Do you still buy the Blu-rays when a UHD 4K is available?

[Canada]

The reason I ask is I own a Panasonic UB820 and I just bought the Blu-rays of The Fantastic Beast films because they were on sale. I don't find there is a huge difference between between Blu-rays and UHD 4K Blu-rays.

[Member-222782]

I just preordered the Blu-ray editions of Nun II and Expendables 4. I don't need new theatrical films shot on digital to be on 4K. Older stuff shot on film is a must, though. Not everything needs to be a 4K, Blu-ray is sufficient for a lot of films.

[WalterSturgeon]

Yeah, you are right enough. With the passage of time lots of things have changed. Now people don't depend on a specific thing.

[Darren75]

I bought this version of the Exorcist because I thought the colour grading on the 4k looked a bit funky.

[pjl69]

I blind buy new interesting movies on blu-ray when they are on sale. 4K UHD is too expensive for blind buys.

[MattmanAlpha]

Generally only when a Blu-ray is included. If I have to choose between the two, I opt for BD.

I'm not particularly sold on 4KUHD as a format so much as a restoration tool. The reason is because of a few things that I heard around the dawn of the format which have stuck with me.

1) The natural resolution of most 35mm film is roughly equal to 2K, so 4K is a blow-up of most older films. 2K is where they are most comfortable.

2) The natural color space of film is close to the Rec. 709 color space of Blu-ray. HDR expansion leads to less accuracy. (Like original sound mixes versus surround remixes. They can sound good, but that doesn't mean they're correct.)

3) Grain doesn't always render correctly in 4K. So, movies may be de-grained and then re-grained digitally for the final product.

Don't ask me to quote the sources for all of this. It's stuff I picked up on threads where folks were arguing about discs being given 2K remasters instead of full-on 4K discs. Take it as opinion and with a grain of salt.

[gregmtl92]

No, if I’m not buying the 4K disc for whatever reason (price, unavailability etc.) then I’ll usually buy it digitally or stream it.

[Gmamalis6]

Originally Posted by Canada

The reason I ask is I own a Panasonic UB820 and I just bought the Blu-rays of The Fantastic Beast films because they were on sale. I don't find there is a huge difference between between Blu-rays and UHD 4K Blu-rays.

When I have a Blu-ray release of a film and at a later time it gets a 4K release, I prefer to keep my Blu-ray, because I don't like to sell and upgrade or not to buy the movie on Blu-ray and wait for a future 4K release. Or when there's a box set Blu-ray (for example 4 Inspirational Movies by Universal with Field of Dreams, Seabiscuit, Friday Night Lights and Cinderella Man) and one or more of the movies has a 4K release I still would pick the box set so I wouldn't buy individually each movie and in order to save space for my collection.

[filmbuffTX]

Only if I just so happen to come across a cheap Blu-ray out in the wild at a physical store. But I would never plan on buying a Blu-ray when a 4K is available. Especially since I've recently purchased my first 4K TV. I just wait for a good price on the 4K. Of course it depends on the movie. Right now there's tons of 4K UHDs on sale for $7.99 - $9.99.

[RCRochester]

I’m picky about the films I buy on 4K, only the best of the best for me (in terms of personal taste that is), so while Godfather I & II are on 4K in my collection, Part III is and always will be blu-ray only.

[ThePhantom]

Originally Posted by MattmanAlpha

1) The natural resolution of most 35mm film is roughly equal to 2K, so 4K is a blow-up of most older films. 2K is where they are most comfortable.

The 35mm film resolution debate is a lot more nuanced than that, and your assertion that "most" 35mm film is equal to 2K is likely wrong. When it comes to release prints shown in theaters, you're probably close to correct, as these prints are usually several generations away from the original negative. But the probable maximum resolution increases as you go back to the internegative, the interpositive, and the original negative, where somewhere around 4K is often a good bet, depending on the film stock and other variables. So it depends on the source a Blu-ray or 4K UHD is working from whether or not a particular edition is capturing the full resolution of any given film, or close to it, and whether 4K would just be overkill without much, if any, visible improvement in terms of resolution.

2) The natural color space of film is close to the Rec. 709 color space of Blu-ray. HDR expansion leads to less accuracy.

Again, the conversation regarding the "natural color space of film" is a lot more nuanced than that, but you're not wrong that HDR color grading practices often leads to inaccuracy. BUT that's not necessarily a fault of the format or having access to a larger color space -- it's all about the color grading and mastering. Just because you have a greater palette doesn't mean you have to use all of it! But for films that do go beyond the Rec. 709 color space, they have that option. Color grading is often inaccurate on DVD, Blu-ray, any format, and isn't any more or less likely to be accurate on a 4K UHD.

3) Grain doesn't always render correctly in 4K. So, movies may be de-grained and then re-grained digitally for the final product.

Grain doesn't always render correctly in 2K either. Many Blu-ray transfers use similar methods to digitally reduce grain, sometimes leaving it degrained and overly smooth, other times digitally regraining. This kind of mucking with grain happens on both formats.

Bottom line, it's a case-by-case basis whether a Blu-ray or 4K UHD is the most accurate version of any given film. It depends on numerous variables, including the film source, color grading, mastering, and encoding. Given the same materials to work with and the same tools and technical team, the 4K UHD just opens up the potential to be more accurate, if the film does naturally exceed the limitations of 1080p/Rec.709, and if the producers of the edition know what they're doing and don't screw it up.

[Bradsdadg]

If I am going to buy a film and add it to my collection, and there is a 4K available, I will buy the 4K. If it's only on blu I have to decide to wait and see, or buy anyhow. Sometimes I will buy a DVD if that is it or nothing. Though I have cut way way down on doing that.

[filmlover22]

Yes - 99% of the time.

I am still convinced the 4k physical format is not viable long term. The scratch protection coating is the same as on the standard BD, which is insane since the 4K has so much more data in the same physical space. The replicator in Mexico (which produces most, if not all, of the 4ks in the US) has been known to be problematic for 4ks. When adding in the potential from scratches from replication, disc packaging and normal consumer wear and tear (even the occasional 'oops. I dropped it"), the chances that a small defect in the disc will be present and WILL impact playback are large, imho. I have already experienced some of my 4ks experiencing playback issues. No visible defects, but even the smallest defect, invisible to the naked eye, can cause playback issues (freezing, pixelation, etc.)

I also do not like the color-push of HDR. in some of the 4ks I have bought, the colors are SO vibrant, SO in your face, that I find it jarring and literally takes me out of the movie experience. I also highly doubt these films were shown like this in the theaters, or were the original intent of the director. I have never had a standard bluray where I felt "whoa! I need to turn the color saturation down!". I have numerous occasions to feel that way with some 4ks.

My approach now is to avoid 4ks unless they are a significant PQ improvement where the bluray is reviewed to truly diminishing the movie experience, on a LE with significant supplements that I really would want to see and keep, and I have the bluray version as backup.

Otherwise, my preferred approach is to have a well authored 4k master on a standard bluray. I feel there is a 99% chance of being able to play that disc again 20 years from now. The 4k? I feel there is a 99% chance of NOT being able to play that disc again 20 years from now.

BTW- I recently attended a 3 day home theater event that had a panel discussion with top executives (CEOs, head of marketing/research) from some of the top HT companies in the world (Sony, JVC, etc.). They all said that they didn't see 4k physical media as viable long term for multiple reasons - the number one reason was scratches affecting playback. They also said the studios have told them that they have literally thousands of movies remastered on 4k that they have absolutely no plans to ever release on physical media. So I suspect, over time, we will see more and more films only released on standard bluray anyhow. Just my take on things.

Do I buy 4ks? yes. But I buy them realizing the viewing experience could be short lived.

Just my 2 cents, folks. I know others disagree.

[drb999]

I hear so many horror stories of 4Ks not work due to the smallest of scratches and it scares me away from the format.

[starsteam]

Many times it's not worth the extra $5 to me. Blu-ray still looks good, and I don't always need that extra uptick. If I had a huge expensive TV then I would want to get the most I could out of it, but I don't, so it's enough for the movie to just look good. Many of my 4K buys were just because they have exclusive content like a new transfer.

I find with sequels and cinematic universes, I tend to keep buying the Blu-ray over the 4K. I'm not interested in rebuying every Marvel movie on 4K, so there's not much incentive to start getting them in 4K now.

Then there's the fact that 4K causes me so many playback problems, I don't think the discs are as dependable as Blu-ray. With more studios dropping combo-packs, I will choose the Blu-ray copy over the 4K-only. When its a case where I'd actually want the 4K, I will try to buy both formats at some point. I currently have two 4K discs that are unwatchable, so if I didn't have a Blu-ray copy I wouldn't be able to enjoy those movies. So I'm going to feel nervous if the 4K is my only copy.

[plissken99]

Never buy a BD when the 4K available. Over 300 discs and no scratches disc issues, course I’m not one of the cursed members here who gets scratched discs in the mail every week. 99/100 mine are fine, if not they get exchanged.

[fitprod]

Honestly, for any new major release, if it is not released in 4K (on physical disc) I don't buy it. Been that way since 4K's launch in 2016. (I'm am on the fence about A Night in Venice, but Disney should not be rewarded for not releasing the third film of a trilogy only on BD when the other two films were.)

I have bought only one new film on BD and 4K, and that was Shaft (2019) because the 4K disc did not include the supplement.

Catalog wise, I'll buy the new 4K disc, depending on the film, I will keep the old BD. Mostly because:

1. You can't trust studios, especially Warner, to package all the old supplements on the 4K (Enter the Dragon, Exorcist, Superman I-IV, etc...)

2. Political correctness may rear it's ugly head and alter a title, such as Toy Story 2, and get edited. (The removal of Stinky Pink's behind the screens outtake where he hits on the Barbie dolls... I get it, especially being a kids movie.)

fitprod

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by drb999

I hear so many horror stories of 4Ks not work due to the smallest of scratches and it scares me away from the format.

To your point, that’s pretty much what they are. Stories. In relation to facts and reality, there are a handful of posters in these threads that type in extremes and hyperbole. They latch on to minor complaints and then proceed to blow them way, way, out of proportion. If you hadn’t noticed.

[Dragun]

I usually don't buy the Blu-Ray if a 4K is available, unless the Blu-Ray is better for some reason. It doesn't happen often, but there are cases where the Blu-Ray is preferable. If there is a UHD that isnt appreciably better than the Blu-Ray, I still buy the UHD, as long as it isn't worse and I don't already own the Blu-Ray (such as Criterion's Night of the Living Dead).

Besides the technical advantages of the UHD format itself, (more resolution, HDR, WCG, better compression than Blu), the format is also a way to get newly remastered versions of movies, especially those shot and finished on film, since the Blu-Rays are often sourced from older masters.

Re: 35mm resolution. The roughly 2K limit in resolution is truer for some older films than for new ones, due to the film stocks and lenses of the day, even if scanned from the OCN. But even these films can benefit from the aforementioned advantages of UHD.

[SpartanJGE]

For me personally, if the option exists for both, I will GENERALLY go for the 4K. Not a hard and fast rule, as I have gotten a few Blus for things my kids wanted, or that were on a significant deal/sale for a movie I don't care as much about but still want to own. But I prefer to watch in 4K if possible, and especially if it's something I really like.