slop101

I don't want to get used to something so garish. I'll have people over and it just doesn't look good in a design sense. It's a give and take.

Coral

I agree. I'm not a fan of a TV that's are way too large for the space it's in.
It doesn't matter how great a TV is, it's size has to be somewhat proportional to the room. I see the same thing with audiophiles and their speakers - just huge monstrosities that take over the room.

So I guess that's another issue with 4KTVs - unless you want to sit close to it, you're going to have to buy a much larger TV to notice the difference... and many people either don't have the space for a 75"+ TV, or have the space but don't want something that large ruining their living space (that applies especially to women).

slop101

Women love nothing more than no visible TV or components at all, just a screen coming down from out of the ceiling, components behind a door or in drawers/cabinets, and speakers built into the walls/ceiling. A friend of mine who's a techno-freak did all that just to please his wife. He even built a matching cabinet to something she liked just to hide the subwoofer in it.

JimRochester

I have a 58" now. Maybe and only maybe could I go 65". No way could I put anything bigger in that room in that space.

bruceames

You'll get used to it. and anyway I couldn't care less about what other people I have over think about how my place looks. That's a problem with society these days. Turning their home into a showcase for other people.

And what you think looks good in a design sense is just your opinion. Face it, TVs are getting bigger all the time. These designers will figure out a way for them to "look good". They have so far.

slop101

Well, it's more for me, and I wouldn't want to get used to it. I could say the same thing about your position being a problem with society as well, with never being happy with what you have, and feeling like you need the next new shiny thing.

fumanstan

I like having a gigantic TV being the center of my living space, but then again my main hobbies revolve around it so it's just about what I enjoy; especially since we only ever have a few people over. Luckily my fiancee doesn't care (to an extent) - it actually sucks seeing friends who were once super in to A/V stuff have to drop things like nice surround sound speakers and sub so they can have a cleaner look to please the wife in a new house.

To each their own. I think it's cool when I walk in to someone's living room and see all sorts of cool tech and a big home theater. I'm sure other people like a cleaner or minimalist look. Nothing wrong with either, it's your home so live in it the way that pleases you the most.

bruceames

Yep, we're all different. I place more emphasis on performance and functionality than crowd-pleasing aesthetics. HT is like a hobby to me, it's fun to be caught up with the latest and greatest. I just wish I had a dedicated HT room, but that will have to wait for a few years when my step son moves out.

bruceames

Well said. Fortunately my wife actually likes the big 75" I just got last month for the living room(replacing a 65"). She speaks mostly Spanish to me, and she says it's a perfect size for the living room, that it's a TV "de verdad".

BuckNaked2k

Anecdotally, UHD is already having some impact on the sales figures:

- Unit Sales for Blu-ray were only 23.75% for the week, but accounted for 37% of the revenue.

- The average cost per BD is $19.30, a 6.2% increase over 2015, while DVD was down -2.0%.

bruceames

Interesting, thanks for pointing that out.

Another gauge is the top 20 shares for UHD. They are creeping up. The Martian is 4 percent this week, which is higher than it's ever been. And The Revenant moved up from 2 to 3 percent. I do track the UHD top 20 shares compared to 3D shares, and I think in a few months that UHD will overtake 3D.

AaronSch

I've seen UHD in comparison to blu-ray. It is no threat. But I find the early adopters very defensive when it comes to the opinions of DVD and blu-ray collectors who don't share the same enthusiasm. This new format is less of a threat to blu-ray than blu-ray was to DVD. It will definitely benefit those who buy larger displays 65" and above. But if you sit the proper distance from your display, the difference between most blu-rays and UHD is neglible. Most people do not sit on top of their displays and certainly don't study image and audio details with a magnifying glass. I do not think it will enhance my viewing pleasure one iota. Image and audio improvements are negligible at this point. We will all eventually have a 4K display—if that's all that will be available. However, running out to buy a clunky new UHD player and dropping $20-$30 per title for the pleasure is just a ludicrous notion to me. I have zero desire to do it because I, like many, have learned my lesson. If I eventually buy a huge new 4K display and the UHD players drop below $100, I might reconsider. However, I will never pay $20 or above for a standard release in any format ever again—no friggin' way. I have built a collection of nearly 1400 blu-rays and I paid $4-$5 per title for the majority of my library. The idea of replacing any of them with the UHD version isn't appealing to me. It's a cost/benefit issue. The studios are no longer gonna take me to the cleaners. I'll wait till people need the cash and sell their libraries if I ever buy a UHD disc. If I've learned anything over the years it's this: patience pays off.

I also believe 3D will be around and offered as a feature by some manufacturers well into the future—it ain't goin' anywhere.

Why So Blu?

bruceames

You are clearly clueless as to the benefits of UHD over BD. But ignorance is bliss.

3D is only offered in high end models these days. Is that going to create a cost/benefit issue with you when it comes time to replace your current TV? (since you apparently only want to spend $4-5 per title)

Coral

So he's clueless and ignorant because he's seen the product and wasn't that impressed with it's advantages over BD?

bruceames

Here are the Top 20 shares for Blu-ray, 3D and UHD for the weeking ending 5/1/16.

Blu-ray share: 48.0%
3D share: 0.14% (among all discs)
3D share: 6.96% (among BD discs with 3D SKU: 3 titles)
UHD share: 0.68% (among all discs)
UHD share: 2.91% (among BD discs with UHD SKU: 3 titles)

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/top...k-ended-050116

bruceames

Yes, if he says the difference between UHD and BD is negligible unless you sit really close. Resolution is the least important upgrade in UHD BD. The other upgrades (HDR, 10 bit depth color and the wider color gamut) don't depend upon how close you sit.

slop101

UHD would be awesome if I had a home theater setup like this:



But even in that situation, most of the seats are far enough from the screen as to not be able to distinguish much, if at all, between blu and UHD.

bruceames

Huh?! Didn't you read what I just wrote? Seating distance does not matter with UHD.

For example: do you have to sit close to 3D to see the difference between 2D and 3D? High dynamic range can be appreciated from any (reasonable) distance just like 3D can.

BSTNFAN

With the exception of a few BDs that included Object Based Sound, the only way to currently buy Atmos/DTS-X tracks, High Dynamic Range (HDR) or Wide Color Gamut (WCG) on a disc is with UHDs. The increase in resolution is not the main reason many of us are excited about UHD. The argument about having to sit close to a giant TV only applies to the resolution increase. I personally am disappointed that UHD 3D is a long way off (if ever) and have purchased 3D over UHD when available (Mad Max, San Andreas, Martian), but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in UHD for non-3D releases and resolution increase isn't the reason why.

Coral

But he saw UHD BD and it didn't make him blow a load... so HDR or any other fancy acronym you could throw out obviously didn't make that big an impression on him. So it doesn't matter what he knows or doesn't know - it's subjective anyway. If HDR was that big a deal - he would've been more impressed. But he wasn't.

Alan Smithee

Gosh those percentages are pathetic- people really are still happy with old-fashioned DVD. At least The Peanuts Movie's 2% 3D share beats its 1% 2D UHD share. I've made sure to help those percentages as much as I can!

BSTNFAN

He never said he saw HDR. We have no idea exactly what he saw. If it was on a pre-HDR 4K TV and the sound was coming out of a non-Atmos or equivalent system then that could be why he believes that UHD is not much upgrade. There is nothing wrong with that, however, he has stated his opinion in a public forum and I don't see the problem with explaining why others may be more excited about the new format. I personally would not upgrade to UHD or even 4K in general if not for the "other" visual quality improvements it brings.

Adam Tyner

I don't buy that logic. I have friends and family who cannot discern the difference between DVD and Blu-ray, and you wouldn't have to look very hard on this forum to find scores of people arguing the same a while back. I have family who can't tell the difference between stretched standard definition television and HD cable channels. Does that mean HD cannot be a big deal because they would've been more impressed?

It's a point on a graph. One individual person who is impressed signifies nothing. One individual person who is not impressed signifies nothing. Unless you're talking about yourself, of course, and then it matters since your eyeballs, your ears, and the money coming out of your pocket understandably matter more to you than what anyone else says.

bruceames

The 3D share beats it for now, but it's gaining. My guess is that by this fall that the average unit UHD share will be greater than 3D (which of course really isn't saying much, but UHD just became a thing a few months ago)