internal refresh is not relevant.

    Not sure what you’re getting at with point 3.

    If you follow the BBC research, you’ll see that they have recommended p140. Anything higher is down to the law of diminishing returns and not necessary.
    Yes, the human eye can perceive stuff down to 1/10000 second but no one is suggesting that p10000 is required. The human visual system is very complicated and flexible. For example, you can maintain a clear image of something by moving your head to track it but how often do you do that when watching TV?
    If you did, higher frames may be useful but the area of a TV is too small so you don’t need them.

  41. Not sure where you got the 2000 frames figure from morgs.
    Here’s a quote from one of the guys who looked into p300 for the beeb in 2008-

    that was one of the original intentions behind my 2008-proposal to consider 300fps. However, that was a step too far, and you get many of the benefits in terms of smoother motion rendition (where the eye can track the motion) as long as the frame rate is above about 100 fps

    He was responding to a question regarding p100/120 standards issues so the response is slightly out of context but the bit that is important is the last bit.

  42. And just something on BFI for those obsessed with it. Here is another bit of info from the BBC regarding the cinema version of it.

    With the
    development of sound-on-film in the 1920s, film
    speeds and hence frame rates standardised at the
    now ubiquitous 24 fps.
    To avoid visible flicker, a double or treble-bladed
    shutter was used to display each image two or three
    times in quick succession. A downside of this
    technique is that moving objects being tracked by
    the eye appear as two or three overlapping images
    or appear to jump backwards and forwards along
    their line of motion: an effect also known as “film
    judder”

    BFI or plasma multiscan may give big numbers in tests but they still look rubbish on motion.

  43. @AndyB

    3/96 would give you 160 lines of motion resolution, approx

    working:
    60hz sample & hold = 300 lines motion resolution, approx
    1/60hz = 16.67ms/frame
    3/96hz = 31.25ms/frame
    16.67/31.25 = .53
    .53 x 300 lines = 160 lines

    600 lines is from:

    120hz = 2x60hz
    600 lines = 2×300 lines

    I mentioned the 2000fps as you seem to have suggested 120fps content on sample and hold OLED would be flawless. Of course flawless depends on individual desires. Ideally I would like to completely max out what our brains can distinguish.

    “you can maintain a clear image of something by moving your head to track it”

    I’d argue the opposite. The problem with sample and hold is not that the motion on the display is blurry but that our retinas blur the image.

    If you hold your eyes still on a sample and hold OLED, motion is sharp in your peripheral vision. But we are constantly tracking objects with our eyes, which is where the blur comes from. Impulse type displays strobe the image on our retina so we see sharper images during eye tracking

    Could be a different paper

    “suggests that a frame rate of up to 2000 fps would be needed for television pictures to appear exactly
    equivalent to continuous motion”
    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP282.pdf

    Impulse displays with their repeated frames aren’t perfect and it is certainly a matter of taste. I grew up playing games a watching films on repeated frame impulse CRT so I’m used to the artefacts but expect the motion sharpness. I can imagine the opposite is true for many who have grown accustomed to sample and hold.

  44. I think the problem is that you are assuming the motion res is only related to refresh rate. The test is a moving pattern with lines of different resolution. If the lines merge, the TV can’t resolve that level of detail.
    What you are missing is the speed those lines move affect the resolution obtained. Even a plasma will produce less than 1080 if the test is difficult enough.

    You can’t just say that p60 will give twice as much as p30, it doesn’t work like that.

    On plasmas specifically, the Panasonic plasmas all work at p50 or p60. Forget the 600Hz subfield drive nonsense, subfields are not frames. Now, to produce a pixel of full brightness, the pixel will probably be illuminated for 60% to 70% of the frame time, the rest being the addressing phases (similar to my point about 3/96 on an OLED) and yet it will do 1080 lines.

    On the 2000fps thing, Katy’s research ended up recommending p140 (superseding the beeb’s previous view of 300) because testing proved that that was as much as necessary. This is one of those things where screen size, resolution, seating distance and how much you move your head all come into play. A massive screen covering the whole wall where your eyes are tracking the motion as you would in real life may require something higher but a normal TV in a normal room will not. Flawless may have been the wrong term to use but you would be hard pressed to spot any differences beyond p120 due to the law of diminishing returns. p50 is massively better than p10 and p120 will be noticeably better than p60 but at p240, you’ll struggle to see the difference.

    Hopefully this has cleared things up as this is dragging on a bit and isn’t really related to the article.

  45. @AndyB

    Motion resolution is not about refresh rate per say but impulse length. Sample and hold @ 120hz will have a longer “impulse” if you will, than a plasma sub field drive impulse. The resolution and speed of the test patterns is crucial but with both being equal the impulse display is going to give you better motion resolution.

  46. Like I said, subfields are not frames, it’s not as clear cut as you think.
    Let’s just defer all this until we can see some p120 content on a TV.