Slashdot Mirror
Sony's Ultra 4K Streaming Service Launching On April 4; Titles Priced At $30 (variety.com)
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.
Has anyone here watched any 4k porn? How did you get aroused with all the high resolution pimples and stretch marks?
And just how well is this going to work on AT&T DSL?
Yet another service I can't use due to the Data caps on my internet. Yay.......
Hahahahahahahaha!! Yeah Right!
I for one prefer to "own" the copies that I buy. If I'm to buy a digital only copy that I will never actually "own" why should I pay the same price, or even more, as a physical copy? No thank you Sony.
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?
The pricing is crazy. The only time I would even consider this is if a group was over splitting the bill.
I thought Ultra Violet was that comic-book shoot-em-up where Millia Jovovovvich shoots anything and everything that moves.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I knew it wasn't meant for playing 4K games (hell, my $600 videocard can barely handle that).
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
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.
Answer $30
What was Sony Ultra 4K steaming service movie price.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
it's most likely the last resolution increase they're gonna charge people with. 8K for all intents and purposes might never materialize at home 'cause 99% of people out there just won't notice any difference (vs 4K).
Another opportunity to pay for content yet AGAIN !
If you're lucky enough to be able to afford it. Not like any of us could put $30 to better use such as putting food on the table...
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.
>> Sony
>> Digital Content Delivery Network
What could possibly go wrong?
> 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 an idiot.
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 4K/HDR download (not streaming) service. The average US Internet connection can not sustain 25 Mbps.
So how long before Ultraflix gets hit with trademark? Or is it copyright? I'd dont even know anymore....
> 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)...
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 TV box.
Now maybe YOU can't see the difference, but that doesn't mean other people can't.
640p is good enough for everybody.
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.
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 for less than or equal to a single watching of a movie? No. For a physical copy that I can watch whenever I want? No, still too high. But the fact that it is streaming over the internet and may be subject to buffering, disconnects, jitters, bad encoding and all manner of other issues? No way.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
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.
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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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 be at their mercy if they ever change their minds.
If I don't get to keep my digital copy on my local machine, put it on a device of my choosing, and play it without an internet connected device ... then I refuse to buy the damned things.
UltraViolet basically killed digital movies for me. I will not keep supporting this rent-seeking bullshit, nor will I keep paying to upgrade.
And, no, I don't give a crap about yet another movie format. I see 4K as having zero value, and other than the media companies wanting to sell me a new TV every year or two, I don't see why I should get on it.
UltraViolet is just letting the media companies keep you on an upgrade treadmill, and ensure you keep paying for the same thing.
I saw this coming, and simply refuse to use this UltraViolet bullshit ... because sooner or later they'll just tell you that you need to pay more just because they want it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
On $30 desktop computer speakers, you can't tell the difference.
On $300 Sennheiser headphones, you can.
Well, I can anyway. :)
I'm sure the sound is much *~warmer~*
Umm yeah no thanks.
I was just reading yet another article about Sony shutting down a service yesterday. They are known for it, plus their awesome track record for bending over their customers without even offering up some lube. That said, $30 is beyond insane, a quick search on Amazon shows I can buy actual discs, which I can keep and play whenever I want without the worry of some random service having the rug yanked out from under me, or connection / buffering issues for $15-$30.
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 exception are the Disney movies, but they get watched so many times by the kids, I'll pay $20 for Frozen. :)
Otherwise, I'm happy enough where I'm at.
$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?
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 TV box.
Now maybe YOU can't see the difference, but that doesn't mean other people can't.
What really makes the difference between 1080p, 4k, 8k, etc is the size of the screen. You are comparing a 70" screen at 1080p (31.47 PPI/990 PPI^2) to a 55" screen at 4K (80.11 PPI/6417PPI^2). The 55" 4k screen has over 6 times the pixel density of the 70" screen. With a 110" screen, 8k will look a lot better then 4k at the same screen size - it will look as good as the 55" 4K screen as it has the same pixel density. 10 years ago with the 720/1080p debate, people were comparing the resolutions with the same screen size (which was fairly small at the time - average for 2006 was 42") which doesn't leave much of a difference in pixel density. A 15.1" 2660x1800 screen looks absolutely stunning when compared to a equivalent quality 24" 1080p screen despite it being 9" smaller...
Always making horrible ideas possible.
Call me when they charge 2.99/movie. That's about what I'd be willing to pay for streaming.
Yeah, but how close do you sit? And are you actually watching true 1080p on the main set, or are you watching 480p/720p/1080i native content that's resized to 1080p? I have 20/20 vision, and I'm not willing to sit close enough to see the difference in downsampled 1080p vs true 2160p on a 55" screen. You're probably making your comparisons at arm's length and then imagining a difference when you watch from 10 feet away, or you're an apples to oranges comparison based on brightness, color depth, or contrast of the newer set instead of resolution.
Unless you have 20/14 vision, I'd bet that you couldn't tell the difference more often than random chance from 10 feet away on your new TV in an A/B test where you watch randomized clips and then guess which resolution you just watched. For a fair test, it would be important to do the resampling in linear perceptual color space like CIE-LAB rather than 8-bit sRGB, so that you won't be able to easily spot color differences caused by the downsampling operation, and the screen would need to be calibrated at your viewing position for the same reason.
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.
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.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
10 feet from the 55", 12 feet from the 70" and 60".