RocShemp

Actually, people are reporting great results with 4K streaming via Netflix. One of the better looking shows in that format is apparently Blacklist.

But I do agree that you need a TV that's 70" - 80" (or over) to really get the full impact of the resolution upgrade. That and proper seating distance. Most people sit too far from their current HDTV's as it is.

hanshotfirst1138

I sit too close, the irony .

This. I'd love to be wrong, but frankly, given how physical media barely sells at all anymore, this is going to be a collector's market at very best.

There was a recent article arguing that what HFR excelled at best was FX sequences, since the CG was reminiscent of video games (which have apparently been 60 FPS for years), whereas with actors and sets, not so much. As so much of these will be shot with FX, it might be slightly more effective. Though to be honest, I'm kind of thinking that it'll be a novelty for many audience members and won't catch on. But I'm wrong about everything . Why does my HDTV tell me it's playing my DVds in 60p, BTW? Is it scaling up the 30 fields of pulldown and doubling them to 60?

Hopefully it's a given. If BD can do, the next format should certainly be able to.

Default soap opera mode would be the final proof that mankind need to stop being allowed to be the dominant species on the planet .

Has anything ever been released at 60 FPS? Blu can't handle it, can it? Unless you interlace it? I remember reading that's been a problem with 25 FPS content, and needing to do it as interlaced 50. My technical knowledge is faulty though .

Have any releases ever had repeated frames? It sounds like it'd be weird.

True, and that's probably where it'll catch on most. At least one hopes .

4K probably sounds like a candy or something to the layman .

This is another problem. Once you get new stuff (TV or player) there are all kinds of peripheral things you need to buy (cables and such). The industry would not doubt love this. Consumers, no so much.

I was attempting in vain to impress upon friends of mine that a BD disc from a 4K master will look better despite the disc having lower resolution because of the higher quality of the master itself. But they are stunners. That said, I've seen 2K masters downscaled to 1080p on BD which look mighty pretty.

Alan Smithee

I finally saw the newest Hobbit movie in high frame rate- had to laugh at how it looked (mainly like a BBC drama), but that's how it was supposed to look. I missed the first 2 in theaters, and since the Blu-Rays are 24fps I won't watch them. They probably would've looked OK if they had done them in 30, though they'd have to reduce the resolution to 720p for 3D, and 1080i rather than p for 2D due to the format's limitations.

popegregFKAgoblin23

The Blacklist and House of Cards look ridiculously good in Netflix 4K streaming.

I picked up a 60" Samsung 8550 last year and I love it. I see the difference between 1080p and and 1080p upconverted to 4K. The upconversion on the set is really, really good. (I generally sit 4-5 feet from the screen).

Sports looks amazing too.

Even though the price of my set has dropped $800 since I purchased, I have no regrets.

I welcome 4K Blu-Ray and really hope that 4K 3D also happens!!!

Spiderbite

I am definitely in for 4K since I have a 118" screen in my basement. But to be honest, projectors are going to have to hit less than $3000 before I start getting serious about buying one.

I haven't looked in a while. What are decent 4K projectors going for nowadays?

Adam Tyner

The 4K projector that Sony trotted out at CES earlier this week (the VPL-VW350ES) is $9,999, touted as the least expensive true 4K projector on the market.

RichC2

Yep they still have a while to drop in price, I'm on my second projector in 7 years, upgraded because I wanted 1080p and 3D and it was $600. Once 4K hits < $1k I'll upgrade again.

Also, 4K is quite noticeable on 55" TVs. IMHO at least.

Josh Z

James Cameron has backed off his plans to shoot the Avatar sequels at 60 fps. He's now planning to do 48 fps like The Hobbit.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/27/a...hoot-at-48fps/

Dan

^ Good. I always thought 60fps was an odd choice, since it wouldn't translate well when "downconverting" to 24fps for most standard projectors.

RocShemp

Too bad. I recall he originally wanted to do 48 fps until Jackson beat him to the punch. I liked the notion that he was going to up the ante all the way to 60 fps.

stvn1974

How long until I can buy 4K discs in the $7.88 bin at Wal-Mart? Or is it going to be streaming only?

RocShemp

There's already streaming 4K. The Panasonic player is for physical 4K media. I'm assuming they'll use BDXL discs/drives for this new format.

Drexl

To that I would add that the ISPs' bandwidth caps would have to be dramatically increased or eliminated, or (and I hope this isn't the answer) streaming services would be exempt from counting against the caps. I am not going to blow through my current limit of 250GB each month streaming 4K.

This article sums up my concerns: http://gizmodo.com/you-can-burn-thro...-in-1524579598

Matthew Chmiel

Here's the biggest problem I have with 4K, most film and television productions are still mastered in 2K regardless of how they're shot (16mm, 35mm, or digital). There are films shot using 4K or 5K digital cameras that are still getting mastered in 2K.

Sony and Warner are the only two major studios constantly sending out 4K DCPs to theaters and some of those films are not even natively shot or properly mastered in 4K. I know Fox and Paramount are getting better at sending out 4K DCPs, but a majority of theatrical releases are still presented and being mastered in 2K.

4K sounds great on paper, the problem is there's next-to-no content available. Distributors and studios are not going to start cleaning up a majority of their library or acquisitions and begin to master them in 4K. The cost is still too high for little-to-no return on investment. I know Sony has been going through their back catalog and mastering a majority of their library to 4K, but that's probably one of the many reasons why they're bleeding money. The films we see released in 4K in any physical or streaming format will be considered classics by the majority or newer releases, that's it.

I would've loved to see the Avatar sequels in 60fps as rumor was looked 60fps more film like and natural than 48fps, but it's a shame Cameron backed down. After now having watched the entire Hobbit trilogy in HFR 3D and IMAX, I would not be sad if I never saw a HFR 3D release ever again.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't wait for the 4K Blu-ray + Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray 2D + DVD + Digital HD combo packs.

hanshotfirst1138

Yes, but you CAN do a 4K scan from a celluloid master. 2K is mostly used presumably because handling that much data is more difficult for a computer and more time-consuming, plus it's all many digital cinemas are equipped for anyway.

morriscroy

Wonder if the upcoming Star Wars movies will be done in native 4K (or higher) resolution, and released on 4K bluray.

zyzzle

Hence, only current releases (= 95% crap) will ever see the light of day on 4k. The very folks who would likely invest in 4k will be affluent, older people, many of whom have an appreciation of, and desire for, older catalog releases.

The studios will never pay the admittedly very high cost for new 4k transfers of any but the most high-profile catalog releases. So, why invest in 4k? Self-fulfilling prophecy...

So, we've got about three insurmountable problems:

1. Lack of bandwidth / bandwidth caps for acceptable streaming quality in 4k = distribution problems

2. Physical media = dying / dead format already in blu-ray

3. Studio inertia in making new 4k transfers of any but the newest releases either filmed in 4k already or out in theaters in a digital form.

4. Lack of demand due to 1, 2 and 3 above.

No dice for 4k in my future!

Adam Tyner

Many (most?) new theatrical releases aren't mastered at 4K, not even the biggest of the big like The Hobbit flicks. That series in particular is shot at something like 5K, but the effects and final mastering are all at 2K.

PhantomStranger

ULTRA HD Blu-ray (better get used to calling 4K BDs that name) will be for people on the bleeding edge of technology and wealthy enthusiasts. The studios know better this time it won't be a mass-market format. I would not expect penetration beyond the level reached by Laserdiscs. Its retail reach might be even less than Laserdisc had, since the retailing environment is far different from the 90s.

I think less informed consumers will believe they are watching actual 4K content from Netflix, most people are very gullible.

bruceames

I can see UHD Blu-ray working, but only under two conditions.

1) To get studios on board, they will need draconian copy protection, mainly making disc a "digital" purchase, where you need internet authentication for playback. It's like what MS wanted for the Xbox One. The purchase is considered a digital purchase, meaning First Sale protection won't apply. More control for the studios (which is exactly what they want) while having the content on disc will avoid the bandwidth/download problems of traditional digital delivery. I imagine there would be a huge backlash, but human nature being what it is, people will come around.

2) Higher prices. Prices will have be proportional to volume. The lower the volume, the higher the price needs to be to sustain it. If this gets laserdisc levels of adoption, then it will need laserdisc level prices.

bruceames

They should have just called it 4K Blu-ray. 4K has the advantage of being shorter, easier to pronounce and being a recognizable name that is associated with 4K TVs. Heck, 4K even rhymes with Blu-ray. Stupid to call it Ultra HD Blu-ray. Way too many syllables.

Drexl

Regarding the amount of content likely to be released, I don't really see it as a problem. I'm looking at 4K as a special format reserved for certain titles, not a complete replacement for HD. Of course we all have our own opinions on what is "classic" and what isn't, but I would be okay with only classics getting the 4K treatment. I don't believe it will be like SD vs HD, where once you got used to HD you didn't want to watch SD anymore.

PhantomStranger

I think they were afraid of keeping the 4K trademark stick. It's such a generic term they very well may have lost trademark protection once it hit market. That is likely the reason why they went with the less catchy ULTRA HD.

orangerunner

I can see the 4K physical media gaining as much traction in the marketplace as D-VHS did.

People will buy the 4K TVs in droves when the prices begin to match the current HDTV prices but they'll still be running SD and 720p HD content lamenting on how awesome 4K is.

RocShemp

That takes me back to my days working at CompUSA. So many customers not understanding why their DVD player (hooked up via composite cables) wasn't giving them HD video on their TV when they clearly owned an HDTV. It was borderline impossible to get them to understand they needed an HD source (like a Blu-ray or HD DVD player) connected via component, DVI, or HDMI.