Will Blu-Ray support UltraHD? Would you buy a UltraHD TV and a new Blu-Ray player? (1 Viewer)

[Worth]

You've been living under a rock for the last six or seven years if you consider blu-ray to still be a niche product...

When they can't even manage to sell 3000 copies of titles like As Good as it Gets, Bye Bye Birdie and Picnic, yeah, I consider that a niche.

 

[lukejosephchung]

All physical media format sales are driven by CURRENT OR RECENT titles of no more than 5 years in vintage...in that regard, blu-ray's actually doing better than DVD...

 

[Worth]

Again, I have to ask, what's in it for the studios? If there's little to no hope of re-selling catalogue titles, why bother? Sure, you might sell a few thousand copies of The Avengers in 4K, but where's the profit in that? Anyone willing to buy a 4K disc would just have bought the blu-ray if there were no 4K option, so the net gain is zero.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Worth /t/324723/will-blu-ray-support-ultrahd-would-you-buy-a-ultrahd-tv-and-a-new-blu-ray-player#post_3993673
Again, I have to ask, what's in it for the studios? If there's little to no hope of re-selling catalogue titles, why bother? Sure, you might sell a few thousand copies of The Avengers in 4K, but where's the profit in that? Anyone willing to buy a 4K disc would just have bought the blu-ray if there were no 4K option, so the net gain is zero.

I think maybe they are hoping the Playstation 4 opens up a whole new market for Ultra HD just like the Playstation 3 helped sell blu ray, only time will tell if people buy into any 4K disc based format but i imagine there would be at the very least a small market for it, i'd certainly be interested in it as long as it's not 4K lite.

 

[Worth]

What I could see is 4K being marketed as laserdisc Mark II - a high-end product for people with seriously large front projection systems, with titles selling in the $75 range.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

If the studios are seeing catalogue sales of under 3000 units at a $35 price (Twilight), do you really think that there is any market for titles in the $75+ range, when the mastering/replication/distribution costs are factored in? What point is there in spending money prepping films to the quality that will be demanded by even more resolution when the market will number in the hundreds? Is it really worth investing the thousands in hardware it will take to upgrade for a handful of titles? As for flippers - forget it!
This looks like something the hardware guys would like, but I can't see software support for a decade or more until BR has been milked for everything it can possibly get.

 

[Worth]

If the studios are seeing catalogue sales of under 3000 units at a $35 price (Twilight), do you really think that there is any market for titles in the $75+ range, when the mastering/replication/distribution costs are factored in?

I was thinking more for recent blockbusters that already have 4K masters. Aside from the usual suspects (Star Wars, Bond, Indiana Jones etc.), I don't see any market for catalogue titles in 4K.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Originally Posted by Jeff Ulmer /t/324723/will-blu-ray-support-ultrahd-would-you-buy-a-ultrahd-tv-and-a-new-blu-ray-player#post_3993686
If the studios are seeing catalogue sales of under 3000 units at a $35 price (Twilight), do you really think that there is any market for titles in the $75+ range, when the mastering/replication/distribution costs are factored in? What point is there in spending money prepping films to the quality that will be demanded by even more resolution when the market will number in the hundreds? Is it really worth investing the thousands in hardware it will take to upgrade for a handful of titles? As for flippers - forget it!
This looks like something the hardware guys would like, but I can't see software support for a decade or more until BR has been milked for everything it can possibly get.

Blu-ray's already close to seven years old on the commercial market and DVD is nearly sixteen...how much longer do you really think they'll be out there?

 

[Alan Tully]

Blu-ray's already close to seven years old on the commercial market and DVD is nearly sixteen...how much longer do you really think they'll be out there?

A lot lot longer than that, & with Blu-ray it's more like five years on its own. People are not going to upgrade every few years just for the sake of it, plus they can't afford to. When do people buy a new computer? It's when their old computer packs up, not when the latest one come in. Why would people go with Blu-ray when the next format is on the horizon, & how long will the next format last, three years? It's one thing keep releasing this stuff, it's another thing getting people to buy it. And people don't always go with the best, the success of MP3 proves that.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I'll toss out a prediction that 4K will be more for home video and digital pictures than for studio movies. If Hollywood keeps dragging their feet as they have this past decade then home video cameras will exceed typically used movie cameras within 5 to 7 years in pixel count. We already have hybrid digital cameras and SLRs that can shoot video at 2K on 4+K sensors. It won't be too much longer and they will be able to use the sensor at it's native resolution for video.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Bring on 4K Blu-ray and sets! No way in the age of bandwidth caps we'll be streaming QUALITY 4K video any time in the near future. Heck, on a large screen streamed 1080P doesn't compare to high bitrate Blu-ray. Plus, we still can't get lossless audio via streaming.

Thats what they said 5 years ago about streaming HD resolution.
Doug

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce /t/324723/will-blu-ray-support-ultrahd-would-you-buy-a-ultrahd-tv-and-a-new-blu-ray-player/30#post_3993913
Thats what they said 5 years ago about streaming HD resolution.
Doug

I don't think streaming HD is very good when viewed on a projection setup, too many artifacts in the image.

 

[Todd H]

Quote: Originally Posted by Douglas Monce Thats what they said 5 years ago about streaming HD resolution. Doug I don't think streaming HD is very good when viewed on a projection setup, too many artifacts in the image.

Correct. On a large set or screen it doesn't look great. And you're STILL stuck with lossy audio.
But for those with smallish sets I guess it probably looks OK.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peter Neski]

maybe all this 4k talk with convince studios that transferring their 35mm films to 2K is a mistake ,and use 4k for the future

 

[andrew markworthy]

Please, no more technical innovations of any sort for a few years guys, because there is a good chance that the next innovation could kill off the market.
This isn't as mad as it sounds. Let's face it. the success of home theater equipment relies on Joe Public adopting it, not us enthusiasts. We're in a recession (in case you hadn't noticed), and Joe P might be persuaded to adapt Blu-ray when buying his next disc player, but he sure as heck won't if there is too much talk about a new better system on the way. Ditto 3D TV, etc. The last thing we need is someone saying that current TVs have their days numbered because 4K (or whatever) will be here in a couple of years (regardless of whether it will or not, that is how Joe P will interpret it). Let's just shelve the next big thing until the economy is back on its feet.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Correct. On a large set or screen it doesn't look great. And you're STILL stuck with lossy audio.
But for those with smallish sets I guess it probably looks OK.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Granted my TV is only 50 inches, but streaming HD looks more than okay. I would say it often looks better than broadcast HD. Also both Netflix and Vudu are using Dolby Digital Plus for their 5.1 audio. Not lossless, but surely better than whats on DVD (and some blu-rays), and in most cases indistinguishable from lossless.
Doug

 

[Todd H]

Granted my TV is only 50 inches, but streaming HD looks more than okay. I would say it often looks better than broadcast HD. Also both Netflix and Vudu are using Dolby Digital Plus for their 5.1 audio. Not lossless, but surely better than whats on DVD (and some blu-rays), and in most cases indistinguishable from lossless.
Doug

Looks awful on my calibrated set, especially any dark scenes where compression artifacts rear their ugly head (and this is with a rock solid 20 Mbps connection). I can only imagine how bad it looks projected on a large screen.
It's just impossible for a 6-10 Mbps stream to compare to high bitrate Blu-ray. Some consumers may find it "good enough" but those of us who spend thousands of dollars trying to get the best possible picture and sound find it lacking.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Blu-ray's already close to seven years old on the commercial market and DVD is nearly sixteen...how much longer do you really think they'll be out there?

You can still buy a vinyl record from a current band and the vinyl record is a 60+ year old technology. So the answer to your question could be 60+ years.

 

[Mark-W]

I am on the fence on this one for only one reason: too many issues with too many films not looking acceptable on BD.
The studios have proven inconsistent in the quality of their back catalog product on DVD and Blu-ray.
It seems that the higher the resolution, the more opportunities for the studios to release problematic product that has not been properly restored, tweaked, or calibrated for 1080p systems.
Not that there will not be plethora of current and future films released that will be released, but the back catalog of great films is what I am watching more and more.
If those films are largely going to look only moderately acceptable in UltraHD, then what is the point of up-rezzing them?
The studios are going to have to a better job of regarding quality control on their product before they release titles like the Hitchcock boxed set or there is little point in UltraHD for many of us.
Heck, even the Star Wars films are a mixed bag in terms of video quality on HD. Star Wars.
Apparently, unless your name is Spielberg, I have reason to wonder if your entire back catalog films are going to look good in HD or not.
The software has to get more consistent solid marks from the major studios before I can get excited about new hardware.

 

[J Whip]

Too much too soon. In a phase, that sums up the whole issue for me. As with 3D, it is too early for yet another new format. In a span of just a handful of years, we will have Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray and then 4K? HD sets, 3D sets and then 4K? A year or 2 after 4K sets are out, the CE companies will be hyping 8K when 4K sets don't sell as fast as they like or the prices drop too quickly. After all, an *K set was displayed at the last CES and was much more impressive than the 4K set. For 4K to really work, the sets need to be over 60" which is too large for many homes, too expensive and too early after the digital transition. In addition, BD has a phenomenal picture. Can it get that much better at normal viewing distances than I get now on my 141? Maybe one day if I want to upgrade to a 70 inch set. BUt frankly for now and the next few years, 2K on my 141 is more than good enough.