Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Blu-ray's (Mastered in 4K)


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:40 AM

I thought it may be good to start a thread for deals on movies mastered in 4k. Currently amazon has a bunch for $14.99 that are normally $19.99. The link below is a list of all the mastered in 4k movies available on amazon. http://www.amazon.co...&qid=1375936485



#2 plus1zero

plus1zero

    Turd Ferguson

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:46 AM

I wonder if anyone on this site even has a 4K tv yet....if you can afford one of those, you probably aren't worried about 5 bucks, lol



#3 Navigator2001Plus

Navigator2001Plus

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:49 AM

Well, these "mastered in 4K" Blu-rays aren't truly 4K. They're still 1080p. The whole "mastered in 4K" thing is mostly a marketing gimmick.


optimusprime.gif


#4 plus1zero

plus1zero

    Turd Ferguson

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:52 AM

Well, these "mastered in 4K" Blu-rays aren't truly 4K. They're still 1080p. The whole "mastered in 4K" thing is mostly a marketing gimmick.

 

Ahh, well...in that case, I'm not the least bit surprised. Do they look any different from normal blu-rays whatsoever on a 1080p screen? I'm assuming these work in blu-ray players?



#5 Navigator2001Plus

Navigator2001Plus

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:57 AM

Yeah, they work in any Blu-ray player. The "mastered in 4K" thing just means they used a high quality source to make the 1080p video. The only time this might make any difference is if a previous Blu-ray release of a movie used a crappy quality source. If you already own a movie on regular Blu-ray and think it looks great, you're not really going to get anything from buying the "mastered in 4K" version.


optimusprime.gif


#6 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:15 AM

I've read reviews on most of these and there seems to b a noticeable increase in picture quality on a 1080p tv even when the blu-ray transfer from before was very good. Also if you do have a 4k tv these will upscale to 4k.



#7 62t

62t

    Zune Duck!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:38 AM

Also note that some of those 4k remaster don't have extra feature or audio track compare to standard release.


My trade list: http://www.cheapassg...ead.php?t=42397

3DS FC 0731-4770-3312


#8 ITDEFX

ITDEFX

    Missed out on the Great Walmart glitch of 11/6 due to FLAT TIRE

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:54 AM

yeah...I think either the digitalbits or blu-ray.com had an article that talked about comparing this to D-VHS/Superbit fiasco a few years ago.    



#9 Finch106

Finch106

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 02:55 PM

I was about to say, they're basically superbit. The extra features are removed to allow the entire bluray to be used for the film.

#10 DestroVega

DestroVega

    Life is short... stunt it

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 08:45 PM

From the reviews they do seem to be a slight improvement.

Ghostbusters on the other hand, is said to be a pretty big PQ upgrade.

Destro1.gif            DestroVega.jpg


#11 ITDEFX

ITDEFX

    Missed out on the Great Walmart glitch of 11/6 due to FLAT TIRE

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:14 PM

Aghh... Ghostbusters has been re-released so many times, yet GB2 is still MIA.

 

All this shit is going to happen all over again when they release the 100 GB+ BR Discs. 



#12 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:19 PM

Some people think 4k TV's are really expensive so here's a 50" 4k tv for $899.99 http://www.ebay.com/...em=350842798298 (I know it's not directly related to this thread)



#13 plus1zero

plus1zero

    Turd Ferguson

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:49 PM

Some people think 4k TV's are really expensive so here's a 50" 4k tv for $899.99 http://www.ebay.com/...em=350842798298 (I know it's not directly related to this thread)

Considering the samsungs and sonys are 8-9x that amount, how does the PQ fare on that?

 

I mean, if it has amazing quality why wouldn't you buy one of those over an LED 3D or Panasonic plasma?



#14 Petey Parker

Petey Parker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:52 AM

I'm interested in Spider-Man 1 and 2 for the covers alone. The normal single disc version covers are terrible and I refuse to ever buy any version of Spider-Man 3 so I skipped the box set.

#15 DestroVega

DestroVega

    Life is short... stunt it

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 August 2013 - 03:19 AM

Aghh... Ghostbusters has been re-released so many times, yet GB2 is still MIA.

All this shit is going to happen all over again when they release the 100 GB+ BR Discs.


GB2 sucks balls.

Destro1.gif            DestroVega.jpg


#16 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:32 AM

Considering the samsungs and sonys are 8-9x that amount, how does the PQ fare on that?

 

I mean, if it has amazing quality why wouldn't you buy one of those over an LED 3D or Panasonic plasma?

From what I've read the build and picture quality are good. The main reason why it's so cheap is because it doesn't have any extra features like 3d, or being a smart tv. Also it isn't a name brand.



#17 DNukem170

DNukem170

    Dance like you want to win, Gundam!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 August 2013 - 05:01 AM

I'm interested in Spider-Man 1 and 2 for the covers alone. The normal single disc version covers are terrible and I refuse to ever buy any version of Spider-Man 3 so I skipped the box set.

While the re-release covers are terrible, the 4K one isn't all that hot. An extra blue bar AND two gold bars mucking up the coverart? Hell, no.

#18 Petey Parker

Petey Parker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:40 AM

While the re-release covers are terrible, the 4K one isn't all that hot. An extra blue bar AND two gold bars mucking up the coverart? Hell, no.

 

I'd rather look at extra bars than look at covers that look like they came from a boxset that I lost.



#19 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 August 2013 - 04:03 PM

Spider-Man dropped to $12.79 and Godzilla $13.99 on Amazon



#20 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:55 AM

Considering the samsungs and sonys are 8-9x that amount, how does the PQ fare on that?

I mean, if it has amazing quality why wouldn't you buy one of those over an LED 3D or Panasonic plasma?

Personally I wouldn't trust those TV's. My guess is they're "Walmart quality" if you know what I mean.
http://reviews.cnet....7-35757100.html
The title says it all:
Cheap 4K TV has pixels aplenty, poor picture

From what I've read the build and picture quality are good. The main reason why it's so cheap is because it doesn't have any extra features like 3d, or being a smart tv. Also it isn't a name brand.

Those features don't actually add to the cost of TV's any longer and haven't for the last 2-3 years.


Regardless of quality and cost, what's the point of buying a TV that has no content yet? AFAIK the best you can do right now are upscaling blu ray players. There's no content for them, MAYBE X1/PS4 will have 4k content but I'm not confident given their 1080p stuff on the current gen is just upscaled 720p so the jury is out on that one - all we know is that they have 4k output capability. Then of course cable TV can't even push out a 1080p signal yet, they're doing 1080i and 720p and probably will be for years. Eventually blu ray players and disks will come out and when they do, they'll probably cost a fortune. I remember when Blu/HD-DVD first came out, those disks were all full price for several years. I won't be buying into an early adopter format again when it means paying out the ass for content.

Edit:
I was hesitant to post this because last time I mentioned it in one of these threads on 4k, a lot of people that already bought the sets got pisses off and called me names. That said, here it is: buying 4k risks buying into the next 720p only to be replaced by 1080p. As someone that picked up a 720p TV in the early days of the 2000's, I'm in no hurry to repeat that mistake. 8k.
http://www.homecinem...you-think/14385

#21 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 August 2013 - 03:54 PM

Personally I wouldn't trust those TV's. My guess is they're "Walmart quality" if you know what I mean.
http://reviews.cnet....7-35757100.html
The title says it all:
Cheap 4K TV has pixels aplenty, poor picture
Those features don't actually add to the cost of TV's any longer and haven't for the last 2-3 years.


Regardless of quality and cost, what's the point of buying a TV that has no content yet? AFAIK the best you can do right now are upscaling blu ray players. There's no content for them, MAYBE X1/PS4 will have 4k content but I'm not confident given their 1080p stuff on the current gen is just upscaled 720p so the jury is out on that one - all we know is that they have 4k output capability. Then of course cable TV can't even push out a 1080p signal yet, they're doing 1080i and 720p and probably will be for years. Eventually blu ray players and disks will come out and when they do, they'll probably cost a fortune. I remember when Blu/HD-DVD first came out, those disks were all full price for several years. I won't be buying into an early adopter format again when it means paying out the ass for content.

Edit:
I was hesitant to post this because last time I mentioned it in one of these threads on 4k, a lot of people that already bought the sets got pisses off and called me names. That said, here it is: buying 4k risks buying into the next 720p only to be replaced by 1080p. As someone that picked up a 720p TV in the early days of the 2000's, I'm in no hurry to repeat that mistake. 8k.
http://www.homecinem...you-think/14385

First off if those features don't add to the cost of the tv then why don't all TV's have those features standard?

Secondly, there is 4k content available http://store.sony.co...3e-000070897215

Technology is always improving, of course something will replace it in the future.

Also as for quality, it's good for the price but obviously not going to be as good as the high end TV's.

This thread is meant for posting deals so can we please stick to that.



#22 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 15 August 2013 - 05:31 PM

First off if those features don't add to the cost of the tv then why don't all TV's have those features standard?
Secondly, there is 4k content available http://store.sony.co...3e-000070897215
Technology is always improving, of course something will replace it in the future.
Also as for quality, it's good for the price but obviously not going to be as good as the high end TV's.
This thread is meant for posting deals so can we please stick to that.

1. Why don't all TV's have 3d and apps? Because they give people like you the impression of value. Meanwhile a 55et5 was $899 last Black Friday.

2. Never seen that, $700 for it? Most people buying a $1,000 TV aren't going to be in the market for that device but you're right there is apparently 1 place you can get content from, however the vast majority of content consumed for the rest of the decade will be 1080p or lower resolution which is where that TV sucks based on the CNET review. I think it's a much better deal to buy what you call a "high end" TV which costs the same or less than the TV your company is selling and buy a 4k or 8k TV in a few years once its actually determined if 4k gets the 720 treatment and when you can buy a TV that looks good with lower res content too.

The good thing about this is that it will drive down prices of the TV's made by the well known quality brands.

#23 anderson4145

anderson4145

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 August 2013 - 05:56 PM

You are merely stating your opinion/prediction. I also don't know why you refer to it as "your company" I don't work for or own any Seiki products. Also if you look at my original post I was just showing people that 4k TV's aren't as expensive as most people think. That's it.



#24 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:12 PM

You are merely stating your opinion/prediction. I also don't know why you refer to it as "your company" I don't work for or own any Seiki products. Also if you look at my original post I was just showing people that 4k TV's aren't as expensive as most people think. That's it.

I agree, low end TV's are cheap. And it's my opinion that this is a bad deal. Personally I think a deal is to buy a really good 1080p TV now then wait until content becomes available and good high end 4k/8k TV's are available for reasonable prices. There's absolutely nothing wrong with posting the cnet review, people should know what they're getting into - particularly after someone asked about the quality.

How many people buying this TV would want to spend $800 for that Sony device? Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of a cheap 4k TV?

I just don't think most people would want a TV that displays 1080 and below content poorly since that's what most people will be watching for the next 5 years.

#25 KyleN

KyleN

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 August 2013 - 07:56 PM

Well, these "mastered in 4K" Blu-rays aren't truly 4K. They're still 1080p. The whole "mastered in 4K" thing is mostly a marketing gimmick.

 

These are like those over-priced Super-Bit titles they had for DVDs, before Blu-rays came around. I'd rather have the extras on the normal discs. I have no plans to buy any of these obvious money grabs--the existing transfers look good enough--I'll buy actual 4K content if/when I ever get a 4K set.


Check here for Up-to-Date list of Current/Upcoming 3D BD titles (since this forum no longer has Wiki Posts)

kyool.jpg


#26 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:07 PM

These are like those over-priced Super-Bit titles they had for DVDs, before Blu-rays came around. I'd rather have the extras on the normal discs. I have no plans to buy any of these obvious money grabs--the existing transfers look good enough--I'll buy actual 4K content if/when I ever get a 4K set.


I had some super-bit titles back then and I THINK. They looked better but I could barely tell and it might have been my imagination. I mean, Blu Ray is already encoded 1:1 for pixels on the screen so what does it matter anyway AND correct me if I'm wrong but aren't BR disks already made from higher definition masters?

#27 mpaullin

mpaullin

    Sarcasm Font Enthusiast

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:23 PM

GB2 sucks balls.

Not uh!


kNcvatI.gif  344d2c4.jpg


#28 Angry Man

Angry Man

    REV-OH-LU-TION!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:57 AM

I had some super-bit titles back then and I THINK. They looked better but I could barely tell and it might have been my imagination. I mean, Blu Ray is already encoded 1:1 for pixels on the screen so what does it matter anyway AND correct me if I'm wrong but aren't BR disks already made from higher definition masters?

 

I only bought a few Super Bit titles back then and that was due to them usually coming from a better source than the original DVD. This was especially true with Lawrence Of Arabia which came from a brand new restoration. Gattaca also benefitted more from the film finally having some breathing room on a dual layer disc as opposed to it's first DVD release that was a Widescreen/Pan & Scan flipper disc that was single layer on each side. 

 

The only title on these "Mastered in 4K" that's really improved is Ghostbusters and that's more due to the colors being more true to the original intended colors of the film. I can't comment on the two Spider-Man ones as I haven't seen them yet myself but I'd have to imagine at least the first one must be an improvement compared to the original Blu release.


New sig coming soon.


#29 Blumpkin

Blumpkin

    Has a bad case of diarrhea

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 August 2013 - 09:04 PM

Those Blu-ray discs certainly aren't true 4k. A movie in full 4k would take terabits of data, and a BD just doesn't have that kind of space. The 4k displays look awfully nice in store, but other then the demo they show it's going to be years until 4k media is even available.


16Z462z.jpg


#30 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 16 August 2013 - 10:02 PM

Those Blu-ray discs certainly aren't true 4k. A movie in full 4k would take terabits of data, and a BD just doesn't have that kind of space. The 4k displays look awfully nice in store, but other then the demo they show it's going to be years until 4k media is even available.

Isn't 4k four times the resolution of 1080p?  If so, then shouldn't it take 4 times the data?  That's a lot lesss than a terabyte.