Paddington 2 UHD drove me to stream (1 Viewer)

[Brian Kidd]

I'm a big fan of Paddington. I loved the stop-motion shorts when I was a kid and think the first film is a bona fide classic family film. I missed the second one in theaters and was looking forward to purchasing the 4K disc when it released... which it didn't in the U.S. Sadly, even a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't enough to pull people into the cinemas here, so I'm sure that affected the physical release plans. Honestly, I don't feel it was marketed correctly, but that's neither here nor there.

In any case, I rarely purchase digital copies. I'm a die-hard disc lover and feel they outshine streaming in terms of quality in every way possible. There have been a few occasions where I've purchased the HD streaming version of films that simply aren't available on disc (I'm looking at you, Disney), but most of the time I'll go so far as to hunt down international releases if they're inexpensive enough and have good reviews. I had Paddington 2 on my list of discs to buy from the UK once the price comes down a little. However, on a whim I was browsing Vudu this morning and noticed that they had the UHD version of the film for $9.99.

That did it.

I know the disc would have a higher bitrate and more-robust sound, but that price point combined with not needing to wait to order it from overseas compelled me to take the plunge.

I'm still going to clutch my discs until long after they stop making them, but I have a feeling that this is the start of me resigning myself to the realities of a post-physical media world. Are there any other die-hard disc lovers who find themselves giving in to the Streaming Beast? What was the film or TV show that did it?

 

[Sam Posten]

Welcome to the And Not Or club.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I generally use iTunes and Vudu for rentals, but still make my purchases on physical media. There were a couple times where a movie I wanted to rent was maybe $4 for the rental or $5 to purchase, and in those cases, I've bought.

I'd also be open to buying an HD digital version of a title that was only on DVD on physical media - but my preference would probably be to rent if that was an option.

But I do love the instant option of having those digital services available - it's great to be sitting on the couch well after business hours and to have that realization of "I can still have access to a huge library of material without having to leave the house"!

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I’d rather buy a VHS tape than a ‘digital’ copy. $10 is still too much for something you don’t really own.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm a big fan of Paddington. I loved the stop-motion shorts when I was a kid and think the first film is a bona fide classic family film. I missed the second one in theaters and was looking forward to purchasing the 4K disc when it released... which it didn't in the U.S. Sadly, even a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't enough to pull people into the cinemas here, so I'm sure that affected the physical release plans. Honestly, I don't feel it was marketed correctly, but that's neither here nor there.

In any case, I rarely purchase digital copies. I'm a die-hard disc lover and feel they outshine streaming in terms of quality in every way possible. There have been a few occasions where I've purchased the HD streaming version of films that simply aren't available on disc (I'm looking at you, Disney), but most of the time I'll go so far as to hunt down international releases if they're inexpensive enough and have good reviews. I had Paddington 2 on my list of discs to buy from the UK once the price comes down a little. However, on a whim I was browsing Vudu this morning and noticed that they had the UHD version of the film for $9.99.

That did it.

I know the disc would have a higher bitrate and more-robust sound, but that price point combined with not needing to wait to order it from overseas compelled me to take the plunge.

I'm still going to clutch my discs until long after they stop making them, but I have a feeling that this is the start of me resigning myself to the realities of a post-physical media world. Are there any other die-hard disc lovers who find themselves giving in to the Streaming Beast? What was the film or TV show that did it?

As Sam stated, welcome to the club. The other day I bought that title too on iTunes along with Phantom Thread in 4K.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I’d rather buy a VHS tape than a ‘digital’ copy. $10 is still too much for something you don’t really own.

To each his own.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I've heard that Paddington 2 was completed in 2K. If that's the case, does an upconvert to 4K actually improve the look all that much? (This is a legitimate question -- I don't have 4K equipment and haven't seen it.) But my regular Blu-ray looks great.

Honestly, I don't feel it was marketed correctly, but that's neither here nor there.

As far as the marketing is concerned, I think WB did what they could on this film given that they picked it up very late in the game amidst all of the TWC fallout. I don't really understand how it fell so short of the first one, given that the first one was bigger, well-liked and had 3 years for people to find it on disc or on Netflix. So you'd think if anything that the sequel would grow. But I don't think WB botched the release.

Sadly, even a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't enough to pull people into the cinemas here,

Also, isn't it interesting that studios always complain about low Rotten Tomatoes scores influencing box office, but when they have something that has the most completely positive reviews ever on there, it doesn't actually help to get people into the theaters as you noted?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I've heard that Paddington 2 was completed in 2K. If that's the case, does an upconvert to 4K actually improve the look all that much? (This is a legitimate question -- I don't have 4K equipment and haven't seen it.) But my regular Blu-ray looks great.

As far as the marketing is concerned, I think WB did what they could on this film given that they picked it up very late in the game amidst all of the TWC fallout. I don't really understand how it fell so short of the first one, given that the first one was bigger, well-liked and had 3 years for people to find it on disc or on Netflix. So you'd think if anything that the sequel would grow. But I don't think WB botched the release.

Also, isn't it interesting that studios always complain about low Rotten Tomatoes scores influencing box office, but when they have something that has the most completely positive reviews ever on there, it doesn't actually help to get people into the theaters as you noted?

Yes it does!

 

[Jake Lipson]

Yes it does!

Good to know. Thanks.

Has anyone/can anyone get screen shots of the various newspaper shots in the film? Paul King's commentary says he actually wrote every word on them and encourages you to pause to read them...which I have, but they're so quick and I can't always make out everything on them other than the headlines, which are hilarious. Perhaps that would be something where the increased resolution of 4K would improve?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

To each his own.

While this is certainly true, it seems like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" stance. Technology changes, and adapting to those changes is part of what this hobby is about. Streaming isn't going away, and to completely reject it is just going to limit a person's options more and more as time advances. The quality of digital streams may not be as good as a disc, but it's getting darn close, and 4K UHD streams look fantastic to me.

While I prefer buying discs, I will buy a digital version when it makes sense, whether due to availability or cost. I just recently bought three 4K UHD films on iTunes for $10 each -- The Post, The Shape of Water, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. The UHD discs for each are currently $25 each, and these were all blind buys for me. At $10, I'm willing to take a chance on them. At $25, not so much.

I also rent quite a few films this way -- just rented the 4K UHD version of mother! for a buck on iTunes. That's as good as any price I ever got back in the day renting tapes or discs at Blockbuster, and I don't have to make two trips to the video store to pick up and drop off the movie.

 

[Sam Posten]

I’d rather buy a VHS tape than a ‘digital’ copy. $10 is still too much for something you don’t really own.

You are missing out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

While this is certainly true, it seems like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" stance. Technology changes, and adapting to those changes is part of what this hobby is about. Streaming isn't going away, and to completely reject it is just going to limit a person's options more and more as time advances. The quality of digital streams may not be as good as a disc, but it's getting darn close, and 4K UHD streams look fantastic to me.

While I prefer buying discs, I will buy a digital version when it makes sense, whether due to availability or cost. I just recently bought three 4K UHD films on iTunes for $10 each -- The Post, The Shape of Water, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. The UHD discs for each are currently $25 each, and these were all blind buys for me. At $10, I'm willing to take a chance on them. At $25, not so much.

I also rent quite a few films this way -- just rented the 4K UHD version of mother! for a buck on iTunes. That's as good as any price I ever got back in the day renting tapes or discs at Blockbuster, and I don't have to make two trips to the video store to pick up and drop off the movie.

I understand your comments, but, I try to stay away from critizing how others spend their monies.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At a certain point, the quality of compression will increase, and the bandwidth available will increase, to a point where the content being delivered via streaming is bit-for-bit identical to what's on the physical disc. There's nothing magical about the disc itself; it's just a container to hold a bunch of data. Right now, the size of that container is larger than the streaming equivalent, which is why discs look better in many circumstances.

But one day, probably sooner than we realize, that will change.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You are missing out.

He is, but, it’s consistent with his prior comments about discs and 3-D.

 

[TJPC]

Ok, I buy albums from iTunes and burn my own CDs. They often also have a booklet to download. This works really well, especially for works that are not on CD in the first place. As far as I can tell, this is perfectly legal, and is done through iTunes itself. I have the album on my computer, my iPhone and my old iPod, as well as a disc sitting on my shelf.

I am not as technically adept as some here, I am sure, but setting aside present legalities, why couldn’t iTunes or other streaming services let you download a movie and burn it yourself? This I think would please streamers and those of us who whine about “the death of physical media”. I’d buy a new computer with Blu ray burning capacity, and blanks.

 

[jcroy]

I'm pretty much at the point where I'm very selective about what I'm willing to buy on bluray/dvd. I'm only willing to buy scifi movies on bluray/dvd nowadays.

For other stuff I watch once or twice such as action, superhero, etc ... type movies, I'm fine with either watching generic broadcasts on cable/satellite or digital/stream.

For most of these action or superhero movies which I end up watching only once or twice, I don't see much point anymore in buying the blurays/dvds. After that first or second viewing, most of these movies have very little to no rewatch value for me.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I've heard that Paddington 2 was completed in 2K. If that's the case, does an upconvert to 4K actually improve the look all that much? (This is a legitimate question -- I don't have 4K equipment and haven't seen it.) But my regular Blu-ray looks great.

The thing about Blu-ray is that it still has slightly lower resolution than a 2K DCP. 2K DCP ranges in resolution from 2048x1080 to 1998x1080 and 2048x858 depending upon the aspect ratio of the film. While that's still lower resolution than a 4K disc or digital file, you are at least able to see all of the image information from the original file, which you can't with a Blu-ray. It's probably not going to be a night-and-day difference like you'd see with a native 4K source, but in a lot of cases it does give it a visual bump. The video codec used in UHD (h.265) is also superior to those used on a Blu-ray and also allows for HDR. I've found HDR hit and miss, but when it's done well, it's pretty lovely.

TL/DR Yes, UHD will likely look better than Blu-ray with a 2K source, but it isn't going to blow your mind. A well-mastered Blu-ray of a 2K film will still look very nice when upscaled to a 4K TV.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: Found this useful chart on Wikipedia.

 

[Jeff F.]

I have been collecting physical media starting back in the 80s with VHS, then laserdisc, then DVD, then Blu-Ray and now 4K UHD, but those days are numbered. I'm finding that the 4K video on Apple TV is pretty darn close to the disc image. The sound isn't quite up to par with the disc, but it's almost there. And I'm viewing all of this on a 4K HDR 75" Sony TV with a good 5.1 audio set up. I have almost stopped purchasing discs altogether, which is sad, but I'm actually ok with moving on and embracing streaming.

 

[Sam Posten]

The sound isn't quite up to par with the disc,

SOON (TM)

 

[CRAIG ALEXANDER AVERY]

Personally, I have a collection of about 200 Blu-Rays and UHD discs and maybe 3-5 DVDs. I prefer disc based formats to streaming as Blu-Ray/UHD is substantially better than streaming on a 55 inch LG OLED. That said my order of preference is:
UHD DISC
Blu-Ray
4K streaming whether through itunes, netflix, amazon,etc.
1080p streaming.
DVD.

I'm not the biggest fan of streaming but I would say 4K Streaming is basically like a '720p blu-ray'. It's basically good enough that I'm not distracted while watching a film or television show. Below that visual artifacts, lesser contrast is somewhat annoying to me. I do subscribe to a few streaming services like Netflix, Mubi, Stan, Amazon Prime Video so I do support it. I generally rent rather than buy movies, though for tv shows where you have to buy them I tend to get the disc. So that tends to push me more towards streaming than physical media.

However, nothing to me quite compares to a UHD Blu-ray where the image looks rock solid, super great contrast, etc. I use headphones to watch movies so the lossy vs lossless audio is not really that much of a factor to me. I can tell that uncompressed audio is superior using headphones but it's not that big a factor to me. I'm more of a videophile than an audiophile.

That said when everything streamed is in 4K which probably is not that far away a bitrate of 15 Mbps or so should be 'good enough' if not ideal. So yeah I think streaming is ok and in a few years will probably be fairly similar to high-end.