Samsung Ultra HD Blu-ray Player pre-order

[Barney]

We can now pre-order the Samsung Ultra HD Blu-ray player UBD-K8500/ZA :

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/home-audio/UBD-K8500/ZA

and at Best Buy:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-ubd ... Id=4853800


Has anyone seen any 4K blu-rays in the store yet ? This player is to be out around Feb or March. Here's one for preorder at Best Buy, note the price, $24.99:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/the-martian ... C.lupgIZ7g

Note: it has two HDMI outputs but HDMI #2 output is audio only. This will work with UHD or SUHD monitors (using HDMI #1 output) for video & then use HDMI #2 to an older avr( that won"t pass through UHD 4K video) for the audio. It will work for me since my 1 year old Marantz SR5009 isn"t HDCP 2.2 on its HDMI 2.0 board. I'm going to wait on this though and maybe others will have theirs out and see the 4K blurays on the store shelves .

 

[MatthewB]

Vudu already has about 100 titles in their UHD 4K streaming service. Most are 30.00 just for the digital stream. You need at least 18Mbps to stream the signal.

 

[Deleted member 133]

Vudu already has about 100 titles in their UHD 4K streaming service. Most are 30.00 just for the digital stream. You need at least 18Mbps to stream the signal.

Question: are all of these "native" (ie. derived from equivalent or higher resolution sources) or are some of them simply upconverted from lower resolutions?

I can't remember the title, but I know there was at least one big-name director movie that was shot entirely in 1080p back when that was a big deal. For a number of years 1080p and 2k were the highest resolutions possible with digital movie cameras. I can't imagine paying $30 to watch what an upconverting Blu-ray player or 4k TV would have done with a Blu-ray version of the movie anyhow.

I imagine there will be many cases where the studio (or streaming service etc.) won't go back to the original source material (like the original film negative) but will simply upconvert the best copy that they already have in hand.

I remember there was a minor kerfuffle several years ago over a Nora Jones SACD release of Come Away With Me, where the sound was simply upconverted from standard CD, rather than having been recorded at a higher quality to start with.

Jeff

 

[Flint]

Vudu already has about 100 titles in their UHD 4K streaming service. Most are 30.00 just for the digital stream. You need at least 18Mbps to stream the signal.

Question: are all of these "native" (ie. derived from equivalent or higher resolution sources) or are some of them simply upconverted from lower resolutions?

I can't remember the title, but I know there was at least one big-name director movie that was shot entirely in 1080p back when that was a big deal. For a number of years 1080p and 2k were the highest resolutions possible with digital movie cameras. I can't imagine paying $30 to watch what an upconverting Blu-ray player or 4k TV would have done with a Blu-ray version of the movie anyhow.

I imagine there will be many cases where the studio (or streaming service etc.) won't go back to the original source material (like the original film negative) but will simply upconvert the best copy that they already have in hand.

I remember there was a minor kerfuffle several years ago over a Nora Jones SACD release of Come Away With Me, where the sound was simply upconverted from standard CD, rather than having been recorded at a higher quality to start with.

Jeff

I think you are looking at it wrong, Jeff. If a movie was a hit and filmed on 1080p, then the reproduction of that movie on modern gear should reproduce the original experience. There were great classic movies shot on 16mm which are amazing, and grainy, and 1080p is overkill. I would want to watch it with all the grain and limited resolution as the original was seen.

This is like the folk who were upset that a movie that came out around the time of 1080p TVs and BluRay looked blurry, but it was a highly processed video feed in the first place, intended to be blurry. Was the studio supposed to take the director's vision and change it?

I just want to know that I am watching whatever video content I am watching so that what the director intended or achieved is what I see.

 

[Haywood]

I have a feeling that I will soon find out how bad old SD content can look on a 4k HDR set with 10-bit color and I suspect the answer is, "Not great."

 

[Flint]

In my experience, SD content on SUHD or UHD TVs looks as good or better than it looked on 720p or 1080p sets. In part is it because aliasing is inherently reduced and the new video processors in the new TVs are much better than the ones in old TVs.

Now, comparing UHD content to SD may be shocking, but that doesn't make the SD worse on the UHD set than before.

 

[Haywood]

Did you get a chance to see that 4000 nit Sony prototype? Every review that has seen it was blown away. I'd be curious to get a more reliable perspective. If I were going to wait for the next big thing, this sounds like it might be it, though I think it will be three to five years before it is actually on the market at anything approaching an affordable price point.

 

[Flint]

Yes, I did see all of Sony's special prototypes, and they were by far the best TVs at the show. But the most impressive thing they demoes wasn't a screen, it was a processor they are incorporating into their TVs. They showed side by side demos of their processor feeding their own and other brands of TVs. Their differentiator won't be the specs on the screen (which will be impressive), it will be the quality of the image because of their processor.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I have a feeling that 4k Blu-Ray won't reach the popularity the manufacturers hope for because physical media is essentially going away. Kind of a shame, but that's what happens with technology. :handgestures-thumbdown:

 

[Haywood]

Yes, I did see all of Sony's special prototypes, and they were by far the best TVs at the show. But the most impressive thing they demoes wasn't a screen, it was a processor they are incorporating into their TVs. They showed side by side demos of their processor feeding their own and other brands of TVs. Their differentiator won't be the specs on the screen (which will be impressive), it will be the quality of the image because of their processor.

That is what I was getting at about Sony vs Samsung and LG in one of the other threads and is the reason I'm going with a Sony set this time around. The difference in picture quality was really obvious to me, even in the showroom looking at 2015 sets.

The differences between the upper end 2015 and 2016 Sony sets is pretty marginal. The specifications are very, very similar. The new set has a very small increment of improvement in both black level and overall brightness, but the image processor and most of the other tech has not changed. The determining factor in whether I go with a 2015 set or a 2016 set will be the announced pricing of the 2016 models vs what I can get a 2015 set for in the sales preceding Super Bowl Sunday.

 

[Barney]

Sony is using Sharp panels (I think they bought Sharp or part of it. Sony put up the money for the new Sharp panel plant). Sony used to use Samsung panels. Love my old Sony Brava LCD. Haven't seen the 2015 Sony's though.

 

[Flint]

Sony is using Sharp panels (I think they bought Sharp or part of it. Sony put up the money for the new Sharp panel plant). Sony used to use Samsung panels. Love my old Sony Brava LCD. Haven't seen the 2015 Sony's though.

That isn't exactly how it works. Sony is using panels manufactured at a factory which Sharp technically owns and operates. They don't necessarily have any shared technology with Sharp's branded TVs. Sony works with Sharp to manufacture the panels Sony develops and designs, and sometimes Sony will borrow from Sharp's ideas if it makes sense to them. The same was true when Samsung was the OEM (manufacturer) of their TVs.

In other words, you simply cannot walk up to a Sony TV and say it uses the same panel as a Sharp TV. They are different panels.

 

[Deleted member 133]

Vudu already has about 100 titles in their UHD 4K streaming service. Most are 30.00 just for the digital stream. You need at least 18Mbps to stream the signal.

Question: are all of these "native" (ie. derived from equivalent or higher resolution sources) or are some of them simply upconverted from lower resolutions?

I can't remember the title, but I know there was at least one big-name director movie that was shot entirely in 1080p back when that was a big deal. For a number of years 1080p and 2k were the highest resolutions possible with digital movie cameras. I can't imagine paying $30 to watch what an upconverting Blu-ray player or 4k TV would have done with a Blu-ray version of the movie anyhow.

I imagine there will be many cases where the studio (or streaming service etc.) won't go back to the original source material (like the original film negative) but will simply upconvert the best copy that they already have in hand.

I remember there was a minor kerfuffle several years ago over a Nora Jones SACD release of Come Away With Me, where the sound was simply upconverted from standard CD, rather than having been recorded at a higher quality to start with.

Jeff

I think you are looking at it wrong, Jeff. If a movie was a hit and filmed on 1080p, then the reproduction of that movie on modern gear should reproduce the original experience. There were great classic movies shot on 16mm which are amazing, and grainy, and 1080p is overkill. I would want to watch it with all the grain and limited resolution as the original was seen.

This is like the folk who were upset that a movie that came out around the time of 1080p TVs and BluRay looked blurry, but it was a highly processed video feed in the first place, intended to be blurry. Was the studio supposed to take the director's vision and change it?

I just want to know that I am watching whatever video content I am watching so that what the director intended or achieved is what I see.

Perhaps I did not state my point(s) clearly enough, but I am once again in violent agreement with you Flint!

My main point was (is) why would anyone pay a service a premium price for a movie / program that is simply upconverted from lesser quality source material, when my gear (player or TV) would be perfectly good at doing that upconverting itself.

Peter Gabriel's "Secret World Tour" was shot with 16mm film. I own the original DVD. A few years ago I bought the Blu-ray version - for the "improved" audio tracks. The video, when displayed on my 1080p Sharp flatscreen, appears identical from both the DVD and the Blu-ray - because of the limitations of the 16mm source video. Let's say I go out and buy a 4k display. Would it make any sense for me to pay a service $30 for a 4k version of that concert video? Of course not. That same DVD or Blu-ray that I already own, played on that same Blu-ray player, when connected to that new 4k TV, should result in an identical picture as what the service provider could sell me for $30 - because he would be upconverting from the same source as created the DVD and Blu-ray's video, warts (grain) and all.

Which again, gets back to my original post. I'm not complaining about lesser quality source material. I'm not suggesting that a director's vision (at the time he made the film) be altered. I'm just questioning (or perhaps cautioning) about how much financial (and technical) sense it makes to pay a premium price for an upconverted copy of something, when (assuming I own a 4k player / TV) my less-than-4k source material will yield the same picture.

Of course movies remastered from the old 35mm film (or 70mm, or IMAX etc.) to 4k (and more likely 8k) will (at least should) look much better than ones that were scanned at 2k years ago, and then to 1080p for Blu-ray release. And movies shot at 1080p should look the same whether upconverted to 4k by the user, or the service (and yes I know there might be variations in quality on both sides of the equation.)

Jeff

 

[Barney]

Hisense bought Sharps tv manufacturing including their plants in Mexico. I have no clue what panels Hisense uses.
Samsung uses some Sharp panels, example 60JS7000 SUHD and my Samsung isn't a Samsung or Sharp panel. I'll have to look it up again.

Edit: my Samsung SUHD UN50JS7000 has a VA panel made by Innolex

 

[Flint]

Again.... no one is "using Sharp panels". They are using panels manufactured by Sharp, or Hisense, or whomever. This is a very important distinction which needs to be clear. Just because Samsung or Sony don't own and operate the factory where the panels come from doesn't mean the panels they are identical to the other panels made at that plant. Sony and Samsung (and all the other TV makers getting panels from a given plant) have their own requirements to which the plant builds the panel. They are not interchangeable.

 

[Towen7]

Aaaannnnddde ..: the panel is only part of the total product. The image processing is a huge factor. To Flint's point, one can not assume that because two sets have the "same panel" that the PQ will be equal.

 

[Haywood]

Aaaannnnddde ..: the panel is only part of the total product. The image processing is a huge factor. To Flint's point, one can not assume that because two sets have the "same panel" that the PQ will be equal.

It is more than that. The panels are not all made to the same specification. Sharp panels manufactured at a Sharp plant are entirely different than Sony panels manufactured at a Sharp plant.

 

[Towen7]

I know. Flint made that exact point (as I referenced) and I was mearly adding an additional consideration.

 

[Barney]

I also agree that the major difference is the boards behind the panels. As I was saying though, example Samsung's JS7000 SUHD TV's, are real different by the size. The 50" has better black levels but poorer viewing angle. The 55" has better viewing angle but not as good black levels. I would think they all have the boards (specs are the same, same processor etc) but each size has a different panel (manufacture), VA or PLS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, example Samsung panel plant, they make huge panels then cut to certain sizes (thats what a friend of mine that helps design the panel plants). But they may not offer every size ?