Quality queens' whole thinking is flawed. They'll say it's like the introduction of sound or color (categorical/qualitative improvements), when the better analogy would be making the sound so sensitive that you can hear the crew and filming equipment. If you show me makeup-slathered actors on a fake stage with perfect visual fidelity, then I'm going to feel like I'm watching makeup-slathered actors on a fake stage.

bluray tends to be shoveled out by absolute retards who ruin it on every level. nobody should ever buy bluray regardless of what you compare it against.

>>222544476
You aren’t going to convince me to get a Netflix subscription demon

>>222544560
buy laserdisc

>>222544328
>Is the difference between bluray and 4K blu ray really that noticeable?
The master matters more than the resolution. Sometimes a new release will correct a botched prior release (Predator BD vs 4K) or vice versa (James Cameron) for reasons that don't have anything to do with resolution or disc format. Those botch jobs were the result of bad decisions made on the master (namely denoising and revisionist color correction).
The new 4k remaster of Eyes Wide Shut is massively improved from the old bluray, but the differences between that same remaster when viewed on bluray and UHD are minor.

>>222544328
>Is the difference between bluray and 4K blu ray really that noticeable?
you have to take it on a case-by-case basis
it's also possible for 4K versions to be worse; the Criterion 4K Citizen Kane is clearly worse than the 1080p Warner Bros version, for example

>>222544915
If you only had the blu ray version to compare to you would think the 4K bluray is revisionist

>>222544610
I do this
>>222544476
streaming looks like garbage

>>222544328
A nigger is still a nigger
if thats what you were asking

>>222545416
>the Criterion 4K Citizen Kane is clearly worse than the 1080p Warner Bros version
it is not
the original negative of Citizen Kane like many RKO films of the 30s and 40s no longer exists
so they had to use the next best thing available which was a composite fine-grain master
the problem with using second-generation material like that is that there is always information and detail loss compared to OCN
there is simply not enough detail to pop in 4K
but still presented in the native 4K resolution with Dolby Vision it tops the decades old Warner disc if viewed on a huge display

I’m gonna buy a disc drive for my PS5 to test it out

>>222544328
why are you using a publicity photo of idris elba from luther, a show that was never broadcast in 4k to make your point?

It's way beyond the needs of the average consumer, but electronics companies need to sell new TVs and ISPs need bandwidth demand to justify raising prices, so this is what you're sold.

>>222544328
>How much media is even filmed in native 4K?
Most of it.
Before the late 2000s, most movies were shot on 35mm film which (very very roughly) is equivalent to 4K-6K when scanned.
Since about 2018, most movies are shot on 4K+ digital cameras and kept in 4K throughout post. And any movie that does use film will certainly use a 4K DI.
So there was a bit of a dark age of maybe 10-15 years where 2K digital cameras (and 2K DIs from scanning film) were common, but anything before or after that will take great advantage of 4K and the difference will be obvious.

Even when a movie was shot in 2K or had a 2K DI, a UHD bluray is a better way to watch it than a 1080p bluray for reasons (bitrate, chroma subsampling, etc) that I can't be bothered writing out in full. It's less important for those movies though.

>>222546149
A lot of people jump to that conclusion but there have been enough releases where people get outraged over a change in color only to get proven wrong that I just wait for screencaps and see if it looks good in its own right. When it's a true botch job there's rarely just one thing wrong with it.
With Predator there was no question, that bluray looked worse than the fucking UMD version I watched on my PSP in school. Same with EWS, the old version always had a flat tv sitcom look that never felt right.

For me I see no difference between 4K and 1080. The big difference is whether you're looking at a blu-ray from 2008 with an old VC-1 encode, which basically uses a DVD master, vs. a blu-ray from the past ten years which more likely uses a master that was SCANNED in 4k from a print. If you do a blind test of well-sourced 1080 vs its 4K counterpart, most people won't be able to tell the difference.

see here for instance, compare the 2007 Spartacus Blu-ray to the one where they actually went back to the source print and mastered it in higher resolution

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=14395&d2=14393&c=5560

tldr 4k is a meme, properly mastered 1080 discs are fine.

>>222547440
>2007 Spartacus Blu-ray
*2010 not that it makes a difference

btw this is why i laugh at the home-theater types who maintain massive shelves of movies and rebuy everything when the new format comes out. the collections they amass are worth peanuts just a few years later, even to them, it's like buying newspapers and keeping them, they get outdated quickly and they're very disposable.

>>222547556
If you have the money I see no issue wanting to experience the best format at all times