# First 4K BluRay player goes on Sale Today



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Saw this late Thursday and got me thinking.

World's First 4K BluRay (Samsung UBD-K8500) goes on sale Today.
MSRP $399. Surely cheaper online.
It plays back 4K UHD BluRay, 3D, 1080p, as well 
HDR Built in as well

300 Apps, including 4k Streaming from Amazon, Netflix and YouTube.

Got me thinking.

FiOS (as well as most other MVPDs) have no way to access VOD from TiVo, eliminating it from 4K VOD in the future.

And thus far, FiOS has not shown any plans for 4K Linear.

With that in mind, I got to thinking, for $399 I would MUCH rather keep my TiVo Roamio Pro w/Lifetime instead of upgrading to whatever the Series 6 Pro is called if the only difference is 4K output.

I just do not see how to justify paying for a Series 6 Pro just for 4K output that FiOS (and other MVPDs) have not announced any real plans for Linear Channels.

The only Linear Broadcast I am even aware of in the USA is a DirecTV test of the a PGA Golf Tourney in several weeks, which one needs a HR54 AND a C61 to view.

And it is not like MSOs have a bunch of extra bandwidth to throw up Linear UHD Channels at this time.

So I am seriously thinking to go that route?

Thoughts?

Samsung 4K UBD-K8500 Blu-ray Player Goes On Sale Friday At Video & Audio Center

Will debut first 4K discs, including "The Martian"

2/04/2016 05:00:00 PM Eastern

Southern California's Video & Audio Center will once again scoop the retail industry by offering the first 4K Blu-ray player to consumers Friday afternoon.
The local chain's four stores will be offering Samsung's UBD-K8500 streaming Blu-ray player and will debut the first Ultra HD Blu-ray discs to hit the market from 20th Century Fox Studios, including the Oscar-nominated "The Martian."

The discs will features native 4K content with high-dynamic range.

The Samsung player is backward compatible with all existing Blu-ray and 3D Blu-ray discs, DVDs and CDs, and it up-scales non-native 4K content.

The UBD-K8500 features built-in Wi-Fi and includes more than 300 apps, including streaming services that offer 4K content: Netflix, Amazon and YouTube.

A press conference is scheduled for 5 p.m. PST Friday at the VAC showroom on Wilshire and 15th Street in Santa Monica.

The players will go on sale immediately afterward at the chain's four locations for a retail of $399.

Quantities are limited. The public is invited.

http://www.twice.com/news/blu-raydv...yer-goes-sale-friday-video-audio-center/60364


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

First I think many will be having the same questions about upgrading a Roamio Plus/Pro that you do, if/when a "Bolt Pro" is released and I expect their will be resistance to doing that upgrade until there actually is linear UHD broadcasts that can be recorded. If all you are really getting is not needing to switch inputs to another device or the TVs own apps it may be hard to justify the money for an upgrade. 

Regarding UHD Blu-ray while I expect to wait a few years before making the jump to 4K/UHD in general, I do expect UHD Blu-ray will be part of my setup. UHD Blu-ray will be more important to me than many people as I do not have access to an Internet service fast enough to stream UHD (best I can get at my house is 9+/-Mbps DSL from Frontier). So for the near future I will be limited to services that allow downloads & UHD Blu-ray disks. 

Of course my dream solution is a TiVo with built in UHD Blu-ray, ATSC 3.0 tuners, and all available UHD services including the ones that allow downloads. And of course there will never be one built.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

So how many 4K Blu-Ray titles are available to play on this thing? .


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tomhorsley said:


> So how many 4K Blu-Ray titles are available to play on this thing? .


Amazon has a few/20ish 4K UHD Blu-ray title available for release 3/1/16. Anyone buying in now has to know they are paying way more than what it will cost for the player and Disks in a year or 2. But for some it isn't that much money and they want great looking content now so they will pay it.

Vudu has 27 in their UHD collection, one would assume all of those will be available fairly soon on UHD Blu-ray.

What would be real nice is if TiVo could get Kaleidescape downloads on the Bolt - they have over 70 UHD titles now and with downloads people like me with slower Internet could still get UHD content. Actually I wouldn't mind just having access to their downloadable 1080p library. Wonder if Frontier would have a heart attack if I started doing 65+/- GB  downloads which is what a UHD movie downloads from Keleidescape are.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Dirty little secret - a lot of movies are done in 2K Digital Intermediate format - i.e., you're not getting much better than 1080p at the theatre. VFX-heavy movies like The Martian have the VFX done usually in 2K, even if the non-VFX parts are done in 4K or higher resolution. The original material would be use for the HDR but the VFX will be upscaled.

Some movies ARE done in 4K DI so those would look brilliant. But those are rarer, perhaps those that go all the way to show in IMAX. (Though, not always - Star Wars is 2K DI).

Plus, apparently the early 4K UHD Blu-Rays are still using double-layer BD-50 discs - the increased layer count discs isn't quite economical to manufacture yet.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Worf said:


> Dirty little secret - a lot of movies are done in 2K Digital Intermediate format - i.e., you're not getting much better than 1080p at the theatre. VFX-heavy movies like The Martian have the VFX done usually in 2K, even if the non-VFX parts are done in 4K or higher resolution. The original material would be use for the HDR but the VFX will be upscaled.
> 
> Some movies ARE done in 4K DI so those would look brilliant. But those are rarer, perhaps those that go all the way to show in IMAX. (Though, not always - Star Wars is 2K DI).
> 
> Plus, apparently the early 4K UHD Blu-Rays are still using double-layer BD-50 discs - the increased layer count discs isn't quite economical to manufacture yet.


Hers another dirty little secret that ISF and THX techs have been preaching for years.

Contrast makes more of a difference than anything else on the image.

More than 2k or 4k.

Even Netflix's CEO said so this week.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/netflix-plans-for-hdr-dolby-vision-interview-neil-hunt/

That being said, HDR is the most important part of the new format.

I have been waiting for HDR since ISF Joel Silver and I started discussing Dolby's acquisition and renaming Dolby Vision 8 years ago. Thankfully, it did not end up dead somewhere.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Heh, the thread title confused me...I thought, "What on Earth are they going to play it on?!?"


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Heh, the thread title confused me...I thought, "What on Earth are they going to play it on?!?"


Article states they have titles in stock as well

Those who hate Bolt design will probably love the curve here: 

https://www.videoandaudiocenter.com/SAMSUNG-UBDK8500-4K-Ultra-HD-Blu-ray-Player-p/ubdk8500.htm

Also at Frys in San Diego. 
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/05/samsung-ubd-k8500-ultra-hd-blu-ray/


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Article states they have titles in stock as well


But at first glance, it looked like you were talking about 4K Blu-rays being for sale, not 4K Blu-ray players....


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But at first glance, it looked like you were talking about 4K Blu-rays being for sale, not 4K Blu-ray players....


Got it.

Hmmmm. Appears one cannot edit title.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...That being said, HDR is the most important part of the new format. ...


That is pretty much what every reviewer has said. It also appears there would not be any issue adding HDR to 1080p panels. For a 55+/- inch TV I would gladly take a 1080p plasma with HDR over a 4K LCD.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> That is pretty much what every reviewer has said. It also appears there would not be any issue adding HDR to 1080p panels. For a 55+/- inch TV I would gladly take a 1080p plasma with HDR over a 4K LCD.


Actually HDR on Plasma would not work that well at all. At about 25fL on the bright end (less than 100 Nit), they would not have the ability to produce enough light to get the difference in the high end and low end. Even the Retail OLEDs at ~750 Nit had to have a secondary exception written in to be HDR compliant.

Sony showed a Professional Concept 4000 Nit OLED at CES, but that is not even for sale at any price (and was far too small for Consumer use). That is really what is needed for the best HDR with OLED..


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually HDR on Plasma would not work that well at all. At about 25fL on the bright end (less than 100 Nit), they would not have the ability to produce enough light to get the difference in the high end and low end. Even the Retail OLEDs at ~750 Nit had to have a secondary exception written in to be HDR compliant.
> 
> Sony showed a Professional Concept 4000 Nit OLED at CES, but that is not even for sale at any price (and was far too small for Consumer use). That is really what is needed for the best HDR with OLED..


While Plasma TVs certainly don't get nearly as bright as LCDs, 25fL is most definitely not the "bright end." Mine was professionally calibrated and gets almost double that at 53fL, which is more than enough for me in my viewing conditions.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

namwoljr said:


> While Plasma TVs certainly don't get nearly as bright as LCDs, 25fL is most definitely not the "bright end." Mine was professionally calibrated and gets almost double that at 53fL, which is more than enough for me in my viewing conditions.


Plasmas will certainly go higher than 25fL, however, I personally have never seen one go as high as you state that is properly calibrated. David @ CNET was able to get one of the last Panasonic Plasmas to 43.3fL while properly calibrated, so clearly the last generation could get higher than 25 fL, which is where most Plasmas top out.

Also, while in scorch mode, the bottom end is also ramped up, so the contrast ratio is still low - which is what is needed for proper HDR operation. Even the Samsung F8500 in scorch mode only did a 81 fL (277 Nit), which is FAR TOO LOW for use of HDR.

Note the specs for Ultra HD Premium is more than 1000 nits peak brightness and less than 0.05 nits black level OR More than 540 nits peak brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level (the later put in because OLED could not meet the first spec). Quite frankly, this really is a cop out put in for OLED as Dolby Vision has always spoken of over 1000 nit peak brightness.

For mastering display specifications are minimum 100% of P3 colors, more than 1000 nits peak brightness and black level of less than 0.03 nits. Again, the available OLEDs would not meet this requirement and again shows how the secondary 540 nt was added for OLED as a compromise.

As I noted earlier, Sony showed a small reference OLED at 4000 nit, so it certainly is possible - though no plans for anything like that available anytime soon (and certainly not in the size needed in a residential house).

But regardless, Plasmas do not come close to 540 nits peak brightness (157.6 fL - double what the F8500 could produce in scorch mode) - and you really would get a burn in at that level.


----------



## Bighouse (Sep 3, 2004)

I wish Oppo would make some kind of press release about any UHD player they are working on...would likely keep me from buying this or a similar model.


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Plasmas will certainly go higher than 25fL, however, I personally have never seen one go as high as you state that is properly calibrated. David @ CNET was able to get one of the last Panasonic Plasmas to 43.3fL while properly calibrated, so clearly the last generation could get higher than 25 fL, which is where most Plasmas top out.
> 
> Also, while in scorch mode, the bottom end is also ramped up, so the contrast ratio is still low - which is what is needed for proper HDR operation. Even the Samsung F8500 in scorch mode only did a 81 fL (277 Nit), which is FAR TOO LOW for use of HDR.
> 
> ...


Head over to AVS Forum to read about Panasonic VT60s professionally calibrated with fLs in the lower 50s if you don't believe me. The Samsung F8500 could get even higher, up into the 80s and that was not in scorch mode.

In any case, I never said anything about Plasmas being capable of meeting HDR specs, just that they don't top out at 25 fL.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

namwoljr said:


> Head over to AVS Forum to read about Panasonic VT60s professionally calibrated with fLs in the lower 50s if you don't believe me. The Samsung F8500 could get even higher, up into the 80s and that was not in scorch mode.


Very few instruments measure fL correctly - and most ISF/THX techs do not carry $20k+ pieces of equipment into the field needed to make proper measurement.

I happily trust David @ CNET with a $30k Minolta CS2000, which no tech would carry into the field.

Was talking Plasmas in general - however, and as I believe I already stated, I concede the last generation of panels will get over the average 25fL of Plasma, though not enough for HDR, as atmuscarella was asking for.

And if you want to get picky, 53fL is OVER 2x 25fL, not ALMOST 2x.



Bighouse said:


> I wish Oppo would make some kind of press release about any UHD player they are working on...would likely keep me from buying this or a similar model.


Agreed. I signed up for notification from Oppo for notification when their 3D Player was available......and I am still waiting for that notification, 3 years after release, lol.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Hers another dirty little secret that ISF and THX techs have been preaching for years.
> 
> Contrast makes more of a difference than anything else on the image.
> 
> ...


Which is a shame, because it can be retrofitted on existing Blu-Ray format and making ita simple and cheap upgrade We call it HDMI Deep Color (or x.v.Color or various other trade names). That's HDR right there by turning 8 bits per channel into 10/12/14 bits per channel (more bits == more dynamic range).

Instead, by putting it up on UHD Blu-Ray, all that's going to happen is it becomes as niche as 3D Blu-Rays as everyone sees it as an even more expensive obsolete disc-based format in a world where streaming is king. Face it - UHD Blu_Rays require pretty much all new equipment bought in the last 6 months or so - your AV Receiver needs to support HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2, those started coming out 6 months ago. Your TV needs to support it, and existing UHD TVs don't - some have HDMI 2.0 ports but in 4:2:0 mode only (i.e., HDMI 1.4 ports). And of course, new players, and maybe even new HDMI interconnects because HDMI 2.0a cabling makes even more demands and existing high-speed cables will not cut it.

That's right - all existing 4K equipment out there you bought is pretty much obsolete. Plenty of Roku 4 users found out the hard way they don't have HDCP 2.2 support, and that's been available for a little while now (sets made in the last year). You need HDMI 2.0a to get HDR - HDMI 2.0 just gets your 4K60 (be it 4:4:$ or 4:2:0), and that's something that's very new.


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Very few instruments measure fL correctly - and most ISF/THX techs do not carry $20k+ pieces of equipment into the field needed to make proper measurement.
> 
> I happily trust David @ CNET with a $30k Minolta CS2000, which no tech would carry into the field.
> 
> ...


My Plasma was calibrated by DeWayne Davis. You might know him as one of several well respected professional calibrators that calibrate all of the TVs at the Value Electronics shootout every year. I assure you, his equipment is top of the line. I happily trust DeWayne over David to get the best out of every TV he calibrates. I'm not bringing this up for bragging rights, just stating facts to counter your assumptions that were brought up to try and score some points as an anonymous poster on a message board.

And congratulations on being picky. I hope that works out well for you.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

namwoljr said:


> My Plasma was calibrated by DeWayne Davis. You might know him as one of several well respected professional calibrators that calibrate all of the TVs at the Value Electronics shootout every year. I assure you, his equipment is top of the line. I happily trust DeWayne over David to get the best out of every TV he calibrates. I'm not bringing this up for bragging rights, just stating facts to counter your assumptions that were brought up to try and score some points as an anonymous poster on a message board.
> 
> And congratulations on being picky. I hope that works out well for you.


DeWayne's $6k equipment does not measure fL as accurately as David's $30k Minolta CS-2000.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Worf said:


> Which is a shame, because it can be retrofitted on existing Blu-Ray format and making ita simple and cheap upgrade We call it HDMI Deep Color (or x.v.Color or various other trade names). That's HDR right there by turning 8 bits per channel into 10/12/14 bits per channel (more bits == more dynamic range).
> 
> Instead, by putting it up on UHD Blu-Ray, all that's going to happen is it becomes as niche as 3D Blu-Rays as everyone sees it as an even more expensive obsolete disc-based format in a world where streaming is king. Face it - UHD Blu_Rays require pretty much all new equipment bought in the last 6 months or so - your AV Receiver needs to support HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2, those started coming out 6 months ago. Your TV needs to support it, and existing UHD TVs don't - some have HDMI 2.0 ports but in 4:2:0 mode only (i.e., HDMI 1.4 ports). And of course, new players, and maybe even new HDMI interconnects because HDMI 2.0a cabling makes even more demands and existing high-speed cables will not cut it.
> 
> That's right - all existing 4K equipment out there you bought is pretty much obsolete. Plenty of Roku 4 users found out the hard way they don't have HDCP 2.2 support, and that's been available for a little while now (sets made in the last year). You need HDMI 2.0a to get HDR - HDMI 2.0 just gets your 4K60 (be it 4:4:$ or 4:2:0), and that's something that's very new.


On most parts you are correct.

However, the HDMI Deep Color is NOT HDR. It is the expanded color range outside of REC 609. HDR deals with Contrast, not colors.


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> DeWayne's $6k equipment does not measure fL as accurately as David's $30k Minolta CS-2000.


And you're assuming he doesn't regularly profile his Klein K-10 with a more expensive spectroradiometer? And even if he didn't, we're talking about measuring peak luminance levels, not low luminance levels, making your point completely moot.

Move along.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

namwoljr said:


> And you're assuming he doesn't regularly profile his Klein K-10 with a more expensive spectroradiometer? And even if he didn't, we're talking about measuring peak luminance levels, not low luminance levels, making your point completely moot.
> 
> Move along.


profiling is voodoo.

Furthermore, he profiles to a PhotoResearch PR655, iirc, which 313 329 does not match Minolta which is the Gold Standard all equipment makers use.

And we are talking peak luminance for scortch mode. I never mentioned low luminance.

Bottom line. If you are happy with it, great.

However he did not bring the Gold Standard equipment for measuring fL into your house - the kind all manufacturers use.

As thus, I trust CNETs measurement on that spec with a $30k Minolta CS-2000.

Btw, you know why he brings a Klein into your house instead of his more expensive PR655 instead of profiling? He wants to get out of your house faster and the PR655 is very slow at measuring low levels.

I'd rather do it slow and correct, instead of "profiling".


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> profiling is voodoo.
> 
> Furthermore, he profiles to a PhotoResearch PR655, iirc, which 313 329 does not match Minolta which is the Gold Standard all equipment makers use.
> 
> ...


You're right. DeWayne is a horrible calibrator and his equipment is sub par. You are clearly my superior and have won an argument on the internet. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

namwoljr said:


> You're right. DeWayne is a horrible calibrator and his equipment is sub par. You are clearly my superior and have won an argument on the internet. Welcome to my ignore list.


Some people hate facts that contradicts their opinions.

And please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Try re-reading what I said and become an informed consumer instead.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ISF calibration sounds great, but I just get the settings from whomever posts them on AVSForum. I'm sure it's not as good, but it's also free. 

You could make a 1080p HDR screen, but I doubt anyone will, as the HDR content will be available in 4k. Netflix has said, however, that if the user doesn't have enough bandwidth, they will prioritize HDR over 4k. But really, what we want is 4k AND HDR, as they should complement each other, and make things look even more amazing.

The whole premise of this thread is sort of strange, and TiVo's 4k seems rather pointless, since 4k TVs have the 4k streaming apps built in anyway, but I am nonetheless rather excited for 4k and HDR and all that they have to offer.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> ISF calibration sounds great, but I just get the settings from whomever posts them on AVSForum. I'm sure it's not as good, but it's also free.
> 
> You could make a 1080p HDR screen, but I doubt anyone will, as the HDR content will be available in 4k. Netflix has said, however, that if the user doesn't have enough bandwidth, they will prioritize HDR over 4k. But really, what we want is 4k AND HDR, as they should complement each other, and make things look even more amazing.
> 
> The whole premise of this thread is sort of strange, and TiVo's 4k seems rather pointless, since 4k TVs have the 4k streaming apps built in anyway, but I am nonetheless rather excited for 4k and HDR and all that they have to offer.


Actually Netflix and others have talked about adding HDR to 1080 content that is not available in 4k, where it is available to do so. Again, you would need a TV with HDR and HIGH NIT OUTPUT to view this, so for all purposes, we are talking a newer UHD anyway.

Your posts hints to that making HDR a priority over UHD


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually Netflix and others have talked about adding HDR to 1080 content that is not available in 4k, where it is available to do so. Again, you would need a TV with HDR and HIGH NIT OUTPUT to view this, so for all purposes, we are talking a newer UHD anyway.
> 
> Your posts hints to that making HDR a priority over UHD


Good point. There could be 1080p/HDR content, but you would likely need a 4k/HDR TV, as 1080p/HDR TVs are unlikely to ever exist.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Good point. There could be 1080p/HDR content, but you would likely need a 4k/HDR TV, as 1080p/HDR TVs are unlikely to ever exist.


That was my point earlier in the thread. We agree


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I got my Sammy K8500 UHD BD player tonight. Boy is this thing fast. I only wish I had some UHD BD titles. I've tried some UHD HDR content from the USB port. And it looks great. Just like using the USB port on the TV.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> I got my Sammy K8500 UHD BD player tonight.


I looked at the Amazon listing for the K8500 and the "Compare to Similar Items" shows much less expensive players. Very confusing, how can anyone tell what they are really buying ?

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-UBD-K8500-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B01A9V6OI6


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jth tv said:


> I looked at the Amazon listing for the K8500 and the "Compare to Similar Items" shows much less expensive players. Very confusing, how can anyone tell what they are really buying ?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-UBD-K8500-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B01A9V6OI6


I don't think it is all that hard to understand it is a UHD Blu-ray player. At $400 if someone doesn't know what that means I would think they should spend 5 minutes and figure it out. Given it is the only UHD Blu-ray player released so far Amazon compared it to 4K up-scaling Blu-ray players (I am guessing because they have 4K in their names/specs), which I agree are not the same thing.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Five minutes ? Show me.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jth tv said:


> Five minutes ? Show me.


While I agree the Amazon listing didn't have enough specs. The concept that an "Ultra HD Blu-ray Player" wouldn't actually play Ultra HD Blu-ray's hadn't occurred to me. But it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Samsung's page which does go into full details about the unit: http://www.samsung.com/us/video/home-audio/UBD-K8500/ZA


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> While I agree the Amazon listing didn't have enough specs. The concept that an "Ultra HD Blu-ray Player" wouldn't actually play Ultra HD Blu-ray's hadn't occurred to me. But it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Samsung's page which does go into full details about the unit: http://www.samsung.com/us/video/home-audio/UBD-K8500/ZA


I guess if I were looking to replace my BD player because I just got a 4K TV I may have missed what you just said, when and if I do upgrade I will now be more careful as a result of this Thread.

Thanks all


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Consumers still prefer DVD to BD. UHD BD is DOA.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Consumers still prefer DVD to BD. UHD BD is DOA.


I don't think you can get 3D DVDs, that the only way I use my BD player, the picture difference is much better using BD than DVD but not that much better on my 80" HDTV that I will only use BD. An upscale DVD to 1080P looks good enough on my TV.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Wow!! I watched most of the Kingsman UHD BD this evening and it looked superb. If it is actually from a 2K master then I can't wait to see a UHD BD from an actual 4K master. Because Kingsman showed so much more detail than the upscaled 2k BD. Between 4K and HDR the UHD BD looked excellent.


----------



## HD_Dude (Sep 11, 2006)

I am a TiVo fan. Big time. Nearly ten years with two S3s, and currently have the Roamio Pro in the city, with FIOS, and the Roamio OTA, in the country, with antenna.

Like many home theater enthusiasts, all I want is the best possible picture. In my opinion, TiVo gives me that with cable TV and off-air TV. The picture and sound is great. Love it.

In the city, I bought a big Samsung 4K UHD TV. Love that, too.

So, when the new 4K UHD Blu-Ray players came out, I bought one. And, I bought the discs. They're available. I bought 5 last Friday from a Best Buy.

The picture is absolutely stunning. Jaw-dropping. The sharpness, the depth and vibrancy of color, the dynamic range - mind-blowing.

So, now I have the TiVo Roamio Pro, and in the same home theater, the 4K UHD Blu-Ray player.

They coexist perfectly. The TiVo is my main machine, for 75% of my programming.

The 4K TV? Probably 15%. 4K Netflix, and 4K Amazon Instant Video.

Apple TV? Probably 5%. Gotta love HBO Now.

And the 4K Blu-Ray, another 5%. The Martian, Kingsman and other 4K movies.

(I also have an NVidia Shield 4K STB...don't use it much)

I choose any of the above devices based on content first - does it have the shows I want - and quality second - if I can watch a show in 4K on one, and only 1080 on another, I'll choose the 4K. Obviously.

If broadcast and cable TV ever went 4K, sure. I'd watch it. But until then, my Roamios are my go-to machines. They have a great picture, great sound, and overwhelmingly more content than any other source.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> Consumers still prefer DVD to BD. UHD BD is DOA.


Consumers prefer live TV to DVR according to TiVo's own research.

Your point?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> I don't think it is all that hard to understand it is a UHD Blu-ray player. At $400 if someone doesn't know what that means I would think they should spend 5 minutes and figure it out.


Considering that a recent pre-TiVo owner was giving me hell on Craigslist that a Roamio Pro with lifetime wasn't worth even $350, much less what I wanted, because he wanted OTA and Amazon had a Roamio OTA w/ Lifetime for $299, it shows on so many different levels people will not spend 5 minutes.

I could only look at his emails and laugh as this guy had no clue as to what unit would do what, or the differences in models.

Not to mention things I have seen here....no people will not spend 5 minutes.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> Consumers still prefer DVD to BD. UHD BD is DOA.


Your conclusion may be true, but if you dig deeper they do prefer BD over DVD. But the real answer is;
1. Many don't prefer buying another disc player. See #2

2. Streaming has become popular and rather than buying another disc player (or for some any disc player) they would rather Stream. So it isn't liking DVD over BD, it's deciding not to own and to stream instead.

Can a 4K player overcome that? Remains to be seen. Unlike 1080P 4K is not as easy to stream as many are finding out, it may mean upgrading to a faster internet speed. Then there's the possible Cap enforcement coming into play. What seemed like more than enough to stay under the cap for streaming may or may not be with 4K when it becomes the norm.

I am not rushing to buy a 4K player as I am not convinced the increase in resolution is worth it, it certainly is barely worth it so far with streaming. Some programs look quite good, sit close enough and do look better than 1080P. Others I can't really tell the difference. I may be in the camp of 1080P from my current 3D player is good enough. Otherwise I will stream a movie to get 4K.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I don't think it is all that hard to understand it is a UHD Blu-ray player. At $400 if someone doesn't know what that means I would think they should spend 5 minutes and figure it out. Given it is the only UHD Blu-ray player released so far Amazon compared it to 4K up-scaling Blu-ray players (I am guessing because they have 4K in their names/specs), which I agree are not the same thing.


Exactly. It's the Amazon algorithm gone bad. If humans were doing it, and they weren't total idiots, then they wouldn't be comparing it to anything, since it is literally unparalleled at this point in time. I'm sure that won't be the case for long though!



shwru980r said:


> Consumers still prefer DVD to BD. UHD BD is DOA.


There are always people who are years or decades behind the ball with technology. That doesn't mean we shouldn't move forward, or that it won't be successful. I have no clue why people buy DVDs, but I see them in stores. It never ceases to amaze me the crap people will buy.



HD_Dude said:


> If broadcast and cable TV ever went 4K, sure. I'd watch it. But until then, my Roamios are my go-to machines. They have a great picture, great sound, and overwhelmingly more content than any other source.


Very well said. You're enjoying the benefits of 4k while being pragmatic about the content available, and you can easily migrate to 4k content as it becomes available. I hope to be in the same position soon with UHD. I just have to decide which Sammy 4k TV to buy.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I have been very impressed this weekend. I got the UHD BD titles, The Martian, Kingsmen, and Agent 47. And I am just amazed at how much better they look with HDR and in 4K. I can't wait to get more UHD BDs. And fortunately I have not had any banding issues with my SOny TV. Like many people with Samsung sets have had from the K8500.


----------



## JerryB01 (Feb 15, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I have been very impressed this weekend.


+1. I got Kingsmen and Exodus and the quality is so good it takes watching a movie (also on a Sony) to a whole new level.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Consumers prefer live TV to DVR according to TiVo's own research.
> 
> Your point?


Poor analogy on your part. My comparison was with two competing technologies where the inferior technology is holding it's own. You're comparing DVR technology with no other technology. Pathetic.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering that a recent pre-TiVo owner was giving me hell on Craigslist that a Roamio Pro with lifetime wasn't worth even $350, much less what I wanted, because he wanted OTA and Amazon had a Roamio OTA w/ Lifetime for $299, it shows on so many different levels people will not spend 5 minutes.
> 
> I could only look at his emails and laugh as this guy had no clue as to what unit would do what, or the differences in models.
> 
> Not to mention things I have seen here....no people will not spend 5 minutes.


That's a classic negotiating tactic to lower the price and doesn't necessarily indicate the buyer's actual knowledge. Expensive items for sale on craigslist are often stolen, or else the seller is in dire financial straits and needs quick cash. You're better off selling a Roamio Pro on Amazon.


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Some people hate facts that contradicts their opinions.
> 
> And please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Try re-reading what I said and become an informed consumer instead.


I hate when my two daddies fight


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> There are always people who are years or decades behind the ball with technology. That doesn't mean we shouldn't move forward, or that it won't be successful. I have no clue why people buy DVDs, but I see them in stores. It never ceases to amaze me the crap people will buy.


DVD is unique in that the technology is nearly 20 years old and it's still holding it's own with BD. DVD was able to dominate VHS and Laserdisc.

Also, DVD supports the anamorphic standard, while BD does not, so there is often no letterboxing on movies, while most DVD movies have letterboxing. That can be a deciding factor for someone with a small TV screen.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

HD_Dude said:


> If broadcast and cable TV ever went 4K, sure. I'd watch it.


Broadcast and most cable companies don't even offer 1080P.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Broadcast and most cable companies don't even offer 1080P.


And some HD channels are in 720P (ESPN, FOX, etc.), and I can't tell if I am watching a 720P or a 1080i channel without looking at what the signal input is. My 80" HDTV scales everything to 1080P anyways.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> That's a classic negotiating tactic to lower the price and doesn't necessarily indicate the buyer's actual knowledge. Expensive items for sale on craigslist are often stolen, or else the seller is in dire financial straits and needs quick cash. You're better off selling a Roamio Pro on Amazon.


Yes, you are right. The TiVo Roamio Pro is the perfect DVR for OTA use


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> Poor analogy on your part. My comparison was with two competing technologies where the inferior technology is holding it's own. You're comparing DVR technology with no other technology. Pathetic.


Wow. TV is not technology.

You are quite the comedian.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> Broadcast and most cable companies don't even offer 1080P.


Another reason for 4K and ATSC 3.0


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> DVD is unique in that the technology is nearly 20 years old and it's still holding it's own with BD. DVD was able to dominate VHS and Laserdisc.


I just don't understand it for non kids' movies. I get kids' movies being packaged as bundles with Blu-Ray and DVD, as those in-car things are on a much slower upgrade cycle, since cars last a lot longer than a DVD player.



> Also, DVD supports the anamorphic standard, while BD does not, so there is often no letterboxing on movies, while most DVD movies have letterboxing. That can be a deciding factor for someone with a small TV screen.


What? Both DVD and Blu-Ray offer the proper aspect ratio, and add black bars to it. There used to be those awful "full screen" DVDs for idiots who didn't understand how aspect ratios were supposed to work, but I think those are long gone. Some modern stuff can get pretty black bar heavy on a 16:9 screen if it is shot in a super wide format. But if that's what the director intends, that's what the director intends. They know what shape HDTVs are.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

There are two reasons DVD has dominated and it has nothing to do with preferring them over BD.

1. DVD was indeed popular, so many own a DVD player and have decided not to invest in yet another disc player. This is particularly true with a much less than stellar economy. It's the "Good enough" theory, which by the way will be said by the vast majority about 4K. They will buy a 4K TV only when they need to not because they feel they must have 4K. That was not the case with HD.

2. Streaming became popular. Streaming was not a true alternative when DVD's were introduced. Since then it has stunted the growth of physical discs especially when Vudu and others can provide a very good PQ.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> There are two reasons DVD has dominated and it has nothing to do with preferring them over BD.
> 
> 1. DVD was indeed popular, so many own a DVD player and have decided not to invest in yet another disc player. This is particularly true with a much less than stellar economy. It's the "Good enough" theory, which by the way will be said by the vast majority about 4K. They will buy a 4K TV only when they need to not because they feel they must have 4K. That was not the case with HD.


I just don't get it. The difference is so night and day between DVD and Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray players are a dime a dozen, and if you're dropping that kind of money into movies, why not buy them in the best format available? I think that might apply to UHD Blu-Ray, as most people don't sit close enough to their TVs to see the difference anyway.



> 2. Streaming became popular. Streaming was not a true alternative when DVD's were introduced. Since then it has stunted the growth of physical discs especially when Vudu and others can provide a very good PQ.


If anything, that would be an argument for DVD's demise. Why bother with DVD when you can stream? That leaves collectors and HT enthusiasts buying Blu-Rays, although we all know Americans like to collect stuff and put it on their shelf, so the ownership model does still work to a certain extent with big titles.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I just don't get it. The difference is so night and day between DVD and Blu-Ray...


Well, the difference between VHS and DVD is night and day. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is more night and evening.

My Dad, e.g., literally can't tell the difference between SD and HD TV (I know this because when I visit his place in Florida, twice I've had to fix his set-up because he has it tuned to SD channels, zoomed and cropped). I can't imagine he could distinguish DVD from Blu-ray. And I suspect he's a lot more typical than you or me.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, the difference between VHS and DVD is night and day. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is more night and evening.
> 
> My Dad, e.g., literally can't tell the difference between SD and HD TV (I know this because when I visit his place in Florida, twice I've had to fix his set-up because he has it tuned to SD channels, zoomed and cropped). I can't imagine he could distinguish DVD from Blu-ray. And I suspect he's a lot more typical than you or me.


My wife watches in SD, and now when I go into the kitchen I sometimes press the D button and the ch. jumps to the HD cable channel, but she said *she* does not see enough difference, and does not care, what is one to do.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Many people watch tv for the mainly for the story. I do. And many shows seem to slightly blur out the fleshtones, just noticed it when watching NCIS. I got in real close and they definitely did something to the SECNAV's face.

It is rare that the additional detail provided by very high resolution will significantly improve the viewing experience.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, the difference between VHS and DVD is night and day. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is more night and evening.
> 
> My Dad, e.g., literally can't tell the difference between SD and HD TV (I know this because when I visit his place in Florida, twice I've had to fix his set-up because he has it tuned to SD channels, zoomed and cropped). I can't imagine he could distinguish DVD from Blu-ray. And I suspect he's a lot more typical than you or me.


That doesn't mean he can't see the difference. I know several people that can easily see the difference between HD and SD. They just don't care whether they watch HD or SD. They go to the channel number they are familiar with. Which is typically SD.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> That doesn't mean he can't see the difference. I know several people that can easily see the difference between HD and SD. They just don't care whether they watch HD or SD. They go to the channel number they are familiar with. Which is typically SD.


My wife is one of those people the does not care so much about the quality of the picture as the story itself, I have 3D on my 80"HDTV and only used it a few times, I could easily live without it except I think the movie* Gravity *would not be much of a movie without 3D, the resolution of most things on TV do not matter much (to most but not all people) after you get at least 720P or better picture delivered.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, the difference between VHS and DVD is night and day. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is more night and evening.
> 
> My Dad, e.g., literally can't tell the difference between SD and HD TV (I know this because when I visit his place in Florida, twice I've had to fix his set-up because he has it tuned to SD channels, zoomed and cropped). I can't imagine he could distinguish DVD from Blu-ray. And I suspect he's a lot more typical than you or me.


If he has vision problems or something, that's one thing, but if he's got decent vision and has a decent sized screen, and is sitting a decent distance from it, how could he possibly NOT see the difference? It's a night and day difference, and now 4k is adding even more to the experience. I could see people arguing that the difference isn't that big going to 4k, but even that is at least noticeable, and the naysayers are eventually going to lose, just like they did with DVD and HD and 1080p.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> If he has vision problems or something, that's one thing, but if he's got decent vision and has a decent sized screen, and is sitting a decent distance from it, how could he possibly NOT see the difference? It's a night and day difference, and now 4k is adding even more to the experience. I could see people arguing that the difference isn't that big going to 4k, but even that is at least noticeable, and the naysayers are eventually going to lose, just like they did with DVD and HD and 1080p.


You'd be amazed at what most people notice or don't notice.

For my part, I'm very, very sensitive to framing and aspect ratio. A stretched image (e.g., 4:3 to 16:9) is like driving hot knives through my eyeballs, and overscanned projectors in movie theaters can make movies unwatchable. But most people just don't notice that kind of thing.

I remember once there was a BADLY overscanned movie, so bad I went to complain. The manager came into the theater with me, and he said "I don't see anything wrong." Just then, there was dialog in a foreign language with subtitles, and the subtitles were completely off the bottom of the screen (so could see their faint outline on the black cloth beneath the screen). The manager stared in shock and said, "How did you see that?!?"

I suspect most people on this forum are well-tuned to the difference between SD and HD, but I also suspect most people in the real world aren't, and wouldn't notice the difference...especially upscaled SD.

(Bear in mind I'm not talking about a side-by-side comparison...I'm talking about seeing what's on the screen and knowing, without any other context, what kind of image it is.)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> If he has vision problems or something, that's one thing, but if he's got decent vision and has a decent sized screen, and is sitting a decent distance from it, how could he possibly NOT see the difference? It's a night and day difference, and now 4k is adding even more to the experience. I could see people arguing that the difference isn't that big going to 4k, but even that is at least noticeable, and the naysayers are eventually going to lose, just like they did with DVD and HD and 1080p.


That your option, and you have a right to that option, but others have a different option, and it will be years before we know the way the market is going, most people I know purchase or rent DVD movies, now most are streaming or getting the DVD from the library, I don't know if the library stocks the BD disks. I have a BD player, and I have watched some BD movies, they are better than DVD but I could not walk into the room and tell quickly if the movie playing on my 80" HDTV is BD or normal DVD, when Netflix starts streaming the resolution starts out at 320p and as it goes up I can see the difference until it gets to 720P, from 720P to 1080P the difference is small. The info button on the TiVo gives you the resolution I am talking about.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

Bigg said:


> If he has vision problems or something, that's one thing, but if he's got decent vision and has a decent sized screen, and is sitting a decent distance from it, how could he possibly NOT see the difference? It's a night and day difference, and now 4k is adding even more to the experience. I could see people arguing that the difference isn't that big going to 4k, but even that is at least noticeable, and the naysayers are eventually going to lose, just like they did with DVD and HD and 1080p.


I am one who does not think 4K _so far_ is clearly, noticeably better than 1080P. Sitting in the recommended distance range from my TV do I see a difference, sometimes yes. If I am not specifically looking for it, not at all. When HDR is implemented that may change but it won't be because of resolution. Also it's only from streaming so far that I get 4K so no question it's early on for 4K.
At this time, to my eyes a good BD disk on my 4K TV looks just about as good as 4K does so far. Again, no HDR, and only from streaming and if I was looking at a 4K disc I might not say the same thing.

As for SD/HD. I can't tell you how many older people simply do not really see a difference. My wife who is not older does not get the big deal about HD. I just think you are wrong on that for everyone it is such a difference. For me it is night and day, but not for everyone.

And the point about streaming. No, it wouldn't necessarily kill off DVD too, it was already around and people have the player. What it did do is make many people decide they are not upgrading to a new player (BD) when they can stream, not as much to take the place of DVD's. And just as I feel you are wrong about everyone being able to clearly see the difference of SD to HD, I feel you are missing that it is true many simply say DVD is good enough. Sometimes we have to remember coming to forums like these often means we are treating the technology different than others who simply watch TV or movies, not post about them.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You'd be amazed at what most people notice or don't notice........
> 
> (Bear in mind I'm not talking about a side-by-side comparison...I'm talking about seeing what's on the screen and knowing, without any other context, what kind of image it is.)


Good point, and what I mean also, side by side I suspect many who don't see the difference would be more inclined to.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tampa8 said:


> Good point, and what I mean also, side by side I suspect many who don't see the difference would be more inclined to.


Indeed.

But of course most people don't watch TV side by side.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> the naysayers are eventually going to lose, just like they did with DVD and HD and 1080p.


DVD sales are still strong after 19 years. Bluray hasn't been able to dominate DVD, like DVD did with VHS and Laserdisc. UHD will won't have much impact.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> DVD sales are still strong after 19 years. Bluray hasn't been able to dominate DVD, like DVD did with VHS and Laserdisc. UHD will won't have much impact.


Don't say that, as UHD will have a big impact with* Bigg*


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> DVD sales are still strong after 19 years. Bluray hasn't been able to dominate DVD, like DVD did with VHS and Laserdisc. UHD will won't have much impact.


Disc sales have been on the decline for years. I fully expect UHD BDs to remain a niche product. I would be completely shocked if it isnt.

But I will be doing my part. I already own three UHD BD titles and have eleven more on pre order. By Summer I will own over two dozen UHD BD titles.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You'd be amazed at what most people notice or don't notice.


That's true to an extent. A lot of people are just totally clueless. It amazes me how much people just don't notice stuff.



lessd said:


> That your option, and you have a right to that option, but others have a different option, and it will be years before we know the way the market is going, most people I know purchase or rent DVD movies, now most are streaming or getting the DVD from the library, I don't know if the library stocks the BD disks. I have a BD player, and I have watched some BD movies, they are better than DVD but I could not walk into the room and tell quickly if the movie playing on my 80" HDTV is BD or normal DVD, when Netflix starts streaming the resolution starts out at 320p and as it goes up I can see the difference until it gets to 720P, from 720P to 1080P the difference is small. The info button on the TiVo gives you the resolution I am talking about.


I would think it should be pretty obvious. Why would people still purchase or rent DVDs when Blu-Rays are available? This is just nonsensical to me.



tampa8 said:


> I am one who does not think 4K _so far_ is clearly, noticeably better than 1080P. Sitting in the recommended distance range from my TV do I see a difference, sometimes yes. If I am not specifically looking for it, not at all. When HDR is implemented that may change but it won't be because of resolution. Also it's only from streaming so far that I get 4K so no question it's early on for 4K.
> At this time, to my eyes a good BD disk on my 4K TV looks just about as good as 4K does so far. Again, no HDR, and only from streaming and if I was looking at a 4K disc I might not say the same thing.


Interesting. What about 4k Netflix vs 1080p Netflix?



> As for SD/HD. I can't tell you how many older people simply do not really see a difference. My wife who is not older does not get the big deal about HD. I just think you are wrong on that for everyone it is such a difference. For me it is night and day, but not for everyone.


What is amazing to me is how little people pay attention to stuff like this. People are just so clueless, they don't even pay attention to what is literally right in front of them.



> And the point about streaming. No, it wouldn't necessarily kill off DVD too, it was already around and people have the player. What it did do is make many people decide they are not upgrading to a new player (BD) when they can stream, not as much to take the place of DVD's. And just as I feel you are wrong about everyone being able to clearly see the difference of SD to HD, I feel you are missing that it is true many simply say DVD is good enough. Sometimes we have to remember coming to forums like these often means we are treating the technology different than others who simply watch TV or movies, not post about them.


If that was the case though, I feel like DVD sales would be dead, and people would just still have old DVDs and be streaming new stuff, which could still lead to people not adopting Blu-Ray.



shwru980r said:


> DVD sales are still strong after 19 years. Bluray hasn't been able to dominate DVD, like DVD did with VHS and Laserdisc. UHD will won't have much impact.


I'm just amazed that DVD is still so strong. It makes no sense. I wonder if UHD Blu-ray will cut more into Blu-Ray sales than people will convert from DVD to Blu-Ray at this point, since the quality conscious folks are the ones on Blu-Ray now, and moving to UHD Blu-Ray?



lessd said:


> Don't say that, as UHD will have a big impact with* Bigg*


 Nice. Not as good as the puns I was doing last week with Governor Christie leaving the race. I was saying that I was disappointed he left the race because he was a big factor in the debates when the weighed in on substantial issues.  (BTW, that's all for the word puns).



aaronwt said:


> Disc sales have been on the decline for years. I fully expect UHD BDs to remain a niche product. I would be completely shocked if it isnt.
> 
> But I will be doing my part. I already own three UHD BD titles and have eleven more on pre order. By Summer I will own over two dozen UHD BD titles.


I should have known.  You are the guy with like 50+ devices on his network!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Actually 100+ devices


----------



## celtic pride (Nov 8, 2005)

I hope to get a uhd player someday ,but i dont even have a 4k tv yet (i'm waiting to see the 2016 models and prices) as well as other models of 4k uhd blu ray players. Oh i just wanted to say part of the reason dvds are still popular is because their so damm cheap! i often see them on sale for $3.99 at best buy. I dont buy them though as i prefer bluray and eventually 4k uhd blurays.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Why would people still purchase or rent DVDs when Blu-Rays are available? This is just nonsensical to me.



 They might have a small TV they sit too far away from and not be able to see much quality difference.
 They may still have SD TVs 
 They might have an install base of DVD players (for the kids, in the bedroom, at a vacation home, etc, etc) that they don't want to replace yet (not even now that Blu Ray players are down in the $50 range) 
 They may have a non-replaceable DVD player (such as in an in-car entertainment system; or built into a TV). 
 They may travel to places that have DVD players but not Blu ray players (a situation I often find in rental vacation condos/houses) -- those last 3 basically all boil down to DVDs just, still, have a broader install base of devices that will play them.
 And of course DVDs tend to be a bit cheaper than Blu Rays; and they may care about cost over quality.
Basically a DVD is cheaper and more likely to be playable in a broad variety of situations than a Blu Ray.

That said, none of those situations apply enough to me for me to care about so if available I get Blu Rays rather than DVDs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> They might have a small TV they sit too far away from and not be able to see much quality difference.





They must have one tiny TV!



> [*] They may still have SD TVs






> [*] They might have an install base of DVD players (for the kids, in the bedroom, at a vacation home, etc, etc) that they don't want to replace yet (not even now that Blu Ray players are down in the $50 range)


How many players do people have? I have one for my main TV. If I'm going to watch a BD, I want my main TV and 7.1 surround sound. The others have TiVo and streaming stuff.



> [*] They may have a non-replaceable DVD player (such as in an in-car entertainment system; or built into a TV).


I get the combo packs for kids movies for the in-car TVs, but those are combo packs and would count as BD sales.



> [*] They may travel to places that have DVD players but not Blu ray players (a situation I often find in rental vacation condos/houses) -- those last 3 basically all boil down to DVDs just, still, have a broader install base of devices that will play them.


Or they could actually go on vacation and not sit around and watch movies!



> [*] And of course DVDs tend to be a bit cheaper than Blu Rays; and they may care about cost over quality.


At that point, just rent. It's strange to buy but not buy a good quality format.




> Basically a DVD is cheaper and more likely to be playable in a broad variety of situations than a Blu Ray.
> 
> That said, none of those situations apply enough to me for me to care about so if available I get Blu Rays rather than DVDs.


Yeah. And I'm going to start getting UHD Blu-rays as soon as I get a player for them!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

In the DVD versus Blu-ray debate, I avoid DVDs as it is easy for me to see the difference (even my 82 year old mother told me the other day she likes Blu-ray better because of the picture). But with Walmart having bins full of $5 & $4 DVDs people will continue to buy them (they also have $8 Blu-ray bins with allot of the same older movies). 

For most movies that I want to see I go to the Movie theater so I don't rush to buy the Blu-ray until the price has come way down, no way I am paying $30 for UHD Blu-ray, I can go see it in the theater with Popcorn 3 times for that price.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

I was surprised at the statement regarding DVD sales versus Blu-Ray sales for a lot of the same reasons given above, but I found one website that lists the top 100 US DVD and Blu-Ray sales for 2015 and here were the totals.


```
Top 100 US Blu-Ray Sales for 2015	60,239,094	$1,408,460,384 
Top 100 US DVD Sales for 2015		85,825,757	$1,191,632,253
```
Scott


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HerronScott said:


> I was surprised at the statement regarding DVD sales versus Blu-Ray sales for a lot of the same reasons given above, but I found one website that lists the top 100 US DVD and Blu-Ray sales for 2015 and here were the totals.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


If the numbers are correct the average price that was paid per Blu-ray was $23.38 and $13.88 per DVD. That goes along way in explaining why DVDs are still being sold.

My understanding is Blu-ray disks cost a little more to manufacture but we are only talking about pennies not dollars so I am guessing part of the reason that DVDs are still be sold is because the industry wants/needs a way to have a lower cost product compared to the price they are selling Blu-rays for. DVD provides that and likely doesn't negatively affect higher priced more profitable Blu-ray sales.

It also confirms what we have seen in this industry in general, that many people are not willing to pay for higher quality video.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

Or at least only some are willing to pay more. That info supports what some of us are saying, many people simply do not see that much of a difference and so they won't pay more for it, and won't go out and buy yet another player.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Until the UHD titles start showing up at Redbox for <$3/night it's a non-starter for me. That and the fact I don't own a UHD set and already planned to ride out the early adoption curve by spending a lot on plasma TVs the final year they were available.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

series5orpremier said:


> Until the UHD titles start showing up at Redbox for <$3/night it's a non-starter for me. That and the fact I don't own a UHD set and already planned to ride out the early adoption curve by spending a lot on plasma TVs the final year they were available.


You'll probably have a long wait for that. Although currently you can rent the UHD BD titles from www.3d-blurayrental.com

Disc sales overall have been waning for years. I expect the UHD BD format to remain a niche product. With the majority of people still watching DVDs, and with streaming growing by leaps and bounds, UHD BD doesn't have much of a chance.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> You'll probably have a long wait for that.


I've got 10 years. From my perspective a UHD TV and UHD BD player/discs are interdependent in that I wouldn't buy one without the other. I think UHD BD right now is the only guarantee of getting real UHD source material for a TV just like Blu rays are still the only guarantee of getting 1080p. UHD BD player/discs need to come down to the Blu Ray price levels to rent and own before it becomes attractive.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> I've got 10 years. From my perspective a UHD TV and UHD BD player/discs are interdependent in that I wouldn't buy one without the other. I think UHD BD right now is the only guarantee of getting real UHD source material for a TV just like Blu rays are still the only guarantee of getting 1080p. UHD BD player/discs need to come down to the Blu Ray price levels to rent and own before it becomes attractive.


I think the chances of UHD Blu-ray costing the same as Blu-ray is about the same as Blu-ray costing the same as DVD. Which is basically none. At any point in a titles sales life DVD is going to cost less than Blu-ray & Blu-ray is going to cost less than UHD Blu-ray. Other wise there is no business reason to move to UHD Blu-ray. That said there is actually some possibility that UHD Blu-ray could replace Blu-ray in a few years as there may not be a market for a middle product, just cheap (DVD) and high end (UHD Blu-ray). Only time will tell.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

That doesn't mean DVD and Blu-Rays don't have more room to fall from their current prices. With the formats competing with each other Blu-Rays might eventually get closer to current DVD price levels as UHD BD gets closer to current Blu-Ray prices. DVDs either could become a dollar store staple or they could declare them obsolete and stop manufacturing them altogether to stop cannibalizing their Blu-Ray and UHD BD profits.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> That doesn't mean DVD and Blu-Rays don't have more room to fall from their current prices. With the formats competing with each other Blu-Rays might eventually get closer to current DVD price levels as UHD BD gets closer to current Blu-Ray prices. DVDs either could become a dollar store staple or they could declare them obsolete and stop manufacturing them altogether to stop cannibalizing their Blu-Ray and UHD BD profits.


I have thought that for years, but it seems there are enough people willing to pay high prices so that is what that start at. My conclusion is that as long as some part of the market is willing to pay high prices that is where the prices will start and then we will go through the dance of sales and lower prices until they end up in bargain bins. As I watch most movies I want to see in the movie theater I am in no rush to buy Blu-rays and only buy when the price has come down substantially even if it takes a few years.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Many high end collectors like to rip their dvds or blurays to local storage and then watch them. If UHD disks are locked down, sales might meet some resistance. From what I've read, they are looking at a different encryption method for UHD.

I think disc sales are down in part because of the ability to rent the disc and then rip it to local storage.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Many high end collectors like to rip their dvds or blurays to local storage and then watch them. If UHD disks are locked down, sales might meet some resistance. From what I've read, they are looking at a different encryption method for UHD.
> 
> I think disc sales are down in part because of the ability to rent the disc and then rip it to local storage.


The vast majority of people have no clue how to do that. Plus if that were the case, then disc rentals would be up. Disc rentals, like disc sales, are declining. Streaming is the reason for the decline of discs. Whether VOD from a cable company or streaming from Netflix or Amazon. Streaming is the reason for the decline of discs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What a weird market. I would have thought DVD would be dead by now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> What a weird market. I would have thought DVD would be dead by now.


I had hoped it would have been dead. But just about everywhere I visit is overloaded with DVDs. Not BDs.

I stopped watching DVDs in late 2005 in anticipation of the HD DVD and BD launch in 2006 and never looked back.

But many people I run into, instead of going from DVDs to BDs, they are purchasing/renting more streaming titles instead of discs. Streaming is just too convenient.

My mother is near 80 and she streams multiple titles a day now from Comcast VOD with their X1 system. She will pay to stream a title instead of finding her DVD or Video tape of the same title to watch.

yet she still won't use the same X1 system to record her shows


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

series5orpremier said:


> Until the UHD titles start showing up at Redbox for <$3/night it's a non-starter for me. That and the fact I don't own a UHD set and already planned to ride out the early adoption curve by spending a lot on plasma TVs the final year they were available.


 Redbox will be history before that. That wouldn't even carry Blu-ray if they could away with it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> But many people I run into, instead of going from DVDs to BDs, they are purchasing/renting more streaming titles instead of discs. Streaming is just too convenient.


Definitely. But I would have though cheap, ubiquitous, streaming HD would kill off the DVD faster, not keep it around.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Definitely. But I would have though cheap, ubiquitous, streaming HD would kill off the DVD faster, not keep it around.


You may find this hard to believe but many people know nothing about streaming, they have a DVD player, and play a DVD movie on it. One friend (over 80 years old) purchased a BD player and was getting DVDs from the library, I set up Netflix on his BD player, and now he never went back to getting and playing DVDs.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I've noticed what's more of a factor in disc prices than the format DVD vs. Bluray is the popularity of the movie and time since it was released. Upon release DVDs and Blurays are priced the same, with manufacturers taking the stance the format is the customers preference and trying to profit more from those who don't have a Bluray player available where they want to play it. As time passes prices drop, with DVDs having a bit of a lower floor than Blurays. Once UHD BDs become a little more widespread I expect the same general model to apply when they're added to the mix, with DVD and Bluray floors dropping a little to make room for a higher UHD BD floor.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

series5orpremier said:


> I've noticed what's more of a factor in disc prices than the format DVD vs. Bluray is the popularity of the movie and time since it was released. Upon release DVDs and Blurays are priced the same, with manufacturers taking the stance the format is the customers preference and trying to profit more from those who don't have a Bluray player available where they want to play it. As time passes prices drop, with DVDs having a bit of a lower floor than Blurays. Once UHD BDs become a little more widespread I expect the same general model to apply when they're added to the mix, with DVD and Bluray floors dropping a little to make room for a higher UHD BD floor.


Just about every title I've looked at upon release, has a lower DVD price than BD initially. Even when I'm paying under $20 for a newly released BD, I'll notice the DVD is still lower. The exception might be the few BD titles that don't include a DVD. Like the Marvel titles. I only wish all releases had an option where the DVD was excluded.

Of course with UHD BD, they include the BD. I wish they either didn't include that or gave the option for the 3D BD..


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Just about every title I've looked at upon release, has a lower DVD price than BD initially. Even when I'm paying under $20 for a newly released BD, I'll notice the DVD is still lower. The exception might be the few BD titles that don't include a DVD. Like the Marvel titles. I only wish all releases had an option where the DVD was excluded.
> 
> Of course with UHD BD, they include the BD. I wish they either didn't include that or gave the option for the 3D BD..


The incremental cost of providing the extra disk is so small that people that purchase a UHD BD by error still have the BD to watch and when they do get a UHD BD they will also have that disk.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You may find this hard to believe but many people know nothing about streaming, they have a DVD player, and play a DVD movie on it. One friend (over 80 years old) purchased a BD player and was getting DVDs from the library, I set up Netflix on his BD player, and now he never went back to getting and playing DVDs.


Yeah, it's amazing how much some people live under a rock.



lessd said:


> The incremental cost of providing the extra disk is so small that people that purchase a UHD BD by error still have the BD to watch and when they do get a UHD BD they will also have that disk.


I don't get it with PG-13 and higher movies, but for kids movies it totally makes sense to have an option to watch it in the car.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, it's amazing how much some people live under a rock.
> 
> I don't get it with PG-13 and higher movies, but for kids movies it totally makes sense to have an option to watch it in the car.


Are there no BD players for the car?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Are there no BD players for the car?


Why would there be one for such a small screen in most cars.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> Why would there be one for such a small screen in most cars.


Well considering cell phones with 5 inch screens have a higher resolution than most people have on their Tvs at home, I don't see why not. Even on a 5" cell screen you can easily see the extra detail from higher resolution content. So a much larger 7", 9" or 11" screen in a car would be very easy to see the extra resolution and detail.

My question would be why watch a DVD anywhere? Even on a small screen you can see it's missing a ton of detail.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Are there no BD players for the car?


A lot of them are built in to the car, and yes some late models have BD players, but there are tons out on the road that are DVD-only. There is a time and a place for DVDs from combo packs. The whole family can watch it on their 60" or 70" or 120" screen at home in glorious Blu-Ray quality, and then the kids can re-watch it a bunch of times on the car's DVD player on a tiny 5" screen.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> A lot of them are built in to the car, and yes some late models have BD players, but there are tons out on the road that are DVD-only. There is a time and a place for DVDs from combo packs. The whole family can watch it on their 60" or 70" or 120" screen at home in glorious Blu-Ray quality, and then the kids can re-watch it a bunch of times on the car's DVD player on a tiny 5" screen.


exactly, it's why I disagree with people feeling the need for BD in the car or even HD on a phone, SD does just fine IMNSHO.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> exactly, it's why I disagree with people feeling the need for BD in the car or even HD on a phone, SD does just fine IMNSHO.


That's just it. Even on a small 5 inch screen, SD looks like a blurry mess.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> That's just it. Even on a small 5 inch screen, SD looks like a blurry mess.


The Source can make a difference, OTA sub channels and even DISH SD isn't bad. Directv SD isn't as good. Even on our 21" TV SD looks good overall, especially because you most likely won't be sitting close enough for it to matter as much. You can not see the difference of HD or SD on a 21" set unless you sit very close. You would have to be 4 or 5 feet from a 21" TV to see anything more than 480. If you sit that close yes you will see the difference.
A hand held picture like on a smartphone you can see a difference if held close.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> That's just it. Even on a small 5 inch screen, SD looks like a blurry mess.


A DVD with a good DVD player will look much better than the old VHS tape movies, most DVDs were formatted at 16x9 and not stretched, so with a good 1080P encoder the picture is not so bad, you can enjoy the story, no question BD is better, but for some movies it does not matter. When you go the movies they have a better projection system than most homes, if you don't like the movie story most people don't say, *the movie had a great picture but had a crap story.
*


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> That's just it. Even on a small 5 inch screen, SD looks like a blurry mess.


Sorry I'm just not seeing it, literally, and I view myself as a picky viewer, even 480p on an iphone is more than fine, but then I'm not sticking my nose up to the screen


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dianebrat said:


> Sorry I'm just not seeing it, literally, and I view myself as a picky viewer, even 480p on an iphone is more than fine, but then I'm not sticking my nose up to the screen


On my son's new I phone (the big screen) he tried to show me the difference, with my reading glasses on I could not tell the difference quickly, it sure was not a blurry mess at DVD quality.
On my 80" HDTV I can't tell when I am getting a network 720P signal (like ABC) or a 1080i signal (like CBS) as they are both converted by my HDTV to 1080P. When I am watching Netflix movies sometimes they start out a 250P and move up to 1080P, at 250P I sure can see the difference up to 720P, but the difference from 720P to 1080P is very small. You can see this info on your TiVo by using the info button, the information than will show in the upper left of your TV screen.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> Are there no BD players for the car?


A quick look on Toyota's website shows that at least the 2016 Sienna minivan can be had with a built in Blu-ray player for the drop down screens. (Figured they'd be as likely as anyone to offer one; so I took a quick look to confirm)

But I don't care enough to try to figure out how widespread that option is, or when they switched from DVD to BD. The only other anecdotal data point I've got is my 2013 Infiniti can handle DVDs but not BDs. (Though it that case is basically a useless 'free bonus' capability due to the need for the optical player to handle DVDs for Nav map updates; the only screen is the in-dash map display and therefore you can only play DVDs while parked. But I assume since they already had the DVD drive and a screen it cost them next to nothing to add DVD video playback)


----------



## Chevelleman (Feb 28, 2016)

Got mine finally and liking it so far.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Sorry I'm just not seeing it, literally, and I view myself as a picky viewer, even 480p on an iphone is more than fine, but then I'm not sticking my nose up to the screen


Neither is mine. I hold my phone between one and two feet away from my eyes. I can easily see the difference between SD and HD on a 5.1" sceen.( 2560x1440). SD has no detail to it. HD does.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> exactly, it's why I disagree with people feeling the need for BD in the car or even HD on a phone, SD does just fine IMNSHO.


I think BD is the future for in-car moving forward, just for compatibility, but in terms of actual quality, I totally agree that there is no difference on a 5" screen that's a couple of feet away.



Jonathan_S said:


> A quick look on Toyota's website shows that at least the 2016 Sienna minivan can be had with a built in Blu-ray player for the drop down screens. (Figured they'd be as likely as anyone to offer one; so I took a quick look to confirm)


The Honda Pilot has it in 2016. I think it's new there was well.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> On my son's new I phone (the big screen) he tried to show me the difference, with my reading glasses on I could not tell the difference quickly, it sure was not a blurry mess at DVD quality.
> On my 80" HDTV I can't tell when I am getting a network 720P signal (like ABC) or a 1080i signal (like CBS) as they are both converted by my HDTV to 1080P. When I am watching Netflix movies sometimes they start out a 250P and move up to 1080P, at 250P I sure can see the difference up to 720P, but the difference from 720P to 1080P is very small. You can see this info on your TiVo by using the info button, the information than will show in the upper left of your TV screen.


I can see the difference between 720P and 1080i on my sets because 720p basically needs to be blown up to double it's size to fill a 1920x1080 screen. So there is less detail from the 720p broadcast stations. And more detail from the 1080i stations.

And of course a UHD BD even shows more detail than a 2k BD.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I can see the difference between 720P and 1080i on my sets because 720p basically needs to be blown up to double it's size to fill a 1920x1080 screen. So there is less detail from the 720p broadcast stations. And more detail from the 1080i stations.
> 
> And of course a UHD BD even shows more detail than a 2k BD.


I guess if your looking for extra detail you may see it on some pictures, the Oscars were in 720P and to me looked great with my 80" HDTV and my glasses set for 10 feet, maybe your eyes are much better than my eyes so you can see a big difference between 720P and 1080i. With my glasses I am 20/20 in one eye and 20/23 in the other, normally (without glasses) I am 20/25 and 20/30.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> I guess if your looking for extra detail you may see it on some pictures, the Oscars were in 720P and to me looked great with my 80" HDTV and my glasses set for 10 feet, maybe your eyes are much better than my eyes so you can see a big difference between 720P and 1080i. With my glasses I am 20/20 in one eye and 20/23 in the other, normally (without glasses) I am 20/25 and 20/30.


You probably don't see the difference because of the distance from the screen. But I typically look at the background. SD has no detail in the background while HD does. 720P will have detail but 1080i will typically have more. Then of course you can see even more background detail from 2160P.

A good example of broadcast is the NFL games. From the 1080i stations you can typically see more detail on the field, players etc than from the 720P stations


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

I'm not surprised that DVDs are still sold and still do well compared to BD. I have a 55" Panasonic ST50 Plasma and I can only see a moderate difference between upconverted DVD and BD. There's a difference but it's night and day for me.

Nearly every person I know buys a TV when they need one, not when some new feature or technology comes out. HD was a rare exception to that in some cases but that was an exception. I'd say I care a lot more about video quality than nearly all of my friends and even I won't consider buying a 4k TV in the next 4-5 years unless my current TV brakes. I just bought a new TV almost 4 years ago and don't really want to replace my TVs more frequently than 8-10 years. I'm sure 4k looks great but I doubt I'd see much difference and even if I did I don't think it's worth the price of a new TV when my current one works perfectly well. I have too many other more important things to spend my money on. My second TV in my house (I have 2) is about 10 years old, though it doesn't get used much.

As a side note, I was one of those people who was not blown away by HD when I first saw it in my house. It just looked like the same picture but bigger. Which is impressive, considering that they were taking a 55" inch image and making it look just as good as a 27" image, but it didn't wow me. Perhaps my expectations were too high.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm upgrading to 4k soon. But we've already established that I'm not the average American consumer who doesn't care about the quality of what they are buying.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> You probably don't see the difference because of the distance from the screen. But I typically look at the background. SD has no detail in the background while HD does. 720P will have detail but 1080i will typically have more. Then of course you can see even more background detail from 2160P.
> 
> A good example of broadcast is the NFL games. From the 1080i stations you can typically see more detail on the field, players etc than from the 720P stations


So why does ESPN only use 720P, is that so much less costly ?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I believe 720p does motion better than 1080i...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> So why does ESPN only use 720P, is that so much less costly ?





Rob Helmerichs said:


> I believe 720p does motion better than 1080i...


Yes. 720P uses 60 frames per second which works better with motion. While 1080i uses 30 fps.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. 720P uses 60 frames per second which works better with motion. While 1080i uses 30 fps.


Most programs have motion so what so much better with 1080i, do you get that much more detail with still pictures in 1080i ? I guess I am asking the experts why we even have 1080i, why not just 720P for OTA and cable or 1080P for internet and BD videos.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Most programs have motion so what so much better with 1080i, do you get that much more detail with still pictures in 1080i ? I guess I am asking the experts why we even have 1080i, why not just 720P for OTA and cable or 1080P for internet and BD videos.


Because back in the early days of HD, 1080p wasn't even a thing. Too much bandwidth (twice as much as 1080i, and I believe 720p is in the same ballpark as 1080i). So they basically compromised...720p for better motion, or 1080i for better detail. And each broadcaster picked the one that suited them best.

Eventually, I suspect it will all be 1080p. But I'm not sure we're there yet in terms of available bandwidth.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I believe 720p does motion better than 1080i...


That's the theory, and the rationale that ESPN uses. I believe it's because a lot of TVs have really crappy de-interlacing. My DVDO EDGE does amazing deinterlacing, and as a result, 1080i looks far better than 720p, even with fast motion, but most people aren't using $500 external video processors.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's the theory, and the rationale that ESPN uses. I believe it's because a lot of TVs have really crappy de-interlacing. My DVDO EDGE does amazing deinterlacing, and as a result, 1080i looks far better than 720p, even with fast motion, but most people aren't using $500 external video processors.


I can purchase a 1080P 55" HDTV for less money so I guess your correct about a $500 external video processors being much better than what you can get in almost any HDTV. I have a high end Sharp 1080P 80" and I can't tell from looking at the TV if I am getting 720P or 1080i, I can press the TV info button and find out. I don't know anybody with a external video processors, except you so I would guess that 720P or 1080i makes no difference to most people.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I don't think I've watched a BluRay. 

Redbox kept me on dvds (because of the $1/night) until streaming took over.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I can purchase a 1080P 55" HDTV for less money so I guess your correct about a $500 external video processors being much better than what you can get in almost any HDTV. I have a high end Sharp 1080P 80" and I can't tell from looking at the TV if I am getting 720P or 1080i, I can press the TV info button and find out. I don't know anybody with a external video processors, except you so I would guess that 720P or 1080i makes no difference to most people.


Yeah, a lot of TVs just don't have good electronics. Some of the higher end ones do, especially the new 4k TVs that have some serious silicon in them, way beyond what my video processor has.

I know which channels are which, but yeah, it's not immediately obvious unless you really look. Most people just can't tell much of anything, so no. I can tell the difference, and it's subtle, but nonetheless there. But I'm also at the correct distance from my TV (6-9' for a 60" TV). If you're 20 feet from a 55" TV, then you're never going to see anything.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

For those that took the plunge like me, Fox selling 4K UHD BD for $18.19 with free shipping.

http://slickdeals.net/f/8545387-select-4k-ultra-hd-movies-18-free-shipping


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Just got my Samsung Ultra HD Blue-ray player... gonna hook it up tonight.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> For those that took the plunge like me, Fox selling 4K UHD BD for $18.19 with free shipping.
> 
> http://slickdeals.net/f/8545387-select-4k-ultra-hd-movies-18-free-shipping


Yes it was a great deal. I got six titles(using two email addresses) at the $18.19 per title price. And two other titles at their $25.99 price. And the rest of the Fox UHD titles I purchased from Best Buy for between $25 and $28.


----------

