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.

Comments

4k porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone here watched any 4k porn? How did you get aroused with all the high resolution pimples and stretch marks?

Re:4k porn

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not all into the low-quality porn that you're watching. Attractive women stay attractive when you can actually see them.

Re:4k porn

[davester666]

And we do it in the dark under a blanket. Wrapped in plastic, just to be safe.

And on AT&T DSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just how well is this going to work on AT&T DSL?

Re:And on AT&T DSL?

[Joe_Dragon]

well if you have U-verse no cap. vs comcast caps that will not let you use this.

Re:And on AT&T DSL?

[snowsmann]

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:And on AT&T DSL?

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:And on AT&T DSL?

[NatasRevol]

Cache it starting when you go to work. Watch half when you get home.

Repeat the next day.

Re:And on AT&T DSL?

[zlives]

get a second dsl connection and download movies ... or just buy blueray UltraHD... they are out now.

Re: And on AT&T DSL?

[snowsmann]

Hahaha. Yeah of course I could buy another dsl line. 80 bucks a month for 1.536Mbps. Still not fast enough. Plus, AT&T won't even bury the line they did put down. They won't even come out to check if we can get faster speeds. No way we'd ever actually get that second slow as hell line.

Wonderful.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another service I can't use due to the Data caps on my internet. Yay.......

Re:Wonderful.....

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[SuluSulu]

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.

Re:I like owning things...

[bloodhawk]

I don't give a shit whether I own the copies or not. I care about whether I can access the content and how much content, As such this means Sony backed crap is a no go though. I would much prefer to pay a moerate monthly fee with access to everything. Netflix gets the closest to my ideal just content range holding it back.

Re:I like owning things...

[Gr8Apes]

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!

Re:I like owning things...

[Gr8Apes]

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:I like owning things...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Buy isn't the correct word

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

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:Buy isn't the correct word

[93 Escort Wagon]

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 over and over, we buy the disk. I rip it with Handbrake, then put the disk away for safe keeping.

I've bought a few movies on iTunes, but I only do that if I have a way to make a DRM-free copy (e.g. Requiem ). Unfortunately that means we're now we're back to disks.

Re:Buy isn't the correct word

[Kjella]

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:

(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:Buy isn't the correct word

[jaymemaurice]

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:Buy isn't the correct word

[serviscope_minor]

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 acceptable.

Re:Buy isn't the correct word

[JaredOfEuropa]

You paid for the book but they get to say how, when and how often you can read it. Something like that. Nope, that dog won't hunt. Now I have 4 choices: submit to their consumer rights raping terms, don't buy their content, pirate it, or buy it and get a pirated copy I can do what the hell I want with. I prefer the last choice, but... they will still ream me in court if they catch me, and pirating without buying hopefully convinces or forces them to change their business model. Same as the music inductry; they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new century, and music can now be had at reasonable prices and terms. Good for them... and I haven't pirated music in the last decade or so, I am happy to pay for it on the terms they offer.

Copyright is not a natural right, it is a privilege granted by society for the benefit of society.

Re:Buy isn't the correct word

[squiggleslash]

I don't think it's worth $30 either. But in the above, you're technically incorrect on a few points, which is the best kind of incorrect ;-)

You most certainly CAN format shift the movie and make backup copies. However, this doesn't mean you can transfer to DVD (yet), it just means you can download local copies. These are still DRM'd, and require a custom player, but the movies can be viewed offline - be it on PC or tablet - you don't need to use the copy stored on your retailer's servers.

In terms of reselling, technically no. On the other hand the big UV providers do allow you to share your library with other people - for example this is how you do it with VUDU. So you can at least let other people borrow your discs, in a virtual way.

It's a different system and has advantages and disadvantages over physical disks. The main disadvantage is that theoretically they can screw you over at any time. The advantages - well, it's extremely convenient, and makes most movie watching activities extremely convenient.

I have good eyesight, but I'm not seeing myself buying a 4K TV, let alone spending $30 for 4K movies, any time soon.

Re: Buy isn't the correct word

[Merk42]

But why, exactly, are you entitled to the content?

Re: Buy isn't the correct word

[JaredOfEuropa]

Under the current interpretation of copyright I am not, unless I submit to their onerous terms. But by the same token, why are they entitled to have their work protected when it can be freely copied with no loss or downside to anyone, except a potential lost sale? Sure, authors should be able to benefit from their work, but there is no reason why they or their publishers are the sole authors of the terms of their temporary monopoly. If they don't want me to copy it, they can choose to not publish the content or add whatever DRM they think will work. But for much of human history, free copies have been the norm.

Re: Buy isn't the correct word

[Merk42]

Free copies have NOT been the norm. Only the elites had written documents. Even classical paintings and sculptures were done because they were paid for (usually by the church). Also, the whole "well if they don't want it to be copied they should add DRM" is hilarious. Oh you didn't want your product stolen? I guess you should have better locks on your storefront. I'm not guilty it's clearly your fault for not making your store impenetrable. And don't even counter that with the fallacy that something digital has no value, it takes time to create it in the first place. I also couldn't just walk into a university lecture for free even though it wouldn't take any more effort to lecture to me plus everyone else that paid. No you're just selfish, probably because you can't afford it what with having no job. Oh? Do you have a job? Well I'm entitled to get whatever it is you do for free because...reasons.

Re: Buy isn't the correct word

[JaredOfEuropa]

Common people were not denied access to copies because the works were protected, but because they could not afford to have a copy made. Copying was labor-intensive and expensive, which is one of the reasons that made books rare. Not any form of copyright. For the rest, if you cannot distinguish between a physical object that cannot be taken without the owner being deprived of it and cannot be copied free of cost, and a virtual intellectual work that can be copied at no cost to anyone or a small sum from the person who wants the copy without depriving the owner of the original of anything, then you have no business discussing these matters. Piracy is not theft. It may be illegal, it may even be immoral, but it is not theft. Not even close.

Re: Buy isn't the correct word

[Merk42]

First part: Yes, they couldn't AFFORD a copy. It wasn't free. Second part: I knew you were going to make the "easily reproducable therefore worthless" claim, so that's why I made the comparison with a lecture (which you interestingly ignored).

Re:Buy isn't the correct word

[Straif]

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).

Ultra-Violet?

[tekrat]

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"

[NotDrWho]

I knew it wasn't meant for playing 4K games (hell, my $600 videocard can barely handle that).

Re:Ah.... $30?

[NotDrWho]

At least you'll be able to play it on your new Sony PS4.5

Re:No thank you

[NotDrWho]

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?

Another reason for the new Playstation

[Zargg]

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?

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Alex I'll take LOL for $1000

[future assassin]

Answer $30

What was Sony Ultra 4K steaming service movie price.

you left out LaserDiscs

[dltaylor]

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:you left out LaserDiscs

[FlyHelicopters]

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!

Re:No thank you

[eumoria]

You spent $90 then you owned it forever. $30 and you can watch it a couple times then it disappears. Big difference there IMO

Re:No thank you

[steveg]

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.

Seems expensive

[grasshoppa]

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:Seems expensive

[Straif]

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:Seems expensive

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:Seems expensive

[squiggleslash]

There's a lot of redundancy built into it. For example, you don't stream from Ultraviolet, you stream from any company you've linked your UV account with. As an example, you can buy something from Walmart's VUDU, and stream via M-GO, Flixster, or any of another half dozen companies.

I like having a physical copy of a disk, but I have to say UV is very nice and very well done. Also you can upgrade your old DVDs to HD for $2.50 a disc using UV, which is pretty good considering the cost difference between Blu-ray and DVD alone is usually double that.

Luckily

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

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).

Re:Luckily

[ledow]

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:Luckily

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

It's a chicken and egg problem I'm not going to argue about. One thing is sure: large screen TVs were sold even before HD content became available. As to what propelled what is quite debatable. LCD TV's were exorbitantly expensive when they were first introduced.

Re:Luckily

[Qzukk]

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:Luckily

[TechyImmigrant]

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:Luckily

[Merk42]

How about a floor?

Re:Luckily

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Like this? -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCLYh4JSus8

Re:Ah.... $30?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Because otherwise all your friends, co-workers and family will talk about it and reveal spoilers, ruining the movie for you.

Blade Runner

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

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

[zuki]

>> Sony

>> Digital Content Delivery Network

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I own it forever... just like all that music I bought on wax cylinder that I'm constantly listening to.

Somebody doesn't know what "respectively" means

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

bit rate required

[TheSync]

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.

Re:bit rate required

[Straif]

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.

Re:No thank you

[FlyHelicopters]

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 today.

Upgrade from SD for $12 and from HD for $15?

[tadeck]

> 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:Upgrade from SD for $12 and from HD for $15?

[SeaFox]

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.

Re:No thank you

[Straif]

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 while on vacation) I know at least a few of them are damaged to the point of requiring repair to be playable so they are effectively gone.

Nothing is permanent but UV is at least as good or better than owning a physical copy.

Re:4K TV really is a joke.

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Re:4K TV really is a joke.

[religionofpeas]

640p is good enough for everybody.

$30? Non starter

[erp_consultant]

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:$30? Non starter

[AmiMoJo]

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:$30? Non starter

[erp_consultant]

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 going to last for 2 hours. With an MMA match or boxing match it could be over in 30 seconds.

Re:Ah.... $30?

[FlyHelicopters]

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:No thank you

[The Grim Reefer]

You spent $90 then you owned it forever. $30 and you can watch it a couple times then it disappears. Big difference there IMO

I'd much prefer to own a physical copy of something than to stream it. But even when new, a VHS tape was pretty awful quality. Granted, I think I paid around $800 for my first VCR, and it wasn't even stereo. But VHS tapes certainly did/do not last forever. Even if you don't play them, they degrade over time due to thermal and hygroscopic expansion/contraction. You can lessen this by keeping them in a controlled environment, but who's going to do that? Every time you play a tape it degrades it as well. So, yes that VHS tape can only be played so many times.

What's really annoying is that I have a couple of movies that I purchased on VHS for $90 that have still not been released on any other medium. I've copied them to DVD, but the quality is pretty bad at this point. So it's tough to watch, especially when they're in 4:3. It was fine when a large TV was 32". But the image quality is dreadful on the average size screen these days.

Re: No thank you

[corychristison]

You clearly don't have children.

They will fixate on one movie for years at a time, demanding to watch it daily.

Re:No thank you

[bloodhawk]

well firstly Sony has been in serious financial trouble for a number of years which immediately places any service they are running on long term shakey ground (yes they seem to have turned the corner in the last 12 months but it would only take a few more bad quarters and they could be looking at being bankrupt). UV terms makes no guarentees that you own the movie for life, think it is something like 3 years from purchase they guarantee which makes it significantly WORSE than owning a physical copy.

BBC1 BBC2 ITV...

[Harold Halloway]

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.

Re:No thank you

[Gr8Apes]

I own easily over 1000 optical media. Of those, about 5 have issues, 2 due to bitrot, and a couple that were used and came scratched but generally don't have huge issues. I have digital copies of a higher grade than anything you get streaming today for all those that have issues. Quality is what keeps me away from streaming. Maybe with 4K streaming we'll finally get on par with 1080P BD? We'll have to wait and see.

$30? No thanks.

[tompaulco]

$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.

Re:$30? No thanks.

[Straif]

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.

Re:No thank you

[unrtst]

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:4K TV really is a joke.

[jaymemaurice]

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:4K TV really is a joke.

[AnotherBlackHat]

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:No thank you

[Straif]

According to UltraViolet's site on their faq:

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 still have full rights to them.

Some codes have an expiration date to use but once added to your library they are there pretty much until you delete them. I believe the 3 year fallacy came from one of the original terms of use documents that were either included with the discs or on the website when the service originally launched.

Re:4K TV really is a joke.

[TechyImmigrant]

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:No thank you

[Straif]

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.

Keep paying ...

[gstoddart]

Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.

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.

Re:Keep paying ...

[Straif]

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 movies than I will continue to be able to watch them in perpetuity for exactly $0.

You can also DL UV movies to whatever device you want for later offline watching. I do this routinely to load up my SD cards for trips.

You can enter pretty much every UV code at either Vudu or Flixster and never go near any Studio site or service.

The biggest difference between UV and Apple is that while on Apple you are locked to getting your playback service and your locker storage from the same provider (iTunes) on UV you can choose whichever playback service you prefer. This is especially helpful when you deal with different playback devices. If you're preferred provider doesn't make an app for the device you're currently on you just have to install one of the other providers apps. Try doing that with iTunes.

So don't bitch about how a service provider killed a movie format for you when you apparently have absolutely no understanding on how that service works.

There are legitimate gripes about UV (and I personally have many more concerning iTunes) but almost nothing in your post hits on any of them.

Re:No thank you

[serviscope_minor]

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:4K TV really is a joke.

[FlyHelicopters]

On $30 desktop computer speakers, you can't tell the difference.

On $300 Sennheiser headphones, you can.

Well, I can anyway. :)

Re:Ah.... $30?

[zlives]

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:4K TV really is a joke.

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Re:Ah.... $30?

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Lets see

[gardner]

$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?

Re:Ah.... $30?

[youngone]

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.

Sony never disappoints...

[nnull]

Always making horrible ideas possible.

Re:Ah.... $30?

[FlyHelicopters]

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: No thank you

[dunkelfalke]

Nazis. It's cheaper.

Re:No thank you

[thegarbz]

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.

30 for a movie you don't actually get to own?

[m76]

Call me when they charge 2.99/movie. That's about what I'd be willing to pay for streaming.

Re:30 for a movie you don't actually get to own?

[Straif]

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:30 for a movie you don't actually get to own?

[m76]

Since it's locked inside a service, I don't feel that I'm purchasing anything. When I purchase a movie I expect it to play anywhere with the player of my choice.

Re:30 for a movie you don't actually get to own?

[Straif]

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.

Re:4K TV really is a joke.

[A Friendly Troll]

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:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're speaking English, but you lost me with all that talk about squids... Don't you guys use real money, like dollars, over there?

Re:4K TV really is a joke.

[Aqualung812]

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:No thank you

[Biotech_is_Godzilla]

You're not from Cambridge, UK are you? If so last time I checked the Video Emporium still existed. The shop shut but the owner started doing home delivery...

Re:Ah.... $30?

[coinreturn]

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:No thank you

[coinreturn]

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:No thank you

[coinreturn]

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:Ah.... $30?

[zlives]

what!! the 2000's called and want their movie back ;)

Re:Ah.... $30?

[zlives]

hehe waiting for TFA to be released in 4kblueray before i buy/watch it, but i meant general movie spoilers ;)

Re:4K TV really is a joke.

[FlyHelicopters]

10 feet from the 55", 12 feet from the 70" and 60".

Re:No thank you

[serviscope_minor]

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:No thank you

[cthulhu11]

Clearly Bob is his uncle.