Sony's Ultra 4K Streaming Service Launching On April 4; Titles Priced At $30 (variety.com) 148
Janko Roettgers reports for Variety: Sony is launching its 4K movie streaming service called Ultra next month: Consumers will be able to buy movies from the service, and stream to supported Sony 4K TV sets, starting April 4. The new service will offer 4K HDR movies to stream, including extras that have previously been able only on physical discs. Ultra ties into UltraViolet, the cloud locker service backed by Sony. Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
4k porn (Score:1)
Has anyone here watched any 4k porn? How did you get aroused with all the high resolution pimples and stretch marks?
And on AT&T DSL? (Score:1)
And just how well is this going to work on AT&T DSL?
Re: (Score:2)
well if you have U-verse no cap. vs comcast caps that will not let you use this.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this has anything to do with caps. I have AT&T DSL and as I mentioned on a previous story today, all I can get out of them is 768kbps. I can *barely* stream SD netflix without too many buffering breaks, no way in hell I'm going to stream a 4k movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Cache it starting when you go to work. Watch half when you get home.
Repeat the next day.
Re: (Score:2)
get a second dsl connection and download movies ... or just buy blueray UltraHD... they are out now.
Re: (Score:2)
And just how well is this going to work on AT&T DSL?
Simply put, it won't work at all. I'm stuck with AT&T at my new house and I have the best they can do at 18mb/s. 4K Netflix is a no-go. I can't imagine this will be any different.
Wonderful..... (Score:1)
Yet another service I can't use due to the Data caps on my internet. Yay.......
Re: (Score:1)
Even without data caps, who wants to be dependent upon an internet connection and waste all of that bandwidth *every single time* you want to watch a movie? I'd rather have physical media.
I like owning things... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I care about whether I can access the content
Then generally no streaming provider will suffice as you will never be guaranteed access to any specific content.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I have very little interest in "owning" a movie.
Then this is the service for you - you don't really "own" the movie. Perfect!
Except this service is more costly than actually buying the fucking movie in the first place.
So yeah, it's a dead end.
Seriously, either you rent it and it has a "RENTAL" price attached to it, or you buy it.
But if you have to pay MSRP prices just to rent well let's say the guys coming up with this stuff are idiots. Or they think consumers are idiots. In either case idiots are everywhere.
Buy isn't the correct word (Score:1)
You're not buying the movie, you're licensing it.
This is a streaming service and should it go away, you will no longer be able to watch the movie you "purchased". You are not allowed to re-sell or format-shift the movie, nor make local backup copies.
Please tell me why this is worth $30 when I can torrent the same movie and *actually* own it for free?
Re: (Score:1)
You're not buying the movie, you're licensing it.
This is a streaming service and should it go away, you will no longer be able to watch the movie you "purchased". You are not allowed to re-sell or format-shift the movie, nor make local backup copies.
Well, maybe. If 4K comes under the jurisdiction of UltraViolet, then hopefully the licensing will be pushed up through them. That's as close to a "permanent" cross-entity license as one can get these days. In most cases, you're purchasing a license even when you have a physical copy. That's why you're not allowed to use it to show the movie for profit.
Please tell me why this is worth $30 when I can torrent the same movie and *actually* own it for free?
Because that's illegal.
I'm with you in terms of preferring to own a physical copy so that I can continue to watch it when my internet is down and I don't have
Re:Buy isn't the correct word (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, maybe. If 4K comes under the jurisdiction of UltraViolet, then hopefully the licensing will be pushed up through them. That's as close to a "permanent" cross-entity license as one can get these days. In most cases, you're purchasing a license even when you have a physical copy. That's why you're not allowed to use it to show the movie for profit.
You're wrong off the bat, that's because it's in copyright law under Exclusive rights in copyrighted works [cornell.edu]:
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly
There's nothing wrong with plain old copyright law which means we need to substitute a sale for a license.
I'm with you in terms of preferring to own a physical copy so that I can continue to watch it when my internet is down and I don't have to rely on a dozen different entities to still exist when I do, but I thought we were past the point where people thought they had a "right" to a movie on their own terms. If you don't want to agree to the copyright holder's terms for the movie, don't retrieve/store/watch it.
Obviously the consumer shouldn't be able to set their own terms. But I think the liberal idealism that as long as nobody puts a gun to your head it's voluntary and they can put whatever they want in their terms is flawed. We're constantly hit with lengthy boilerplate legalese that nobody reads, nobody understands and if they did they couldn't change them anyway and that nobody takes seriously until they're being fucked over. And sometimes it's just consumer anti-features you're never asked to agree to like that we'll disable the fast forward button when we feel like and not let you play movies from other regions even though they get to shop all over the world for the cheapest labor.
There's a little bit of what I'm asking for with regard to unconscionable contracts, but really consumers should have far more protection than that from big business. Particularly when they're agreeing on "industry terms" that smells like a cartel dictating terms for all the consumers, since it's not unconscionable if it's common knowledge you'll be fucked over. To use a car analogy, just because you sold me a car doesn't mean you should be able to dictate maintenance and repair, parts, after-market alterations, fuel, where I drive and so on. It's necessary to cut those cords, you built it but it's now my car. And it was your movie, but now I bought a copy.
Of course they don't want to cut the cord, they don't ever want to really let go just give you a crippled license to use it on their terms, like if your living room was is the same as going to the cinema. Well sorry, they don't get to collect a per seat royalty or add mark-up to any snacks you might be eating in your own home watching their movie. But they would if they could and even if it was technically possible it shouldn't be legally possible. They should be forced at some point to either not sell it at all or really sell it, not more getting to have your cake and eat it too. But that would involve consumers winning against a lobbying industry, so most people will just give the law the finger instead.
Re: (Score:2)
but I thought we were past the point where people thought they had a "right" to a movie on their own terms.
Hell no we ain't. I don't see why we are providing a free, govewrnet enforced system (copyright) to these people for them to be able to act in arbitrary ways where they don't uphold their end of the deal. If they want to dictate terms, then they can take the expense of signing contracts with everyone they "license" to.
If they want to take the option that I'm paying for, then no, arbitrary terms are not
Re: (Score:2)
Losses?? What do you mean losses??? It's not like they will have storage backing every single purchased "copy" of the flick. They will make money in the proverbial "Hand over fist" sense of a few dumb sheep.
And although it will be "4k", it will most likely be delivered over adaptive streaming and with some major loss-y compression where favorable meaning during the hours of 6 and 10pm the video quality may be less than a good old fashioned DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Buy isn't the correct word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Buy isn't the correct word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Buy isn't the correct word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I'm okay with something like Netflix. I'm paying less per month than what most other services charge for "owning" the right to stream a movie.
With Netflix, I'm not paying much but I also know I'm only paying for the right to stream and that titles can be removed at any moment. Although it would be nice if there was more hints and easier ways to know which movies are soon to be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a streaming service and should it go away, you will no longer be able to watch the movie you "purchased".
We're talking about Ultraviolet - so it's even worse than that.
The terms explicitly state that you're buying the right to view the movie, and that right is guaranteed until some specific date after the time of purchase - 3 years , I think it was. After that date, it's no longer guaranteed! They can remove your access and be fully compliant with the license you agreed to at the time of "purchase".
We have Netflix as our main movie source. On the rare occasions we see a movie we think we'll want to rewatch ove
Re: (Score:2)
UV movies have no specific date of expiry; in fact their faq quite specifically states that your rights to a movie do not expire. The only expiry date mentioned by UV is the redemption date of the code included with a disc purchase.
So you may have only 1-3 years to redeem a UV code but once redeemed it's in your locker for life (with the exception that if it turns out the original provider did not in fact have legal rights to that movie in your jurisdiction).
Re: (Score:2)
Ultra-Violet? (Score:2)
I thought Ultra Violet was that comic-book shoot-em-up where Millia Jovovovvich shoots anything and everything that moves.
The REAL reason for the "Playstation 4.5" (Score:3)
I knew it wasn't meant for playing 4K games (hell, my $600 videocard can barely handle that).
Another reason for the new Playstation (Score:2)
Another reason they are releasing a "4K Playstation", to try and get you into their flashy new streaming service.
Although no mention of bitrates and if it compares to the UHD discs, price is the same as the disc.
$12 to upgrade HD copies to UHD? (Score:2)
You must be joking...
I bought most of my HD digital copies for less than $8, some for $5.
If someone at Sony thinks that I'll pay $12 to UPGRADE my HD copies of movies to UHD, they should pass whatever it is they are smoking.
Maybe if the whole movie was $12 and the upgrade cost was $3, I'd do it, but that's about it.
Having lived through VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, and now this, I'm just not going to buy anything again.
4k is nice, but meh, whatever, 1080p is good enough.
you left out LaserDiscs (Score:2)
Other than the torrent, the ONLY two formats where Han Solo just shoots Greedo are VHS and LaserDisc. Reason enough, to me, to keep some of them around.
I am, slowly, replacing LaserDiscs as they delaminate, or as I add the title to the in-house streaming collection. Only a couple out of the collection, so far, has delaminated, though.
Re: (Score:2)
LaserDiscs were always a niche market and I skipped those, but fair enough.
I suspect UHD Blu-Ray may end up being the same thing. It is way, way too soon after Blu-Ray came out, people are tired of buying the same thing over again every 10 years.
For new titles, sure, fine, if the price is reasonable. But $30 to buy a digital copy of a UHD movie? Holy crap!
Alex I'll take LOL for $1000 (Score:2)
Answer $30
What was Sony Ultra 4K steaming service movie price.
Seems expensive (Score:2)
30 bucks per movie and I don't even get a copy to store?
So what happens when the service goes out of business? I lose everything I've bought?
Thank you, no.
Re: (Score:2)
UV is a joint venture made up of 85 companies that range from film studios to software companies. There is little chance of them shutting down anytime soon. As for Sony, well I'm pretty sure they'll be around for a bit but even if they go bankrupt tomorrow the UV agreement means they have to transfer all their licenses to another UV provider so that existing sales are honored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems expensive (Score:5, Informative)
30 bucks per movie and I don't even get a copy to store?
So what happens when the service goes out of business? I lose everything I've bought?
Thank you, no.
For the same price you can buy the UHD Blu-ray which will also include a digital UV copy (probably only HD but still) and the regular HD Blu-ray copy as well.
Luckily (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You think people bought HD because they could see the resolution, or because large flat-screen LCD TV's came into vogue with new connectors at the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think people bought HD because they could see the resolution, or because large flat-screen LCD TV's came into vogue with new connectors at the same time?
I got a TV that fit the space nicely. It wasn't available in a non 4K format.
Re: (Score:3)
just won't notice any difference
Resolution ain't done until I can put it up on the wall and have people think it's a window.
Re: (Score:2)
Blade Runner (Score:3)
Rachael: Do you like our new movie service?
Deckard: It's streaming?
Rachael: Of course it is.
Deckard: Must be expensive.
Rachael: Very.
Rachael: I'm Rachael.
Deckard: Deckard.
Rachael: It seems you feel our work is not a benefit to the public.
Deckard: Streaming is like any other service - it's either a good deal or a rip-off. If it's a good deal, it's not my problem.
on the heels of recent happenings (Score:2)
>> Digital Content Delivery Network
What could possibly go wrong?
Somebody doesn't know what "respectively" means (Score:1)
> Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
So this is saying that if you have the SD version of a movie, you can upgrade it to 4K for $12. If you have the HD version, you'll have to pay $15 to upgrade it to 4K, even though it is already at a higher definition (and thus closer to the 4K objective) than the SD version.
That's obviously not the case, and the author who used the word "respectively" to qualify this statement is
bit rate required (Score:2)
I can tell you right now that good 4K is going to required 25 Mbps and up of HEVC for on-demand (and ~35 Mbps for live encoded 60p sports content, the bit rate of live 4K cable channels in Korea and Japan).
If you are only going to be able to stream 15 Mbps, then a 1080p24 image would look far better at that bit rate than a 2160p24 image!
That is one reason for the existence of Vidity [mgo.com] 4K/HDR download (not streaming) service. The average US Internet connection can not sustain 25 Mbps.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also dl UltraViolet movies for later playback; it doesn't not require streaming.
4K UV movies have been available for a while now on Vudu so I'm not sure exactly why Sony's announcement is even worthy of a /. post.
Upgrade from SD for $12 and from HD for $15? (Score:1)
> Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Looks like pretty good deal, encouraging us to have higher density (HD) than lower (SD)...
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if joking or just...
You realize people can buy full BD copies of those movies they have in SD streaming format now for less than that, right? And they will get better quality from the BD than Sony's overpriced upgrade stream copy.
Heck, lots of those BDs even come with a code for a new HD UltraViolet copy as well, no prior SD purchase required.
$30? Non starter (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm going to drop $30 on a movie I want to see it on a huge screen with a colossal sound system - in other words in a movie theater. Currently I'm paying about $9 a month for Netflix. I think I'll stay with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see it at home on my big TV and sound system. That way I can control the volume and don't have to put up with asshats commentating the whole way though.
Re: (Score:2)
So would I. Same goes for sporting events. I can't remember the last time I attended a baseball or football game in person. Much better experience at home, mainly for the reasons you listed.
But having said that, I could not envision shelling out $30 for a movie. Even if it is in the comfort of my home. I kind of feel the same way about those pay per view events. I suppose if you have some people come over and we all chip in for the cost then it's not so bad. But at least with a movie I'm pretty sure it's go
BBC1 BBC2 ITV... (Score:2)
Oh good, yet MORE market fragmentation in the streaming video industry. I miss the good old days when there were three TV channels and no VCRs.
$30? No thanks. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not single watch, it's just Sony announcing they will be offering their movies in 4k format through their own service connected to UltraViolet.
You won't even have to use their service to watch them as long as your preferred UV provider offers 4k playback. Most UV services also allow you to just dl your movies for later viewing if buffering is an issue.
Keep paying ... (Score:2)
Yup, that's the new model ... pay, and then pay again, and then pay some more.
Like them, or hate them, Apple's "Digital Copy" was a one-time download, and didn't have all of this bullshit.
UltraViolet is pretty much crap, and I refuse to use it. It means I need to sign up with pretty much every studio, let them track everything I do, ask their permission to watch the damned movie, and
Re: (Score:3)
Have you even used Ultraviolet?
UV movies are one time purchases. The upgrade feature is only if you bought a lower quality license and decide to upgrade quality afterwards. For example, I converted a bunch of DVD's to SD UV for $2/disc (instead of paying for HD at $5/disc). If I later decide to convert my $2 SD license to a 4K license I can pay $15 or just not and keep watching in SD. Note: buying the higher quality license gives you access to all the lower levels. Since SD is fine for those older movi
Lets see (Score:2)
$30 for a movie in a format few people can tell the difference, across bandwidth few people have, to watch some lonely set of movies few people want to see?
How can this not be a success?
Sony never disappoints... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least you'll be able to play it on your new Sony PS4.5
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahahahaha!! Yeah Right!
That's pretty much my thought too, but it's worse, because US$30 will translate into 60 of my local dollars. Then I'm going to guess Sony will complain because the uptake will be low. Wankers.
Re: (Score:2)
Because otherwise all your friends, co-workers and family will talk about it and reveal spoilers, ruining the movie for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Because otherwise all your friends, co-workers and family will talk about it and reveal spoilers, ruining the movie for you.
What, like in the new Star Wars movie where the ass kicking skinny white chick wins the day and the token black guy tags along and provides for a counter balance, while the old people make token appearances and we see a cute little droid run around for the kids?
Oh, and big new scary weapon does bad stuff and crazy bad man runs it and kills people for fun?
Does that about sum it up?
Re: (Score:2)
umm no, spoilers like
the acting suck, they story is nonexistent, the amount of explosions per word of dialogue was not even 1:1
Re: (Score:2)
Well...
Star Wars: TFA
The acting was actually not bad, Daisy did a fair job, no complaints...
The story is there, but a complete carbon copy of Ep 4.
There were FAR more explosions than useful dialogue...
Is that better?
Re: (Score:2)
hehe waiting for TFA to be released in 4kblueray before i buy/watch it, but i meant general movie spoilers ;)
Re: (Score:2)
umm no, spoilers like the acting suck, they story is nonexistent, the amount of explosions per word of dialogue was not even 1:1
NIce. I always just refer to explosions per minute.
Re: (Score:2)
what!! the 2000's called and want their movie back ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do i have to go out and watch it while its in theaters?
You don't have to watch it in theaters - But you do have to pay for it. Otherwise eventually all we'll have is poorly-acted Star Trek TOS fan-films, with a new one released every 7 months.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the VHS days, I can remember spending $90+ for some titles. And that was in 1980's dollars too, for a crappy VHS version.
And you're complaining about $30?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I own it forever... just like all that music I bought on wax cylinder that I'm constantly listening to.
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes you think it will disappear anytime soon? Is Ultraviolet going away? Is Sony going out of business? Both would have to be true for your digital copy to really have any chance of disappearing.
I have about 350 UV movies bought from multiple UV providers and have yet to see any of them 'disappear'.
I also have about 600 physical discs and besides the restrictions of only being able to watch those movies when I'm at home (or have planned in advance when I'm going to be in the mood to watch one
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to UltraViolet's site on their faq [uvdemystified.com]:
The right to an UltraViolet movie is perpetual and remains in your Library unless you delete it. UltraViolet rights never expire.
They also go into what happens when the service provider you were using goes out of business:
If an UltraViolet retailer goes out of business, your UltraViolet Library will be available from other UltraViolet services.
Australia had this happen recently when their UV provider went under. While all non-UV movies and shows were lost all the UV purchases are still retained in their UV lockers. Of course Australia has other UV problems because for some reason no one wants to make their streaming apps available to them so they have to dl their movies if they want to watch them but they sti
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is permanent but UV is at least as good or better than owning a physical copy.
Not when you're somewhere you don't have access to broadband. Perhaps you love being in a big city. Not everyone does.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never damaged any of my discs beyond the ability to use them but I'm also an uncle with 5 nephews and nieces and since I didn't run my living room like a prison, whenever they were over they were free to take any disc they wanted and load it into the blu-ray player. Most of the times everything was fine but every once and a while something would get scuffed up.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
Back in the VHS days, I can remember *not* spending $90 for some titles. I looked at the price and said, no thanks. Having the entire cast and crew show up to my house to play it for me live wouldn't have been worth that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Back in the VHS days, I can remember *not* spending $90 for some titles. I looked at the price and said, no thanks. Having the entire cast and crew show up to my house to play it for me live wouldn't have been worth that.
...unless it was porn, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the VHS days, I can remember spending $90+ for some titles. And that was in 1980's dollars too, for a crappy VHS version.
Yes, but the market for that was very small and most movies didn't cost that much.
Part of it was them figuring out how to price it and make it work and not destroy movie theater business. Part of it was figuring out how to deal with rental stores.
After a time, they settled on making the movies $90 for the first 4 weeks, to sell to rental stores, then dropping the price to $30 to sell to end customers.
Of course keep in mind the first VCRs were a thousand bucks too, vs $100 for a really good Blu-Ray player t
Re:No thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're complaining about $30?
Yep.
I remeber those days. My reaction was along the lines of "oh hell no". So, we went to blockbuster instead. Then came DVD players and they wanted 45 quid for a movie and 150 quid for a box set. My reacion was basically "nope nope nope" and go to blockbuster or the "Video Rental Emporium" (local place, more diverse choice, knowledgable staff, now gone forever).
Then they decided that they should actually start selling videos for a price people were perpared to pay, like 30 quid for a new box set and a tenner for a movie while recent, going down to 2 quid for an older film. My reaction was to buy lots. Then I found the big second hand shop which sells them for as low as 10p. If you even think you might want to see it, it's worth it for that price! Actually the only one I got for 10p was Crank and it's wicked.
So 20 quid for a movie? Nah, no thanks. Plus it's Sony so you're going to be paying 20 quid for getting abused somehow too.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not from Cambridge, UK are you?
I was!!
If so last time I checked the Video Emporium still existed. The shop shut but the owner started doing home delivery...
Yeah the cool dude on a bike. He seemed to do it for a while but after a time I could never get hold of him. I don't know if he just vanished for a bit and then came back. I'm not in Cambridge any more though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I too am proud of my achievements whereby I happily throw cash at some company for something worth only a fraction of its price on return.
I don't think I've ever spent more than $20 on a VHS. And that's today's money, most of the tapes were between $5 and $10 at the time.
Re: No thank you (Score:2)
You clearly don't have children.
They will fixate on one movie for years at a time, demanding to watch it daily.
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary:
Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Where are all the grammar nazi's today!?!? "respectively" means something! I highly doubt its cheaper to upgrade an SD movie to 4k than it is to upgrade an HD movie.
Anyway... IF you already have some movies on the UltraViolet service, and IF you have a huge pipe with no data cap, then maybe it'd be worth the money to upgrade one or two of your titles... but what titles are there that even have native 4k shots?
Re: No thank you (Score:2)
Nazis. It's cheaper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
4K really is a joke. Why would I replace my current TV with 4K when no human on earth can detect improved quality on the 4K TV over my TV at 7.5'-8' or more???
People were making the EXACT same argument 10 years ago comparing 720p to 1080p, over and over and over.
They were wrong then, you're wrong now.
You'll likely all be correct at 8k, and for many people 4k will be the limit, but the difference is noticeable.
My office has a 55" 4k TV in it, got a good deal on it Black Friday and it has given me the chance to compare. My primary TV is a 70" Sony 1080p and my secondary TV is a 60" Sharp 1080p.
4k is clearly better, when fed a 4k stream from Amazon via their Fire T
Re: (Score:2)
People were also making the EXACT same argument 10 years ago comparing mp3s @192kbps and mp3s @320kbps, when the vast majority can't tell the difference between uncompressed and 128kbps.
Until I see the results of an A/B test I will withhold judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
On $30 desktop computer speakers, you can't tell the difference.
On $300 Sennheiser headphones, you can.
Well, I can anyway. :)
Re: (Score:3)
I can see the difference on my 4K TV when I stream 4K content. However I cannot say it has had the slightest effect on my enjoyment or non-enjoyment of any movie or TV show. I really do not care whether the show is 4K. I care that the show is good.
Re: (Score:2)
True...
Which is why I haven't upgraded the TV in my living room... I may do it some day, but for now, 1080p is good enough for me. :)
The price for 4k content is just nuts, not worth it. Frankly to get me to buy a 4k TV, my existing digital content will need to be upgraded for a very low price, if not free.
Some of us have rather large movie collections, I probably have over a thousand digital movies between Vudo and Amazon, most purchased for $7 or less on sale (or free with DVD/Blu-Ray purchase). The big
Re: (Score:2)
Now maybe YOU can't see the difference, but that doesn't mean other people can't.
I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who can see the difference between 720p and 1080p, and even more regarding those who care.
I personally can see the difference, if I put my mind to it, but I'm not pixelbating, I'm watching a show or a movie, and I don't have time to observe individual pixels.
I'm fine with 480p as well.
Re: (Score:2)
My office has a 55" 4k TV in it, got a good deal on it Black Friday and it has given me the chance to compare. My primary TV is a 70" Sony 1080p and my secondary TV is a 60" Sharp 1080p.
What is your viewing distance to these TVs?
Seeing a difference in 4k depends on screen size, distance from screen, and how good your eyes are.
Re: (Score:2)
10 feet from the 55", 12 feet from the 70" and 60".
Re: (Score:2)
Smaller font on the TV, in the guides, on the browser etc. are much clearer and easier to read.
Sure maybe useless for cinematography and cartoons... but after having a 4k TV for a few months I wouldn't go back.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a rental service, in fact the article goes out of it's way to stress Sony will not be offering rental rates for the time being. Sony is simply saying they will be offering 4k versions of their movies for purchase through their new service, Ultra.
Once purchased you can stream then through Ultra or any other 4k capable UltraViolet service or just dl them to watch later or on some non-connected device. Regardless, that movie is a permanent addition to your UV locker and you can watch it any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Being locked inside a service is pretty much the same as being locked into a format. Whens the last time you were able to play your VHS copy of Highlander on your Blu-Ray drive?
Just because you have to use one of their players (which for ultraviolet includes several apps on almost any app capable device) doesn't mean you don't own it.