With CES coming in a few days, there will be a tsunami of news and PR about 4K HDR Blu Ray being the “next big thing”. But, unless you are a serious cinephile (and have serious money to burn), you can probably ignore the vast majority of 4K HDR news out of the 2017 CES.
4K HDR Blu Ray – Is it worth it?
HDR is awesome… but as you note, the tech is still pricey. TVs with good HDR are well over $1000 and more commonly $1500+ and that’s for fairly small ones.
4-5 years from now? You’ll want an HDR set in the sense that you want a 4k set now (i.e. “why would I buy 1080p now vs 4K, they’re close to the same price”).
I found that none of the images shown were very good at all. These guys apparently like to watch movies with the contrast turned up too high and the colour saturation turned down low. ALL the movie samples they showed were dark, muddy and fuzzy.
My takeaway from this is that the improvements are so slight as to be absorbed by the “margin of error,” (personal tunings, preferences and differences between movie productions). Given those facts, there is zero argument here for an actual, objectively measured difference.
ask me in two years — because I’m still very happy w/ my Panasonic 1080p plasma and have no near-term intention to replace it.
I can always smell the desperation to gin up replacement sales every time I see this conversation happen.
But I’m an anomaly. While I’d love to own the latest and greatest, my old gear is still functioning, and my vision and hearing certainly aren’t getting any better.
If this year somehow proves less damaging to our bottom line than I’m expecting, I might make a case for our first 720p tv and first Blu-Ray player.
Let the ridicule begin.
I wonder if you just troll post for giggles sometimes… The advantages of HDR are easily measurable but some things aren’t quite there. For example, part of their point was that the source material is, by and large, not yet up to it. The most convincing differences are the Life of Pi shots where the HDR images are clearly superior.
For a decent look at the current state of the art, see http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/hdr-vs-sdr which lays out that only the really high end sets are capable of really showing the full benefits of the HDR spec right now.
All of this is kind of what the point of the video was – yes, HDR can show real benefits to viewing but there’s not a lot of source material for it and the TVs etc themselves aren’t there yet unless you’re buying at the top of the range.
Again, 3-5 years from now the midrange, $1000 TVs will be able to replicate most of the spec and we’ll have a lot more good source material.
No ridicule. From everything I’m reading we’re 3-5 years from this being truly affordable. Even then, it’s going to appeal to a minority of people who a) collect movies, b) care enough to put real money and effort into their TV setup.
Me, I still have an 8 year old, Best Buy special LCD and it’s fine. I’ll eventually do a 4K set and likely one that has HDR if the price difference is minimal but the fact is I stream things and so I’m not really the audience for this.
I bought my TV from a friend who won it in a raffle. Price was the biggest feature.
and yet the concern trolls blast Apple for not having released a 4K streamer a year ago when the ATV 4th gen came out. They just dont get that techie early adopters are the outliers, not the normals.
HDR is starting to sound like 3D back just a few years ago! We all know that 3D went over like ton of bricks and this is telling about the chances of HDR prices for crappy movies!
Just give me some good story lines and not just hacks of past works!
Early adopters also serve a vital role in product testing, bless their hearts.
Concern trolls appear to breed rapidly and can destroy entire ecosystems if left unchecked.
The keyword above is “CES.”
Update: I love that the reviewer reminds video enthusiasts that most people don’t calibrate their televisions or use high-end sound systems. Sounds a bit familiar, for some reason. 🙂
Don’t confuse 4k and 4k HDR. 4K isn’t an early adopter tech at all – even The Wirecutter’s best $500 TV is 4K not because they feel 4K is all that at that price range but because it’s silly to not buy 4K now given the small price difference.
It is silly for the ATV not to have 4k. The price for 4K sets is low and there’s a fair amount of 4K streaming material which is increasing as time passes. Cost? Roku has a $50 stick that does 4K. I can’t believe Apple couldn’t have added it to a box that starts at $150.
The biggest issues, though, are these:
1) Don’t talk to me, Tim Cook, about the Apple TV being the future of TV when you can’t even put out the best current signal.
2) If I decide to get a 4K TV I have NO option to stream from an Apple device in 4K. None. I need to either upsample the 2K signal or I need to buy a different streamer for 4K. If I’m doing that… why do I need an ATV again?
The vast majority of American’s don’t have the bandwidth to stream 4K. I have had issues getting anything above 320p on YouTube at peak times and I have the fastest plans available to me.
Apple tends to value overall experience over top-line specs. They are unlikely to put out a 4K box that in most cases won’t be able to seamlessly stream 4K video. 4K movies tend to come in around 100GB, which means a ton more storage if you allow downloads or want to buffer substantial portions. It’s one of those things that’s easy to do poorly, but hard to do well.
I agree with you. We just got a 4k TV that has a marginally better picture then a 1080p we got a year ago. HDR, sure, but I think my money is better spent on a new pair of glasses 🙂
If you can’t get 320p that’s your issue. It does not mean that the vast majority of Americans have bad internet – please stop with the ‘because I see X, everyone sees X” illogic.
The fact that some people have crappy internet shouldn’t limit the tens of millions of us that DO have the bandwidth and the point is that I don’t have the option at all on the ATV. The hardware isn’t there at all in the box. Yet various models from Roku, Amazon and Google’s Chromecast ALL do 4k streaming and do it now despite your points… so why is it OK that Apple doesn’t? They all have to deal with the same issues you claim prevent Apple from getting it done.
I’M very happy with my Panasonic plasma too! I tell people that when they’re looking at TVs at the store, just turn your head and look at the people next to you. Does it match? The answer is always no, unless you’re watching a plasma that seems to get everything right. C’mon OLEDs, I’m hoping they get that technology up to par and manufacturable. My plasma is going to conk out some day.
Study after study has shown the majority of Americans have incredible poor internet service. If you don’t want to believe that, I guess that is your choice.
The idea that it is or isn’t OK that Apple does something is the crux of the problem. It’s not an issue of anything being OK, it’s an issue of realities and options. Apple has a lot of smart people who have for whatever reasons not to put 4K support into the current AppleTV. I laid out what some of those reasons likely are, but I’m sure there are many others that involve future product road maps. If you want 4K, now there are options. It is not a moral issue that Apple isn’t catering to your every whim.
Right, you have no facts to back up your assertion that the VAST majority of Americans have poor internet because it’s not true. IN fact, the average speed is about 14m (http://www.multichannel.com/news/distribution/us-broadband-speeds-rise-akamai/403507). That link?That’s called evidence. You should try some sometime.
Further, you ignore that every other streaming option DOES support 4k and ignore that many of us have perfectly good internet (note that it only takes abut 13m down to stream 4k). We don’t need to have every inch of the country covered with gigabit wifi in order for 4k streaming to be viable…. something that Roku, Amazon, Google and the majority of TV manufacturers seem to have realized even if Apple has not.
Moral issue? I never said it was a moral issue. It’s a competitive one and right now the Apple TV is not competitive unless you insist on something only it can do e.g. Apple Music or iTunes. Apple is behind here for no good reason and there’s simply no reason to buy an ATV at this point if you don’t need the Apple specific features.