Ultra HD and Physical Media - A New Optical Format War Brewing?

[3db]

I completely agree that today's broadband won't accommodate 4k, which is why I doubt that format has a chance, long term. Most consumers don't want to own physical media anymore, and they are perfectly willing to make quality sacrifices in order to buy instantly via their remote on the cloud rather than deal with going to the store or Amazon. Perhaps it will have a niche appeal like laserdisc, but it just won't be profitable for many studios to produce physical discs for their movies.

I rather own physical media any day then settle for less for having instant access. Physcial media is just too convenient for me to put up with streaming aritfacts, bandwidth limitations and or caps.

 

[gracilism]

I agree with the post arguing against the thought that 4K isn't wanted/needed. When I saw 4K demoed the difference between 4K and 1080P was easily seen. For me this step is tailored made for HT enthusiasts. An 80 inch screen playing a 4K movie complements great sound. I find full, dramatic sound is a little over the top when watching a movie that doesn't have the same experience at the visual level. The two need to be complementary. Projection may be the way to go for high end HT rooms, but a large 4K panel is great for us that have multipurpose rooms as our HTs.

 

[gracilism]

I rather own physical media any day then settle for less for having instant access. Physical media is just too convenient for me to put up with streaming artifacts, bandwidth limitations and or caps.

I have the same sentiments as 3db, but tmurnin is probably right about the market as a whole. Physical media's market share will probably decrease with each new generation (4K will probably be the last). But 4K disks may have a long life as capable broadband infrastructure is being implemented.

 

[j_garcia]

There was a format war between blu-ray and HD-DVD, but I'm not familiar with such a war at the introduction of DVD and I feel the same about the introduction of CD (I could be completely wrong about this--I'm not an expert by any means.) Also, both CD and DVD content and players persist in the marketplace to this day. I guess what I mean is that the introduction of higher-capacity optical media hasn't always been a disaster, nor has it proved mandatory, except in the very long term, for consumers.

Yes there was a format war when DVD came out and few remember what it was: DIVX, aka pay per play.

I agree with the post arguing against the thought that 4K isn't wanted/needed. When I saw 4K demoed the difference between 4K and 1080P was easily seen. For me this step is tailored made for HT enthusiasts. An 80 inch screen playing a 4K movie complements great sound. I find full, dramatic sound is a little over the top when watching a movie that doesn't have the same experience at the visual level. The two need to be complementary. Projection may be the way to go for high end HT rooms, but a large 4K panel is great for us that have multipurpose rooms as our HTs.

I auditioned 4K on a 65" screen at Frys a month or so ago and the improvement even on that size screen was absolutely apparent. Worth it? Not sure I could make that call just based on that, but given a choice, I would opt for it.

 

[bootman]

We can't get a 4K movie on a bluray disk with HEVC?

HEVC got first stage approvals this year in Jan.
Just look up the Broadcom BCM7445.
It should be ready when HDMI 2.0 silicon starts to be readily available for next year.
Those players should be backward compatible with current blurays and play 4K.

 

[allargon]

I auditioned 4K on a 65" screen at Frys a month or so ago and the improvement even on that size screen was absolutely apparent. Worth it? Not sure I could make that call just based on that, but given a choice, I would opt for it.

In the store? Yes. At home you would need to sit within 4 feet of a 65" screen to see the benefits of 4K.

No thanks!

 

[j_garcia]

I was standing farther than 4ft at the store, which has horrible light control, and the clarity of the image was still quite obvious.

 

[Pyrrho]

I was standing farther than 4ft at the store, which has horrible light control, and the clarity of the image was still quite obvious.

People get confused on this. Assuming you have 20/20 vision, anything closer than about 8.45 feet will be better with 4k than with 1080p with a 65" screen. However, at only slightly closer than that, one would not see the full detail of 4k. It is at about 8.45 feet that a person with 20/20 vision will see the full detail of 1080p on a 65" screen:

HDTV Viewing Distance Calculator + Guide | Articles - Digital Digest

With 4k, if it is 3840 pixels × 2160 lines, it would be 4.23 feet from a 65 inch TV to see the full detail present. But anything between that and 8.45 feet from the 65 inch screen would look better on a 4k TV, because one would be too close for 1080p, and 4k would be perfect, as far as resolution is concerned.

 

[Cygnus]

I'll take physical media over streaming any day. Physical media doesn't (usually) just crap out for no reason like streaming can. Plus, with DRM as a concern, I distrust streaming even moreso. No thanks.

 

[jinjuku]

With 4k, if it is 3840 pixels × 2160 lines.

BTW that is a UHD spec

4K is 4096X2304

 

[Pyrrho]

BTW that is a UHD spec

4K is 4096X2304

The 4K sets at Fry's are 3840 x 2160; they currently have 2 models at approximately 65 inches:

FRYS.com*|*LG

FRYS.com*|*Sony

Look at the detailed specifications for yourself.