So you didn't subscribe to CBSAA?
News Season One hitting DVD/Blu-Ray in November
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
They didn't need to. Everyone but the US got it on Netflix.
$5 per episode of VOY ($120 for 24 episodes) vs $4 per episode of DSC ($51 for 13 episodes).
The original Star Trek DVD releases were monumentally expensive for the time. It's why I never bought any of them until the TNG blu-rays.
Canada got it on cable TV not Netflix.They didn't need to. Everyone but the US got it on Netflix.
Okay, most people got it on Netflix.
Fifteen episodes, so closer to $3 per episode.
Even better.
And when TNG came out on blu-ray (I admit I don't remember the initial MSRP), I picked them up for around $50 a set.
That's nearer $2 an episode. Those original releases were fairly outrageous. Maybe the manufacturing process has become cheaper, but I'm surprised they're not still gouging us for $4 an episode just for the sake of greed.
That was a different time. There were no streaming services up at that time where you could watch old VOYAGER episodes, so the only way to see them was to buy the Dvds. That's not true anymore.
During amazon prime day, TNG Blu Ray set for whole series was $67.99. That's less then $10 per season. It was definitely hell of a deal but even now without any specials it's $110 for the series, about $16 per season. Compare that for what they are asking for STD Season 1.
This is why I would never pay for a season of a show as soon as it comes out. I'll wait for the deeply discounted box set after series end, thank you very much
Same here. What I've seen in 4K for the small screen hasn't really blown me away in the manner that 1080p did a decade ago. It may be at a higher resolution, but it does not really amount to much when watching on a TV screen at home.
Truthfully, 4K and beyond only makes sense for theatrical presentations. That's where you can see the difference. I remember going to my first digital screening for a film, the 2007 film TRANSFORMERS, and noticing all the flaws apparent on the screen. It was more clean and stable than 35mm, but it still looked like a video projection with all the noticeable aliasing issues. The tech was not quite there. Then about five years later Sony started rolling out their 4K projectors for Regal chains and it was a marked improvement. I can still see some flaws, but they're very minuscule and I doubt most people even notice them. With 8K, that will probably be as good as it gets for theatrical projections. I can't see a reason to go for an even higher resolution beyond dick measuring.
It can also depends on the size of your TV. I can see a noticeable different between 1080p and 4k. It's a lot sharper.
During amazon prime day, TNG Blu Ray set for whole series was $67.99. That's less then $10 per season. It was definitely hell of a deal but even now without any specials it's $110 for the series, about $16 per season. Compare that for what they are asking for STD Season 1.
This is why I would never pay for a season of a show as soon as it comes out. I'll wait for the deeply discounted box set after series end, thank you very much
Some things I have to have right away, but mostly I can wait on a better price.
I got the TNG blu-rays pretty much as they came out, since I never had the DVD sets and I think BBCA had stopped running TNG non-stop by that point. Surprisingly there were one or two later episodes I had never seen. Not sure how that happened.
The Orphan Black blu-rays, despite having watched every week without fail, were a must have as far as buying right away too. I don't remember feeling like I was raped on those. I think sometimes, how much you love and want a show makes what you consider "too much $$$" a fluid thing.
If that's true I must not love STD much, or maybe I just don't want to take up shelf space on something I'll probably never rewatch. I did buy the VOYAGER DVDs btw when they first came out at $120 per season, what does that say about me?
Your priorities have changed? I'm behind on quite a few DVD/blu-rays and CD's because money has to go to other things.
I will get DSC at some point though.
Pretty sure half of all technology advances in history of the world were specifically for this reason.
Yeah... don't look at that link about the TNG Blu Rays I posted. Just don't...
How close do you sit and what size is your TV? Is this a 1080p vs 4K TV (so 2 TVs) or different material on the same TV? All of these factors are at play. If we isolate resolution alone from all the other things going on in a display (colour management, contrast ratio, calibrated vs non-calibrated, HDR vs. non-HDR, various settings like dynamic, vivid, cinema, etc.), then seeing a noticeable difference requires EITHER a very large screen OR sitting much closer to the 4K display, at minimum.
The single most important criterion for picture quality, according to ISF engineers is contrast ratio--considerably ahead of other criteria (IIRC, resolution is 3rd or 4th on list of importance). Second is colour accuracy (something relatively few people ever see on their displays because they don't bother switching to the most natural colour setting [nor do they spring for the cost of calibration]). If you're sitting 10-15' away from a 55"-65" (or smaller) screen and you immediately notice a "sharper" image on 4K, it's NOT the increased resolution (human eyesight cannot fully resolve the difference at that size/distance) but rather a combination of factors listed above and more sophisticated video processing (every year, that tech improves in displays). The "higher resolution" plays A part, but not the most important part. It is, however, the easiest criterion to promote as the cause of "better quality" as it is a number (more is "better"), rather than the more complex explanations surrounding the other factors. Marketing cannot reduce "wider colour gamut" and "more precise gamma adjustment" to a simple number--hence to focus on 4K.
My TV is from 2015 or 16 so it isn't a high end 4k TV, in fact it only supports 4k on a single HDMI port, and doesn't support HDR.
If I flip between a HD and 4k video on youtube or from a HD to 4k channel on cable, I can see the difference, it looks sharper and clearer.
If I flip between a HD and 4k video on youtube or from a HD to 4k channel on cable, I can see the difference, it looks sharper and clearer.
In both cases, the HD signal (YouTube or cable) is much more compressed (thus of lower PQ) than a commercial blu-ray of the same thing (the resolution is the same--1080p--but the bitrate for the video is dramatically higher on blu-ray). The 4K image from YouTube and cable is also more compressed than the UHD commercial blu-rays, but they use more efficient compression codecs than the compressed 1080p signals from YouTube and cable. At an equal rate of codec efficiency, the difference would be much smaller. If you compare a 1080p blu-ray of a recent "shot on digital" film of high quality to a UHD 4K blu-ray of the same master, you'll see some differences, but the resolution will only be a significant contributing factor at large screen sizes. Smaller sizes (or further seating position) will show improved colour gamut (more realistic in 4K sources, even the more compressed ones noted above) which is a more significant factor for improved quality. It's not that resolution makes zero difference at smaller screens/further seating distance, it's that it is far from the most important factor.
Moreover, comparisons are highly variable from one TV to another if comparing two resolutions on the same display. There are significant differences in upscaling/processing capacities between TVs, far more so than differences at native resolutions. Consequently, a TV with a mediocre upscaling processor will appear significantly worse and "less sharp" than a native 4K source (the latter requires no scaling), while a TV with an excellent upscaling processor will seem to have a much smaller gap in quality. A top of the line Sony 4K TV has much better upscaling/processing than a mid-level Samsung (the reverse is true as well), for example. So on the Samsung (in this hypothetical example), the jump in quality from 1080p to 4K will appear significant, even at smaller sizes. But the resolution will NOT be the noticeable cause on a 50" display from 10'. The upscaling processor will be the main difference.
Ironically, the more high end the TV, the smaller the difference between 1080p and 4K will appear--but that's because the 1080p will be presented much better, not that the resolution is so readily apparent (again, at typical sizes and seating distances).
