A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bohemian Rhapsody & A Star is Born (2018) -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[RJ992]

Hi RAH! For once, I'm ready and willing to agree with the general "we've reached the point of diminishing returns" in terms of home video reproduction with regards to the current state of 4K HDR + Atmos setups that can be affordably (relatively) purchased.

A variant of this statement was said for DVD, then HD, (not by you, but by others in years past) neither of which I was comfortable with supporting. I was tempted to agree with 1080p HD, but blowing that up to a 120" screen made me change my mind. Now with 4K UHD/HDR...unless you're running an IMAX screen at home you're not going to tell the difference. And having just set up an Atmos 5.1.2 at home...I find it audibly indistinguishable from a theater. Same excitement, punch, directionality and visceral effect (I run PSA and Hsu subs so I can shake the room if needed). I can't imagine what a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 (which my receiver can do, I just haven't bothered to buy more speakers) would sound like, but I truly have the ability to recreate the theatrical experience at home in a way that the only difference is screen size. And that's just a function of my wallet and not the technology. If at some point I can buy a true 4K HDR front projector and put up a 120" screen at home...given seating distance and field-of-view coverage I'll essentially have fully recreated a theater at home.

Although I have a 4k panel, I'm fine with 1080p for projecting. Ditto for 3D which I find to be more indispensable than flat 2D in any format.

 

[Mark Booth]

My wife and I talked about it and we are seriously considering renting 'Bohemian Rhapsody' tomorrow. It's going to be raining all day long and we'd rather stay off the streets as much as possible. Too many Californians that don't now how to drive in the rain.

Mark

 

[Tina_H_V]

I have seen all the BP noms thus far...save Star. I will watch next week after I bring home the Steelbook...as I did, last night, for BH. I am about to finish my audio makeover soon. Once I do...I will be tearing into my setup as I have yet to truly do so since going 4K in 2017. I formally launch this weekend. Then, I will view BH in all of its glory!!!!

 

[Mike Frezon]

I am about to finish my audio makeover soon. Once I do...I will be tearing into my setup as I have yet to truly do so since going 4K in 2017. I formally launch this weekend.

Congrats, Tina!

Don't forget to rent those big trucks with the oversized spotlights to park out in front of your house!

 

[Mark Booth]

WOW! I now regret not going to see 'Bohemian Rhapsody' in the theater! What a terrific film! My wife and I were enthralled from start to finish. We both teared up at the end. Hell, I think I even felt a few chills as the group performed.

I don't think I'll be listening to Queen albums in my car, but I definitely have a new appreciation for the group. And Rami Malek gave what will surely be voted the Best Actor performance of the year. Step aside, Bradley Cooper, I'm rooting for Malek.

But Best Picture? My vote would still go to 'A Star is Born'.

Robert and everyone, thank you posting your comments. They encouraged us to see this fine fine film! We'll be showing it in the Booth Bijou in March.

Mark

 

[dpippel]

We watched Bohemian Rhapsody tonight in 4K/Atmos and loved it! Stylized yes, but in a good way. Malek was amazing, as was the entire cast. We'll be catching this again soon, for sure.

 

[B-ROLL]

There are additional special features on the blu-ray that should be in the package with the 4K disc.And Rami Malek turned in his usual amazing performance ...

 

[Tino]

WOW! I now regret not going to see 'Bohemian Rhapsody' in the theater! What a terrific film! My wife and I were enthralled from start to finish. We both teared up at the end. Hell, I think I even felt a few chills as the group performed.

I don't think I'll be listening to Queen albums in my car, but I definitely have a new appreciation for the group. And Rami Malek gave what will surely be voted the Best Actor performance of the year. Step aside, Bradley Cooper, I'm rooting for Malek.

But Best Picture? My vote would still go to 'A Star is Born'.

Robert and everyone, thank you posting your comments. They encouraged us to see this fine fine film! We'll be showing it in the Booth Bijou in March.

Mark

Are you listening @Jake Lipson ?

 

[SFMike]

Totally agree with everything RAH has said about the excellent current state of our home theater reproduction. It's so much better than many local theaters with their complete disregard for quality control. The only thing missing for me is the total abandonment of the 3D feature in the 4K spec and current attitude of electronic manufactures that home 3D technology never existed. It's still surprising to me that something that is a niche market and still could be offered at so little production cost to high end sets is foolishly denied to the fans that enjoy and have collections of 3D Blu-ray features. In my opinion good 3D is much more of an enjoyable feature than 4K. Regardless of what one thinks about it, and I know the haters out there are legion, no one is forced to watch a film in 3D so why deprive those of us that do from our enjoyment.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Totally agree with everything RAH has said about the excellent current state of our home theater reproduction. It's so much better than many local theaters with their complete disregard for quality control. The only thing missing for me is the total abandonment of the 3D feature in the 4K spec and current attitude of electronic manufactures that home 3D technology never existed. It's still surprising to me that something that is a niche market and still could be offered at so little production cost to high end sets is foolishly denied to the fans that enjoy and have collections of 3D Blu-ray features. In my opinion good 3D is much more of an enjoyable feature than 4K. Regardless of what one thinks about it, and I know the haters out there are legion, no one is forced to watch a film in 3D so why deprive those of us that do from our enjoyment.

Because the studios believe 4K is going to be more profitable than 3D and they don't give a rip about their consumers. They want to force people from 3D to 4K. That tactic won't work for many of the 3D hardliners, but they must think such people are small in numbers.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Because the studios believe 4K is going to be more profitable than 3D and they don't give a rip about their consumers. They want to force people from 3D to 4K. That tactic won't work for many of the 3D hardliners, but they must think such people are small in numbers.

Can't entirely blame the studios since 3D has been discarded with new TVs.

Hard to market something that isn't even an option on TVs produced over the last few years, whereas 4K is available on virtually all TVs now sold...

 

[Carlo_M]

Can't entirely blame the studios since 3D has been discarded with new TVs.

Hard to market something that isn't even an option on TVs produced over the last few years, whereas 4K is available on virtually all TVs now sold...

Agreed. For a few years I was buying the 3D versions just in case, but the one 3D TV I had died and any reasonably priced 4K replacement that I wanted didn't have 3D as an option.

 

[JQuintana]

Because the studios believe 4K is going to be more profitable than 3D and they don't give a rip about their consumers. They want to force people from 3D to 4K. That tactic won't work for many of the 3D hardliners, but they must think such people are small in numbers.

The general public wasn't buying into 3D do to several hurdles, studios weren't "forcing" people to ditch 3D and go 4K. People didn't WANT 3D at home to the level many had hope so it naturally was killed off. No secret agenda by anyone. The consumers spoke and that was it.

And I'm sure in relation to all at home viewers, 3D people are quite a small number overall now. And shrinking if their TV's are dying off.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Though it's true that the general public isn't interested in 3D, there's no reason why 3D capability can't be made standard in the more high-end sets that will cost more regardless. Just because 3D capability is present doesn't mean it has to be utilized. I, for one, have little interest in a 4K TV solely because of the lack of 3D for my handful of '50s titles.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Are you listening @Jake Lipson ?

Clearly. I'm glad other people are enjoying it. I just don't care.

(However, I'm very excited to get A Star is Born next week.)

 

[PMF]

The general public wasn't buying into 3D do to several hurdles, studios weren't "forcing" people to ditch 3D and go 4K. People didn't WANT 3D at home to the level many had hope so it naturally was killed off. No secret agenda by anyone. The consumers spoke and that was it.

And I'm sure in relation to all at home viewers, 3D people are quite a small number overall now. And shrinking if their TV's are dying off.

I, myself, have not pursued 3-D. But it wasn't about any aversion to the format, at all; but, rather, because I was already fully invested within my own specific categories of discs. Nonetheless, I still often followed and read the threads of those from HTF who were involved with 3-D; and with great interests, too. I was both sorry and concerned that their passions for this format were showing signs of future obstacles. All of the growing obstacles from a few years back seemed to be needless; be it from those who manufactured the players or from those who manufactured the advancing technologies of a display.

Truly, it never made any sense to me. Why should one technology always lead to the eradication of another? And why, with such advancements, is there not the means to also keep the 3-D capabilities intact?

3-D was a format that I was open to; but my developing appreciations for it began at about the same time of its unfortunate transitions out. I, myself; with only 3 titles in tow; do hope to see its comeback. Oh, yes, I do believe it will happen. And why? Because 3-D is every bit as important to the contextual history of film and preservation as are any of the other titles within our celluloid heritage.

P.S. Rami Malek will win the Oscar.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Though it's true that the general public isn't interested in 3D, there's no reason why 3D capability can't be made standard in the more high-end sets that will cost more regardless. Just because 3D capability is present doesn't mean it has to be utilized. I, for one, have little interest in a 4K TV solely because of the lack of 3D for my handful of '50s titles.

Agree 100%. IIRC, it costs only like $5 for LG - or whoever - to add a 3D chip to their sets. (Someone please correct if this is wrong!)

I understand this adds up on cheaper sets - a $5 chip in a $500 TV that sells 1000s will be an unnecessary expense.

But a $5 chip in a $3000 TV that will sell a fraction as many units as that $500 TV seems like a minor expense.

Obviously the manufacturers don't think it's worth even the most minor loss of revenue but I think this feels really greedy.

They sold us 3D at home for years and now leave us with no options beyond projectors - which aren't practical for a lot of people...

 

[JQuintana]

Is it really just a "$5" chip that is needed to go from being a 2D TV to 3D? Somehow I think there is more to it. What about the screen itself? If it really was that cheap and easy I'd think 3D's would be stocked everywhere.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Is it really just a "$5" chip that is needed to go from being a 2D TV to 3D? Somehow I think there is more to it. What about the screen itself? If it really was that cheap and easy I'd think 3D's would be stocked everywhere.

Like I said, I might be wrong. I thought I read that the chip that allows a 4K set to be 3D is very cheap, but I could be totally off-base...

 

[JQuintana]

I think this is also needed for certain types of 3D tv panels:

TV set has to be fitted with polarizing filters as well, which bumps the cost up quite considerably..