# HD/bluray is obsolete and is being replaced by 4K UHD standard



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

The UltraHD or 4K standard is beginning to really take off and slowly inching towards mainstream, I suspect it will take 3-5 years before UHD/4K is fully integrated the way Bluray is right now.

Let's see, sub-$1,000 4K computer monitors and TVs are reality either right now or just around the corner. Certainly you can get either one used for sub-$1,000.

Netflix is beginning to release some 4K shows. Youtube has had 4K content for a while. Movies today are shot in 4K. 

I have a 200-disk bluray collection, I think I will dump almost all of it before prices collapse. In fact they already have, if you bought a bluray movie a few years ago for $15-20, now they go for $5-7, you cannot even sell any of them for $10. Blurays are where DVDs were maybe 5 years ago. Walmart has their huge bin of discounted movies, a year ago it was full of DVDs, now it's full of Blurays and all for $5. I suspect another 5 years and Blurays will disappear the way DVDs have. Pick any movie, why would you want to pay even $3 for a DVD when you can get the same movie in Bluray for maybe $7?

Don't invest any serious coin in either HD hardware like TVs and players, or movies, unless it's a steal. I see used 1080p HDTVs sell for $200. In the 46" range, from a premium manufacturer.

I suspect Netflix has played a huge role in it. Nobody wants DVDs anymore, they are being relegated to where VHS was 15 years ago. Only way I would want a DVD is if is a movie is not available in any other medium and I want it. If you want a movie on bluray, watching on DVD is downright painful. But once you see 4K content, it's hard to downgrade.

Now looking at the big picture, it seems the 4K standard is just an intermediate standard on the way to 8K, which also already exists, just exorbitantly expensive and not consumer friendly, it may never be adopted by the consumer.


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 22, 2015)

cant they use a bluray disk for 4k video?


----------



## code2006 (Jun 22, 2015)

Here in the uk i can get a decent 4k tv for £700
Bluray supports 4k
New bluray disks are available that support 4k and have double the storage current bluray disks
Read up on it on engadget 
4k is outdated by 8k anyway 
By the time 8k comes out they will be something newer


----------



## markr6 (Jun 22, 2015)

I'm glad flashlights don't update and go obsolete so quickly...wait...


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 22, 2015)

code2006 said:


> Here in the uk i can get a decent 4k tv for £700
> Bluray supports 4k
> New bluray disks are available that support 4k and have double the storage current bluray disks
> Read up on it on engadget
> ...


am i wrong but wouldnt the tv have to be like 150 inches to see any difernce between 4 k and 8k


----------



## code2006 (Jun 22, 2015)

raggie33 said:


> am i wrong but wouldnt the tv have to be like 150 inches to see any difernce between 4 k and 8k



True but its the same between lets say 3000 lumens and 4000 lumens
3000 would do fine but people always want more and better technology 
Whats wrong with 1080p?
Nothing but 4k is the latest must have
The same will happen with 8k
Plus dont forget u also have VR headsets
When they start rolling people would prob use them as tvs
You gonna have a family of 5 all on sitting on the sofa watching there own program or film ect
When that happens say goodbye to social interaction lol


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 22, 2015)

code2006 said:


> True but its the same between lets say 3000 lumens and 4000 lumens
> 3000 would do fine but people always want more and better technology
> Whats wrong with 1080p?
> Nothing but 4k is the latest must have
> ...



good point


----------



## markr6 (Jun 22, 2015)

VHS to DVD, huge. DVD to BluRay, pretty big deal as well. BluRay to 4K? I can't say without experience but I'm sure it's less dramatic.

I paid $1100 for a 32" Samsung 720p HDTV (don't know when maybe 2006?). Even about 2 years ago that same model was still floating around for $299. I'll never jump on a new expensive product so quickly again.


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 22, 2015)

G'bye physical media :wave:


----------



## markr6 (Jun 22, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> G'bye physical media :wave:



That sucks. I pay for the fastest internet I can get, but still have to worry about wifi signals when streaming video. If I see "Buffering", "Downloading", "Acquiring Internet Content" one more time I'm going to scream. If I could figure out how to pull some CAT5 thru two stories into my basement, I'd do it! I like to just pop in a disc and watch a movie sometimes.


----------



## Steve K (Jun 22, 2015)

markr6 said:


> VHS to DVD, huge. DVD to BluRay, pretty big deal as well. BluRay to 4K? I can't say without experience but I'm sure it's less dramatic.
> 
> I paid $1100 for a 32" Samsung 720p HDTV (don't know when maybe 2006?). Even about 2 years ago that same model was still floating around for $299. I'll never jump on a new expensive product so quickly again.



I'm still waiting to get BluRay.. and in no particular rush either. I had the impression that everyone was moving away from physical media and getting movies streamed. 

I can't imagine getting all that excited about 4K. Sure, some folks will love it, but until it gets affordable, I doubt many folks will bother with it. I'm waiting for the retro folks to decide that VHS has a warmer sound/color and is better because it's analog.  Time to go pick up a nice NTSC TV with a CRT at Goodwill!


----------



## RetroTechie (Jun 22, 2015)

raggie33 said:


> am i wrong but wouldnt the tv have to be like 150 inches to see any difernce between 4 k and 8k


I don't think people are going to have their own private 360o​ wall-to-wall cinema. If it gets cheap enough, maybe they'll get an 80" screen. Or even a 100" one. But at some point, it's big enough and any bigger just won't fit the interior design-wise.

Then even with such a big screen, there's a point where more pixels don't make a visible difference.

Until that point, bigger screens and higher resolutions _will_ sell. If only the price is right.

Beyond that point, higher screen resolutions will become harder & harder to sell, even to die-hard buyers with deep pockets (but we're not there yet  ).


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jun 22, 2015)

Remember the 3D TV craze?


----------



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

raggie33 said:


> am i wrong but wouldnt the tv have to be like 150 inches to see any difernce between 4 k and 8k



Nope. 4K looks better than HD at any distance for example. Even if you are not close and don't see individual pixels, they still display light and contribute to sharpness. HD / bluray is nice but 4K gives you that "wow" factor.


----------



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> I don't think people are going to have their own private 360o​ wall-to-wall cinema. If it gets cheap enough, maybe they'll get an 80" screen. Or even a 100" one. But at some point, it's big enough and any bigger just won't fit the interior design-wise.
> 
> Then even with such a big screen, there's a point where more pixels don't make a visible difference.
> 
> ...



A 46" 4K looks a lot sharper than a 46" 1080p HD. They pack tons more pixels in the same area. I have come to the conclusion that I want the highest pixel density possible. That's why you don't want a huge TV, like 60"+ (IMO) as that will dilute the pixel density versus a 40-50" model. 

Another advantage of smaller 4K screens is that they are a lot cheaper than these giants. 49" or so 4K are actually affordable right now by the masses. They cost what HD used to cost about 5-7 years ago. $1300 for a 48" 4K in BB, right now.

A xx" 4K looks sharper than a same sized HD at *any* distance, up close, or far away. I have a 46" HD right now. I plan to wait a year or so for prices to crash a little more on 4K stuff, but a 49" UltraHD will still pack more pixels than a 46 HD.


----------



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

Steve K said:


> I'm still waiting to get BluRay.. and in no particular rush either. I had the impression that everyone was moving away from physical media and getting movies streamed.
> 
> I can't imagine getting all that excited about 4K. Sure, some folks will love it, but until it gets affordable, I doubt many folks will bother with it. I'm waiting for the retro folks to decide that VHS has a warmer sound/color and is better because it's analog.  Time to go pick up a nice NTSC TV with a CRT at Goodwill!



Streaming is nice, but IMO hard media like bluray, or now redray or ultraviolet, etc., will never go away. 

What if you don't have a fast connection? A lot of of rural areas don't.

What if you want to preserve a movie for posterity?

What if you want to burn your own movies?

I can see streaming movies onto your own hard drive, but I am not sure even that will replace the disks entirely. A disk is kind of a backup I suppose.


----------



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

markr6 said:


> VHS to DVD, huge. DVD to BluRay, pretty big deal as well. BluRay to 4K? I can't say without experience but I'm sure it's less dramatic.
> 
> I paid $1100 for a 32" Samsung 720p HDTV (don't know when maybe 2006?). Even about 2 years ago that same model was still floating around for $299. I'll never jump on a new expensive product so quickly again.




Have you seen a 4K Ultra HD TV?

Playing native 4K content, not some TV garbage?


----------



## Canuke (Jun 22, 2015)

The large majority of the current movie catalog was shot at what amounts to 1080p resolutions, and will derive little benefit from upscaling. Most run-of-the-mill cinema distribution was 2k, and much of it still is, I wager.

So I wouldn't bother trading blu-rays in for 4k resolution media. In the large majority of cases, the master media was 2k to begin with. Why pay for upscaling when you'll get it in the player anyway?

I fully expect 4k to take over, since recent feature film material was shot in 4k and higher, and there will be 4k blurays, but I predict that it will go the way of SACD and DVD audio for a long time. It win't fully take over for TV's until its cost is close enough to 1080p's to simply retire the latter by force. (No more screendoor effect.)

New material will be shot in 8k and will look awesome - but what budgets but the largest will support it? 

And then there's streaming. Only now is there enough bandwidth available in most markets for current 1080p delivery to finally approach full utilization of that resolution instead of wasting it in compression artifact degradation. 

The classic cinema format - literally, moving pictures in a frame of what amounts to a window - is close to maxed out at 1080p in much the same way that stereo audio is maxed out at 44.1kHz, 16 bit. Yes, you can do better, but the difference is only relevant to an ever-shrinking niche population. 

4k is the last stop for final consumer delivery of cinema style content. After that, further improvements will likely be driven by dynamic range (I'm already seeing this), greater bit depths, and possibly going to six primary colors. Then the picture-on-a-wall will be perfect, and retro looks, where filmmakers digitally reintroduce all the flaws the electronics companies sought to eliminate, will be all the rage.

Where I expect the real demand to come from for higher resolutions is computer displays (for both desktop real estate and for high-PPI displays), and for VR applications like the Oculus Rift. That could be big; I'm attending an industry panel on it tomorrow night in Los Angeles.


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 22, 2015)

etc said:


> I have come to the conclusion that I want the highest pixel density possible.



Agreed, which is why watching TV on an iPhone is better than many televisions; a 50" screen is nice, but 400+ ppi is even better..



markr6 said:


> That sucks. I pay for the fastest internet I can get, but still have to worry about wifi signals when streaming video. If I see "Buffering", "Downloading", "Acquiring Internet Content" one more time I'm going to scream.



If you can't hear your signal the first time, repeat it.


----------



## Canuke (Jun 22, 2015)

A quick rule-of-thumb: if you can't see the "screen door" effect (individual pixels) from your normal viewing position and your current TV, you won't see a difference with 4k.

FYI: I have a 4k screen - a 39" Seiki, which can be had on sale for less than $300 on sale nowadays - and 20-15 vision with my new glasses.


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 22, 2015)

I have a old sony 57 inch 1080 I tv that I cant imagine a better picture


----------



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

Canuke said:


> The large majority of the current movie catalog was shot at what amounts to 1080p resolutions, and will derive little benefit from upscaling. Most run-of-the-mill cinema distribution was 2k, and much of it still is, I wager.
> 
> So I wouldn't bother trading blu-rays in for 4k resolution media. In the large majority of cases, the master media was 2k to begin with. Why pay for upscaling when you'll get it in the player anyway?
> 
> ...



Movies are beginning to be shot in 4K and have been for a few years. I understand your point. A movie shot in HD will not take full advantage of 4K hardware. I am only talk about stuff 10+ years from now, when 4K cameras are solidly mainstream.

Say, take an old classic from the 70's or 80's, like Platoon, or Papillion. I am not sure how good they will look in 4K since they weren't shot in 4K. Unless they are digitally moved to 4K like bluray was.

An interesting fact is that 4K resolution approaches that of conventional, non-digital movie screens. High-Def is actually inferior to the old film from the pre-digital age.


----------



## etc (Jun 22, 2015)

raggie33 said:


> I have a old sony 57 inch 1080 I tv that I cant imagine a better picture



A DVD type quality will show a blade of grass a little blurry, a HD 1080p will show a crisp blade of grass but a 4K will show you details on the blade of grass, all the tiny hairs that grow on it. Hard to imagine but 4K does look scarily realistic. Meaning stuff that was shot in 4K and is displayed in 4K without compression or any loss.
It's actually a rare event to see true 4K picture in a store like Best Buy and such. Usually they have stuff somehow misconfigured.


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 22, 2015)

maybe ill look into 4k .when we got the sony there was very little hd tv at all.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 23, 2015)

etc said:


> What if you don't have a fast connection? A lot of of rural areas don't.



Fibre to the house. Well would have had it if it wasn't for the current Luddite government here. 

Last world cup (soccer) had 4K streams. Silverlight unfortunately, averaging around 3.5-4Mbits. Shame they shot it 1080 and up scaled. 

Netflix are at least doing it right with H265.


----------



## Canuke (Jun 23, 2015)

etc said:


> Movies are beginning to be shot in 4K and have been for a few years. I understand your point. A movie shot in HD will not take full advantage of 4K hardware. I am only talk about stuff 10+ years from now, when 4K cameras are solidly mainstream.
> 
> Say, take an old classic from the 70's or 80's, like Platoon, or Papillion. I am not sure how good they will look in 4K since they weren't shot in 4K. Unless they are digitally moved to 4K like bluray was.
> 
> An interesting fact is that 4K resolution approaches that of conventional, non-digital movie screens. High-Def is actually inferior to the old film from the pre-digital age.



The biggest immediate effect you'll see is that material shot in 4k (especially in 14 bit RAW and/or 10 bit LOG formats) can be processed in 4k (with beefy workstations) and then downsampled into 1080p at the encoding stage. The result is the best-looking 1080p you can get - substantially better than all but the highest-end native 1080p pipeline. I think they already have "Mastered in 4k" blu-rays that supposedly follow that model.

Similarly, stuff shot in 6k or 8k and downsampled to 4k will look better than anything you're seeing shot in 4k now. In fact, when I first tested out this screen, I found that the sharpest 4k came from the Samsung Galaxy Note 3. A *phone*.

Naturally, there's more to quality than just sharpness, as I indicated earlier. That's the point we're reaching now; other variables are becoming more important. The point is that you can work in 4k to make 1080p look as good as any regular film (sidestepping IMAX for the moment), much as 24-bit sampling makes it possible to make nearly perfect audio CD's. That's IMO what is driving the vinyl rebirth; we've achieved the point of diminished returns on audio, so now it's all about quality per se instead of quality as technical perfection.

We're within 10 years of reaching the same point for cinema; with all the "film look" tools that sell so well, and the popularity of older lenses with characteristic "looks" (i.e. what they call the defects, now that they are desireable), such as anamorphic.

Technically, it's never been a better time to be a musician or filmmaker. I just wish we were up to the tech from a purely artistic standpoint.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 23, 2015)

I will not be seeking out a 2160P TV for the living room and surely not paying a premium for it. While one might be able to _train_ oneself to discern the difference between 2160P and 1080P on average-sized screens at average distances, the effective resolution of your eyes negates the resolution bump unless you have an enormous screen, sit very close to it - and ideally _both_. It will probably be a standard someday and then maybe I'll get one.

Now for the desktop, I can see getting something like a 32" 2160P display to replace my dual-monitor setup. I sit close enough that the extra pixels aren't wasted and I'll be spared some of the wonkiness of multiple physical displays.


----------



## G. Scott H. (Jun 23, 2015)

Steve K said:


> I'm still waiting to get BluRay..



Ah! You sound like a fellow late adopter.  I still watched stuff on VHS and even BETA until about 5 years ago, when I switched to DVD. I just bought an Xbox One a few weeks ago, which was my first venture into Blu-ray territory, though I use it solely for games and don't yet own any BR movies.


----------



## Lite_me (Jun 23, 2015)

I'll be skipping straight 4K and wait for HDR (High Dynamic Range) to become mainstream. I'm content with my 2 1080P sets and Blu-ray quality for now.

HDR will be a bigger jump visually than just more pixels.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 23, 2015)

Steve K said:


> Time to go pick up a nice NTSC TV with a CRT at Goodwill!



LOL they won't even take CRTs! I just spent last weekend gathering junk from a garage sale to donate. The guy saw those CRTs and starting waving "no...no...no" when he saw them.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 23, 2015)

etc said:


> Movies are beginning to be shot in 4K and have been for a few years. I understand your point. A movie shot in HD will not take full advantage of 4K hardware. I am only talk about stuff 10+ years from now, when 4K cameras are solidly mainstream.
> 
> Say, take an old classic from the 70's or 80's, like Platoon, or Papillion. I am not sure how good they will look in 4K since they weren't shot in 4K. Unless they are digitally moved to 4K like bluray was.
> 
> An interesting fact is that 4K resolution approaches that of conventional, non-digital movie screens. High-Def is actually inferior to the old film from the pre-digital age.



I guess there's some way to convert to HD, or close to it. I have some older movies in DVD and Blu-Ray which are SO much better in quality with Blu-Ray. A few that come to mind: The Graduate (1967), All The President's Men (1976), Bullitt (1968) <~~ hell yes!


----------



## orbital (Jun 23, 2015)

+

4K streamed will be compressed to 10~20% its original glory.

*One solid vote for physical media* *here*


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 23, 2015)

There's always going to be something better. If its not the resolution, its the tacking/frame rate, color, blacks, etc.

Bandwidth is probably the bottle neck for streaming, so, if up to me, in the interim, I'd see about downloads to a solid state HD, etc, and THEN watching....to avoid buffering delays, pixelation delays, etc.

Just be glad you didn't invest a ton of $ in a Video Store.


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jun 23, 2015)

We still go to our locally owned video store. The owner is a friend and offers bluray sometimes for the price of DVD. Even though we can stream (and sometimes we do) one gets special features and 'making of' content on the discs. I recommend looking at the special features on 'American Sniper'.

Best Buy will take your old CRT TV's up to something like 38 inches (or more, I don't remember). They also took an old analog 5 watt Motorola cell phone for recycling.

That HDR sounds good. Some of this current 'state of the art' tech will get leap frogged in a few years. Or will simply be too cumbersome/incompatible for the benefit (like 3D).


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 23, 2015)

markr6 said:


> LOL they won't even take CRTs! I just spent last weekend gathering junk from a garage sale to donate. The guy saw those CRTs and starting waving "no...no...no" when he saw them.



A couple of years ago, I used to check out garage sales for old CRT TV's. That's when I was restoring arcade boxes. The guts were usually stripped out so had to replace the whole lot. CRT's and old pentium computers. Not so much seen at the garage sales any more


----------



## etc (Jun 23, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> I will not be seeking out a 2160P TV for the living room and surely not paying a premium for it. While one might be able to _train_ oneself to discern the difference between 2160P and 1080P on average-sized screens at average distances, the effective resolution of your eyes negates the resolution bump unless you have an enormous screen, sit very close to it - and ideally _both_. It will probably be a standard someday and then maybe I'll get one.
> 
> Now for the desktop, I can see getting something like a 32" 2160P display to replace my dual-monitor setup. I sit close enough that the extra pixels aren't wasted and I'll be spared some of the wonkiness of multiple physical displays.



some day you will have no choice. when 4K is all they make. Can you find a new CRT TV now? Or even a 720p? 
Give it another 10 years I suppose to flush out the existing stock of 1080p hardware.

I have seen 4K versus HD. 4K looks better at any distance, up close or distant.

I have also seen 32" 4K monitors, with them you don't need a dual monitor setup.

I have a 27"monitor at 2560x1440, which is an intermediate resolution, between 1080p and 2160. It does look a lot better than HD but not as goog as 4K.


----------



## etc (Jun 23, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> There's always going to be something better. If its not the resolution, its the tacking/frame rate, color, blacks, etc.
> 
> Bandwidth is probably the bottle neck for streaming, so, if up to me, in the interim, I'd see about downloads to a solid state HD, etc, and THEN watching....to avoid buffering delays, pixelation delays, etc.
> 
> Just be glad you didn't invest a ton of $ in a Video Store.



Proof positive disks will never go away.I don't want to have to stream a movie every time. Not only is it not efficient, sometimes may not be possible. A bluray movie takes 50GB, I am assuming that a 4K "red ray" disk will need 200GB or something similar.
Ultimately a solid state storage device is the ultimate, but it is expensive for any quantity, will not become mainstream or affordable for a very long time (I am thinking decades to be honest).
You would need a device that can store Terabytes of data to hold any decent sized collection of movies. Looks like about 5 4K movies will end up being a terabyte. Do you think a normal household can afford that? Maybe in 15 years when prices drop to where GB cost that much today.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 23, 2015)

1080 TVs are mostly what you find in stores, but it's funny...*only 720p is broadcasted by Comcast*. At least in my area. They have a few 1080 movies in the On Demand area, but nothing live that I know of. So the only time I get 1080 is with Amazon Prime and BluRay (not that often).


----------



## Canuke (Jun 23, 2015)

Idleprocess, I use my Seiki mainly as a monitor for exactly that reason - it's four 20" 1080p screens with no intervening edges. It also does 1080p at 120fps, great for games. (It needs to be flashed with the firmware from the 50 inch model for that to work.)


----------



## Canuke (Jun 23, 2015)

Apparently 4k blurays will benefit from the new h.265 codec and multi-layering tech, and will top out at 100GB.

http://mobile.extremetech.com/compu...k-support-hdr-digital-bridge-sharing?origref=

Makes sense to me; at 4k PPI you can get away with more compression, simply because the artifacts are smaller, less likely to be seen... and so is all the extra detail that 4k can capture.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Jun 23, 2015)

OLED is more important to me than 4k. Incredible contrast ratio, no off-axis viewing problems, _zero_ motion artifacts. I don't own one yet but that's what I want for my next display.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 23, 2015)

etc said:


> some day you will have no choice. when 4K is all they make.


Yes, it may. And by the time it does, there will be little to no price premium - which is my main objection. But with the benefits being so marginal despite aggressive boosterism, I'm not sure it's an inevitability just yet - certainly not at today's nosebleed prices and with a dearth of content.



etc said:


> Can you find a new CRT TV now? Or even a 720p?


An amusing rebuttal, but irrelevant to the discussion.



etc said:


> I have seen 4K versus HD. 4K looks better at any distance, up close or distant.


Perhaps you have better than average visual acuity - I don't claim to and my twenties are behind me, so here's why I don't care, somewhat quantified. I sit nine to ten feet from my present 42" 720P TV. I might be able to gracefully fit a 72" monstrosity into that same space, putting me right on the line where the benefits of 1080P are fully realized.

I also don't watch television (nor movies) too often, so I imagine the value proposition is far more elusive for me than the typical person.



etc said:


> I have also seen 32" 4K monitors, with them you don't need a dual monitor setup.


That's kind of what I already stated...



etc said:


> I have a 27"monitor at 2560x1440, which is an intermediate resolution, between 1080p and 2160. It does look a lot better than HD but not as goog as 4K.


My monitors are situated about 2' from my face, solidly within the realm of where a ~32" 2160P screen is beneficial. I genuinely look forward to an affordable ~32" 2160 panel so I can do away with the inconvenience of bezels interrupting the field of view and the perpetual lack of alignment that multiple displays introduce.

I was always surprised when median-priced widescreen computer monitors tentatively went beyond 1920*1080 briefly then promptly retreated once 1080P become the standard for larger LCD and plasma screens, not to march forward again for many years.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 23, 2015)

PhotonWrangler said:


> OLED is more important to me than 4k. Incredible contrast ratio, no off-axis viewing problems, _zero_ motion artifacts. I don't own one yet but that's what I want for my next display.


I _do_ fancy the OLED displays on my most previous and current smartphone. In addition to the other benefits mentioned, they offer such crisp colors, minimal bleed, (usually) acceptable brightness, and easier on the battery than backlit LCD. Would be nice if industry could figure out how to make them in larger sizes for the same price as LCD, but that seems to remain an elusive target.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 23, 2015)

I still watch on a CRT. Its ~ 15 years old, and works fine.

When it finally goes, I'll probably get the wall paint that shows 8k over whatever area you paint with it.


----------



## TheShadowGuy (Jun 23, 2015)

PhotonWrangler said:


> OLED is more important to me than 4k. Incredible contrast ratio, no off-axis viewing problems, _zero_ motion artifacts. I don't own one yet but that's what I want for my next display.


OLED is probably my favorite screen type. 4k OLED is gorgeous compared to pretty much anything else readily available; especially with a high refresh rate.

To me jumping from 1080p to 4k is similar to the jump from non-HD to 1080p; it's a huge and immediately noticeable difference. However, I have way above average vision with my contacts, and if the screen tech isn't as good (ie, a poor quality LCD panel with poor contrast and whatnot) then the extra resolution isn't worth it. A high quality lower res display over a lower quality higher res display, if you will. 
People have different likes and dislikes and eyeballs though, so it is hard to tell when enough is enough when it comes to screen tech. For me, I'm waiting on 8k.


----------



## etc (Jun 24, 2015)

Here is a 49" 4K UHD from Sony, sub-1000. The 43" version is even cheaper.

http://store.sony.com/49-class-48.5...-27-catid-XBR-4K-Ultra-HD-TVs?_t=pfm=category


----------



## markr6 (Jun 24, 2015)

etc said:


> Here is a 49" 4K UHD from Sony, sub-1000. The 43" version is even cheaper.
> 
> http://store.sony.com/49-class-48.5...-27-catid-XBR-4K-Ultra-HD-TVs?_t=pfm=category



My in-laws recently got something like this. I helped them hook it up since they're not into tech stuff at all. The difference is pretty amazing!! Even the GUI and cable guide graphics give you that WOW factor. The first thing that happened to be on was one of the Shrek movies. INSANE QUALITY!!! You expect that from a CGI movie, but it was just amazing. I just sort of stood there an stared at it. Checked a few other channels, CNN, weather, History. I'm totally impressed!


----------



## NoNotAgain (Jun 24, 2015)

In my area, Comcast wants you to upgrade to HD for another $25 a month. This is on top of the $84 presently being charged. I can't get real high speed internet, so streaming isn't going to happen.

I've got video cards for my work station PC's that have been 2k versions for the past four or more years.

My Samsung monitor is a 28" version and supports their version of 4K, it's only 3800 or so DPI. The kicker is that you need a machine with PCE 2 or 3 and and a 500 watt minimum power supply.

I use the stoneware M disks for archival storage. They've got lots of space and don't suffer from the same issues as Blue Ray home burnt disks.


----------



## Steve K (Jun 24, 2015)

NoNotAgain said:


> In my area, Comcast wants you to upgrade to HD for another $25 a month. This is on top of the $84 presently being charged. I can't get real high speed internet, so streaming isn't going to happen.



Have we done a thread where we discuss the evils of our cable service providers?? If not, we should start with Comcast! Yeah, I've also decided to not get HD service simply because Comcast has annoyed me on a continual basis, and now I try to avoid giving them any more money than possible (while still getting basic cable). 

okay.. back to discussing the virtues of crazy-high definition!


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jun 24, 2015)

Steve K said:


> Have we done a thread where we discuss the evils of our cable service providers?? If not, we should start with Comcast! Yeah, I've also decided to not get HD service simply because Comcast has annoyed me on a continual basis, and now I try to avoid giving them any more money than possible (while still getting basic cable).
> 
> okay.. back to discussing the virtues of crazy-high definition!



Steve, *That* is a great idea! A place to vent on cable service providers. Misery loves company. :grouphug: If you start it, they will come.

~ Chance


----------



## NoNotAgain (Jun 24, 2015)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Steve, *That* is a great idea! A place to vent on cable service providers. Misery loves company. :grouphug: If you start it, they will come.
> 
> ~ Chance



We had a conversation on net neutrality a few months back and cable providers. A certain individual was all for it. 

I gave up the discussion after a week. 

Now back to 4k video. 

Some manufacturers use 4096 x2160 as the threshold while others use a modified 3840x2160. 

I think more importantly that a high refresh rate means more than the resolution. Huge difference between 60 hz refresh verses 240 hz refresh. 

As long as it's not the ultra blurry 3D it's all good.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Jun 24, 2015)

There is also some movement on the part of broadcasters to plan for a migration from the standard 10-bit color to 12-bit color. This will provide a richer color palette and much less banding on graduated colors.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 24, 2015)

etc said:


> Here is a 49" 4K UHD from Sony, sub-1000. The 43" version is even cheaper.
> 
> http://store.sony.com/49-class-48.5...-27-catid-XBR-4K-Ultra-HD-TVs?_t=pfm=category


Not as bad a price as I was expecting - they're clearly getting cheaper faster than I expected. But it looks like otherwise-comparable 1080 TV's are going for about half that.



NoNotAgain said:


> We had a conversation on net neutrality a few months back and cable providers. A certain individual was all for it.
> 
> I gave up the discussion after a week.


 ... and the thread was ultimately locked if I recall.


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 25, 2015)

I keyed you in to $299 4K sets a year ago; the link in that post is still active, though it's now $340..

Also, an Amazon Fire TV is $99; Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime together are ~$20/mo. Been using this setup for a year now, and am much happier with only an internet provider/no cable provider.


----------



## subwoofer (Jun 25, 2015)

4K is just another way the TV manufacturers can resell us all the equipment we bought from them a year or two ago.

Yes it is capable of a sharper image and therefore bigger screen, but at the expense of more, more MORE. More expense, more re-buying, more bandwidth, more power, more. The law of diminishing returns kicks in very strongly.

In my opinion full HD (as I fell for the earlier HD TVs that were actually only 720) with quality HD content is all anyone needs unless they stand right in front of the TV (like you do in a shop). Put you TV at a normal viewing distance and you will be hard pressed to see any difference.

Even in the current HD offerings you see vastly different quality. So often I see TV broadcasts where the camera if not focussed on the subject, but on the background. Viewed in SD you can't tell, but in HD you can. When they get HD right it truly sings.

Already I see more detail than I want to a lot of the time (no wonder many actors hate HD), I don't want this taken up a notch. With a 55" TV and good HD I see only a 'real' looking image, with no pixels evident.

I'm really hoping, just like 3D, that people don't fall for the 4K hype.


----------



## etc (Jun 25, 2015)

markr6 said:


> My in-laws recently got something like this. I helped them hook it up since they're not into tech stuff at all. The difference is pretty amazing!! Even the GUI and cable guide graphics give you that WOW factor. The first thing that happened to be on was one of the Shrek movies. INSANE QUALITY!!! You expect that from a CGI movie, but it was just amazing. I just sort of stood there an stared at it. Checked a few other channels, CNN, weather, History. I'm totally impressed!



I am going to assume that CNN, etc was upscaled from 1080p to 2160 (4K).


----------



## etc (Jun 25, 2015)

NoNotAgain said:


> We had a conversation on net neutrality a few months back and cable providers. A certain individual was all for it.
> 
> I gave up the discussion after a week.
> 
> ...



I don't think the refresh rate is "better" than the resolution, both are a part of the package. I went from a 60 hz to 240 Hz and it was a huge difference.

A 4K device running at 240 Hz refresh rate will be stunning.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 25, 2015)

etc said:


> I am going to assume that CNN, etc was upscaled from 1080p to 2160 (4K).



At best. They also have Comcast. No matter what I watch, the cable box always says "720p" on the front display. I assumed they only broadcast 720p, at least in my area.


----------



## etc (Jun 25, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> Not as bad a price as I was expecting - they're clearly getting cheaper faster than I expected. But it looks like otherwise-comparable 1080 TV's are going for about half that.
> 
> 
> ... and the thread was ultimately locked if I recall.



4K prices are where HD was 5-7 years ago. My first HDTV was a 37" sharp and it was around 700 used. Only 60 Hz refresh. I think you can get that model used now for $100.

HD prices are where CRT TVs were 15-20 years ago. Used HD TV sell for 200-300, even for large 46" models. HD monitors sell for 100-$200, even 24" models.

I think I am going to wait a year until I buy 4K. Will let the prices drop even further. 
On top of that, more content will appear.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Jun 25, 2015)

markr6 said:


> At best. They also have Comcast. No matter what I watch, the cable box always says "720p" on the front display. I assumed they only broadcast 720p, at least in my area.



The box is probably configured for fixed 720P output, possibly because that's what the TV can handle. If the TV can display 1080i, you can change the box settings to pass through the native resolution that the program is being transmitted at.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 25, 2015)

PhotonWrangler said:


> The box is probably configured for fixed 720P output, possibly because that's what the TV can handle. If the TV can display 1080i, you can change the box settings to pass through the native resolution that the program is being transmitted at.



Yeah I set the box to 1080 (actually it was already set at that but I double checked). My TV is a brand new 50" Samsung 1080p so it should be ready to go.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Jun 25, 2015)

markr6 said:


> At best. They also have Comcast. No matter what I watch, the cable box always says "720p" on the front display. I assumed they only broadcast 720p, at least in my area.



It's probably not progressive scanned. Most broadcasters use interlaced. 

To etc, 
Looking at a 1080P , 240hz set verses a 4k 120 he set side by side, as long as no motion was int the scene the 4k set looked great. Any motion involved, and the 1080P, 240hz was sharper.


----------



## etc (Jun 25, 2015)

markr6 said:


> At best. They also have Comcast. No matter what I watch, the cable box always says "720p" on the front display. I assumed they only broadcast 720p, at least in my area.



Right. That my suspicion also.


----------



## etc (Jun 25, 2015)

NoNotAgain said:


> It's probably not progressive scanned. Most broadcasters use interlaced.
> 
> To etc,
> Looking at a 1080P , 240hz set verses a 4k 120 he set side by side, as long as no motion was int the scene the 4k set looked great. Any motion involved, and the 1080P, 240hz was sharper.



Well, that's a moot point because we will have 4K at 240 Hz. 

I know this -- HD at 60 Hz looks terrible.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Jun 25, 2015)

Take a look at this sight http://www.rtings.com/info/fake-ref...otion-rate-vs-sony-motionflow-vs-lg-trumotion and you'll see we're being sold a bill of goods.


----------



## etc (Jun 25, 2015)

NoNotAgain said:


> Take a look at this sight http://www.rtings.com/info/fake-ref...otion-rate-vs-sony-motionflow-vs-lg-trumotion and you'll see we're being sold a bill of goods.



I have a Samsung 46" (UN46C7100) which is a 240 Hz, really *is* 240 Hz and it looks really nice, thank you.



> Samsung Motion Rate (2015)
> 
> Samsung’s Motion Rate means different things depending on whether a TV is 1080p Full HD or 4k UHD.
> 
> For 1080p TVs, the Motion Rate number is equal to the real refresh rate. A 1080p TV with a Motion Rate of 120 has a 120 hz panel.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 28, 2015)

Happened to be at Fry's last night so I checked out the TV section. At the ~5' viewing distances their aisles allow for, 2160 seemed a little sharper than 1080 on the larger models. However, other factors were in play. The sources they were showing on the 1080 screens looked to be of subpar quality with visible artifacts and other deficiencies independent of the resolution difference. They also arranged the showroom floor so that one could not perform a side-by-side comparison between 1080 and 2160 panels.


----------



## Lite_me (Jun 28, 2015)

Here is Scott Wilkinson (editor of AVS Forums) _briefly_ commenting on the merits of HDR (that I mentioned in a post above) on the Leo Laporte The Tech Guy podcast on Twit TV. Sounds like it's going to be the next 'must have' jump in picture quality in home theater.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YxfNTA1p7lc#t=1680


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 28, 2015)

Lite_me said:


> Here is Scott Wilkinson (editor of AVS Forums) _briefly_ commenting on the merits of HDR (that I mentioned in a post above) on the Leo Laporte The Tech Guy podcast on Twit TV. Sounds like it's going to be the next 'must have' jump in picture quality in home theater.



Just say *Dolby Vision*. A theater with both Dolby Vision video plus *Dolby Atmos* audio is *Dolby Cinema*.


----------



## Lite_me (Jul 3, 2015)

Ok, for those of you who want to geek-out on this HDR technology, here's Robert Heron (HeronFedelity.com) on another TWit podcast, going into more detail on the technology.

https://youtu.be/Kbpbc_POerw?t=3937


----------



## Lite_me (Jul 4, 2015)

Don't know if anyone is getting anything out of these but, here is Scott again with a more thorough explanation of 4K, why you wait, and more.

https://youtu.be/7k-dtsLZhsY?t=1137


----------



## etc (Jul 7, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> Happened to be at Fry's last night so I checked out the TV section. At the ~5' viewing distances their aisles allow for, 2160 seemed a little sharper than 1080 on the larger models. However, other factors were in play. The sources they were showing on the 1080 screens looked to be of subpar quality with visible artifacts and other deficiencies independent of the resolution difference. They also arranged the showroom floor so that one could not perform a side-by-side comparison between 1080 and 2160 panels.



this is the problem with Fry's, Costco and all these other stores - they rarely configure the units correctly, rarely have true 4K source and usually split the signal between multiple units, degrading PQ. it does look better but not sure if it's reaching its potential. 

i want to see the PQ playing off a red-ray disk, uncompressed. 200GB source file for a red-ray UHD movie. We are getting into fractions of a terabyte.


----------



## twolane (Jul 7, 2015)

This has been great! I'm in the market for a new screen, and I found this chart that I found pretty interesting..
http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship
I was leaning toward a 4k like others, but have since gone to thinking 1080 with a high refresh rate is the way to go. I just don't really want to get sucked into the "new latest greatest" like 3D TV... that just... flops.


----------



## etc (Jul 7, 2015)

Interesting link, thanks for sharing.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 7, 2015)

etc said:


> this is the problem with Fry's, Costco and all these other stores - they rarely configure the units correctly, rarely have true 4K source and usually split the signal between multiple units, degrading PQ. it does look better but not sure if it's reaching its potential.
> 
> i want to see the PQ playing off a red-ray disk, uncompressed. 200GB source file for a red-ray UHD movie. We are getting into fractions of a terabyte.



My experience was the opposite: they were putting a heavy thumb down on scale for the 2160 models over the 1080 models.


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 14, 2015)

Watch Amazon tomorrow: There'll be a 40" TV for $115..


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jul 14, 2015)

^ It's good to have an inside man. Thanks for all the early notices. :thumbsup:

~ Chance


----------



## markr6 (Jul 14, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Watch Amazon tomorrow: There'll be a 40" TV for $115..



I'm not in the market for a TV, but I'm afraid I will be in impulse-buy mode tomorrow. Sorry wallet


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 14, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I'm not in the market for a TV, but I'm afraid I will be in impulse-buy mode tomorrow. Sorry wallet



You have good timing, tomorrow is Prime Day, the second coming of Black Friday..

32" LED TV - $75
32" Smart HDTV - <$200
50" 4K TV Bundle - <$1000
Amazon FireTV Stick - $15 off


----------



## markr6 (Jul 14, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> You have good timing, tomorrow is Prime Day, the second coming of Black Friday..



Yeah that's what I meant. Been looking forward to it since I saw the banner last week. I'm pretty much addicted to Amazon...so bad to the point of buying toilet paper!! LOL not really, but don't put it past me yet.


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 14, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I'm pretty much addicted to Amazon...so bad to the point of buying toilet paper!! LOL not really, but don't put it past me yet.



60% off Amazon Elements Baby Wipes, which would indicate other Amazon Elements items will also be discounted.

Also, you might be interested in Amazon Dash..


----------



## orbital (Sep 3, 2015)

+

4K packaging finalized?

...the new Black


----------



## NoNotAgain (Sep 3, 2015)

IMO the packaging sucks. They should have had the actors name over his or her head.

As for 4K video, my Phantom 3 Pro has 4K. Most of the time I end up cropping to 1080P or there about as 99% of the people don't have the ability to view 4K.


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 3, 2015)

There's a 4K sampler set out there right now that includes a USB key with the 4K content; it all sounds a little silly at this point. Even if you had a collection of some form of physical 4K media, what would you with it? Display it library-style in a giant oak entertainment center circa 1985 VHS tapes?


----------



## orbital (Sep 3, 2015)

+

Samsung 4K Disk Player *UBS-K8500 *


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Sep 3, 2015)

Wait, has the 4K disc standard been ratified yet, or is that a block of wood with a logo on it?


----------



## orbital (Sep 3, 2015)

^

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/20...nfirmed-4k-at-high-frame-rates-10-bit-colour/


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 3, 2015)

Total silliness, no one is buying yet another hope-it's-not-scratched disc player when every device in the house can already provide 4K content. And just to further the point; the new Sony Experia *cellphone has a 4K display*, 800+ dpi. Probably not a lot of folks signing up to connect a theater shelf component to their cellphone..


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Sep 3, 2015)

Thanks for the link, Orbital. As StarHalo mentioned, the licensees of the Ultra HD Blu-Ray format are in a race against time. More consumers are getting their video from streaming sources these days, and the close-out DVD/Blu-Ray bins at some of the retailers keep getting bigger as people decide to abandon physical media.

Me, I'm a Luddite who prefers to have that physical platter, although I'm in no rush to buy yet another media player device.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 3, 2015)

PhotonWrangler said:


> Thanks for the link, Orbital. As StarHalo mentioned, the licensees of the Ultra HD Blu-Ray format are in a race against time. More consumers are getting their video from streaming sources these days, and the close-out DVD/Blu-Ray bins at some of the retailers keep getting bigger as people decide to abandon physical media.
> 
> Me, I'm a Luddite who prefers to have that physical platter, although I'm in no rush to buy yet another media player device.


The bandwidth of a DVD, Blu-Ray, or whatever media a shipping truck can deliver is astoundingly high compared to internet connectivity. It also typically _just works_ as opposed to the coercion and platform wars that content providers like to play with streaming media.


----------



## orbital (Sep 3, 2015)

+

Never diss a book or record collection (aka physical media)


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 4, 2015)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> Never diss a book or record collection (aka physical media)


There's a lot to be said for reading a physical book vs on a screen - be it LCD or e-paper. When I was going to school a few years ago, whenever I had a choice between an e-textbook and the printed variety I almost immediately learned to choose the latter: it's easier to read a printed book _(this seems to relate to the ease of adapting a printed surface for best visibility under varying light conditions)_, easier to retain key facts or ideas, you can miraculously page to a specific reference in seconds, and there's no encryption/DRM to go badly wrong on you at the worst time.

I understand why the LP, 45, cassette, CD have largely vanished from the marketplace - music is something we tend to enjoy _on the go_ now as opposed to in listening rooms. You can store large quantities of high-quality audio on a cellphone; immensely more on a small computer with a typical hard drive. If you want to stream it like the cool kids, the bandwidth requirements aren't overly burdensome. Listening to the source physical media provides no benefit for most use cases. And for those that do, it's still available - albeit probably not from Best Buy provided you can find one.

But why is the market in such a rush to ditch it for video, which has immensely more data than audio? I get the convenience of watching _Game of Thrones_ the day an episode is released or as a substitute for what used to be a trip to Blockbuster. I even get ripping physical media to some open format like .AVI. But I don't quite understand why the market insists on streaming as the sole substitute for local copies - physical or digital - of media you *really* want to watch on your schedule in glorious full quality. So many more moving parts - bandwidth, legalities, recurring payments, technical issues throughout - vs popping a disc (or queuing something from the NAS). On the latter local method - never has diskspace, processing power, and utility computing been cheaper or easier than it is now.


----------



## lunas (Sep 4, 2015)

ragge33 said:


> cant they use a bluray disk for 4k video?


Yes that is how his 4k video which is really a measure of resolution not a storeage medium will be delivered the player he will need will read dvd and bluray and up convert 720p and 1080p and 2k to 4k

Mind you to even give 2 flying craps about this you need a 4k tv and a 4k player and a bluray disc with 4k video on it.

The biggest issue with this thread is that people keep confusing media with resolution dvd and bluray are not the same thing as 720p, 1080p, 2k or 4k. 4k will come out on blu-ray so your old blu-ray disc are not going to be obsolete and if you think your whole 200 disc collection will come out remastered in 4k your an idiot. The only things that will be re-released in 4k are the big hits and things that get put into anniversary collections. Additionally if it was never shot in 4k you will not magically be able to get it in 4k.


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 4, 2015)

- Most people won't be interested in a 4K TV, they'll be interested in a Dolby Vision TV that also happens to feature 4K.

- You're on your own with the book/record subtopics, as they don't parallel video entertainment at all and people have widely varying opinions about them (and the record is rising in popularity sharply.)

- Both Amazon and Netflix allow downloading for viewing offline; you download your movie or TV program onto your device and can then watch it anytime with no internet connectivity whatsoever. 

- Any program you purchase on any streaming service can be viewed on any other device as long as it has that app and is logged into your account: You buy an episode of _Breaking Bad_ off Netflix and download it to your iPhone, then throw your iPhone into a volcano. Then you go to a friend's house and open Netflix on their smart TV and sign into your account - there's your copy of _Breaking Bad_ right where you left it. Nothing remotely similar to this exists with physical media.


----------



## lunas (Sep 4, 2015)

etc859 said:


> this is the problem with Fry's, Costco and all these other stores - they rarely configure the units correctly, rarely have true 4K source and usually split the signal between multiple units, degrading PQ. it does look better but not sure if it's reaching its potential.
> 
> i want to see the PQ playing off a red-ray disk, uncompressed. 200GB source file for a red-ray UHD movie. We are getting into fractions of a terabyte.


We will not be going back to red... red is dvd... if we go anywhere in the visual spectrum it will be further towards uv so black - ray... or purple ray. The company red-ray is a Chinese company attempting to keep HD DVD alive that is what their proprietary red format is...


Here is some info
480p 640x480
720p or 1280x720
1080p or 1920x1080
1440p or 2k or 2560x1440
2160p or 4k or 4096 x 2160


----------



## orbital (Sep 4, 2015)

+

The reason I want to see 4K media entering marketplace is for Blu-Ray disk prices to go _way_ down,, not about to buy all the whole 4K line of stuff.

I like the *spontaneity* of popping in a movie, no downloading, no logging on, and the assumption everything is going to work perfectly w/ no bottlenecks in any way.
Lots of moving parts I'm not interested in xxxg with.


StarHalo, I see your point, I do,,, just not my cup of tea


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 4, 2015)

At least five times the beautiful Mrs. Gardiner and I sat down to watch a Netflix streamed movie, ........... only to have it stop midway through. Yeah, I like the reliability of a disk.

~ Chance


----------



## markr6 (Sep 4, 2015)

+1 on a disc. I was watching a movie last night in my basement on the big screen with projector. Usually I go down there and watch a streaming video:

1. turn everything on
2. wait at least 2 minutes for all the crap "connecting, downloaded content, press OK" etc...
3. Open app then try to find something (horribly awkward without a keyboard)
4. Play, then watch "determining connection speed"
5. Then some more loading junk before it actually starts playing

But last night I just threw in a disc and hit play after the blu-ray player started up (10 seconds)

Of course streaming is nice since you have hundreds/thousands of options that takes up no space and gets updated frequently. But that can be bad too. Watching a nail-biting series only to find Netflix got rid of it half way through??? AHH!!!!


----------



## lunas (Sep 4, 2015)

Another thing to keep in mind is data caps and the sheer size of a 4k movie. A 1080p digital copy of mad max fury road is 2.71 GB the adverage size of a 4k movie will be 9-11GB the theatres dont compress it as much and the adverage for them is 225GB...


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 4, 2015)

You guys have some seriously awful internet, that's a shame, you're missing out..


----------



## markr6 (Sep 4, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> You guys have some seriously awful internet, that's a shame, you're missing out..



Even with my 100mbps downstream, you're still going to get all the "loading/initializing" crap. Obviously I don't have to deal with low quality or buffering issues.


----------



## orbital (Sep 4, 2015)

+

This summer we had a massive squall line roar thru,, 50K without power
we lost power for about 12 hrs, no big deal.

*But my cable/internet lines were also cut & very slow to get restrung *:shakehead

Wasn't in the mood to _read_, so I watched some super rare racing stuff on disk
& caught up on Sarah Connor Chronicles,, which I bought dirt cheap on disk off ebay.


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 4, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Even with my 100mbps downstream, you're still going to get all the "loading/initializing" crap. Obviously I don't have to deal with low quality or buffering issues.



Depends on the device; the Amazon Fire TV can often load apps almost instantly, though there's still a few seconds of loading when you start a program. 

For those with buffering issues, should also mention: Use a device that connects to your router via Ethernet cable. I had a cheap Roku that couldn't get through a program via wifi, but ran seamlessly once tethered.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 4, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> You guys have some seriously awful internet, that's a shame, you're missing out..



I've got rock solid 50M/50M service and can't be bothered with streaming because of all the moving parts I mentioned.


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 4, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> I've got rock solid 50M/50M service and can't be bothered with streaming because of all the moving parts I mentioned.



Fair 'nuff, but I'm on the other end; I've been watching a movie or two on my phone for the last few weekends, just hit up Amazon, click rent, and enjoy. No physical movement involved unless I stop and pick it up later on some other device or a TV elsewhere. I can't imagine going through the process of trying to find the best price on a disc, then driving or waiting on the mail, hoping the disc didn't fall off the spindle in the package and end up scratched, etc.


----------



## orbital (Sep 5, 2015)

+
*
" who forgot the popcorn?!..."*


----------



## lunas (Sep 5, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Fair 'nuff, but I'm on the other end; I've been watching a movie or two on my phone for the last few weekends, just hit up Amazon, click rent, and enjoy. No physical movement involved unless I stop and pick it up later on some other device or a TV elsewhere. I can't imagine going through the process of trying to find the best price on a disc, then driving or waiting on the mail, hoping the disc didn't fall off the spindle in the package and end up scratched, etc.


And that is all fine and dandy if your like me and has one of the few isp who still offer true unlimited data can you even imagine. Forgetting speed at this point a verizon fios line with 130 gig of data per month and after that every 1 gig is like 8 bucks so watching 4k movies we will say they are at the low end at 9 gig in size that is 14.5 movies you can watch in 1 month before you hit cap and if you average 2-3 movies per day you hit cap in 4-7 days with no warning you continue to watch 2-3 per day that is 62-93 movies you can watch for 558-837 GIG of data used -130 for 428-707 overage GB 428-707 by 8 is $3,424-5,656 on top of your bill


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 5, 2015)

lunas said:


> so watching 4k movies



iPhone display is not 4K or even HD, my rentals are the cheaper, smaller standard definition versions.

Srstho, Retina display + earphones is a fine weekend afternoon movie experience..


----------



## Mr Floppy (Sep 6, 2015)

lunas said:


> And that is all fine and dandy if your like me and has one of the few isp who still offer true unlimited data can you even imagine



My ISP is not unlimited, but Netflix is unmetered. Many ISPs offer this deal and it is just the way the market is going over here. Video rental stores are closing down with DVD kiosks being the alternative. Sadly I used to like milling about the video shops looking at the covers and snacks and toys, but thems the times.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 6, 2015)

There were few experiences I hated more than 20 minutes in a Blockbuster. :thumbsdow:thumbsdow

~ Chance


----------



## braddy (Sep 6, 2015)

At some point in the next 1 to 3 years, I intend to upgrade from my 1999, 13" color TV, I''ll be keeping up with this thread.


----------



## Stream (Sep 6, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> I can't imagine going through the process of trying to find the best price on a disc, then driving or waiting on the mail,* hoping the disc didn't fall off the spindle in the package and end up scratched*, etc.



I HATE it when that happens! lol These days I mostly only order discs if it's something that I really want to own, like all the Star Trek box sets or my all-time favorite movies, otherwise it's streaming or downloading. 

Streaming a movie on Netflix or similar services doesn't take longer to get started than booting up the BluRay player. I have a 50" 1080p plasma tv that I bought about 6 years ago. It still works great, but it's not a smart tv so I just use my PlayStation to access streaming services like Netflix or ViaPlay. It's very rare that I get any interruptions at all, and I connect via WiFi. By the sound of it, many folks over in the US seem to be getting a pretty raw deal when it comes to internet speeds and ISPs with data limits. Over here, data limits are for mobile carriers. I would probably think twice about streaming and downloading if I had to worry about data limits, so I can understand those who still prefer the old fashioned way.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Sep 6, 2015)

A lot of people were saying DVD is obsolete when Blu-Ray was finalized over HD-DVD but we still see DVD for sale on the shelves as there is still a use for them in portable devices. The difference in pricing between a 1080P and 4K set is from 50% more to double and up depending on the size such that by the time 4K is as commonplace as Blu-Ray got to be over DVD if you were wanting a large enough size set you could just buy a 1080P set for now and later buy a 4K set the same size and pay the same overall price as a 4K set right now.


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 6, 2015)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> There were few experiences I hated more than 20 minutes in a Blockbuster.



Well it was cool if you were going in for a specific movie and it was there. Otherwise it became a process where you'd not see anything you wanted so you'd lower your standards and then browse all over again, and again, like searching the fridge..

The nice thing about Amazon's rental section is that it's ordered by recent popularity, so it's like a rental store taking all the movies people actually watch and putting them in one section, makes for much more enjoyable browsing.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Sep 7, 2015)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> There were few experiences I hated more than 20 minutes in a Blockbuster



That was probably because it was a blockbuster, not that they were around over here. I think they came in just as the rental market was declining. The independent ones were great, especially for having dedicated sections for b-grade, foreign and Sci fi. The one I used to go to even had the first remastered hammer horror series on DVD. Quality was nothing to boast about. A 4K version would not have improved much


----------



## orbital (Sep 7, 2015)

+

Regarding disk popping out of its spindle,,, that happens when some bozo puts a DVD in the bottom of a large'ish box & then puts a 48pack of AA battering in that same box (both left loose)
so they can perfectly smash around with each other in shipping...:fail:


This is a ridiculously consistent issue to one company


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Sep 7, 2015)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> Regarding disk popping out of its spindle,,, that happens when some bozo puts a DVD in the bottom of a large'ish box & then puts a 48pack of AA battering in that same box (both left loose)
> so they can perfectly smash around with each other in shipping...:fail:
> ...


One type of Amaray case is prone to discs popping out as it has two fingers that come together to hold the disc and one can squeeze the case hard enough to unlatch the disc. The cases I prefer are Viva Elites which require you to push your finger tip in the middle of the case and lift the disc past the hub to release it. There is probably over a dozen varieties of hubs on dvd cases but of the movies sold by major studios only about 3-4 varieties of hubs the rest are cheap cases that vary from pretty good to very crummy.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 7, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Well it was cool if you were going in for a specific movie and it was there. Otherwise it became a process where you'd not see anything you wanted so you'd lower your standards and then browse all over again, and again, like searching the fridge..
> 
> Shameless plug removed. :laughing:



Yes, it was cool! I can still remember getting the endorphin rush from finding the new release I wanted.  

What made it even better was when you'd turn around and see the disappointment on some guy's face as he realized you'd just scored the last copy. :devil: Still, you'd give him a nod because you remember what it feels like to be in his place.

Alas, all too soon the rush was gone ......... as you took your place in line ......... behind 16 other losers. Standing there, ........ forever, ........ forced to listen to people trying to decide on which pop and candy to procure. ........... All the while ignoring their screaming and/or crying spawn.

Finally! It's your turn to deal with the automaton at the check out station. I'm pretty sure one of their job requirements was they actually had to hate working at Blockbuster. 

Job interview
Boss: Why do you want to work at BB?

Loser: I don't. I hate BB. I just have to find a J O B.

Boss: You're hired.

Even the employees that didn't hate BB from the start, soon did. How could anyone not grow to hate working at BB. It was like Walmart, but with only two check-out lines.

One last insult before leaving, after you've walked through the TSA scanner we'll give you your movies.

Yes, just like searching the fridge. A 3,000sqf fridge. 

Did we ever come up with a single word that describes a person that enjoys a business going Out Of Business due to their lack of customer service? I love Netflix and Red Box.

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 7, 2015)

orbital said:


> This is a ridiculously consistent issue to one company



Amazon's policy is "shake the case" - anyone in the warehouse/shipping process handling a DVD must shake the case; if you can hear the disc is off the spindle, it's automatically counted as damaged and returned to the vendor. A loose DVD doesn't even make it to inventory.

Packing follows a similar rule with packaging; a completed package is shaken to hear if anything shifts or moves in the box, it should be immovably solid. Someone checking packages down the line will actually return a loose box to a packer to pack it again.

Anything can always be returned for any reason, you don't have to provide one.


----------



## martinaee (Sep 7, 2015)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> The reason I want to see 4K media entering marketplace is for Blu-Ray disk prices to go _way_ down,, not about to buy all the whole 4K line of stuff.
> 
> ...



I haven't used a physical bought DVD in a long time, but my biggest complaint I realized watching them is on a dvd player they often have forced ads ON THE DVD OR MEDIUM that you can't skip on a normal living room player. I don't know if that's changed recently, but holy hell... I totally understand bootlegging when you in essence have a better experience watching a digital copy than a physical copy. If somebody buys the product don't bombard them with non-skippable ads and warnings of "copyright infringement on the disc that is 100% LEGITIMATE! lol.


----------



## martinaee (Sep 7, 2015)

It will be interesting to see if a disc form of media is still widely adopted for 4K video. Something interesting is that there are rumors that Nintendo may actually go with a cartridge form of media for it's next home console (think SD type cards in a different package). It may not happen, but would TOTALLY make sense for super high quality 4K and higher video in the future for players to use flash media instead of discs. They have no moving parts, have higher capacity and will continue to get even bigger, and can read much faster in some of the new formats. It would be perfect for 4k. Especially for the market of people who want to have a high quality home movie collection. Streaming video is awesome, but it's always going to be compressed. This would allow for huge uncompressed 4k movies and the players could be tiny. Probably won't ever happen for movies, but it's a though.


----------



## Stream (Sep 7, 2015)

Not to mention not ever having to worry about scratches!


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Sep 7, 2015)

Even though I prefer to have the physical disc, one of my complaints is the general sluggishness of the transport mechanism when trying to skip to various sections of a show. There isn't a good way around this as it takes time for the optical head to move around on the disc.


----------



## etc (Sep 8, 2015)

lunas said:


> We will not be going back to red... red is dvd... if we go anywhere in the visual spectrum it will be further towards uv so black - ray... or purple ray. The company red-ray is a Chinese company attempting to keep HD DVD alive that is what their proprietary red format is...
> 
> 
> Here is some info
> ...




Technically, 2560x1440 is 2.5K. It's an intermediate standard between 1080 and 4K.

I have a 27" monitor in 2.5K, very nice. A minor improvement over 1080p monitors. Though not as nice as 4K monitors.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Sep 8, 2015)

Canuke said:


> The large majority of the current movie catalog was shot at what amounts to 1080p resolutions, and will derive little benefit from upscaling. Most run-of-the-mill cinema distribution was 2k, and much of it still is, I wager.
> 
> So I wouldn't bother trading blu-rays in for 4k resolution media. In the large majority of cases, the master media was 2k to begin with. Why pay for upscaling when you'll get it in the player anyway?
> 
> ...



I have an uncle that was an engineer involved in the early development of microchips. It drove him crazy that I had tube guitar amps that intentionally create distortion. He would tell me that was why solid-state transistors were so great. Transistors gave clean undistorted output. It amazes him that the distortion and coloration of tubes is sought after. Your point is valid. Look at how many digital software programs seek to recreate the effects of vacuum tubes and also recording on analog tape.


----------



## orbital (Oct 16, 2015)

etc said:


> Technically, 2560x1440 is 2.5K. It's an intermediate standard between 1080 and 4K.
> 
> I have a 27" monitor in 2.5K, very nice. A minor improvement over 1080p monitors. Though not as nice as 4K monitors.



+


*1440P*.. wonder why TVs' didn't go this resolution, I'd be happy w/ a mid sized 1440P TV


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Oct 16, 2015)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> 
> *1440P*.. wonder why TVs' didn't go this resolution, I'd be happy w/ a mid sized 1440P TV


Probably because it isn't a big enough improvement to market over 1080p


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 17, 2015)

I'm one of those 'last on board' types who just replaced a (still working) picture tube tv with a flat screen last month. 
Simply because disc players don't have rca out's anymore and my blue ray player quit halfway through 'Band of Brothers. (The previous tv had s-video or rca input)

So on Labor Day, the wife and I went out and bought the biggest most feature rich 1080 Samsung the store had. $285. 
Then the cheapest Samsung player ($50 open box) so I could finish watching Band of Brothers. 

Meanwhile my friends all fuss about all that snow in signals on their latest/greatest tech curved screen devices. 

My avi compressed flash drive stuff looks great on the tv I bought.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 18, 2015)

bykfixer said:


> Simply because disc players don't have rca out's anymore and my blue ray player quit halfway through 'Band of Brothers. (The previous tv had s-video or rca input)



An HDMI to RCA converter box is $20, but it wouldn't be as pleasant to look at as the setup you have now; I owned one of the last high-dollar CRT TVs Sony made, $2500, and I still remember being blown away by my first $200 flatscreen computer monitor with an all-digital signal chain, no "screen door"!

And now that your setup is all digital, you should look into an Amazon Fire TV Stick - skip discs and cables entirely, just click open Netflix, Hulu, etc like a computer/cell phone, cheaper than a Blu-Ray player too..


----------



## etc (Oct 19, 2015)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> 
> *1440P*.. wonder why TVs' didn't go this resolution, I'd be happy w/ a mid sized 1440P TV



apparently it's an obsolete, intermediate resolution that was soon abandoned after it being discovered.

1080p computer monitors don't scale very well past about 22" or 24" IMO. A 27" monitor looks terrible in 1080p, the pixels are just stretched out and the pixel density is lower, the picture quality is worse. As you increase size of the device, you want to increase the resolution as well.

1080p (HD) looks great on a laptop or a screen up to 20"
If you move up to 27", you want at least 2560x1440.
Huge 31"+ monitors look good in 4K.

If I get a 4K tv, it will be rather on the small size, maybe 42" to get the max pixel density.


----------



## etc (Oct 19, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> A lot of people were saying DVD is obsolete when Blu-Ray was finalized over HD-DVD but we still see DVD for sale on the shelves as there is still a use for them in portable devices. The difference in pricing between a 1080P and 4K set is from 50% more to double and up depending on the size such that by the time 4K is as commonplace as Blu-Ray got to be over DVD if you were wanting a large enough size set you could just buy a 1080P set for now and later buy a 4K set the same size and pay the same overall price as a 4K set right now.



They are disappearing, fast. the local walmart had a big bin of discounted DVD movies.
the same bin is still there and now full of blurays. $5. Who in his right mind would buy a DVD when you can get a bluray for five bucks.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 19, 2015)

etc said:


> If I get a 4K tv, it will be rather on the small size, maybe 42" to get the max pixel density.



This is the technique I've used in buying TVs in the past, but every 60"+ 4K TV I've seen thus far has no visible pixels even when you're standing so close to it you have to move your head to see the whole screen; I'm not sure downsizing for dpi applies with this many pixels, at least not with any TV you could fit into your house..


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Oct 19, 2015)

etc said:


> They are disappearing, fast. the local walmart had a big bin of discounted DVD movies.
> the same bin is still there and now full of blurays. $5. Who in his right mind would buy a DVD when you can get a bluray for five bucks.


I don't think clearance sales on stuff is a good way to judge what is on the way out or not because you could buy almost 3 dvds at walmart for the price of 2 blu-rays in their bins (3.75 for DVDs). If you want a new movie the Blu-Ray version sometimes costs 50% more than the dvd version and even movies out for awhile the DVD costs less than the Blu-Ray version like 15 for BR and 10 for DVD so you could buy a dvd of a newer movie and get a free cheap bargain bin Blu-Ray for the same price and then later when the BR version of the movie makes the bargain bin you can get it ALSO and have only spent the same 15 for BOTH formats of the same movie. The new prices are what drives the market and obsolescence not the clearance prices.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 19, 2015)

I would love a newer Samsung 55 inch smart tv. Mine is nice but smart hub is a cluster #### in the 2012 models. Also no auto screen cast to look at my note 3 playing netflix without chromcast nor hdmi.

My wife would kill me. I like the curved screen but I have no use for ultra HD.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 19, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I would love a newer Samsung 55 inch smart tv. Mine is nice but smart hub is a cluster #### in the 2012 models. Also no auto screen cast to look at my note 3 playing netflix without chromcast nor hdmi.



The aforementioned Fire TV Stick turns your TV into a Smart TV, no syncing/casting to anything, just sign into your Netflix account right there on the screen and go. Connects via USB or HDMI.


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 19, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> I don't think clearance sales on stuff is a good way to judge what is on the way out or not because you could buy almost 3 dvds at walmart for the price of 2 blu-rays in their bins (3.75 for DVDs). If you want a new movie the Blu-Ray version sometimes costs 50% more than the dvd version and even movies out for awhile the DVD costs less than the Blu-Ray version like 15 for BR and 10 for DVD so you could buy a dvd of a newer movie and get a free cheap bargain bin Blu-Ray for the same price and then later when the BR version of the movie makes the bargain bin you can get it ALSO and have only spent the same 15 for BOTH formats of the same movie. The new prices are what drives the market and obsolescence not the clearance prices.




I bought Band of Bros on Blue Ray because it was half the price of DVD. 
Weird, huh?

Had I bought the DVD I'd still be using my picture tube tv....so I the money I saved got spent later.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 19, 2015)

bykfixer said:


> I bought Band of Bros on Blue Ray because it was half the price of DVD.



The entire _Band of Brothers_ series is on the HBO Now app; free for 30 days, then $15/mo if you decide to stay on.


----------



## idleprocess (Oct 20, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I would love a newer Samsung 55 inch smart tv. Mine is nice but smart hub is a cluster #### in the 2012 models. Also no auto screen cast to look at my note 3 playing netflix without chromcast nor hdmi.


I've come to the conclusion that you can only expect updates on platforms that the manufacturer/provider sees as having _ongoing potential for future revenue_. Smart TV's, Blu-Ray players, IoT _(Internet of Things)_ devices such as connected garage door openers, toasters, etc will only be updated so long as the underlying platform is being produced or here's service revenue associated with them. For example: Samsung plans to switch to a new platform in Q2 of '16 for their smart TV's, expect updates for your 2015 smart TV to cease around Q1 of 2016.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Oct 20, 2015)

bykfixer said:


> I bought Band of Bros on Blue Ray because it was half the price of DVD.
> Weird, huh?
> 
> Had I bought the DVD I'd still be using my picture tube tv....so I the money I saved got spent later.


That doesn't surprise me as I buy a lot of movies used and the Blu-Ray version of Band of Brothers showed up before the DVD version used and I was looking for the DVD version it was hard to get used while the Blu-Ray was everywhere at that time. As I started buying music CDs and DVD movies My plan was to keep with technology such that I'm able to enjoy what I have. As long as Blu-Ray players can play DVDs and they have at least half of the movies in stores in that format and are cheaper than Blu-Rays then DVDs won't go anywhere. I'm almost thinking that before DVDs vanish we could have both DVD and Blu-Rays get replaced with online streaming or perhaps even memory type chips with movies on them similar to game cartridges. To be honest I wish that they would rethink copyrights and extend that notion to the title of something once you own a title in any format you can upgrade to a better format for a very reasonable fee that doesn't involve similar costs to buying it outright. Too many people have too many titles of movies and music to want to have to rebuy it over and over again.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 20, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> expect updates for your 2015 smart TV to cease around Q1 of 2016.



Dolby Vision will pop up around that time, and will make all current TVs essentially obsolete.



Lynx_Arc said:


> I'm almost thinking that before DVDs vanish we could have both DVD and Blu-Rays get replaced with online streaming



Indeed, best to get started now..


----------



## etc (Oct 21, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> This is the technique I've used in buying TVs in the past, but every 60"+ 4K TV I've seen thus far has no visible pixels even when you're standing so close to it you have to move your head to see the whole screen; I'm not sure downsizing for dpi applies with this many pixels, at least not with any TV you could fit into your house..



Pixels don't have to be visible to make a difference.


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 24, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> That doesn't surprise me as I buy a lot of movies used and the Blu-Ray version of Band of Brothers showed up before the DVD version used and I was looking for the DVD version it was hard to get used while the Blu-Ray was everywhere at that time. As I started buying music CDs and DVD movies My plan was to keep with technology such that I'm able to enjoy what I have. As long as Blu-Ray players can play DVDs and they have at least half of the movies in stores in that format and are cheaper than Blu-Rays then DVDs won't go anywhere. I'm almost thinking that before DVDs vanish we could have both DVD and Blu-Rays get replaced with online streaming or perhaps even memory type chips with movies on them similar to game cartridges. To be honest I wish that they would rethink copyrights and extend that notion to the title of something once you own a title in any format you can upgrade to a better format for a very reasonable fee that doesn't involve similar costs to buying it outright. Too many people have too many titles of movies and music to want to have to rebuy it over and over again.



Long as there's a Goodwill nearby we'll be ok.
Great source for VHS if you still use those. 

At some point I'll buy a new blu-ray player and stash it. 
I'm not connected to networks other than my cel-phone. When a certain sattelite company advertised "see what your friends are watching" I unplugged from the grid. 
Aint nobody business wth I'm watching...and if you can see "what your friends are watching"...who-the-h3ll else is looking at what _I'm_ watching?
Know what I mean?


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 24, 2015)

bykfixer said:


> I'm not connected to networks other than my cel-phone.



That's all you need; this phone has Hulu/Netflix/Amazon Prime on it, a pair of earbuds makes for a fine cinematic experience..


----------



## fyrstormer (Oct 26, 2015)

DVDs and CDs are technologically obsolete too, but they continue to exist, because the _purposes_ they serve have not become obsolete.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Oct 26, 2015)

fyrstormer said:


> DVDs and CDs are technologically obsolete too, but they continue to exist, because the _purposes_ they serve have not become obsolete.



I wouldn't say CDs are technologically obsolete, as it is the only way to legally own a hard copy of a music title I don't think it is totally legal to download a digital copy and burn it on a disc. You cannot sell or transfer ownership of digital copies of music but you can sell a music CD. In other words once you buy a digital music title you are stuck with it like it or not you can't even give it away. I recall Bruce Willis got upset when he found out that he couldn't "will" his Amazon digital music collection to his family after he died, had he instead bought CDs he would have had no problem at all.


----------



## RedLED (Oct 26, 2015)

For myself, I really don't like the new TVs or TV in general. The HD screens are too contrastive for my taste and sometimes make me dizzy as most are not set up correct. I like the soft look of the CRT, kind of like film has that look.

I admit love watching things on my tablets, without that cheap all look alike ugly, wide flat screen in the house. And I can take it anywhere in the house. I don't need stereo sound, and all the gimmicks, not all are but, some are. 

We we have a beautiful home and it looks so much nicer with no TV, I guess you can hide them, however we go to other people's nice houses and that TV ruins the looks, and it is always on! Sometimes I just turn it off if it is a party or something. It becomes the centerpiece of the home. TVs are for dens not living rooms. 

The day cable TV with 1000 channels that you have no interest in, yet pay for, and you watch just a few, dies, is when I pop open a bottle of champagne. I'm mean really who here watches the knitting channel? If there is one but, I would not bet against It. Not to mention the awful cable news programs. I hope the switch to an internet system will push the poorly produced no talent shows so far back in the sweeps, no one will watch. 

Here is what we have a TV for, to crank it up loud to make crooks think we are home and go next door, when we come home it is shut off fourth with. Netflix business model is changing how all this works,and I can watch all the things I like, like old movies. Plus you can watch them several times to catch the details. Without paying for another service for that. 

Over the years I have covered over 20 Oscars and Emmy award shows, and most of us who do that, never watch TV, we read the trades, and there are so many stars of these dumb reality shows, none of us even know who they are, the editors deal with that. I am going to retire from this work, as is it very hard on you, however, it is a hell of a lot of fun. Plus the fashion is fantastic! 

Maybe that is why at home we do other things. There was a time when TV was great, I will admit that. 

It will all be on the internet, no cable, no Sat dishes, and this wil be sooner than you think. Weather the production values are better, don't count on that, but you can take the dish down soon, and clip the cable wire, as things will go wireless. No more searching thru endless shows you must. Go thru to find something, or the satellite list which goes on and on. 

Even worse, and I speak for myself, I never liked going to the movie theater, the last movie I went to was Titanic. Although on Oscar night at an after party James Cameron, let me hold his Oscar, that was nice.

Today, there are so many more things to do television is becoming a relic of what it used to be.


----------



## fyrstormer (Oct 26, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> I wouldn't say CDs are technologically obsolete, as it is the only way to legally own a hard copy of a music title I don't think it is totally legal to download a digital copy and burn it on a disc. You cannot sell or transfer ownership of digital copies of music but you can sell a music CD. In other words once you buy a digital music title you are stuck with it like it or not you can't even give it away. I recall Bruce Willis got upset when he found out that he couldn't "will" his Amazon digital music collection to his family after he died, had he instead bought CDs he would have had no problem at all.


They are _technologically _obsolete. Super Audio CD and DVD can both store hard copies of music. However, CD is good enough and as you pointed out, the _purpose_ they were created for is not obsolete, hence the CD format is still used.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Oct 26, 2015)

fyrstormer said:


> They are _technologically _obsolete. Super Audio CD and DVD can both store hard copies of music. However, CD is good enough and as you pointed out, the _purpose_ they were created for is not obsolete, hence the CD format is still used.


I think that CD will only be replaced by some sort of memory chip because for many music shopping is still in the stores even though digital downloads is its main competition and streaming service subscription. When a 1GB chip gets down in cost to about 50 cents we may see them in a sort of memory chip reader that is USB compatible.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 26, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> for many music shopping is still in the stores even though digital downloads is its main competition and streaming service subscription.



Online music sales surpassed CD sales in 2014. CD sales peaked in 2000.

I did buy a CD last year; I heard Morrissey's _World Peace is None of Your Business_ on Spotify and enjoyed it immensely, it was definitely my album of the year (alongside Annie Lennox's album of covers) and I played it often. Then one day it disappeared from every online service simultaneously - turns out Mr. Morrissey was not happy with the amount of advertising his record company gave him, so they decided to un-advertise it by eliminating its digital existence. So even today if you search the online services it's nowhere to be found, but the CD is six bucks on Amazon.

Prior to that, the last CDs I bought were in 2006.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Oct 27, 2015)

StarHalo said:


> Online music sales surpassed CD sales in 2014. CD sales peaked in 2000.
> 
> I did buy a CD last year; I heard Morrissey's _World Peace is None of Your Business_ on Spotify and enjoyed it immensely, it was definitely my album of the year (alongside Annie Lennox's album of covers) and I played it often. Then one day it disappeared from every online service simultaneously - turns out Mr. Morrissey was not happy with the amount of advertising his record company gave him, so they decided to un-advertise it by eliminating its digital existence. So even today if you search the online services it's nowhere to be found, but the CD is six bucks on Amazon.
> 
> Prior to that, the last CDs I bought were in 2006.


I'm not surprised digital download is more popular as I've come across more and more people who don't have a clue how to rip music and have no desire to do it even if it saves them money doing so they like the convenience of "instant" music and with most having a smart phone or tablet that is actually even harder to get stuff from a CD into it that bodes even worse for hard copies. I think in time it is not the devices (CD and DVD) themselves that go obsolete but that people more and more rely on connecting everything to the internet such that it makes it easier for them to not own anything but have rights to it through accounts and it may be that one day you won't be able to download anything but rather everything will have to be streamed from online so the studios can make more people buy their stuff and nobody can buy or sell their stuff used or inherit them from another. Imagine if there is no more used music or movies out there at all in the world how the price of movies and music will change I predict that if CDs are banished digital download prices will rise slowly as people who buy an album and decide they don't like it cannot sell it used they are stuck with it for life.


----------



## MrJino (Oct 27, 2015)

Yeah I tend to buy my electronics slowly.

Bought my led tv about 5 years ago, they said it wouldn't last 2 years. PFFFT, it has another few years easy.

I did want to buy a 4k tv this year, but what's the point? Not much 4k content, and it'll drop price every month anyways, I'll wait til 4k is more available.

And from what I hear, since I don't know much about resolution anyways, 4k only has more resolution if you're standing in front of it.

If a 4k tv and a 1080p tv were both 60 in but 12 feet away, your eye couldn't tell the difference between the 2.


----------



## RedLED (Oct 29, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> I'm not surprised digital download is more popular as I've come across more and more people who don't have a clue how to rip music and have no desire to do it even if it saves them money doing so they like the convenience of "instant" music and with most having a smart phone or tablet that is actually even harder to get stuff from a CD into it that bodes even worse for hard copies. I think in time it is not the devices (CD and DVD) themselves that go obsolete but that people more and more rely on connecting everything to the internet such that it makes it easier for them to not own anything but have rights to it through accounts and it may be that one day you won't be able to download anything but rather everything will have to be streamed from online so the studios can make more people buy their stuff and nobody can buy or sell their stuff used or inherit them from another. Imagine if there is no more used music or movies out there at all in the world how the price of movies and music will change I predict that if CDs are banished digital download prices will rise slowly as people who buy an album and decide they don't like it cannot sell it used they are stuck with it for life.


 This is why I miss the 80's. Radio and TV was free, with some ads. These guys will want you to pay for you to stream and then overnight--bingo, oh, at first it will be slow, PSA's and such, then they will incert ad,s just like cable TV did, that original cable TV concept was no commercials. You paid for no commercials, then they just popped up. and even when there are no commercials you flip thru and see some fool, like Bill O'Reilly, selling all his books, mugs and junk. I remember as a child in the 60's, thinking TV is free, who would pay for it. 

And for someone who never, ever watches team sports, I have a far less need for cable service, in fact, I cut the cable at the house, climbed the pole and got rid of it for good, see our HOA. Provides free cable, and I still don't want it even then. Verizon is better anyway, never had a problem. Cable is an out of date 1960's era system that needs millions of miles cable replaced. 

I just use Netflix, they get it, you pay, and are exempt from ads from things you never want. 

But at Verizon a or CEO board ruined that too...even Verizon has ad's, on the TV shows the worst from big Pharm. 

Netflix will be Good too until they get the MBA who will ruin it, too. 

One of my theories is my daughters generation, millennial's, are starting to resist advertising a lot of the time. Some research I read shows even now the <25 year olds are tired of being trying to be sold on something.

What finally got me were the car dealer ads, I counted 95 in prime time, pre recession. That's 95 screaming salesmen trying to sell you a car you don't want, in cheap slacks and a golf shirt, they could at least go Italian and make it just a little better.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 29, 2015)

RedLed said:


> This is why I miss the 80's. Radio and TV was free, with some ads.



Radio and TV are still free; tune around the AM band at night, hear stations from many states away. TV is a lot more difficult since it went digital, but it's there for folks in metro areas.

I also haven't had cable for many years, Hulu/Netflix/Amazon Video is a killer combo, especially at ~$30/mo for all
three.


----------

