Personally, I think 4K Blu-ray is going to be another bust (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

So far, I am coming to the conclusion that 4K Blu is going to be another failure like 3D was and for much of the same reason. The reason being these studios are completely out of touch with reality on pricing. The studios are repeating the same mistake that they did with 3D Blu releases. They are pricing them too high. Right now, on the retail side, in Canada, 4k releases are selling between 30 and 40 dollars Canadian. I have bought a few for testing purposes, but my desire to spend 30+ dollars on a movie are long gone, especially on the kind of releases that have appeared on 4K so far.

After reading reactions to "Suicide Squad" I didn't spend ten bucks to see it in a theater. What makes these studios think that I'd be willing to pay 30+ dollars to watch it at home in 4K? And the same goes for a lot of what they have released on 4K Blu to date. They are completely out to lunch with their 4K media marketing.

4K is going to be another niche failure for the following reasons:

1) They are ridiculously overpriced for today's home entertainment landscape.
2) The selection of films is rather poor.
3) The release schedule of films in 4K is glacial.
4) They don't include 3D copies in the package for films where 3D versions exist. Thanks to that bit of genius marketing they force a person to choose between the 3D Blu or the 4K version where such releases take place. Cases in point: The Secret Life of Pets and Mad Max:Fury Road.

In the case of Mad Max: Fury Road, I only bought it in 4K to see if I could see any obvious differences in quality between 1080p and 4K, mostly in terms of colour improvement; otherwise, I would have bought the 3D version. So far, the level of improvement with 4K does not seem to be worth the premium being asked. It may be different if a person is running front projection but, on a 65" set, the differences are minimal.

That is why I chose to buy the 3D 1080p version of TSLoP, rather than the 4K. 3D was worth more to me than the small improvement, if any, that I would see in 4K; however, if the releasing studio had had the brains to include a 3D copy in the 4K package then I would have most likely purchased that version, even at a higher price, to futureproof against the possibility of moving up to a 4k front projection when it becomes affordable.

 

[bigshot]

So far, the level of improvement with 4K does not seem to be worth the premium being asked. It may be different if a person is running front projection but, on a 65" set, the differences are minimal.

I have a very good projection system with a 100 inch screen, and I have to admit that with good upscaling, even recent anamorphic DVDs look very good. I've found that the biggest limitation in the image quality of movies is the quality of the film elements and the transfer, not the number of pixels. But that said, high bitrate audio seems to do well enough without an obvious difference in resolution, so there seems to be a market for selling abstract numbers that represent quality differences that aren't perceptible.

 

[DavidMiller]

There are plenty of discs out there that outshine the Blu-ray edition. There are several discs that are coming out cheaper then $30 and there have been plenty of sales this holiday season. I now have 65 UHD Blu-rays and some are better then others and some really knock it out of the ball park. I will say that the bigger your screen the more benefit you will see. The big difference between this and 3D, people hated to wear the glasses had nothing to do with price.

 

[Edwin-S]

Yes, I have read some comments where the person has stated that DVDs are unwatchable on a 4K set. I popped in my DVD of "The Sea Wolves" and found, lo and behold, that it was very watchable. I did play around with noise reduction settings and anti-judder settings, so the film may not look exactly like it did in the theater, but for my viewing purposes it looked pretty good to me. Just like anything else, the upscaling logarithms in these sets and AVRs have improved over time.

 

[jcroy]

Too early to say for sure.

 

[Edwin-S]

There are plenty of discs out there that outshine the Blu-ray edition. There are several discs that are coming out cheaper then $30 and there have been plenty of sales this holiday season. I now have 65 UHD Blu-rays and some are better then others and some really knock it out of the ball park. I will say that the bigger your screen the more benefit you will see. The big difference between this and 3D, people hated to wear the glasses had nothing to do with price.

Really, as far as I am concerned, people hating to wear glasses as a reason for the failure of 3D is overblown. People wear glasses every day, for the entire day, just to be able to see, so to say that people hated to wear glasses for a couple of hours for sporadic periods of time movie watching is assigning too much importance to the annoyance of wearing an appliance.

The studios and consumer electronic manufacturers killed 3D with ridiculous pricing structures and bone-headed exclusivity agreements at the introduction of home video 3D, not to mention a lot of mediocre, cash-grab, 3D conversion. The quickest way of killing home 3D was to tell consumers that they had to buy "brand X" TV to "Brand A's" movie. After that, pricing the films ridiculously higher, like Di$ney did, only helped to guarantee complete failure in mainstream adoption. The same thing is going to happen to 4K blu.

The consumer electronics industry never learns that if you set the cost of adoption too high the likely result will be failure in mainstreaming a format. What do Laserdisc, 3D Blu-ray, SACD, DVD-A, 4K Blu-ray and even the Blu-ray format all have in common? The prices were set too high at their introduction, pretty well guaranteeing low adoption rates by the average home entertainment consumer.

 

[Edwin-S]

Too early to say for sure.

Maybe, but it tells me something when I go to Best Buy or HMV and see the same twenty 4K films sitting on the rack week after week. It tells me that people may be buying 4K sets, but they are not adopting 4K hard media. If they are watching "4K" material then it is through streaming services who promote that they are providing 4K streaming. A claim that, to me, is bordering on deceptive advertising.

 

[Bryan^H]

4K is going to be another niche failure for the following reasons:

1) They are ridiculously overpriced for today's home entertainment landscape.
2) The selection of films is rather poor.
3) The release schedule of films in 4K is glacial.
4) They don't include 3D copies in the package for films where 3D versions exist. Thanks to that bit of genius marketing they force a person to choose between the 3D Blu or the 4K version where such releases take place. Cases in point: The Secret Life of Pets and Mad Max:Fury Road.

1) I have never payed more than $25 for a UHD title. Well worth it for the video/audio quality.
2) it has been a pretty good mix for me so far but...
3) I would like to see many more UHD releases. Yes, the release schedule is very slim.
4)I bought two copies of the same movie because I love 3D, and UHD. $50 for one movie is a lot of cash. I don't think it will change, and that sucks.

 

[Bryan^H]

And if ever there is a question of good to great in comparison of Blu-Ray to UHD. Check out 'Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children'.
The BD looks fine. The UHD looks amazing. More natural, lifelike. And the detail is astounding.
A little reminder to make myself feel a whole lot better about buying a UHD setup.

 

[PaulDA]

Costs in Canada for initial releases often seem grossly overpriced vs US releases (Twilight Zone series Blu a notable exception). Once we factor in exchange rates, however, the difference is often negligible. I live in Canada and work in the US. I do the price comparison with all costs (taxes, exchange rates and shipping costs--if any) before placing an order. I used to almost always order from US and have it sent to my work address. Since the tumble of the loonie, however, the split is now about 50/50. Sucks, but nothing to be done about it.

Issues of choice and speed of releases are separate concerns. But prices reflect, by and large, exchange rates.

 

[John Sparks]

I have a very good projection system with a 100 inch screen, and I have to admit that with good upscaling, even recent anamorphic DVDs look very good. I've found that the biggest limitation in the image quality of movies is the quality of the film elements and the transfer, not the number of pixels. But that said, high bitrate audio seems to do well enough without an obvious difference in resolution, so there seems to be a market for selling abstract numbers that represent quality differences that aren't perceptible.

I've said it before, some SDs upscale very well and look great in my HT. I would love to replace my PJ, screen, A/V receiver, BD player and remote control...but I don't have $8000 to replace everything. I fell for HDDVD, ain't going to do it again for HDBD.

 

[TonyD]

I wear glasses and that is a huge reason that I don't want to watch a 3D movie.
The glasses never feel comfortable over the regular glasses, it's just a huge annoyance to me.
But I do own about 150 3D movies and will buy the 3D version over non 3D version.

I don't own more than I have because it's hard to find them cheaper than $20 which happens to be my price limit.

The price for new release 3D and UHD is ludicrous. I'm not buying movies for that price.
Sure they have sale prcing for a handful of movies on UHD but it's still too much.

Also as mentioned I have an 80" 3D set that is only 3 years old.
My bluray player works fine.

I'm not buying a new tv a new player and movies again just to have them in UHD.

I really don't know so I ask, does it cost that much more to produce a UHD disc than a standard bluray?

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I agree that 4K/UHD is a niche market.

It was a niche market when it was introduced, and it will be a niche market throughout it's viable life. So what? It will still be bigger than LD ever was, and It brings us one step closer to bringing the current home theater experience home. Collectors here will relish the ability to do that, and the premium price is just part of the hobby. So, It's all good!

And, just for the record, Sony's release of "Ghostbusters" (2016) included both 3D and UHD in the same SKU.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Thats my thing, who cares? It is another step up in HT enjoyment, and I don't think the movies at $25 off Amazon are a bad deal. It costs my wife and I $50 to attend a movie, which is why I sunk money into the HT and have been to a theater once in the last two years.

As far as 3D, I didnt care for it until I got the OLED. With the plasma it killed black level going into 3D mode and the wife could not deal with active glasses. The 3D on the OLED in passive is spectacular.

 

[Cranston37+]

A few random thoughts:

4K discs are selling at a healthy rate, a rate higher than Blu's first year. I think you seeing titles not moving in stores has more to do with people buying online rather than going in Best Buy.

Prices are high and selection is small? No kidding. It's always like that at launch. Prices will fall. Nothing to predict the future from here.

4K is not really a new format, but a compliment to an existing format. It's a niche by nature. Not every title will benefit that much from it to justify its release. It's success/failure will have to be judged differently than something like DVD. And a niche format within physical media, which is a business with the same amount of yearly revenue as the NBA, can still be making enough money to keep it a very healthy endeavor.

I am convinced a few years from now there will be 2 physical releases per film - one DVD, one a Blu/UHD combo. Having 3 SKU's (sometimes 4 with 3D) is too many to devote floor space to. A few years after that it will be 1 SKU per film as DVD continues to lose marketplace interest (a release with all discs and a digital code). Why is this important? I think in a few years you will be buying a UHD every time you buy a movie, rather you like it or not.

How is streaming going to affect it? A question we are all curious about it to be sure. All I can say from my experience after having moved to 4K streaming a few months ago is that it causes you to hit your data cap FAST. If people crave 4K media to feed to their new, pricy systems, and streaming becomes an obstacle for it,...

 

[jcroy]

The primary reason I haven't purchased any 4Kbluray discs yet, is largely due to inertia and apathy on my part. Also very extreme laziness.

So far there has not been any definitive "must buy" movies on 4Kbluray, which interest me at all.


On the other hand, I've also been using a "no 4Kbluray, no sale" mind trick on myself, largely to fool myself into NOT buying a particular title on conventional bluray or dvd. It greatly cuts down significantly on frivolous "impulse buys" which I only end up watching once or twice (or never).

 

[Carabimero]

You left off reason 5: I can't tell much of a difference between 4K and BD unless I get real close to the screen.

But here's why I like 4K: because the BDs I get, like MY FAIR LADY, made from a UHD master, look marvelous. The overall dynamic range is better even when I watch on my current equipment.

I hope it doesn't go bust for that reason alone: it's great to have every last bit of info off 35mm and 65mm negatives archived for posterity.

 

[MikeTV]

People who still watch "recent" anamorphic DVDs, I never consider them much of an authority on things like 4K Blu-ray. I haven't bought a DVD since Blu-ray came out.

 

[Malcolm R]

I am convinced a few years from now there will be 2 physical releases per film - one DVD, one a Blu/UHD combo. Having 3 SKU's (sometimes 4 with 3D) is too many to devote floor space to. A few years after that it will be 1 SKU per film as DVD continues to lose marketplace interest (a release with all discs and a digital code). Why is this important? I think in a few years you will be buying a UHD every time you buy a movie, rather you like it or not.

People are still hopelessly ignorant about formats and combo packs. I was in Best Buy before Christmas and overhead a couple looking for the DVD-only release of "Zootopia." I had seen it on the shelf at $19.99 or higher, while they were running a special on the Blu/DVD combo pack for $12.99. I pointed out to them that there were all kinds of the combo pack on the shelf, that contained both the blu and DVD discs, and that this was significantly cheaper than the DVD-only version. They were amazed. They didn't realize that there were combo packs that contained both formats.

I think the studios really limited the adaptation of blu-ray by continuing to release DVD-only versions to the present day. If they had offered only the combo packs of blu/DVD, more people might have chosen to upgrade. But the DVD version is frequently $5 cheaper than the combo pack, so where's the incentive for anyone to upgrade unless you're a videophile? Had they eliminated the DVD-only option, adaptation percentages might have been higher.

Some people also don't seem to realize that blu-ray players can also play DVD's. I saw a guy buying a DVD player a while back and asked why he wouldn't consider a blu-ray player? He replied, "I don't have any blu-rays," and he apparently never intends to own any.

 

[Robert Crawford]

People who still watch "recent" anamorphic DVDs, I never consider them much of an authority on things like 4K Blu-ray. I haven't bought a DVD since Blu-ray came out.

Well, I still buy DVDs of titles not released in Blu-ray and i consider myself an authority on 4K/UHD discs with a growing library of such.