4K Is Officially the Next Dumb Format War

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Ugh....not this crap again.

Despite the many format wars we've had in the past, it seems like companies just don't learn. They're either too dumb, or too arrogant or both. Sony, in particular, has a long tradition of foisting proprietary formats on users and then sending them to their graves when they just don't work out (MemorySticks, Mini Disc, the Reader e-book reader that made it impossible to load your own content onto it, Betamax, the DAT... Sony's list of proprietary failures is endless).
Click to expand...
 
I know it's kinda not relevant because of streaming, but isn't BluRay a format that Sony vomited up on the world of eager home theater people? I could totally see them winning another non-relevant format battle in the future because of their "success" at taking over the tiny physical disc movie market.
 
What is this "tiny physical disk market" you speak of?

Most people i know either buy or rent disks. Very few stream.
 
Didn't Sony already lost a big chunk of change last few years. Maybe their management can figure out that this will cost them more then it will make them in the long run.
 
Im ok with 4K being the new thing. It actually increases picture quality. 3D was just a bastardized headache.
 
Title is a little misleading. 4k resolution is just a natural evolution of format quality. They are complaining about TV/Content providers 4k file format being locked down to their devices.
 
Robstar said:
What is this "tiny physical disk market" you speak of?

Most people i know either buy or rent disks. Very few stream.
Click to expand...

Seriously? It's really weird to buy an actual disc. I only know of one person that does it and he said something like, "blah, blah, blah...home theater...meaningless rambling about speakers, screens, and cables...," or something that I basically tune out because it's just a way to brag about the stuff he bought to anyone who is close enough to hear. Pretty much everyone I know who watches stuff streams it or is just a cable TV addicted older person that hasn't cut the cord yet because they have trouble with there not being background noise and leave some random show on all the time.
 
Holy crap...a CNet article actually on point and worth the read.
 
Gizmodo is sensationalist. The site complains about the accuracy of weather forecasts...;) Anything to grab a page hit. You guys should not link to them for silly items like this, imo.
 
article said:
here's a fun surprise: if you buy a 4K movie from Sony, you'll need a Sony television to play it back. If you buy one from Samsung, you'll need a Samsung TV to view it.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I guess that's what people get for spending $40+ per movie. I'm "pretty sure" the free version I'll end up downloading via bittorrent won't have these problems.
 
WaltC said:
Gizmodo is sensationalist. The site complains about the accuracy of weather forecasts...;) Anything to grab a page hit. You guys should not link to them for silly items like this, imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah one of the comments on that page was funny enough to reflect it ;)
 
Well, if nobody pushed resolution then we may still be looking at 480p. At a certain point I imagine things slowing down, like they did with print media (600dpi is sorta the "more than good enough" standard). Personally, 1080p is good enough for 99% of people for the next 5 years or so.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Seriously? It's really weird to buy an actual disc. I only know of one person that does it and he said something like, "blah, blah, blah...home theater...meaningless rambling about speakers, screens, and cables...," or something that I basically tune out because it's just a way to brag about the stuff he bought to anyone who is close enough to hear. Pretty much everyone I know who watches stuff streams it or is just a cable TV addicted older person that hasn't cut the cord yet because they have trouble with there not being background noise and leave some random show on all the time.
Click to expand...

we buy actual disks because we don't have internet fast enough to stream. we don't have a choice if we want to actually watch a movie.
 
Bigbacon said:
we buy actual disks because we don't have internet fast enough to stream. we don't have a choice if we want to actually watch a movie.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if it weren't for streaming stuff, I'd try to find a way to use cheaper internets too because dial up would be pretty much fast enough. That really stinks though that you're stuck on slow intertubes. I had okay luck streaming stuff on 1.5 mbps through Netflix becuase it automatically selected a balanced quality level that worked on my connection, but my kitty and I are happy to have upgraded to 10 mpbs now so we can stream 1080p (not that it matters since I don't own any kind of screen that takes advantage of something that high). Still though, that stinks that your internet pipe is so slow. :(
 
Can someone actually name a reason that Blu-ray should of NOT won? I remember during the "format war" bluray offered double the capacity and HD-DVD offered no discernible advantage.

Also, i much prefer to watch a movie on bluray versus streaming. uncompressed 1080p content looks superior and it doesnt stop to buffer every 25 seconds. with that said i rarely watch movies...
 
elzeus said:
Title is a little misleading. 4k resolution is just a natural evolution of format quality. They are complaining about TV/Content providers 4k file format being locked down to their devices.
Click to expand...

Why did everyone let Sony rename QFHD as '4k' exactly? Considering there is a legitimate 4k cinema format and it's not the same as the '4k' TV's Sony is releasing it seems like shady marketing.
 
Megalith said:
Do people actually think 4K looks better?
Click to expand...

This is really about larger TVs going forward. I'm not saying there isn't a difference on smaller TVs, but the difference on big TVs is much more noticeable. I feel that after 4k is firmly established, then we will start to see stores pushing 70-80" TVs the same way 50-60" TVs have been pushed over the last 10 years or so.
 
buttons said:
Also, i much prefer to watch a movie on bluray versus streaming. uncompressed 1080p content looks superior and it doesnt stop to buffer every 25 seconds. with that said i rarely watch movies...
Click to expand...
Blu-Ray is still compressed, just less-so.
 
buttons said:
Can someone actually name a reason that Blu-ray should of NOT won? I remember during the "format war" bluray offered double the capacity and HD-DVD offered no discernible advantage.

Also, i much prefer to watch a movie on bluray versus streaming. uncompressed 1080p content looks superior and it doesnt stop to buffer every 25 seconds. with that said i rarely watch movies...
Click to expand...

Region codes - HD DVD was the more consumer friendly product. It would also have been very friendly toward individuals who wanted to purchase foreign movies, or who wanted to print and distribute their own HD-DVD products in multiple countries. But it would have been quite inconvenient for the major publishers who want to control regional distribution of their products for purposes of price fixing.

At the time of release HD-DVD also had superior networking and multimedia features - all HD-DVD players were required to be online capable and have a co-processor and memory to support interactive menus and special features. The original blu-ray players did not require these features. This prompted Sony to iterate on its Blu-ray implementation by creating profiles which added memory and networking requirements which are now better than HD-DVD was at release. Blu-ray profile 1.0 players were inferior to HD-DVD players when comparing features.

HD-DVD media was also cheaper which could conceivably have reduced the premium one must pay for HD content, though I'm sure it would have just resulted in the same prices with more going to the owner.
 
GotNoRice said:
This is really about larger TVs going forward. I'm not saying there isn't a difference on smaller TVs, but the difference on big TVs is much more noticeable. I feel that after 4k is firmly established, then we will start to see stores pushing 70-80" TVs the same way 50-60" TVs have been pushed over the last 10 years or so.
Click to expand...
There's really no need for TVs to be TVs anymore, they are just monitors.

And 4K is certainly useful on a monitor close up. My kitchen screen for example is a TV technically (media center) but also a computer where 42" viewed from the desk up close could benefit from high res.

We also have a TV wall mounted in the washroom for when you're doing laundry and what not, and I have one in my master bathroom which is also reasonably close.

Not everyone is 12 feet away from their screen.
 
elzeus said:
Title is a little misleading. 4k resolution is just a natural evolution of format quality. They are complaining about TV/Content providers 4k file format being locked down to their devices.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. The same thing happened with 3D, when the latest phase of 3D tvs started coming out. Just goes to show that 4K is still too new. Bonuses at the moment though are you can play 4K games with a good enough PC. Netflix streaming will be compressed, I wouldn't call it pure 4K, although I would think it would look a lot better than 1080p uncompressed.
 
Team Obi Juan said:
HDDVD should have won
Click to expand...

I just finally got rid of the rest of my HD-DVD movies and gave my players away. Sad, too. The Toshiba I had was a great upscaling DVD player. I realized I don't buy DVD's anymore and have upgraded to all Blu-ray.

I really preferred HD-DVD and thought it should have won. But, I've accepted it's death and have moved on to Blu-ray.

HD-DVD was a lot cheaper. Media & players were much lower cost. My Toshiba was $99 when the Blu-ray's were $500 for the cheapest (PS3).
 
4K now, 8K tomorrow. Japan and maybe South Korea are the only country's I know of that are running 4K and Japan is testing 8K right now.
 
buttons said:
Can someone actually name a reason that Blu-ray should of NOT won? I remember during the "format war" bluray offered double the capacity and HD-DVD offered no discernible advantage..
Click to expand...

Neither should have won. As I understand it BluRay won because HDDVD signed an exclusive deal with Warner Bros then in response BluRay signed deals with most of the other major studios.

HDDVD offered more compatibility with DVD as the disc manufacture was almost the same, BluRay discs have more capacity but are more prone to deterioration & damage and so need tougher materials (IIRC because the recording surface is much nearer to the laser & the protective underside is a lot thinner).
 
Put a 4K television playing back 4K content next to my KURO playing back a 1080p Blu-ray disk, and I guarantee my set will still provide the superior picture. Unless the 4K display is OLED.
 
Ducman69 said:
There's really no need for TVs to be TVs anymore, they are just monitors.

And 4K is certainly useful on a monitor close up. My kitchen screen for example is a TV technically (media center) but also a computer where 42" viewed from the desk up close could benefit from high res.

We also have a TV wall mounted in the washroom for when you're doing laundry and what not, and I have one in my master bathroom which is also reasonably close.

Not everyone is 12 feet away from their screen.
Click to expand...

I used the term TV because both the article and the comments in this thread are clearly discussing 4K in the context of televisions. I agree that the terms TV and Monitor have become more interchangeable over time. I still feel like some clear differences remain however. For example, a 120hz TV and a 120hz Monitor are two very different things... I also feel that resolution standards when it comes to TVs are a much bigger deal. PCs are made to run at all kinds of resolutions. 4K is already "supported" on PCs, as it's just another resolution on the slider.

I was also already careful to point out that I do NOT feel the benefits of 4k are exclusive to larger screens.

GotNoRice said:
I'm not saying there isn't a difference on smaller TVs
Click to expand...
 
Megalith said:
Put a 4K television playing back 4K content next to my KURO playing back a 1080p Blu-ray disk, and I guarantee my set will still provide the superior picture. Unless the 4K display is OLED.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that black level, motion clarity, color accuracy, and viewing angles actually matter? ;)
 
Ducman69 said:
There's really no need for TVs to be TVs anymore, they are just monitors.

And 4K is certainly useful on a monitor close up. My kitchen screen for example is a TV technically (media center) but also a computer where 42" viewed from the desk up close could benefit from high res.

We also have a TV wall mounted in the washroom for when you're doing laundry and what not, and I have one in my master bathroom which is also reasonably close.

Not everyone is 12 feet away from their screen.
Click to expand...

Where do you NOT have a TV/screen?
 
I can't believe this 4K discussion has so much HD-DVD talk in it. HD-DVD lost. I don't like it either but that's the fact. It's over and done with.

But this bullshit with Sony and Samsung doesn't surprise me in the least. It is why I'm not a fan of early adoption where expensive TV's are concerned.
 
buttons said:
Can someone actually name a reason that Blu-ray should of NOT won?
Click to expand...

Blu-ray pricing and the player needing network connectivity so that it can receive updates and the fact that the players need updates have been instrumental in ensuring that streaming is all the rage. HDDVD would have better market saturation than bluray at this point, guaranteed.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Seriously? It's really weird to buy an actual disc. I only know of one person that does it and he said something like, "blah, blah, blah...home theater...meaningless rambling about speakers, screens, and cables...," or something that I basically tune out because it's just a way to brag about the stuff he bought to anyone who is close enough to hear.
Click to expand...

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
dial up would be pretty much fast enough.
Click to expand...

The trolling is a bit too obvious today, you need to step up your game. ;)
 
MavericK96 said:
The trolling is a bit too obvious today, you need to step up your game. ;)
Click to expand...

Um, I'm not sure why saying dial up is pretty much good enough for me or that I tune out some dork at work when he starts talking about things I don't care about is trolling, but whatever. I know it's hard to accept that a modem is okay at getting to the internet still, but I'm not sure why you don't tune people out when you're trying to work. Seriously, it's a good thing, though wearing headphones helps a lot too and I do that pretty often because it makes me less approachable looking.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I know it's hard to accept that a modem is okay at getting to the internet still,
Click to expand...

It's not. Too many sites are designed for broadband these days. Not just streaming, but actual web sites. From images to PHP/JS/etc., a single page could be 300KB or larger. That's a long time to open a web page.

You could do simple things, and go to simple web sites, but the major ones would be off limits to dial up. At the least, you'd be best limiting yourself to the mobile versions of the site.
 
Another example when being a late adopter probably is the best move. Will rejoin the conversation in 2018.. perhaps by then the dust would have settled on all this. In the meantime, spent my time converting my Beta tapes into HD DVDs discs.
 
Ur_Mom said:
It's not. Too many sites are designed for broadband these days. Not just streaming, but actual web sites. From images to PHP/JS/etc., a single page could be 300KB or larger. That's a long time to open a web page.

You could do simple things, and go to simple web sites, but the major ones would be off limits to dial up. At the least, you'd be best limiting yourself to the mobile versions of the site.
Click to expand...

Patience helps too, but there's so little of value worth actually doing in the internet. If I really think about it, I could probably stop at like 6 websites that I actually visit that have stuff that I genuinely want to look at. Wikipedia, Amazon, Ebay, Etsy, PayPal...okay 5 sites :) but the rest are just extra junk I visit to waste time after kitty decides that my lap is warm and I get stuck with mister purrball. I could...and really should just use that time to write something or to catch up on the pile of novels I have waiting for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top