Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[KRW1]

The days of format wars are over. There is no one technology fighting for dominance like in the days of VHS v Beta, DVD v VHS, Blu ray vs HD-DVD.

We all now have the choice of how to view our media in so many different ways and methods, it would be foolish to consider using one method only; pretty much everyone I know does this, you stream a few things, download something else, then buy the disc version (DVD or Bluray) for something you want to keep or watch in the highest quality possible. Whoever came up with the idea of bundling an MP3 download with a vinyl copy of a record all those years ago understood this perfectly.

4k streaming, HD streaming and 4k discs will co-exist pretty much peacefully (apart from on a small corner of the internet which I suspect might not be far from here)

Incidentally, those of you who do everything digitally, what happens to your collections when you die? This isn't much of an issue at the moment, but I suspect it will be as we go on.

I'm looking forward to lumbering my descendants with thousands of vinyl records with the message 'there's about 25 in there worth over £500 but I'm not saying which ones and ditto for the comic collection'

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Don't over-react. While that capability is built into the players, there is absolutely no evidence that it's going to be used by the studios, and my personal opinion is that it will never be implemented.

The reason why it won't be is that if they use it and you have consumers who start returning discs in droves as "defective" because they don't have their players hooked up to the net (or because the approval servers fail), the format will be defined by the Press as defective and it will kill the format. The studios won't take that chance.

Let's not forget that DIVX failed big time and the studios know it. And DIVX was intended to serve a different purpose: it was intended to be a rental format in which you didn't have to return the discs. We don't need that today - if that's what people want, we have streaming.

Personally, once I buy a UHD player, I will purposely keep it disconnected from the net to make sure the discs work. I'll keep my current OPPO for streaming. Any UHD disc that doesn't work without a connection will be promptly returned as "defective".

Also, such discs better be prominently labeled as needing such a connection because there will definitely be class action lawsuits if they aren't.

Not to be mean but your post makes no sense what so ever. The only part that is spot on is that BENNIE is over reacting since it is not true for every disk.

But back to your post. Do you agree that there is no technical need for it (i.e. the title key can be on the disk and so no need to connect to the internet and jump through hoops to DL it?)
If so then why was it added to the UHD BD specs? the only reason to do so was that someone (studios) asked for it. So any lesson you think must have been learnt by DIVX (or the XBone) fiasco was not learnt. And I take it for granted that it will be used.

As for complaints you are missing the point.

1) for the most part (i.e. if all goes well) it is not an issue every one has internet, everything tends to be connected, and the player plays the film. So the number of people that buy the film, open it and it does not work should be fairly limited. It is more of a long term problem, what happens if in 6 months you buy a new player and get rid of your old one go to watch it again and the title key or server is not there any more?

2) back around 2006/2007 I was at a store at the checkout buying some new BDs and there was an idiot there raising a fuss because he wanted his money back because the BD he bought would not play in his DVD player, the clerks response was over and over "sorry it is opened, we can't give you your money back", why do you think these returns would be treated any differently? As far as I know in the history of retail there has never been a store that was willing to give money back on an opened film or video game.

3) as for class action lawsuits they would never fly. The specs clearly state it is a possibility and as far as I know there is no law that requires "an internet connection is needed" to be stamped on everything that needs an internet connection.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

back around 2006/2007 I was at a store at the checkout buying some new BDs and there was an idiot there raising a fuss because he wanted his money back because the BD he bought would not play in his DVD player, the clerks response was over and over "sorry it is opened, we can't give you your money back", why do you think these returns would be treated any differently? As far as I know in the history of retail there has never been a store that was willing to give money back on an opened film or video game.

I've returned items to Amazon with the reason being "not as advertised", having an unstated online requirement definitely fits into that category. Plus if you are that worried about it you can just buy used copies of UHD Blu-ray titles, most stores that sell used movies have lenient return polices.

I still don't expect online activation to ever become common for UHD but regardless of whether it does or not I'm not going to let it prevent me from enjoying the UHD titles that don't have online activation.

[Derb]

Who streams 4K no problem with an 11mb/s ISP?

My Sony recommends 20, minimum.

[mrr1]

I think it's easier to return an opened item if it won't play due to its own technical flaws (and not because you accidentally bought the incorrect format).

In 2004 I got my money back on an opened CD that refused to play for me because of some weird copy protection software on it. I don't think I was the only one - those stupid copy-protected CDs did not last very long. I doubt online-activated UHD discs would have any staying power either.

[spectre08]

why was this even an article? Saying that 4K blu-ray "lost" to streaming is to imply that they were in competition in the first place. Which is questionable at best.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by spectre08

why was this even an article?

Some folks just have to stir the pot! IF I were a mod I would delete the thread or move it to General Chat.

[applemac]

Clickbait. Stupid article.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I've returned items to Amazon with the reason being "not as advertised", having an unstated online requirement definitely fits into that category.

how is it not as advertised? the BDA has advertised that some UHD BD's will have the "feature" that a connection is needed while others will have the feature that a connection is not needed.

Plus if you are that worried about it you can just buy used copies of UHD Blu-ray titles, most stores that sell used movies have lenient return polices.

who said I wanted to buy used crap? and as for returning stuff I am interested in spending my time watching films, not driving back and forth from stores. If I was interested in the latter I would just go window shopping.

but regardless of whether it does or not I'm not going to let it prevent me from enjoying the UHD titles that don't have online activation.

good for you, I never said what you should do, and if you are OK with wasting hours researching on-line to weed out the ones that require a connection and hours driving back and forth and fighting with clerks that is up to you. If someone else is OK with buying disks and never being able to watch the film that is up to them. For me I started collecting films because I wanted to waste less time (driving back and forth from the rental place) and simplify stuff (I want to watch film, I put film in player and watch it, availability, weather, location.... none should be a factor).

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mrr1

I think it's easier to return an opened item if it won't play due to its own technical flaws (and not because you accidentally bought the incorrect format).

maybe, but in this case it is not a technical flaw, but there by design.

In 2004 I got my money back on an opened CD that refused to play for me because of some weird copy protection software on it. I don't think I was the only one - those stupid copy-protected CDs did not last very long. I doubt online-activated UHD discs would have any staying power either.

IF you mean the rootkit CDs, they were recalled, so it is not the same thing at all and obvious why it was easy to return them.

[Pieter V]

Most of our new theatrical slate will be made available in Ultra High Definition and HDR. Some of those titles may just be digitally distributed initially and that’s primarily because of this issue around the 100 gig discs as the manufacturing capacity is somewhat limited as we begin to produce them. We’re thinking this year we’ll probably have around 30-35 titles available physically and we’ll have approximately 60-70 titles digitally available by the end of the year. So we’re a big supporter of the format and we’re going to support it with some of our best content.

http://www.warnerbros.com/blogs/2016...a-jim-wuthrich

All studios having this issue. This is why FOX doens't use Dolby Atmos. Just delay it, come back next year with better releases and a ton of extras. And perhaps Dolby Vision as well.

The UHD Alliance had one job, and they blew it. This is such a bad start. Unbelievable.

[dvdmike]

Do we need a new thread every time someone posts something on the internet?
And that's is why Fox does not use atmos? Lololololololo

Nope

[bruceames]

Wrong. Have you seen the UHD discs yet? They look gorgeous.

Space isn't an issue. For example The Martian is one of the best looking discs and it's only 48gb. So they have 18gb of empty space on the disc. A Dolby Atmos track layer only adds about 1 or 2 gb, so obviously they didn't leave it off because there was no room.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Do we need a new thread every time someone posts something on the internet?
And that's is why Fox does not use atmos? Lololololololo

Nope

As for FOX, it wouldn't surprise me. A reason to re-release it again. I know Lionsgate, Warner and Sony support Dolby Atmos.

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Wrong. Have you seen the UHD discs yet? They look gorgeous.

Space isn't an issue. For example The Martian is one of the best looking discs and it's only 48gb. So they have 18gb of empty space on the disc. A Dolby Atmos track layer only adds about 1 or 2 gb, so obviously they didn't leave it off because there was no room.

No haven't seen it yet. Unfortunately
As for FOX: The Martian is the only good example, where RAW files were used and effort was made. The rest sound like upscales.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

As for FOX, it wouldn't surprise me. A reason to re-release it again. I know Lionsgate, Warner and Sony support Dolby Atmos.


No haven't seen it yet. Unfortunately
As for FOX: The Martian is the only good example, where RAW files were used and effort was made. The rest sound like upscales.

So everyone needs to support atmos? Did Lionsgate use use DTS-X on witchhunter die to space?
Yeah Fox are like so wrong

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

The rest sound like upscales.

It's going to take a while for people to get used to the idea that the biggest upgrade is really in the Wider Color Gamut, 10 bit and HDR. The resolution is the least important and even then only some movies will be resolution upgrades. And even those movies will have all CGI in 2k anyway (you know, the best stuff in the movie). So I'd totally forget about the resolution part because UHD BD is really a huge upgrade otherwise. DVD and Blu-ray shared the same color space and 8 bit color. So it can be said that UHD BD potentially offers an even greater upgrade than DVD to BD because they made more upgrades. And these are upgrades that can be appreciated from any size TV and viewing distance (within reason).

So no, "upscale" is selling these way short. That said, the non-resolution upgrades still allow you to see more detail than is visible on the BD simply because more information can be encoded on the discs. More shadow detail for example.

[vincentric]

Kingsman and Maze Runner look pretty good to me, as well. Actually better than Martian, Imo.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

It's going to take a while for people to get used to the idea that the biggest upgrade is really in the Wider Color Gamut, 10 bit and HDR.

Not long ago, the argument was "extra pixels don't matter because most people won't see a difference"... NOW the argument is suddenly "there aren't enough pixels!!!"

As I've said -- the most critical comments about UHD-BD are from the people who haven't actually seen it.

[MisterXDTV]

Resolution is not that important at this point, but they should stop calling them 4K, just call them UHD....

My problem with the format is just the dreadful HDR mania that just doesn't make sense, confuses users and doesn't use a standard at all... Most of all, it's applied to movies that were never meant to be seen that way (aka revisionism)

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Resolution is not that important at this point, but they should stop calling them 4K, just call them UHD....

My problem with the format is just the dreadful HDR mania that just doesn't make sense, confuses users and doesn't use a standard at all... Most of all, it's applied to movies that were never meant to be seen that way (aka revisionism)

Resolution 2160p is very important!! I like very very small dots pixels lines for 4K.