Still not convinced

[saprano]

Originally Posted by katiehlvr2

I havent accused you of anything.

lol. Again, i'm speaking in general.

[Wickerman1972]

Originally Posted by katiehlvr2

Then dont buy it. To me its worth it. Im not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you dont think it is, then watch blu ray. I want better. I always want better. If its 5 more dollars a disc and cost me 400 to upgrade my blu ray player. Im in.
Its worth it to me. Im not asking you to buy it for me.
What you call a minor upgrade, I call a major upgrade to my theatre experience.

To me it's a bit of a false advertising problem. 4k shouldn't be written in big letters on the box if it's really 2k upconverted to 4k. And actually I am willing to upgrade ... willing to upgrade from 1080p to 4k. But 1080p to 2k? No hurry for that.

[ADWyatt]

Originally Posted by RJ MacReady

Let me start out by saying that I own a 4K TV and am extremely curious about UHD blu-ray. I have yet to see it in action in person, as my local Best Buy doesn't have a display set up.

I've been reading the reviews of the new UHD discs and I have to say so far nothing has me saying "shut up and take my money" yet.

And then there's this gem from the latest review of Pineapple Express that has me chuckling to myself:

"Compare a towel ... the Blu-ray fails to offer more than a fairly smeary (comparatively speaking), flat towel. On the UHD, detail is greatly improved, revealing its surface texture with much greater sharpness and very fine attention to fabric detail."

I don't know about you guys, but what I've been dreaming of is enhanced towel definition in my lazy stoner comedies.

I'm just poking a little fun. But to me it seems like there's not a lot of reason to upgrade from regular blu-ray just yet.

You've brought up some excellent points, and yes, this is largely a subjective field. In the case of UHD one man's wine, as they say...

In my case, owning 12 4k movies now, I'll say that a few of my titles are definitely underwhelming, and although somewhat better than 1080p, hardly justify the cost of a player and rather expensive discs. Others, on the other hand, are simply stunning; so good, in my opinion, that it's hard to concentrate on the plot of the movie. And this is barely the beginning. As mastering techniques mature, and full 4k Nature/Documentary specials begin to be released, UHD TV promises to really shine.

But that can't obscure a somewhat unpleasant reality for the present. If I remember the latest statistics correctly, I believe that about 70% of all people who own disc libraries are watching only DVD, and they're perfectly happy with that. To many of them, I imagine, Blu-ray is a super-expensive and mysterious format that they want nothing to do with. 4k will be for a long time beyond their imagination. With that, I just hope there's going to be enough space on the dinner plate for 4k Blu-rays to catch on. I won't mind so much losing 3D, but to lose 4k discs would be really painful.

[RJ MacReady]

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

I won't mind so much losing 3D, but to lose 4k discs would be really painful.

You bring up a good point because I'm the opposite—I absolutely hate the possibility 3D could be phased out in favor of 4K.

I can't exactly fathom why we can't have both, as the new UHD players play both kind of discs. Why doesn't The Martian set include the UHD, Blu-ray and 3D versions? If people don't want it they don't have to use it. I've got hundreds of blu-ray combo packs with DVDs I've never even removed from the spindle.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by RJ MacReady

You bring up a good point because I'm the opposite—I absolutely hate the possibility 3D could be phased out in favor of 4K.

I can't exactly fathom why we can't have both, as the new UHD players play both kind of discs. Why doesn't The Martian set include the UHD, Blu-ray and 3D versions? If people don't want it they don't have to use it. I've got hundreds of blu-ray combo packs with DVDs I've never even removed from the spindle.

Because, adding a 3d disc makes it more expensive and most people don't want the 3d disc. It's not that crazy.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by doctor_who

Because, adding a 3d disc makes it more expensive and most people don't want the 3d disc. It's not that crazy.

Player asked me if I want to playback the BD of The Martian in 3D or 2D.. That was the first BD I through in it though so I guess a general 1-time question for future titles.. Dunno.

Regarding thread topic, I am convinced. Have watched 12 now & only 1 looked as though it could have been mimicked by the power of the Sammy's upconversion.

[Ambler1980]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Personally I don't like how TV technology is forcing my habits forward, just because the TV industry needs a boost after the abysmal failure of 3D. Every new step in TV resolution renders a media format unwatchable, along with hundreds of exclusive titles. HD made VHS unwatchable. UHD will make DVD unwatchable.

Unfortunately the bigger picture take presedence over the preferences of individuals. The alternative is no advancement simply because people don't want to buy new things. This is completely unrealistic and not to mention silly. Higher resolution formats allow viewers to appreciate the art of cinema better, which is absolutely a good thing. The inconvenience of having to shell out more cash is an acceptable trade off to me. These are first world problems, and therefore not problems at all IMO.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by Ambler1980

Unfortunately the bigger picture take presedence over the preferences of individuals. The alternative is no advancement simply because people don't want to buy new things. This is completely unrealistic and not to mention silly. Higher resolution formats allow viewers to appreciate the art of cinema better, which is absolutely a good thing. The inconvenience of having to shell out more cash is an acceptable trade off to me. These are first world problems, and therefore not problems at all IMO.

But the faster the technology advances, the worse its chance of success. Because the punters - those that keep these things profitable - will just get frustrated and skip it.

[Ambler1980]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

But the faster the technology advances, the worse its chance of success.

Unfortunately a side effect of technology is that it advances at a faster rate the faster it advances. This is well known in computing. There is really no getting around it or stopping it, and it really shouldn't be stopped... evolution is natural. It just happens to accelerate more than usual with technology. In the old analog days of VHS, it was slow, for obvious reasons. We don't live in that world anymore. Whether or not UHD is successful or not is kind of irrelevant. Something will be. We are not sticking with 1080p blurays, it's simply not going to last. People will always want the latest thing, whatever it is because you can't thrive in this world with old technology anymore.

Fortunately I never became much of a bluray adopter. Not because I didn't want to, but because I couldn't really afford it given my lack of a career. Now that my career is catching up, it wont be long before I can afford to have some kind of collection. So I'm coming in at the perfect time.

[Pieter V]

Time 3D finally dies, so we can move on. Instead of creating two masters in a damn 2K DI.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Time 3D finally dies, so we can move on. Instead of creating two masters in a damn 2K DI.

Yeah, 4k 3d would be a silly idea I mean it's as silly as 4k 2d

[Ambler1980]

I wouldn't count 3D out just yet. There are a few different reasons why it didn't catch on. And I'd argue it actually did catch on, since movies are still shot and released in 3D, and they occupy plenty of screens. But it didn't become the huge deal it was supposed to, because of how it was bungled in the beginning.

When James Cameron made Avatar, he didn't utilize the 3D properly, leading to jerkiness, jutter and scenes that were too dark... and despite all that the film became the top grosser of all time! This is remedied by cranking the light output and increasing the frame rate. Peter Jackson tried to remedy this with his Hobbit movies, but did not film them properly. I'm not 100% on the specifics, but they captured the 3D with a left eye-right eye sequence but then projected them in theaters in reverse, leading a weird soap-opera effect which turned people off. So you have two major examples of 3D not being properly utilized right out of the gate. This problem was compounded by the studios doing what they do best... taking a good idea and applying it in the dumbest most hamfisted way possible. They actually started post converting 2D movies to 3D, which is like filming a movie in black and white and adding color later. It's not going to work. Audiences were even further alienated by 3D.

So you have three major examples of 3D not being utilized properly, so it's easy to see why it didn't catch on. Douglas Trumbull did a ton of (scientifically backed) research into high frame rates in the 70s and 80s with Showscan... which is worth googling and reading up on. He advocates 120fps is the only way to properly implement 3D, as it is closer to what the human eye sees and compensates for the weird cardboard-cut-out look... anything less than that and you get weird looking images that are dubious to audiences. Whether you like HFR or not, this could be the only way to properly utilize 3D at this point.

And this is exactly what Ang Lee has done with his next film. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was shot at 120fps in 4K 3D. It is much closer to what HFR is supposed to look like. People who have seen it have a hard time describing it properly, but it is far beyond 48 and 60fps. Cameron is also probably going to shoot his Avatar sequels at 60fps 3D, and the guy who's made the top two grossing films of all time cannot be be underestimated. People always underestimate him and fail. Titanic was supposed to be the most expensive bomb ever. Then Avatar was supposed to bungle 3D and it's still being used....

If 3D was a failure, filmmakers would've stopped shooting their expensive films in that format (the studios certainly wouldn't be putting money into dead format). So it's not going anywhere, it's just another slice of tech that is eventually going to get worked out and implemented at some point. I don't want to turn this into a 3D HFR debate. Whether you like it or not doesn't really matter, I'm only talking about what is actually happening and what is likely going to happen.

Personally, the only HFR I've seen was the middle Hobbit movie, and after about 20 minutes, I got used to it and didn't mind it totally. It's definitely a very different look, and takes getting used to. I see nothing wrong with 2D 24fps movies, but I am not at all against advances in technology and embrace them as a supplement to what we already have. 2D 24fps filmmaking isn't going anywhere, and 3D HFR will probably only be used for certain films (and even then they will probably still downscale to 24fps 2D for video as an option), so I'm not too worried about it.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by Ambler1980

I wouldn't count 3D out just yet. There are a few different reasons why it didn't catch on. And I'd argue it actually did catch on, since movies are still shot and released in 3D, and they occupy plenty of screens. But it didn't become the huge deal it was supposed to, because of how it was bungled in the beginning.

When James Cameron made Avatar, he didn't utilize the 3D properly, leading to jerkiness, jutter and scenes that were too dark... and despite all that the film became the top grosser of all time! This is remedied by cranking the light output and increasing the frame rate. Peter Jackson tried to remedy this with his Hobbit movies, but did not film them properly. I'm not 100% on the specifics, but they captured the 3D with a left eye-right eye sequence but then projected them in theaters in reverse, leading a weird soap-opera effect which turned people off. So you have two major examples of 3D not being properly utilized right out of the gate. This problem was compounded by the studios doing what they do best... taking a good idea and applying it in the dumbest most hamfisted way possible. They actually started post converting 2D movies to 3D, which is like filming a movie in black and white and adding color later. It's not going to work. Audiences were even further alienated by 3D.

So you have three major examples of 3D not being utilized properly, so it's easy to see why it didn't catch on. Douglas Trumbull did a ton of (scientifically backed) research into high frame rates in the 70s and 80s with Showscan... which is worth googling and reading up on. He advocates 120fps is the only way to properly implement 3D, as it is closer to what the human eye sees and compensates for the weird cardboard-cut-out look... anything less than that and you get weird looking images that are dubious to audiences. Whether you like HFR or not, this could be the only way to properly utilize 3D at this point.

And this is exactly what Ang Lee has done with his next film. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was shot at 120fps in 4K 3D. It is much closer to what HFR is supposed to look like. People who have seen it have a hard time describing it properly, but it is far beyond 48 and 60fps. Cameron is also probably going to shoot his Avatar sequels at 60fps 3D, and the guy who's made the top two grossing films of all time cannot be be underestimated. People always underestimate him and fail. Titanic was supposed to be the most expensive bomb ever. Then Avatar was supposed to bungle 3D and it's still being used....

If 3D was a failure, filmmakers would've stopped shooting their expensive films in that format (the studios certainly wouldn't be putting money into dead format). So it's not going anywhere, it's just another slice of tech that is eventually going to get worked out and implemented at some point. I don't want to turn this into a 3D HFR debate. Whether you like it or not doesn't really matter, I'm only talking about what is actually happening and what is likely going to happen.

Personally, the only HFR I've seen was the middle Hobbit movie, and after about 20 minutes, I got used to it and didn't mind it totally. It's definitely a very different look, and takes getting used to. I see nothing wrong with 2D 24fps movies, but I am not at all against advances in technology and embrace them as a supplement to what we already have. 2D 24fps filmmaking isn't going anywhere, and 3D HFR will probably only be used for certain films (and even then they will probably still downscale to 24fps 2D for video as an option), so I'm not too worried about it.

Maybe you should work in movies, since you know how to do things better than James Cameron!

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by Ambler1980

Unfortunately a side effect of technology is that it advances at a faster rate the faster it advances. This is well known in computing. There is really no getting around it or stopping it, and it really shouldn't be stopped... evolution is natural. It just happens to accelerate more than usual with technology. In the old analog days of VHS, it was slow, for obvious reasons. We don't live in that world anymore. Whether or not UHD is successful or not is kind of irrelevant. Something will be. We are not sticking with 1080p blurays, it's simply not going to last. People will always want the latest thing, whatever it is because you can't thrive in this world with old technology anymore.

Fortunately I never became much of a bluray adopter. Not because I didn't want to, but because I couldn't really afford it given my lack of a career. Now that my career is catching up, it wont be long before I can afford to have some kind of collection. So I'm coming in at the perfect time.

Until, by your definition, your collection becomes obsolete too!

Sadly, when described in such hard terms, the only way to win is not to play the game. If you're a technohound, perhaps streaming really is the only way to stay on top.

[NDcowboy]

A bit off topic..

I've read somewhere about the need to connect to the internet before playing the Ultra Blu ray discs. Possibly to unlock the movie for that particular player.

Is this true? Is it for all or just some titles? Or no titles as of yet?

Or is it just an idea floated around by the anal studios for copy protection, ect. and just a rumor?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by doctor_who

Because, adding a 3d disc makes it more expensive and most people don't want the 3d disc. It's not that crazy.

Most people buying blu-rays don't want DVDs included either, but that hasn't stopped them from including them.

[the1bigE]

I don't usually read entire forums but I just finished this one This is all very interesting to me. If I had the ready cash I would invest in a 4k setup as well as an Atmos capable receiver and some extra speakers. I am excited to see what 4k and HDR brings to the viewing experience but I am equally as confused by yet another messy format launch. "New" TV's that don't handle the current specs and cannot be upgraded? A new player that comes with a plethora of difficult and confusing issues and this to a group of people who get pleasure from tinkering with new formats? I'm not certain why this can't be avoided which would make this hobby more enjoyable and would bring new people into it more quickly? I didn't mind HD DVD vs Bluray as I ended up with a pile of cheap movies in the end that are great to watch! Most people were completely confused and kept on buying DVD's. It will be interesting to see where this all falls for holiday 2016?!?!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Time 3D finally dies, so we can move on. Instead of creating two masters in a damn 2K DI.

Anybody who thinks 3D is "dead" is bonkers. 3D has been in cinemas for close to a century. For the first time ever, it is possible to bring effective 3D into the home with current, affordable tech. Just because a shortsighted company (Samsung) axed 3D from most of its lineup doesn't mean 3D is dead. Samsung made the decision they did so they can focus on their brain-dead proprietary "Internet of Things" Smart TV hub system where their TVs are the center of the internet-connected living room. Good luck with that. More people will watch 3D than use that silly hub system.

Cinemas have spent a fortune on 3D projection equipment, and they make a nice amount of money off 3D showings. 3D isn't going anywhere, especially since 3D conversions have gotten so good you can't tell the difference any more between native and converted. Some of the biggest summer blockbusters last year were in 3D - The Martian, Jurassic World, and Star Wars episode 7. They made a fortune off those films, and 3D increased the profits.

I'll never understand the mentality with 3D "haters". If you don't like 3D, don't watch it. Why do you get pleasure from seeing something that other people like get taken away? I hate sports, but I would not want to see sports disappear because I know millions of people enjoy it.

[the1bigE]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Most people buying blu-rays don't want DVDs included either, but that hasn't stopped them from including them.

It's true! I rarely use the DVD's but I just was on a work trip and the hotel TV came with a DVD player. I popped out a few of the DVD's and carried them with me to enjoy watching while away. It's a nice value feature.

I personally love 3D! Frozen in 3D is a completely different experience and you can see scene after scene that were composed to take advantage of the format. I think it would be a shame to lose it entirely for in home enjoyment. In fact, I would rather watch a 3D movie at home than have to wipe down the glasses (shudder) in the theater that have what may or may not be butter on the lenses

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

Because I'm a maniac I will buy the 3D and 4K discs. Then I'll sell the 2d bluray from both on eBay or here to try to get back most of the profit.