Anyone here succumbed to Ultra HD Blu-ray?

[JTWfan77 301]

Anyone here bit the bullet and invested in an Ultra HD Blu-ray player and the requisite HDR 4K display device and UHD discs?

[mstrox 1993]

Not here.  My early 2000s projection screen TV doesn't even have HDMI.  Buying Blu-ray alone is an extravagance for me, and one that I only do for movies I really care about (to benefit the next TV).

[crocodile 3235]

I would like to upgrade. Sadly, I don't really have much space for massive telly and sound system.

 

Karol

[JTWfan77 301]

I'm thinking of getting a player, but plan to first use it in 1080p mode, as I'm not ready to commit to a new (expensive) UHD display, so I'm wondering how downscaled UHD discs compare to regular BD discs (and obviously not having HDR).

[Jay 9212]

Nope.

We're getting a 4K TV soon, but have no plans to purchase anything that plays UHDBD discs, nor do I have any interest in repurchasing my favorite films on another physical format.  Blue Rays look great.

[JTWfan77 301]

I agree with you Jay. It's more a case of wanting to scratch an itch. I don't even get to watch my 200+ BDs / HD-DVDs very much, so it's madness for me to even consider this.

[Jay 9212]

99% of the time these days when I have free time to watch a movie, I'd rather watch one I've never seen before, than one I've already seen.  I almost don't even know why I even have a blu ray collection.  There's just and endless list of films made I want to see but haven't yet that take precedence...

[Ricard 859]

13 minutes ago, Jay said:

I almost don't even know why I even have a blu ray collection.

 

For the same reason that you have a CD collection?

[JTWfan77 301]

I'm too busy browsing the web and reading JWFan forums to watch movies or listen to music!

 

Sometimes I think I care more about collecting the stuff than I do about actually watching / listening to it.

[Jay 9212]

4 minutes ago, Ricard said:

 

For the same reason that you have a CD collection?

Nah, it's pretty different.

 

Music I listen to over and over and over again, it is a huge part of my life.  I listen to music in the car, at work, in the house, running errands, doing everything.  And I can listen to the same music over and over again and still love it.

 

Most films I go years and years between viewings of, if I even view them a second time at all.

[Ricard 859]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

Music I listen to over and over and over again, it is a huge part of my life.  I listen to music in the car, at work, in the house, running errands, doing everything.  And I can listen to the same music over and over again and still love it.

 

You don't need a CD collection for that...

[JTWfan77 301]

4 minutes ago, Ricard said:

 

You don't need a CD collection for that...

 

Depends on what music you like.

[Jay 9212]

Yes but the other difference is, I began collecting music in the mid 90s, when CD was the best format and there were no mp3s or anything yet.  And  as time has gone on, there has been no new format that replaced it truly; CDs have largely replaced by downloads, 90% of which sold are of less quality than CDs, not more quality.  Furthermore, CDs still sound fine to me, I don't care that they are 16/441 instead of the 24/96 or whatever they are probably mastered at.

 

DVDs -> Blu Rays is different.  In the late 90s and early 2000s I bought TONS of DVDs, and eventually realized I never even watched half of them before Blu Ray versions of the same movies were already on the market.  I had to reason to open my 480p DVDs of them when 1080p Blu Rays were out so I sold most of them.  Now I am picky and only by Blus of movies I really LOVE, but even then I rarely take any off the shelf to watch them, as there is always an interesting new movie on Netflix, Prime, Hulu, or Plex I want to watch instead.  And no matter how I watch, its always in 1080p.

[A. A. Ron 229]

I bought a TV last year -- just wanted 1080, but ended up with a 4k model as it met my requirements in a cost effective way. It does not have HDR capabilities, as many TVs didn't, even a year ago and I had no plans at the time to buy 4k movies. Since then however, I've come to see the value in 4k technology -- in most cases it's the HDR, which allows your TV to accurately display a much wider range of colors.

 

Over the last year, I've built a very large collection of digital movies by using Vudu's Disc to Digital program and by buying peoples' digital copy codes from them for cheap (something the U.S. government recently and surprisingly upheld as lawful, see Disney's suits against Redbox). I also occasionally buy movies directly from Amazon, FandangoNOW, Google, iTunes and Vudu. Thanks to UltraViolet and especially MoviesAnywhere, most of these movies are now available for me to watch across platforms and devices. Unfortunately, a lot of titles are only available in 4k from specific retailers (iTunes has the biggest selection), so while MoviesAnywhere or UltraViolet will have a record of your 4k purchase, it won't show up in your Vudu or Amazon account, etc., until that retailer has a 4k version of the movie available to stream. My current blu-ray player can't stream 4k content anyway, so the 30 or so titles I have in 4k on my Vudu are basically just future-proofed. Hopefully, the other titles that iTunes upgraded for me for free will port across eventually as well (some studios' movies already have). Bottom line: I'll obtain or purchase a physical movie if it has a unique feature I really want, like a commentary or an isolated score. For everything else, I've moved to digital and won't look back.

[JoeinAR 725]

all my new blus are the new 4k. I have not puchased the player yet because of an unexpected household expense. I will treat myself next blackfriday

 

[Norma's Corpse 3704]

I've bought a few UHD blu-rays, but I haven't the tech to play them yet. They come with regular blu-rays anyway. But even my plasma TV's entire video input board has shorted out (still does Netflix and YouTube), so I want to make the move the OLED eventually.

[JTWfan77 301]

I'm a bit concerned about all these competing HDR standards: HDR 10, Dolby Vision, HDR 10+ and HLG, not to mention the fact that different manufacturers now have their own proprietary names for their variants.

 

It only serves to confuse the customer and limit adoption of new technology. So I'll probably bide my time until the bun fight is settled, or manufacturers offer all the major HDR variants on their offerings.

 

 

9 hours ago, Muldoon said:

Over the last year, I've built a very large collection of digital movies by using Vudu's Disc to Digital program and by buying peoples' digital copy codes from them for cheap (something the U.S. government recently and surprisingly upheld as lawful, see Disney's suits against Redbox). I also occasionally buy movies directly from Amazon, FandangoNOW, Google, iTunes and Vudu. Thanks to UltraViolet and especially MoviesAnywhere, most of these movies are now available for me to watch across platforms and devices. Unfortunately, a lot of titles are only available in 4k from specific retailers (iTunes has the biggest selection), so while MoviesAnywhere or UltraViolet will have a record of your 4k purchase, it won't show up in your Vudu or Amazon account, etc., until that retailer has a 4k version of the movie available to stream. My current blu-ray player can't stream 4k content anyway, so the 30 or so titles I have in 4k on my Vudu are basically just future-proofed. Hopefully, the other titles that iTunes upgraded for me for free will port across eventually as well (some studios' movies already have). Bottom line: I'll obtain or purchase a physical movie if it has a unique feature I really want, like a commentary or an isolated score. For everything else, I've moved to digital and won't look back.

 

The above is fine if you live in the First World, but try that in the Third World. Data rates are exhorbitant and most of the services you mentioned are either unavailable, or have severely limited catalogues. And streaming 4K is barely a blip on the radar here too.

[Horner's Dynamic Range 3332]

If I had the money to blow on that kind of stuff, I'd probably get the equipment to watch the 1998 Godzilla. It already looks incredible on a standard Blu-ray setup.

[El Jefe 383]

Nope, Blu is good enough for me.

 

i was inially resistant to blu but I’m drawing the line here. I’m tired of rebuying stuff.

[Not Mr. Big 2039]

I have and can't tell any noticable improvement, and this is coming from a former picture quality enthusiast.  I do like 4K restoration of older transfers (IE Harry Potter 1-3) 

[Alexcremers 1290]

Harry Potter movies already need to be restored?! 

 

What will do think of next?!

[Not Mr. Big 2039]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Harry Potter movies already need to be restored?! 

 

What will do think off next?!

The Blu Ray transfers were pretty subpar, coming from the very early days of the format.

[A. A. Ron 229]

10 hours ago, JTWfan77 said:

The above is fine if you live in the First World, but try that in the Third World. Data rates are exorbitant and most of the services you mentioned are either unavailable, or have severely limited catalogues. And streaming 4K is barely a blip on the radar here too.

 

Then I guess you're stuck waiting for a while.

[JTWfan77 301]

20 minutes ago, Muldoon said:

 

Then I guess you're stuck waiting for a while.

 

My concern is that even if physical media eventually disappears, we in the "sh*t-hole" countries, to coin a phrase, will get the short end as usual. Our markets just aren't big enough to justify the cost of licencing everything that's available to stream in the US, for example.

 

I very much doubt that Disney, for example, is going to bother launching their dedicated streaming service in my country at any point, that is unless they end up buying Fox, Warner, Paramount, Universal and everyone else.

 

I don't see how this is going to work in any case. People want choice, but don't want to have to subscribe to 50 different services to access the content they want.

[Koray Savas 1157]

I’m in the process of switching to 4K. I have a few blus already, and got an Xbox One X to serve as my player. Still need the TV and the receiver. TV was supposed to happen a few weeks ago but unexpected car maintenance set it back. My tax return coupled with around $400 in Amazon gift cards that I’ve saved up will net me a nice LG OLED. 

[crocodile 3235]

On 23/03/2018 at 6:46 PM, crocodile said:

I would like to upgrade. Sadly, I don't really have much space for massive telly and sound system.

 

Karol

Oddly enough, it took me only 3 weeks to change my mind. TV will arrive and player is already waiting. Got some discs as well to check it out.

 

Sound system will have to wait a while longer.

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

I'll wait for 256K in five years.

[crocodile 3235]

Yeah, it is scary how fast things are progressing. But I can't see myself going beyond that. Standard Blu-rays already look great on home systems and my 4K collection will be more of an hall-of-fame sort of cherry-pick collection. Cinemas project things in 4K. It would be madness to go further. Unless, of course, you own an IMAX-sized screen at home.

 

The reason I decided to upgrade is because I already had a couple of films and got a good fairly good deal on TV. Which I was thinking of upgrading anyway (since my old one was only 32"). So it made sense to me.

 

But, man, TV shopping is just madness. You could look endlessly. I had to settle for something that would work good enough but not go overboard. It's just a bottomless well.

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

4K in cinemas is clearly not sufficient, as you can see individual pixels on medium sized screens. That's why it's only a question about time before we have 8K, 16K, and so on.

[Norma's Corpse 3704]

2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

4K in cinemas is clearly not sufficient, as you can see individual pixels on medium sized screens. That's why it's only a question about time before we have 8K, 16K, and so on.

 

Oh god, how close are you sitting to it??

[crocodile 3235]

It's just a question of how far can you push in context of home presentation. I mean, there isn't THAT much of a difference between 1K and 4K on TV screen.

 

2 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:

 

Oh god, how close are you sitting to it??

I was thinking that. 

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

7 minutes ago, crocodile said:

It's just a question of how far can you push in context of home presentation. I mean, there isn't THAT much of a difference between 1K and 4K on TV screen.

 

Agreed, there's a limit to how long the home cinema resolution will keep follow the resolution in "proper" cinemas.

 

9 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:

 

Oh god, how close are you sitting to it??

 

Usually around the middle row, at a fairly large cinema. Don't you ever notice the pixelation? I guess this is one of those rare cases when a blurry vision is a good thing.

[Norma's Corpse 3704]

6 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Usually around the middle row, at a fairly large cinema. Don't you ever notice the pixelation? I guess this is one of those rare cases when a blurry vision is a good thing.

 

I've never been able to spot pixels at cinema presentations. And m eyesight is fine. I mostly sit at the very back whenever I can.

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

Stop looking at your phone then! 

[JTWfan77 301]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I'll wait for 256K in five years.

 

Nah, by then they'll beam it directly into your brain.

[Chen G. 851]

17 hours ago, crocodile said:

It's just a question of how far can you push in context of home presentation. I mean, there isn't THAT much of a difference between 1K and 4K on TV screen.

 

Inreasing resolution does more to image quality than avoiding pixelation. First, each pixel in the frame is colored to create the image, so that even when you don't see the individual pixels anymore, adding more pixels can still make the color look more vibrant and rich.

 

Second, its not just that the individual pixels need to be too small to be percieved. Its that they need to be significantly smaller than the smallest percieveable element on the screen (e.g. a strand of hair) so that those objects appear perfectly smooth.

 

In order to make all of this work for an audience sitting in the front of a big IMax screen, you need a fair amount of resolution: probably around 7-8K.

[Stefancos 7735]

1080 is absolutely fine!

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

On your phone, yes.

[Holko 2041]

Yeah, but when you're watching it 4 meters away on a 40 inch screen, there's a point where you can't push the resolution any further with any visibe improvements. I don't think everyone will have wall-sized screens in 20 years just to validate 16K.

[Chen G. 851]

7 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

1080 is absolutely fine!

 

It is.

 

But 4K is better, and 6K is better still, even at a range where you can't percieve the individual pixels anymore.

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

 

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Inreasing resolution does more to image quality than avoiding pixelation. First, each pixel in the frame is colored to create the image, so that even when you don't see the individual pixels anymore, adding more pixels can still make the color look more vibrant and rich.

 

Second, its not just that the individual pixels need to be too small to be percieved. Its that they need to be significantly smaller than the smallest percieveable element on the screen (e.g. a strand of hair) so that those objects appear perfectly smooth.

 

I agree on your 2nd paragraph, but you don't get richer colours by increasing the resolution. If anything, you get less rich colors because a greater fraction of the canvas is taken up by the space between pixels.

[Chen G. 851]

Huh, interesting.

 

Nevertheless, there is a value to higher resolution beyond 2K or even 4K.

 

Once that hits its saturation, we'll probably move to higher frame-rates....

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

 

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Huh, interesting.

 

Nevertheless, there is a value to higher resolution beyond 2K or even 4K.

 

Once that hits its saturation, we'll probably move to higher frame-rates....

 

Indeed there's a value.

 

I wouldn't mind higher framerates, as we're able to perceive rates significantly greater than 24 frames/s. Or smell-o-vision... 

[Holko 2041]

If we go by the TV's automatic framerate smoothing, it'll just make everything look like a cheap brazilian soap opera. Granted, I did not see the Hobbit in 48 frames a second in the cinema, so when done professionally, it might be different. 

Smell-o-vision... I already despise 3D as a completely useless and pointless gimmick that only further mutilates films with widened objects and often excessive regrading while adding virtually nothing to the experience in the home, and sucking even more cash out of your pockets, can't wait for the new one which will target the one sense I don't have.

[Chen G. 851]

The TV setting is duplicating frames and putting them in between the existing footage, so the results aren't quite the same as with something that was shot in a high-frame rate. The same is true for 3D: Most of the bad 3D you see is post-converted. Films that are shot in 3D often look much better.

 

The way I explain it, higher resolution makes the image look more real, whereas higher frame-rates makes it look more present, like its actually unfolding before your eyes. But this can create a dissonance with the actual content ,which may be too surreal, or - more importantly, create a disonance with the inherent unrealistic nature of the medium through which you are observing the film.

 

If what you're watching is supposed to be happening right in front you, you can't be seeing it through a huge theater screen, because once you cut to a close-up of a character, they'd appear to be giants; in fact, in such circumstances you can't do any camerawork that isn't a POV shot or an unbroken wide-shot without undermining the realism that the high frame-rate imagery is conveying. You also wouldn't be able to use extreme close-ups, play around with lenses, the focus and thelighting, lest you create a disonance with the frame-rate.

 

There's also the static nature of the frame in a film: when you move in your seat in front of the television, your perspective of what's happening within the frame doesn't change, like it would if what you are watching is actually happening from across that frame, which is what higher-frame rates would make you believe.

[Stefancos 7735]

I don't think it looks that much better than FullHD.

[Jurassic Shark 1992]

You're probably fine with VGA.

[Stefancos 7735]

What's the point of having 4k in a living room tv?

[Chen G. 851]

Getting a smoother image, in terms of the finer objects in the frame.

[Stefancos 7735]

I can't take videophiles seriously!