Sony "Mastered in 4K" Blu-ray Titles May 14 and July 16

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by psychocinderellax

My question, as I am not techy only a movie fan...

IS BLU-RAY DEAD NOW THAT 4K HAS COME ALONG...


ESSENTIALLY, DO I HAVE TO COMPLETELY RE-BUY MY MOVIES AGAIN???

because I did it with DVDs, I would hate to do it again so soon...

Look at like this. Before buying native 4K content (when it's available) for a 4K display these two things need to be kept in mind:

1) What was the original film shot with? 16mm, 35mm, 65mm, 70mm, 4K digital cameras, etc.

2) Does the title in question need a restoration and/or remaster? This is the part I would watch for the most because you don't want the studios taking a several year old master and applying digital manipulation instead of striking a new master.

If you own these titles already on BD there is of course no need to buy them again as they are essentially just re-releases for the present 1080p format.

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by psychocinderellax

My question, as I am not techy only a movie fan...

IS BLU-RAY DEAD NOW THAT 4K HAS COME ALONG...


ESSENTIALLY, DO I HAVE TO COMPLETELY RE-BUY MY MOVIES AGAIN???

because I did it with DVDs, I would hate to do it again so soon...

If I worked for Sony, I would say... yes!

[Kryptonic]

If/when they create a new 4k format, it will fail miserably, akin to what Laserdisc was to VHS, so to will 4k be to Blu-ray. The difference between 1080p and 4k on a normal sized television will not be noticeable enough for everyone just who upgraded a few years ago to Blu-ray to suddenly upgrade to 4k. If everyone had a 20 ft. screen in their house, sure it would be worth it, but even then I've seen Blu-ray's projected on 30 ft. screens and they look damn good.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

If/when they create a new 4k format, it will fail miserably, akin to what Laserdisc was to VHS, so to will 4k be to Blu-ray. The difference between 1080p and 4k on a normal sized television will not be noticeable enough for everyone just who upgraded a few years ago to Blu-ray to suddenly upgrade to 4k. If everyone had a 20 ft. screen in their house, sure it would be worth it, but even then I've seen Blu-ray's projected on 30 ft. screens and they look damn good.

So you're saying that laserdisc, a format (albeit niche) that lasted for about 17 years, was a miserable failure?

Really, really silly.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Deja vu. This is like Superbit 2.0.

I think that should be Deja-Blu... and hopefully not Deja-Blugh.

[TLOE]

4k blu-rays will likely never be more than a niche format and/or upscaled 2k content. I can imagine there will be some benefit to new films that are shot in really high-res, ie the 5k Red Epic-but for catalog titles, it's pointless. The studios (even Criterion) usually telecine films into their archives at 2k, so putting a 2k master onto a 4k disc is pure gimmick. Blade Runner and certain other older movies were done at 4k, so they may benefit, but it's going to be a really hard sell for them to convince people they now need an 80+ inch TV and new media to boot. Unless the studios are going to re-telecine their catalog titles (not likely given the expense), the whole affair won't be much more than a marketing ploy.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by TLOE

4k blu-rays will likely never be more than a niche format and/or upscaled 2k content. I can imagine there will be some benefit to new films that are shot in really high-res, ie the 5k Red Epic-but for catalog titles, it's pointless. The studios (even Criterion) usually telecine films into their archives at 2k, so putting a 2k master onto a 4k disc is pure gimmick. Blade Runner and certain other older movies were done at 4k, so they may benefit, but it's going to be a really hard sell for them to convince people they now need an 80+ inch TV and new media to boot. Unless the studios are going to re-telecine their catalog titles (not likely given the expense), the whole affair won't be much more than a marketing ploy.

I heard a lot of that same type talk...oh about 7 years ago. We'll see.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I don't imagine I'll even be tempted to buy a 4K tv - at least not until that's all they have (if that happens) and I need a new tv. The only reason I ever bought an HDTV (in 2005) was because I wanted a widescreen tv. If it hadn't been for that, I probably wouldn't have upgraded until years later.

[TLOE]

Originally Posted by rickah88

I heard a lot of that same type talk...oh about 7 years ago. We'll see.

I remember back when DVD was new in the late 90's, and people complained that it "wasn't that much better than laser", but it was an improvement-higher resolution, OAR usually (most LDs were cropped) and 5.1 DTS/DD audio, not to mention much smaller discs. Blu-ray was much the same-resolution approaching what filmstock can offer, better color reproduction, lossless audio and more disc space, so again it is a real upgrade because you are essentially getting a studio quality master for home viewing. I just don't see that happening with 4k discs, because aside from crazy sound encoding/upmixing (like 11.2) and close-to-native resolution for the newest movies shot with 5k+ cameras, I can't see any real benefit to the format currently.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

So you're saying that laserdisc, a format (albeit niche) that lasted for about 17 years, was a miserable failure?

Really, really silly.

I've only known 1 person ever that was into laserdisc. 1 person. It was such a niche format that most people have never even seen one actually playing, and most video stores never even got into them for rentals. I actually have a used player I bought years ago that still works, and I have a few discs, just for fun and collectibility really.

Blu-ray is far, far more popular.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by TLOE

I remember back when DVD was new in the late 90's, and people complained that it "wasn't that much better than laser", but it was an improvement-higher resolution, OAR usually (most LDs were cropped) and 5.1 DTS/DD audio, so there was an actual upgrade. Blu-ray was much the same-resolution approaching what filmstock can offer, better color reproduction, lossless audio and more disc space, so again it is a real upgrade because you are essentially getting a studio quality master for home viewing. I just don't see that happening with 4k discs, because aside from crazy sound encoding/upmixing (like 11.2) and close-to-native resolution for the newest movies shot with 5k+ cameras, I can't see any real benefit to the format currently.

"Most" LDs weren't cropped... in fact, it was the format that actually pushed OAR more often than not, and helped bring letterboxing more mainstream. And since 35mm film has a resolution of between 5-6K, if done properly, then 4K will certainly have a real benefit. Even 16mm/Super 16 can have a resolution equal to between 3-4K depending, so there's still room for improvement over the limitations of 1080p.

I'm new to the forums but I find it funny how people seem to always be issuing speculations as facts, like the guy above me who sais "4k blu-rays will likely never be more than a niche format", when in reality, he has zero clue whether that is true or not.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I've only known 1 person ever that was into laserdisc. 1 person. It was such a niche format that most people have never even seen one actually playing, and most video stores never even got into them for rentals. I actually have a used player I bought years ago that still works, and I have a few discs, just for fun and collectibility really.

Blu-ray is far, far more popular.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't niche and that Blu-ray was far more popular. However, people also weren't buying movies back then like they are now. It was a niche hobby that has moved into the mainstream. You can't compare the two in the least.

And you can say that you've only ever known 1 person but 2 people that I work with on a daily basis owned them, as did I. I got my first one when I was 15 and I have 2 different players.

Just because you only know 1 person doesn't mean that it was a failure.

[DMRI2006]

most LDs were cropped

Umm, no.

Laserdiscs also had 5.1 too. That concept didn't debut with DVD.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I've only known 1 person ever that was into laserdisc. 1 person. It was such a niche format that most people have never even seen one actually playing, and most video stores never even got into them for rentals. I actually have a used player I bought years ago that still works, and I have a few discs, just for fun and collectibility really.

Blu-ray is far, far more popular.

The only person I ever knew into laserdisc was me, and that was after dvd came out and laser got really cheap (and had lots of features not yet ported over). I remember my mom and dad renting a player and a few discs once, but that's it. If not for that, I wouldn't have known it existed. 17 years isn't a bad run, but no one had it where I lived.
Also, the library still has VHS, dvd and BD discs, they never even had laserdiscs.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

I'm not arguing that it wasn't niche and that Blu-ray was far more popular. However, people also weren't buying movies back then like they are now. It was a niche hobby that has moved into the mainstream. You can't compare the two in the least.

And you can say that you've only ever known 1 person but 2 people that I work with on a daily basis owned them, as did I. I got my first one when I was 15 and I have 2 different players.

Just because you only know 1 person doesn't mean that it was a failure.

You're completely right Indy. We must be the same age because I had my first player in high school also.

DVD can thank laserdisc for its existence. Everything that DVD pushed into the mainstream - widescreen transfers, digital sound, supplements - all of them began with laserdisc. For me, I'd say in its heyday it was bigger than "niche," but not nearly as popular as DVD obviously -- yet it laid the groundwork for DVD. (What DVD did was sell the concept of "better than VHS on a disc that doesn't record" in a more manageable way to the mainstream. It may not record, no, but you don't have to change sides and it fits on a CD-sized platter, etc.)

People who think the format sucked or was some tiny, insignificant speck on the radar are misinformed, and/or don't remember what it was like back in those days. It was the best the technology could give us at the time, and for anyone who wanted an approximation of a cinematic experience, it was the ONLY way to go for many, many years. That the format lasted for so long, producing thousands of titles, is a testament to the ownership group it had. A format that lasts that long and produces so many titles certainly wasn't a "failure". Hell, Siskel & Ebert used to devote a segment to it monthly for years.

Any serious movie fan was into laserdiscs back in the day.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

You're completely right Indy. We must be the same age because I had my first player in high school also.

DVD can thank laserdisc for its existence. Everything that DVD pushed into the mainstream - widescreen transfers, digital sound, supplements - all of them began with laserdisc. For me, I'd say in its heyday it was bigger than "niche," but not nearly as popular as DVD obviously -- yet it laid the groundwork for DVD. (What DVD did was sell the concept of "better than VHS on a disc that doesn't record" in a more manageable way to the mainstream. It may not record, no, but you don't have to change sides and it has extra features than VHS, plus it fits on a CD-sized platter, etc.)

People who think the format sucked or was some tiny, insignificant speck on the radar are misinformed, and/or don't remember what it was like back in those days. It was the best the technology could give us at the time, and for anyone who wanted an approximation of a cinematic experience, it was the ONLY way to go for many, many years. That the format lasted for so long, producing thousands of titles, is a testament to the ownership group it had. A format that lasts that long and produces so many titles certainly wasn't a "failure". Hell, Siskel & Ebert used to devote a segment to it monthly for years. Any serious movie fan was into laserdiscs back in the day.

Not only that, it was the ONLY way to get films in widescreen and at an affordable price the day they were released. Add to that the special features and whatknot and it slaughtered VHS. Sure, the side changes were annoying but, considering I have to stop the film to let parents/friends pee or get a drink anyway, it wasn't too bad. Plus, the positives far outweighed the negatives.

Btw....DMRI...I turned 35 yesterday. Blech.

[Spicoli]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

If/when they create a new 4k format, it will fail miserably, akin to what Laserdisc was to VHS, so to will 4k be to Blu-ray. The difference between 1080p and 4k on a normal sized television will not be noticeable enough for everyone just who upgraded a few years ago to Blu-ray to suddenly upgrade to 4k. If everyone had a 20 ft. screen in their house, sure it would be worth it, but even then I've seen Blu-ray's projected on 30 ft. screens and they look damn good.

This. Unless you have a screen big enough it's pointless. Kind of like when we'd say a 32 inch HDTV at 1080p was pointless.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Not only that, it was the ONLY way to get films in widescreen and at an affordable price the day they were released. Add to that the special features and whatknot and it slaughtered VHS. Sure, the side changes were annoying but, considering I have to stop the film to let parents/friends pee or get a drink anyway, it wasn't too bad. Plus, the positives far outweighed the negatives.

Btw....DMRI...I turned 35 yesterday. Blech.

Yeah I hear you, I'm 38. I always got used to the side changes too. The only time it was annoying when was when you had a movie in CAV and it needed turning every 30 minutes!

Have you been on the FSM board at times btw?

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Yeah I hear you, I'm 38. I always got used to the side changes too. The only time it was annoying when was when you had a movie in CAV and it needed turning every 30 minutes!

Have you been on the FSM board at times btw?

sure have!

Btw...I should also add that I think 4k will be MORE of a niche than laserdisc was. There were SEVERAL positives to laserdisc. The only thing that 4k will tout is a higher picture quality. We're already at lossless sound and studios are skimping on extras lately.

They're going to be shooting themselves in the foot by moving on to 4k so quickly.

[GreenGaijin]

This play from Sony, is either going to be really cool, or really stupid.

If the 4K resolution is valid and a success, who knows what the next step in home video media will be. Personally, I hope there won't be a successor to blu-ray because who wants to go through all that again? Most likely the next format will be downloadable.

Now I'll have to adjust my eyeballs to the next level of HD