Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs Releasing In March For $42.99

[bman212121]

My 4K TV supports HDR. So they are out there now. But then again I think my TV might be a newer model. I just got it last weekend so now sure how long this exact line has been out with the current features.

If you got it a week ago it probably actually has the right inputs to support 4k. If you were an early adopter your tv might not have HDMI 2.0 for 4k60p or definitely not HDMI 2.0a for HDR support. It sounds like 2.0a was ratified last April so only the latest models are going to have it.

 

[nilepez]

If you got it a week ago it probably actually has the right inputs to support 4k. If you were an early adopter your tv might not have HDMI 2.0 for 4k60p or definitely not HDMI 2.0a for HDR support. It sounds like 2.0a was ratified last April so only the latest models are going to have it.

At the very least, Sony had 2 or 3 models last year that are supposed to Support HDR after a firmware upgrade. I believe Samsung and/or LG also had that on some sets.

Nevertheless, at this point, it seems wise to wait for the sets that were announced at CES to hit stores. I'm sure next year will be even better, but I'm way overdue for a new set, so almost certainly this year for me.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Strange. I'm pretty sure the 1 or 2x DVD RW I bought could read DL (wasn't that part of the original spec?), but I could be wrong. I know my Pioneer DVD player could and it was from early 98 as I recall.

I think DL requires the laser to focus on the 2nd layer...so maybe that was the issue. I did not have a DVD drive for my PC until several years later, so if PC drives had an issue, that's probably why I avoided it on that side.

Tried to look up the spec out of curiosity but it's proprietary and is not published. Oh well, no more thread derail.

 

[BoogerBomb]

If all movies are shot digitally now, how can they get better resolution than what was originally shot? I can see film movies getting better res.

 

[Exavior]

If all movies are shot digitally now, how can they get better resolution than what was originally shot? I can see film movies getting better res.

For years movies have been shot in 4K and then scaled down to 1080P when released for home viewing.

When theaters first started going to digital they were showing movies in 2K, then they went to 4K. So we have been watching 4K movies for years if you go to a theater.

If you look on the back of a lot of movies from the past few years assuming you have them on a physical format you will see a mastered in 4k logo on most of them. Showing they were shot in 4K and then scaled down to HD.

Even a lot of web series from the past few years have been recorded in 4K as the cost of the cameras have came down. Heck my phone can take 4K video.

So most of the movies do have a 4K version, they just need to slap it on a disc or upload it for streaming digital playback.

 

[greenman]

Whoever is getting that $42.99 from the sale of the movie is a thief. It takes under $2 to print and burn a bluray, so that means that $40 goes to pockets off of a digital copy. How is this not illegal? Just because a company trademarked the movie title and can now contract rights to it.

 

[Teenyman45]

This isn't Japan where people are conditioned to pay that kind of money for movie at home. One of the big reasons laser disks failed wasn't the size of the disks (lots of people still had record players back then) but the price of the player and the disks.

A couple months after release, Blu-rays are often on sale for $10-12 or less; sometimes much less. Blu-Ray 3D never seems to drop much below $20 unless the movie is both older and really terrible or older and a kid's movie that nearly ever parent already seems to have a copy of. A quick search on Amazon for Blu-Ray 3D showed 672 results, narrowed to 626 after removing used titles. Of those 626, 559 are in the $20 or more category (with some misplaced search results such as the Green Hornet for $13.49... but then who wants to watch that?!).

At least with 3D an argument could be made that there needs to be an additional outlay for the 3D post-processing. However, and as has already been pointed out by others, The digital movies are already being filmed in 4K or converted from actual film to 4K for theatrical release. There is no additional effort and the only additional cost is the nominal cost increase of the disks which should be offset by the reduced licensing fee for the codec so paying an extra $13 on new release and likely for the sale's life of the product is a rip-off.

 

[nilepez]

Whoever is getting that $42.99 from the sale of the movie is a thief. It takes under $2 to print and burn a bluray, so that means that $40 goes to pockets off of a digital copy. How is this not illegal? Just because a company trademarked the movie title and can now contract rights to it.

Nobody pays retail and only early adopters are going to buy UHD 4K BD players and movies in the next 6-9 months. Those people are not price sensitive. The other thing is that those that are, aren't buying movies. Look through this thread, and you'll see at least one person say that $5.00 is too much. This isn't DVD and as I recall, it didn't take off until 2001, despite tons of etailers blowing DVDs out for 15 bucks or less

 

[M76]

Whoever is getting that $42.99 from the sale of the movie is a thief. It takes under $2 to print and burn a bluray, so that means that $40 goes to pockets off of a digital copy. How is this not illegal? Just because a company trademarked the movie title and can now contract rights to it.

Yes, if you completely disregard distribution, storage, mastering, the rent of the store space, the salary of the attendant, and the profit margin of the shop. All those things that make up the cost of a product you buy retail.

 

[westrock2000]

Yes, if you completely disregard distribution, storage, mastering, the rent of the store space, the salary of the attendant, and the profit margin of the shop. All those things that make up the cost of a product you buy retail.

Not to mention.......the cost of the movie.......

You think once a movie "breaks even" they should just give it away??

 

[westrock2000]

At least with 3D an argument could be made that there needs to be an additional outlay for the 3D post-processing. However, and as has already been pointed out by others, The digital movies are already being filmed in 4K or converted from actual film to 4K for theatrical release. There is no additional effort and the only additional cost is the nominal cost increase of the disks which should be offset by the reduced licensing fee for the codec so paying an extra $13 on new release and likely for the sale's life of the product is a rip-off.

Movies (and music & books) are conveyed as being "art", which is supposed to be some all altruistic contribution to society. But the really really deep dark secret is that a movie serves the absolute same purpose that every other manufactured product serves. To make money.

An artist/actor will tell you that they do what they do in order to serve the humanities, but the reality is that they do it for the exact same reason that Joe Public goes and works on the assembly line everyday. They want their money just same as Joe hopes he will make it big someday.


Don't ever think they are ripping you off. It is a product, and they are hoping you are interested enough to give them your money.

 

[M76]

Not to mention.......the cost of the movie.......

You think once a movie "breaks even" they should just give it away??

Well ideally the movie should've broke even in the theaters long ago. They only release it on video to make something extra. Except for direct to video movies, but the budgets are quite different there.

 

[nilepez]

Well ideally the movie should've broke even in the theaters long ago. They only release it on video to make something extra. Except for direct to video movies, but the budgets are quite different there.

Theaters, Rentals, PPV, Pay TV, Netflix and Disk purchses all factor into the economics of making a movie.

In addition, studios know that they're going to lose money a fair number of films (though not which ones or in what years).

We had this same debate 10 years ago over Blu Ray and the outrageous prices and now they're generally inexpensive.

 

[Exavior]

Theaters, Rentals, PPV, Pay TV, Netflix and Disk purchses all factor into the economics of making a movie.

In addition, studios know that they're going to lose money a fair number of films (though not which ones or in what years).

We had this same debate 10 years ago over Blu Ray and the outrageous prices and now they're generally inexpensive.

Yup, but people don't care about that. Everything should be free. I would bet $10 that over half the people bitching here about movies costing even $30 don't buy moves and don't plan on purchasing everything needed to even watch 4K. They are just bitching to bitch about movies not being free.

When DVD came out they were much more than VHS. The price came down, Blu-rays were originally much more like you said, now that has come down. Same with these movies, they will start high but then come down.

 

[nilepez]

Yup, but people don't care about that. Everything should be free. I would bet $10 that over half the people bitching here about movies costing even $30 don't buy moves and don't plan on purchasing everything needed to even watch 4K. They are just bitching to bitch about movies not being free.

When DVD came out they were much more than VHS. The price came down, Blu-rays were originally much more like you said, now that has come down. Same with these movies, they will start high but then come down.

I bought my DVD player in 1/98 and DVDs were much cheaper than VHS (even without the insane online discounts).

DVD was priced to sell. VHS was priced to rent. A movie that retailed for 30 or 40 bucks on DVD was 90ish on VHS. What's more, those DVDs were almost always available from someone for well under 20 bucks. Trust me, I bought tons of movies back then and they were very cheap if you went to sites that covered discounts. I think one was reel.com. I also went to dvdpricesearch.com (still exists).

 

[Exavior]

I bought my DVD player in 1/98 and DVDs were much cheaper than VHS (even without the insane online discounts).

DVD was priced to sell. VHS was priced to rent. A movie that retailed for 30 or 40 bucks on DVD was 90ish on VHS. What's more, those DVDs were almost always available from someone for well under 20 bucks. Trust me, I bought tons of movies back then and they were very cheap if you went to sites that covered discounts. I think one was reel.com. I also went to dvdpricesearch.com (still exists).

$90 for a movie on VHS? Where the hell did you shop at? That was the time I was graduating hgh school and getting ready to start college. I owed about 75 VHS movies at that point. I never paid $100 for a movie. Or do you mean when they came out? Rental stores always pay higher prices so yeah at first they were very high priced then came down to more realist prices. VHS might have been $100 during the 80s, but come 2000 they were nowhere near that anymore. I don't ever recall spending more than $20ish on a VHS. Disney was the exception to that and I think would run you about $30 for a VHS movie. Because you know, fuck Disney and their inflated ego about their movies.

And sure you could have found them cheaper online if you were online then, but I meant in the store. I recall buying a VHS movie for say $20 and the DVD copy was around $30. Unless you got them on sell. Which they did got on sale a lot. That was when you would find them for like $10 - $15 and instead of the normal DVD plastic cases they were in more like cardboard cases with the plastic backing. I can still look through my collection and know what I got out of a bargain bin while in college lol.

 

[Teenyman45]

I bought my DVD player in 1/98 and DVDs were much cheaper than VHS (even without the insane online discounts).

DVD was priced to sell. VHS was priced to rent. A movie that retailed for 30 or 40 bucks on DVD was 90ish on VHS. What's more, those DVDs were almost always available from someone for well under 20 bucks. Trust me, I bought tons of movies back then and they were very cheap if you went to sites that covered discounts. I think one was reel.com. I also went to dvdpricesearch.com (still exists).

Stateside the only $90+ individual VHS tapes were the ones sold to rental companies with the granted license of being able to rent them to the public. Now new release VHS was often $19.99 to $29.99 which was worth a lot more back then... but all tech was more expensive then and the ability to price shop was more limited and tapes were much more expensive to manufacture and copy than burning disks.

 

[Teenyman45]

Movies (and music & books) are conveyed as being "art", which is supposed to be some all altruistic contribution to society. But the really really deep dark secret is that a movie serves the absolute same purpose that every other manufactured product serves. To make money.

An artist/actor will tell you that they do what they do in order to serve the humanities, but the reality is that they do it for the exact same reason that Joe Public goes and works on the assembly line everyday. They want their money just same as Joe hopes he will make it big someday.


Don't ever think they are ripping you off. It is a product, and they are hoping you are interested enough to give them your money.

There is a reason why an artist would sell a lithograph for less the the original painting it's based on.

This is the same commoditized product sold at two different price points for no good reason.

 

[nilepez]

$90 for a movie on VHS? Where the hell did you shop at? That was the time I was graduating hgh school and getting ready to start college. I owed about 75 VHS movies at that point. I never paid $100 for a movie. Or do you mean when they came out? Rental stores always pay higher prices so yeah at first they were very high priced then came down to more realist prices. VHS might have been $100 during the 80s, but come 2000 they were nowhere near that anymore. I don't ever recall spending more than $20ish on a VHS. Disney was the exception to that and I think would run you about $30 for a VHS movie. Because you know, fuck Disney and their inflated ego about their movies.

If you're looking at 2000, that might be true. DVDs were out in 97/98 and they were signficantly less than new releases of the same title on VHS. VHS was not priced to sell to consumers. IT was priced to sell to Blockbuster and other rental stores.

 

[nilepez]

Stateside the only $90+ individual VHS tapes were the ones sold to rental companies with the granted license of being able to rent them to the public. Now new release VHS was often $19.99 to $29.99 which was worth a lot more back then... but all tech was more expensive then and the ability to price shop was more limited and tapes were much more expensive to manufacture and copy than burning disks.

Not true. You did not have to buy a special version to rent. you could get them cheaper if you did profit sharing with the studio, but it's not like Blockbuster paid more for a DVD to rent to you. They paid the same wholesale price that stores paid (before marking them up).

If you as a consumer wanted to buy a movie on VHS if Blockbuster paid 80 bucks, that was your price, unless you waited till the rereleased it for much less (priced to sell).

 

[Bootleg Usher]

Blu-Ray's biggest mistake was charging as much as they did for discs. They should have made them more affordable so that people heavily invested in the format, and your average person owns a large library of discs.

That didn't happen, now everyone is moving to streaming in droves. You can't rent discs anymore (at least where I am). If they think they are going to charge $42 per disc people are just going to forget this format and wait for 4K streaming to flesh out, even if the quality isn't as good.

 

[M76]

Theaters, Rentals, PPV, Pay TV, Netflix and Disk purchses all factor into the economics of making a movie.

In addition, studios know that they're going to lose money a fair number of films (though not which ones or in what years).

We had this same debate 10 years ago over Blu Ray and the outrageous prices and now they're generally inexpensive.

You're already have a contradictory statement in your post. If BR discs can be sold for less now, and still be profitable, then it could've been sold for less when it was released. It wasn't sold for 40 when new because otherwise the poor movie producers couldn't break even. It was sold for 40 because they want to rip off early adopters for as much as they can.

 

[M76]

Yup, but people don't care about that. Everything should be free. I would bet $10 that over half the people bitching here about movies costing even $30 don't buy moves and don't plan on purchasing everything needed to even watch 4K. They are just bitching to bitch about movies not being free.

When DVD came out they were much more than VHS. The price came down, Blu-rays were originally much more like you said, now that has come down. Same with these movies, they will start high but then come down.

Don't you see the connection there? Why would they invest into equipment they don't intend to buy movies for? The two kind of go together. If movies are below the sweet sport in price, they'll start buying the equipment. It's not like you have to own a BD player first to earn the right to complain on movie prices.

 

[nilepez]

You're already have a contradictory statement in your post. If BR discs can be sold for less now, and still be profitable, then it could've been sold for less when it was released. It wasn't sold for 40 when new because otherwise the poor movie producers couldn't break even. It was sold for 40 because they want to rip off early adopters for as much as they can.

1. They never sold for 40 and UHD BD isn't going to be sold for MSRP either.
2. New tech always costs more (*)
3. Early adopters are not price sensitive.

(*) I assume that's because of low volume and start up costs and possibly lower yields. As we all know, new tech always costs more in the early days.

 

[nilepez]

Don't you see the connection there? Why would they invest into equipment they don't intend to buy movies for? The two kind of go together. If movies are below the sweet sport in price, they'll start buying the equipment. It's not like you have to own a BD player first to earn the right to complain on movie prices.

Probably true (since most people now have Blu Ray players), but sadly they're not really buying them. Essentially, Netflix and Prime video have become good enough for most people. And they're not bad. Hell, when I visit my parents, I occasionally watch netflix, and I believe the quality is better than HD Cable, so from that perspective it is.

However, it's not as good as Blu Ray (nor, presumably, UHD Blu Ray).

 

[Darunion]

Probably true (since most people now have Blu Ray players), but sadly they're not really buying them. Essentially, Netflix and Prime video have become good enough for most people. And they're not bad. Hell, when I visit my parents, I occasionally watch netflix, and I believe the quality is better than HD Cable, so from that perspective it is.

However, it's not as good as Blu Ray (nor, presumably, UHD Blu Ray).

I feel like soon we are going to see the same thing that happened to audio. It became good enough for most consumers so advancing it further just ended up as wasted R&D and marketing expenses. Don't get me wrong, 4k is beautiful and I would love to have it, but am fine with just compressed hd netflix streaming for the most part.

 

[Domingo]

I feel like soon we are going to see the same thing that happened to audio. It became good enough for most consumers so advancing it further just ended up as wasted R&D and marketing expenses. Don't get me wrong, 4k is beautiful and I would love to have it, but am fine with just compressed hd netflix streaming for the most part.

I tend to agree. I think we're hitting the "good enough" stage for most people. Especially when you factor in letterboxing, less-than-perfect editions, and movies that simply don't gain much from additional fidelity.
There will likely always be an enthusiast market that needs the best version possible, but 1080p (and especially 4K) Netflix will likely be good enough for the vast majority of viewers. For most movies, I'd probably count myself among that group.
Personally, I'm more apt to notice the poorly mixed audio from most streams. No clue if DD+ is to blame or if it's the engineers, but that's where I notice the biggest difference between a movie on Netflix vs. one on cable or a disk.

 

[nilepez]

I feel like soon we are going to see the same thing that happened to audio. It became good enough for most consumers so advancing it further just ended up as wasted R&D and marketing expenses. Don't get me wrong, 4k is beautiful and I would love to have it, but am fine with just compressed hd netflix streaming for the most part.

I think there are 2 things that will help or hurt disks.
1. Does 4k on Netflix cause people to go over their monthly cap?
2. Is HDR the game changer that they claim?
3. Will compression artifacts be visible at the most common viewing distances?

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Blu-Ray's biggest mistake was charging as much as they did for discs. They should have made them more affordable so that people heavily invested in the format, and your average person owns a large library of discs.

That didn't happen, now everyone is moving to streaming in droves. You can't rent discs anymore (at least where I am). If they think they are going to charge $42 per disc people are just going to forget this format and wait for 4K streaming to flesh out, even if the quality isn't as good.

The crazy thing is that with bluray, we FINALLY have a consumer-friendly media format that offers both high-quality content and is generally affordable.

With big screens and decent sound setups, one could conceivably never need to go to a theater again.

I agree though. If they had priced movies $20 and not $30 or $40 out the gate, blu ray would have had quicker adoption.

 

[revenant]

I'm glad more 4k content is trickling in but I good quality blu-rays already look dynamite on my 40" 4k. I was playing Pacific Rim through my PS4 to the ju6700 and it was so crisp the figures almost look 3d popping out from the background - and I am sitting like 4 feet from the screen. So I think I'm good for a while - but I am sure I will want to checkout HDR playback at my local Best Buy or Frys just for grins.

And good point above about the releases they are choosing for this. At least put up some high quality titles. Garbage in 4k HDR is likely going to be watched for 30 mins while "ooooh and ahh"ing over for a bit then shelved.

 

[Exavior]

Don't you see the connection there? Why would they invest into equipment they don't intend to buy movies for? The two kind of go together. If movies are below the sweet sport in price, they'll start buying the equipment. It's not like you have to own a BD player first to earn the right to complain on movie prices.

Do you understand that there is difference between I don't like the price of $30 (Fuck this $42 bullshit as that is not what any movie will ever be in stores) and I am going to wait for them to drop down to $25 before I jump on the tech and fuck this price I won't pay $5 for a movie let alone $30 as I don't buy movies anymore?

My statement was leaning toward the later. Of the people sitting here bitching even if the movies were $15 would still be complaining about the cost and wouldn't buy them. This is due to more people in general streaming movies in general and just being ok with that, mixed in with the fact that people where have pretty much said that they don't buy movies.

If you don't buy movies then your opinion of what is a fair price really has little meaning as you are not the customer base for this. Especially since it is new. New things cause more at first until the parts get to be cheaper, which that happens once more of the people willing to be earlier adaptors buy it.

I am not a sports fan, I would NEVER under any circumstance ever attend a game for any reason, even if I was given free tickets and offered to be driven there and back. So how much meaning would it have if I was to go to sporting sites and start ranting about how $44 for tickets for the Bulls game next week is fucking crazy, why the hell would they think somebody is going to pay that much to watch a bunch of fucking worthless people out on the court playing some stupid ass game that nobody cares about? Ticket for a sporting event should cost more than $2.50 as even that is a ripoff for what you get for the money. Does my argument seem valid to you? Or does it sound like an idiot vomiting from the mouth over something they care nothing about and is bitching just for the sake of bitching?

 

[Exavior]

I think there are 2 things that will help or hurt disks.
1. Does 4k on Netflix cause people to go over their monthly cap?
2. Is HDR the game changer that they claim?
3. Will compression artifacts be visible at the most common viewing distances?

Depends on your data cap. I honestly don't know how anybody can function with one of those to start with. I have used 68GB of data in the past week. That is watching 3 4K movies, along with my normal downloading of games and web surfing. I don't notice any artifacts on my 55 inch screen from about 15 feet away. I consider that to be pretty common viewing distance. The picture was perfect in my opinion, but then again I have never had any issues with 1080p having artifacts or quality issues either.

Can't comment on HDR as Netflix doesn't support it yet and Vudu only supports it on a single Vizio tv. If I knew somewhere to get HDR content I would let you know if I notice any difference. I can say that stuff shot in 4K HDR playing from youtube looks very nice. All colors look good. But I don't think that would actually play using HDR. I can say that 1080p on my laptop vs the 4K on my tv looked different with the TV having much better color that could just as well be just the normal difference between 1080p and 4K or a difference in how color is configured on my two devices.

 

[M76]

Do you understand that there is difference between I don't like the price of $30 (Fuck this $42 bullshit as that is not what any movie will ever be in stores) and I am going to wait for them to drop down to $25 before I jump on the tech and fuck this price I won't pay $5 for a movie let alone $30 as I don't buy movies anymore?

My statement was leaning toward the later. Of the people sitting here bitching even if the movies were $15 would still be complaining about the cost and wouldn't buy them. This is due to more people in general streaming movies in general and just being ok with that, mixed in with the fact that people where have pretty much said that they don't buy movies.

If you don't buy movies then your opinion of what is a fair price really has little meaning as you are not the customer base for this. Especially since it is new. New things cause more at first until the parts get to be cheaper, which that happens once more of the people willing to be earlier adaptors buy it.

I am not a sports fan, I would NEVER under any circumstance ever attend a game for any reason, even if I was given free tickets and offered to be driven there and back. So how much meaning would it have if I was to go to sporting sites and start ranting about how $44 for tickets for the Bulls game next week is fucking crazy, why the hell would they think somebody is going to pay that much to watch a bunch of fucking worthless people out on the court playing some stupid ass game that nobody cares about? Ticket for a sporting event should cost more than $2.50 as even that is a ripoff for what you get for the money. Does my argument seem valid to you? Or does it sound like an idiot vomiting from the mouth over something they care nothing about and is bitching just for the sake of bitching?

Except someone not interested in sports would never go on a forum to bitch about ticket prices.

Anyway I don't really see all those people you're talking about. It seems to me you created an imaginary phenomenon and now complain about that.

And BD movies did cost even more than 40. At least where I live. Compensated for inflation it was closer to 50. Now the average price has dropped to around 25, but there are still some limited editions that are sold for 40.

 

[FrEaKy]

And just like when BD's first came out, I didn't get them until after a bit, same with UHD BD's, after a little time, prices will normalize and than I will get involved.

 

[nilepez]

The crazy thing is that with bluray, we FINALLY have a consumer-friendly media format that offers both high-quality content and is generally affordable.

With big screens and decent sound setups, one could conceivably never need to go to a theater again.

I agree though. If they had priced movies $20 and not $30 or $40 out the gate, blu ray would have had quicker adoption.

Why? Were people who didn't want to spend 30 for a disk willing to spend 500+ for a player or 700 for a Playstation 3? The reality is that most households have a blu ray player and yet they're not buying disks. This is VHS vs Beta, MP3 vs CD all over again. They're choosing convenience and price over quality.

And it's odd that Redbox is struggling, because it's convenient and cheap (1.50 for a rental is at least 50% less (not adjusted for inflation)than what I use to rent VHS for from Blockbuster.

So people just aren't using disks. I didn't expect this (and you can search [H] and see that I thought people would go to BD), but Netflix quality is now pretty good, so I'm not sure any disk will be more than a niche product. Maybe if ISP Caps are low enough to force us to buy/rent disks.

 

[nilepez]

Depends on your data cap. I honestly don't know how anybody can function with one of those to start with. I have used 68GB of data in the past week. That is watching 3 4K movies, along with my normal downloading of games and web surfing. I don't notice any artifacts on my 55 inch screen from about 15 feet away. I consider that to be pretty common viewing distance. The picture was perfect in my opinion, but then again I have never had any issues with 1080p having artifacts or quality issues either.

I consider 15 feet too far for even an 85" screen. It's not that it's bad, but I consider 6-7' ideal for that size screen. I'd probably say 5' for 55" screen (though I could go further...but not my ideal).

That said, I suspect 10-12' is normal for a 55" screen.

Can't remember if you said you have an HDR capable TV, but if not, then HDR is irrelevant to you. Netflix has said they're going to support HDR. I thought they were supposed to start last fall, but maybe not.

 

[Domingo]

Which (and how many) ISP's have data caps? I know that whenever they come up, people act like Comcast universally has one...but it's actually only in a few areas.
Are data caps simply something people are worried will catch on/spread or are they actually common?

 

[Dekoth-E-]

I'm glad more 4k content is trickling in but I good quality blu-rays already look dynamite on my 40" 4k. I was playing Pacific Rim through my PS4 to the ju6700 and it was so crisp the figures almost look 3d popping out from the background - and I am sitting like 4 feet from the screen. So I think I'm good for a while - but I am sure I will want to checkout HDR playback at my local Best Buy or Frys just for grins.

And good point above about the releases they are choosing for this. At least put up some high quality titles. Garbage in 4k HDR is likely going to be watched for 30 mins while "ooooh and ahh"ing over for a bit then shelved.

That's because 4k doesn't matter in the slightest on screens under 60". So a Good quality Blu-ray is a good quality blu-ray on a 40" screen.