Wouldn't you have to choose between UHD and 3D everytime you watch the movie though anyway? In what situation would you be not watching the 3D version?

The BD is included to avoid compatibility issues, which could affect nearly all UHD BD owners at some point. 3D BD is a niche product at this point, and I think the studios are thinking that UHD and 3D are two separate niches. Or, at the studios are thinking UHD has the potential for widespread adoption, and don't want to bog it down with reminders of their last "latest-and-greatest" tech of 3D TV.

What's wrong with having the option to watch either all in one package?

And I really doubt anyone buying UHD really has a need for a copy of the DVD at this point. Sure Joe Sixpack is still buying DVDs but they aren't the market for UHD anyway. People who buy 3D BDs are.

From a consumer standpoint, nothing. From a studio standpoint, it's an additional cost that adds little value, at least in terms of how it'll affect sales.

The price isn't directly tied to the cost, but that doesn't mean studios aren't keeping an eyes on costs. They'll include what they think will help the product sell significantly better, and if that's a DVD instead of a 3D BD, that's what they'll include.

One thing that has also crossed my mind;

An additional DVD only costs the studio an extra $.30 or less but I wonder if they have to pay-out additional royalties to the actors, directors, union creative staff etc. for the additional discs that are created?

When something like "Frozen" sells a million Blu-ray/DVD combo packs (now up to 4 discs), a back-end deal like that could potentially cost a lot more than just $.30 a disc.

Typically, those royalties are based on profits, or if they're clever, revenue. So it's not about how many discs or sold, but how much they sold for.

It's why studios can discount a title all the way to the dollar bin.

How about they put the up sampling part in big letters instead of the 4K part? We're much more knowledgable about this stuff than the average moviegoer, and even some of us have been confused by the branding.

Yes...I would have to choose between UHD and 3D each time. Maybe, by myself I watch in 3D with headphones on and then watch again with my family in UHD with HDR and Dolby Atmos the next time. The point is that at least I would have the choice, and the only available current UHD player allows for that choice, as it will also play 3DBD. As it currently stands, I have to choose at time of purchase between the two "niche" products and I'm choosing 3D. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like the opportunity to see it in UHD/HDR/Atmos, etc. I just won't pay twice to do it.

Is this just a "maybe" situation, or something you think would actually happen? Does the rest of your family dislike 3D? Do you not have enough glasses? Does the rest of the family particularly care if the film is in UHD vs HD?

For me, it seems like it'd be more frustrating that there's no UHD 3D option, so you have to choose between resolution or 3D, instead of just choosing between 3D or 2D UHD (and a 3D UHD disc would likely come packaged with a 2D UHD option).

Edit: One option would be maybe trading of the "extra" discs, or splitting costs with others. You could, say, sell off the BD from the UHD set, and then stick the 3D BD disc in it, then sell off the rest of the discs that came with the 3D BD. It's definitely more hassle than if the studios just made the perfect set for you personally, but it might not be pricier.

We all like 3D and have plenty of glasses, but if I have something on for a repeat viewing, I'm often multi-tasking and don't want to keep taking the glasses off. Having a UHD option and upgraded sound would be nice.

While I too was frustrated that 3D UHD was left out of the initial specs, I'm not aware of any material that was shown that way in the cinema. Maybe, that comes later if 3D and UHD survive.

I'm fairly skeptical that selling individual BDs or DVDs without packaging (or with "wrong" packaging) would recoup much of the cost. Might get a few bucks for a digital code, but that's probably it.

Indeed, there have not been any 4K 3D movies yet, but I agree that 3D should still have been included in the UHD Blu-ray spec. After all, lack of a 4K source hasn't stopped them offering upscaled releases for 2D titles- why should 3D titles be any different?

So what you're doing dictates how the family watches it? You were saying that the UHD would be for secondary "family viewings."

If it's a new movie, I could see someone wanting to buy the 3D BD set that's only missing the 3D disc. Our you could "split" the purchase with a friend or family member that likes movies, but doesn't necessarily care about 3D or UHD.

It wouldn't even need to be upscaled. Depending on the length of a movie, it might've been possible to stick a UHD 2D version and a HD 3D version on the same disc.

Also, including 3D in the spec may have allowed for something like 48fps or 60fps HD 3D, so The Hobbit could finally have a HFR home video option.

Just wanted to go back to this post. HDR is the next big thing and although the Average Joe may not understand it, they WILL appreciate it (unlike the upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray which was largely met with indifference).

HDR will be highly confusing to an average TV watcher, most will probably think it's another version of 4k. And just like DVD to blu was, it'll be met with indifference.

All they have to do is own a HDR TV and subscribe to Netflix. Once they see how much better shows look in HDR then they will seek out HDR content for their favorite movies, like new releases that Netflix won't have. So Netflix will be like the showroom for HDR, from there they will springboard to buying it on Digital UHD or getting a UHD player.

I'm not surprised with all the negativity regarding UHD (or just physical media in general) in this forum though. I think it's the only one that still doesn't do UHD reviews (AFAIK). But I guess seeing will be believing, no?

I have Netflix in 4k, and I doubt I'll notice a significant change with HDR (yes, I have an LG 60UH8500). But between TV apps being glitchy overall, or connection, or Netflix having their own issues, seeing HDR via streaming isn't the ideal way to experience HDR, or full 4k for that matter.

I've been saying forever that what the studios need to do is market (and respectfully treat) UHD as a home theater enthusiast format. Anything streaming can be left at DVD or blu ray quality. And in the future when compression is better developed to withstand gigabyte type of streaming, then bring in 4k. Netflix is so far ahead of the curve, people won't pay the additional price for a long time, or until they understand it. And even then, will they want it when 1080p is plenty good enough? I don't think so either.

And another thing I'm curious about - what percentage of the US has access to broadband? I don't know, but I've wondered about that.

It depends on what your definition of "broadband" is. Only 10% of the US doesn't have access to speeds of 25/3 or higher:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016...t-test-at-fcc/

Which is a problem since the majority of companies might consider they want to go dual physical media AND streaming with digital downloads. The infrastructure just isn't there.

They can always roll it out for the customers that can use it. It's basically on par when Netflix first started rolling out HD service. Hell, even today Netflix still offers SD feeds for those with slower speeds.

But why do you think that 90% access to 25/3 speeds means "the infrastructure isn't there"?

It's a lovely dream you have. No basis in reality whatsoever, but, truly, a lovely dream.

Yeah, we'll see who's dream has more basis in reality in a few years.

More likely they'll subscribe to analog cable (why is that still around??) and watch it on stretch mode

I think you've got a way too optimistic vision of its future. I agree with others in saying that people will meet it with indifference.

If members of a forum dedicated to DVD/HD media and movies/TV in general aren't seeing a lot of value in UHD, what hope is there for the format with the average Joe?

This has small niche written all over it.

For many cable operators, it's not. Comcast dropped analog cable in 2013:
http://bgr.com/2013/10/16/comcast-di...ter-criticism/

Charter dropped analog in 2014:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/b...ery-tv/268049/

Time Warner Cable dropped it in March:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/su...-adapters.html
http://www.syracuse.com/business-new...very_tv_1.html

They've dropped analog, but they still carry standard definition channels. That's what gets to me.

Charter over here has dropped most (but not all) of its standard-def channels. Part of the whole switched digital video thing, I guess...avoiding duplication to free up bandwidth for other stuff. The only SD channels don't have an HD equivalent, or at least not one that Charter carries here.