Sony's new UHD streaming service to cost $30 per film

Plainview said:
Not unless you break the bank on a PC. Original 4K content is minimal. Re-releases of older movies is not a 4K selling point unless it's an ungodly shot movie, not Blazing Saddles.
Click to expand...
Yeah, old movies are gonna naturally be blurry despite any remastering for 4K simply because back in the 80's and 90's the film cameras' focus were not adjusted to capture a super-sharpness in their film quality that would never the consumers' standard definition CRT TV screens. And it's too late now. Any attempt to artificially sharpen the movies' image quality would probably leave nasty digital artifacts. Hindsight is a beach!
 
jimmyD said:
Like 3d?

I understand the resolution will be going up but less people care. I'd rather have an 1080p oled picture than 4k res. 480i was tolerated because there wasn't a choice. People loved the 720p/1080i switch because it was a flat screen and 4:3 wasn't sexy anymore either. Then the craze of flat panel picture frame over a fireplace lunacy was as big as the texting and driving fad.

There isn't a push by the public for 4k like there was for HD sets. Especially if people bought a perfectly good 720p plasma just over a decade ago (or a 1080p set 3years ago) and is still rocking and sit 12ft away watching a 1080i signal or even less. If you're the 0.01% of early adopters that this matters for YOU DON'T MATTER. Not even to the manufacturers.

OK I'm not sure what my point actually was just needed to rant after 4 beers...
Click to expand...
3D isn't selling as fast as 4K is.
Resolution improvements are apart of tech involving like 240p to 480p to 720p etc.
 
VaLLiancE said:
3D isn't selling as fast as 4K is.
Resolution improvements are apart of tech involving like 240p to 480p to 720p etc.
Click to expand...

I think the resolution tech is fine now. The thing that would get me to consider replacing my TV is something like OLED when it gets to its prime and it's more affordable, which shouldn't be too many years off now.

All I know is we're blessed! I can't even remember how long HDTV's have been the norm. A decade now? That's not that long really.

I'm getting up on 40 years old, and I remember feeling lucky that my dad was an audio/videophile when he was my age and I got to enjoy Sony Trinitron TV's, probably even up to 27"!!!! Some of my friends had black & white TV's in the mid 80's.

Things have moved fast but 4K rings hollow for me it's just not impressive. Yeah I'll take it for free but it's not convincing me to spend money I don't need to.
 
VaLLiancE said:
3D isn't selling as fast as 4K is.
Resolution improvements are apart of tech involving like 240p to 480p to 720p etc.
Click to expand...
3d is a gimmick but is a feature I'd rather have than 4k. 4k is nice but will be useless to most because of content and seating distance.
 
It almost seems like 4K started getting pushed because the TV manufacturers started hitting a wall with 1080p sets, the prices were coming down quickly and it was getting harder and harder to justify more expensive sets when the features weren't that different from "lower end" models. Actually they could have just added HDR and that would have been fine, I'm going to get a new TV for that reason but it'll end up having to be a 4K set simply because there aren't any 1080p sets with HDR. I'm not saying that to bash UHD, it looks nice but I am curious to see how cable and other ISP's react to the increase in bandwidth usage as more and more people start streaming 4K video, let alone what'll happen if gaming ever ends up going to streaming only.
 
I wouldn't pay $30 to rent a UHD movie even if my only alternative was beta max. Maybe they forgot that 1080p is still pretty awesome?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back