DthRdrX

The only thing that irks me is having to buy two separate releases if I want 3D. The studios are still showing strong support for 3D but I almost feel as if they are making us choose between either one or the other. For those of us that enjoy 3D it's only a matter of time I fear.

Adam Tyner

Like I said, posts are sorted chronologically. I can't create a new post and have it appear before the older ones. Similarly, the thread is listed as being started by whoever's responsible for the first post in the thread, and that's not something I can override either. I don't think the subject is snarky.

PhantomStranger

This is an excellent piece by A/V guru David Susilo dispelling some of the misconceptions about UHD and 4K video.

https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpr...eptions-of-4k/

AaronSch

Yeah right, "Ultra HD Blu-ray is for suckers" isn't snarky? Don't be cute. It was meant to mock people who question the advantages of the new format—period. How 'bout "Is Ultra HD/4K Really Worth the Upgrade?" That would have been a more thoughtful and intelligent title to encourage discussion and debate. Admit it, you chose to set a negative tone purposefully because you have a gargantuan-sized stick up your arse. You see, I unfortunately have to deal with people like you all the time. You made your decision and you don't want to offer real discussion to anyone who makes a thoughtful argument which challenges your own belief system. You welcome all comments with which you agree and mock an opposing point-of-view. It's pathetic and a real problem in public discourse these days. Your arrogance is more than transparent.

Adam Tyner

I genuinely don't know what you're getting at. I recognize that there's much about UHD BD and the current state of UHD as a whole deserving of criticism, I don't even have a UHD TV and therefore no skin in the game, and I'm hopeful but have very modest expectations for the format's success.

AaronSch

Fine, if that's true, then change the thread title to something far less confrontational.

Adam Tyner

Done.

You do need to cool it about painting those interested in Ultra HD Blu-ray with excessively broad brushes: the whole "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" routine, "woody over the bragging rights", etc. Those are not the words of someone interested in a genuine discussion.

AaronSch

Never did. It was your narrow interpretation of my full comment regarding UHD/4K. There is without-a-doubt a number of people who are early adopters because of what I called "bragging rights." That's why fools line up to get the newest iphone that is essentially the same phone they currently use. It's the same reason many people buy new cars every two years. Yes, it's sometimes about function and features but sometimes it's to show off to the neighbors. To deny that element of the allure of UHD/4K is ignoring reality—and human nature.

fujishig

Honest question, how many 4K sets output 3D? I realize people can have more than one tv, but it probably isn't worth the additional increase to the pricepoint if it's not a huge overlap.

Adam Tyner

It used to be fairly widespread, but more and more models drop it every year, unfortunately. Some of LG and Sony's most recent models support 3D, but that doesn't span their entire UHD lines -- it's for their higher-end displays only. Samsung dropped 3D support altogether for their 2016 line. AFAIK, no manufacturer other than Sony and LG is currently supporting 3D in their UHD TVs.

Of the 129 UHD TVs on bestbuy.com, only 18 are flagged as having 3D capability. Of the 79 UHD TVs listed on Amazon and sold by amazon.com (as opposed to a third party seller, Warehouse Deals, etc.), 15 are flagged as having 3D support.

E Unit

Not sure how much of a demo disc this will actually be, but the 60 fps makes me think we'll be seeing 2017 models capable of HFR. Then maybe The Hobbit films at one point I would think.

Dan

What is "60FPS vs 24FPS" supposed to mean? That it has both versions in 4k, or some sort of demo of both options, even if only one (presumably, 60FPS) would be on the disc?

Also, this was filmed at 120FPS, yes?

Sounds like something I'd want to rent, just to see it, but I don't have any desire to own it.
Is RedBox renting out UHDs yet?

E Unit

Yes, this one was filmed at 120fps, but i'm guessing it was converted to 60fps to accommodate upcoming TV models that are supposedly able to play 60fps content, as no TV will be doing 120fps for sometime. Definitely not in the next few years. Or maybe? But I agree, no desire to own it. If anything, I'll pick it up during a holiday sale next year for under $20.

Alan Smithee

The closest to accurate 3D presentation would be 720p resolution at 30fps, but they'll likely do it at 1080 24fps instead like The Hobbit movies. I don't even know what theaters in my area played it, but guess I'll never be seeing it.

Dan

It still really bums me out that Billy Lynn didn't play at 120fps at any theatres in Houston. I'd have gladly driven across town just to see it, even though every indication pointed to the movie being pretty bad. I'm sure a few hundred other people would have done the same.

Hell, I'd have driven to Austin if I had to! (and I'd stop at TacoDeli on my way to the theatre)
I heard there were only 4 or 5 theatres in the world that played it at 120fps. What a disappointment.

Anyway... yeah. Maybe a $15 blind-buy for me. Otherwise, I'll pass.

E Unit

Come for the tacos, skip the theaters. It pisses me off to no end we don't have one single Atmos enabled theater here. Closest is in San Marcos. To say nothing about any theater doing Dolby Vision and/or HDR.

jjcool

But, as you said, not an apple to apple comparison.

While it may be performing better than expected, it is, as you said, far from the runaway success that some on this board seem to think it is.

I do not disagree with this. in fact, I believe I said that I see hardly anybody actually buying these discs.

Not surprising, and not that difficult as 3d is a largely dead format it seems.

Premium I have seen has been $5-10 for new releases. The bigger problem, as you mentioned is the large variance in pricing for catalog titles, which for UHD is pretty much everything that isn't being released right now.

OldBoy

And yet companies still put them out for most new releases. Weird.

Shannon Nutt

I love 3D on my home TV. It's a better experience than the theater. I'll never figure out why it didn't catch on - it's certainly far less of a gimmick than, say, those silly curved TVs.

fujishig

Probably because you need glasses for everyone. I know that we rarely watch them because it's a hassle to get all the kids to put them on, make sure they have charge, etc.

Brian T

If you bought passive there'd be no need for a charge, or batteries, etc. Just slap 'em on and go! I do think the 'dueling formats' situation in the early days of 3D didn't do it any favours, but thankfully we're enjoying something of an embarrassment of riches with 3D titles these days, so clearly the niche survived. I know both sides have their proponents, but I never understood why they even bothered with cumbersome and glitchy 'active' 3D for the home when that format was losing out to the more convenient passive glasses in theaters even then.

Eddie W

Probably because it was the only way to get full HD in 3D before the introduction of 4k passive sets. 3D in a 1080p passive had the resolution cut down to 540p for each eye.

Passive 3D on a 4K set has finally perfected the process....but nobody is interested any more.

jjcool

Hardly.

E Unit

Check on Amazon and come back and tell us that's not the case.

DthRdrX

There really is no price reason to drop it from sets. It's all marketing. Look at LG with OLED. The B6 (flat) and C6 (curved) are the same model/price with the lone difference of 3D being omitted from the flat model. Obviously not costing LG any major difference if they can sold at the same price. This way they only have to offer one curved set this year and try and push those who want 3D flat panels to a more expensive set.

LG's Passive 3D is pretty much perfect IMO as is. Glasses are weightless, dirt cheap, comfortable and don't need to charge like active models. As someone else mentioned, 4K displays also offer full resolution.