bigboss
Moderator
buzz_lightclick said:bigboss said:Leeps said:Aside from the 'investment' (read 'expense') of a UHD Bluray player at £400-£600 and the 4k TV (with all the HDR, HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 banners stuck on it), at current prices at least, do you really think the extra experience is worth another tenner per disc?
There are no sonic benefits to UHD Bluray (Atmos and DTS-X are possible on 1080p Blurays), and over the course of a year say, you could buy an awful lot more HD Blurays for the same cost. Maybe the pricing at present is out there to take advantage of the 'must have the latest kit now' brigade (no offence Gel, but you'd probably admit you're one of them) and the cost may come down to something more reasonable in time. But £25 a shot? Ouch! Actually for the same price you could buy the HD Bluray AND go to the cinema and save the extra cost of the hardware (although you would have to sit in the cinema on your own for the tenner saved, maybe that's not so appealing after all).
The one thing I did find interesting about the new format however is the Region-Free encoding. Maybe the powers that be eventually realised the only way it might catch on in the light of streaming's increasing popularity is to stop the regional silliness. Although the caveat to that is that if your UHD disc comes with a standard HD disc, then the HD disc bundled with it will NOT be region-free.
The biggest advantage of UHD isn't the resolution, it's HDR capability. So I can see how people will find the difference significant when compared to blu ray.
yes but surely you will need a tv that is compliant to the new HDR standard to realise that advantage?
Of course.