Expired Hot Deals

[Amazon.ca] Beauty and the Beast 4k Blu-ray - $15

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 4th, 2020 4:31 pm
[OP]
Member
Jan 5, 2006
247 posts
440 upvotes
Hamilton

[Amazon.ca] Beauty and the Beast 4k Blu-ray - $15

Beauty and the Beast (1991) 4k Blu-ray for $15
https://www.amazon.ca/BEAUTY-BEAST-Blu- ... B0842DTL3Y

Live action version is the same price
https://www.amazon.ca/BEAUTY-BEAST-Blu- ... B0842LRH75
Last edited by superdave316 on Apr 3rd, 2020 6:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
14 replies
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
28787 posts
9257 upvotes
Not my cup of tea but good price!

FYI if anyone is looking for Disney 3Ds, they are two for 18 GBP @ Zavi UK right now, including this and the live-action Beauty/Beast. Works out to around $16-17 each I think, but you have to account for shipping cost as well.
Member
Jun 8, 2019
274 posts
353 upvotes
Do people buy discs anymore? I thought those are long gone. I stream all my 4k content.
I own a service with Public Mobile and with Fido. [removed solicitation]
Member
Feb 22, 2010
399 posts
309 upvotes
roedoe wrote: Do people buy discs anymore? I thought those are long gone. I stream all my 4k content.
Is 4K streaming real? Or just downgraded low-quality encoded stuff?
Sr. Member
Nov 29, 2011
885 posts
1032 upvotes
roedoe wrote: Do people buy discs anymore? I thought those are long gone. I stream all my 4k content.

frame size doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

for example, the average 1080p movie online is 3-4gb. on a 1080p bluray, it is 25-30gb. so even though the resolution is the same, there is several times more image detail on a physical disc. personally i've compared my physical Criterion discs to the same titles on their streaming channel and there's def a difference. sometimes larger and more noticeable (esp movies that are darker, or having lots of shades in their lighting), but sometimes it's not noticeable enough to warrant purchasing a bluray.

for example, i watched a film by Joanna Hogg and one of the film's most emotional scenes was shot in near complete darkness. Streaming this scene completely ruined its emotional impact because the streaming encoded file just smooshed all the details in the darkness. so i was literally watching a 5 min scene where it was just chunky blocks of digital noise while i listened to the emotional audio of what was going on.

4k wise, UHD discs are around 60gbs for a movie. so roughly 30gb an hour. since streaming companies prioritize speed (so you're not waiting forever for the movie to start) and consistency (so the movie doesn't stop or stutter), there will still be a difference for streaming vs physical.
Last edited by gotglint on Apr 3rd, 2020 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Nov 27, 2011
2355 posts
961 upvotes
EDMONTON
Wall-E, Up, Monsters Inc., and Monsters University are third party sellers, I believe

I think I already got the original B&TB on 3D blu-ray so I got the live action version on 4K instead (also $15).

Disney's 4K releases are usually garbage upscales, btw. Even Avengers IW/EG looked like crap.
teksavvy sucks
Jr. Member
Aug 18, 2018
119 posts
71 upvotes
Why buy a 8000 tv then watch low picture streams ? Discs all the way
Jr. Member
Aug 18, 2018
119 posts
71 upvotes
I spent 3000 a month on dics steaming is so bad you can't watch even my 5 year old asks why steaming looks so bad
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
28787 posts
9257 upvotes
douber wrote: Is 4K streaming real? Or just downgraded low-quality encoded stuff?
It's real if you mean the resolution, sure it's 3840x2160. No denying that. But anything can be 3840x2160--you can take 720p, "record" (upscale, re-encode) to 4K and you've got a "4k source" lol. I'm not saying that's what streaming is doing but streaming has very real bandwidth concerns. These are not uncompressed video streams, none of them, even what you get on BDs is encoded with loss (i.e. lossy compression) with AVC or similar; UHD BD with HEVC. The raw video data (what goes over an HDMI cable) would be far too much data to capture on a storage medium or stream at this point in time. Compression schemes can be used to compress to varying degrees, so 4K heavily compressed with HEVC will still look poor compared to a UHD disc with much more data (less compression, less data lost or thrown out) with similar HEVC coding.

It's like taking an MP3 at 96kbps and comparing to one at the max. rate of 320kbps. They're both MP3, they're both using lossy compression, both can be the same bit-length and sample rate (e.g. 16-bit, stereo, 44.1Khz) but they will sound very different. 16-bit, 2ch, 44.1kHz gives a raw/uncompressed data rate of 1411kbps. 320kbps lossy MP3 is "transparent"* to most people while 96kbps is pretty poor quality and should be easily noticed as crap compared to the original/uncompressed source.
*By transparent I mean the person can't easily or reliably tell between the uncompressed original and the MP3-compressed version.
umadbrah wrote: Disney's 4K releases are usually garbage upscales, btw. Even Avengers IW/EG looked like crap.
Well I dunno if I'd call them "garbage" but really it doesn't look any better than the 1080p BD upscaled by the TV, provided you have a TV that doesn't have crap upscaling. But the same is true for many 4K discs, and in particular the ones that never came from 4K material. Marvel movies, due to the heavy use of special effects, CGI, etc. aren't native 4K so there's not really much you can expect. IMO 4K UHD discs are only worth buying if:
-they are a deal--either low cost in absolute terms or the same or cheaper than the regular BD
-the movie/source was native 4K or in the case of older stuff mastered from the original in 4K

Some people will blabber on about HDR :rolleyes: being on the 4K discs and that's true, but I don't even really like HDR that much (I feel it just makes things frosty lookin'); and, many TVs that have "HDR" support can't even get bright enough to really show it well either.
MediadealsB22551 wrote: I spent 3000 a month on dics steaming is so bad you can't watch even my 5 year old asks why steaming looks so bad
Wait what? Let's say the average 4K disc is $30, that's like 100 discs per month...every month? Surely in a few months you'd have gone through every 4K disc you could even buy lol.
Jr. Member
Aug 18, 2018
119 posts
71 upvotes
Steelbook version basic version movies from other places around the world different versions
Deal Addict
Feb 19, 2017
2131 posts
1539 upvotes
Max ordered that. Streaming is absolute garbage in comparison to disc quality
RFD is love. RFD is life. I wish I had an RFDer for a wife.
Deal Addict
Nov 27, 2011
2355 posts
961 upvotes
EDMONTON
ES_Revenge wrote: It's real if you mean the resolution, sure it's 3840x2160. No denying that. But anything can be 3840x2160--you can take 720p, "record" (upscale, re-encode) to 4K and you've got a "4k source" lol. I'm not saying that's what streaming is doing but streaming has very real bandwidth concerns. These are not uncompressed video streams, none of them, even what you get on BDs is encoded with loss (i.e. lossy compression) with AVC or similar; UHD BD with HEVC. The raw video data (what goes over an HDMI cable) would be far too much data to capture on a storage medium or stream at this point in time. Compression schemes can be used to compress to varying degrees, so 4K heavily compressed with HEVC will still look poor compared to a UHD disc with much more data (less compression, less data lost or thrown out) with similar HEVC coding.

It's like taking an MP3 at 96kbps and comparing to one at the max. rate of 320kbps. They're both MP3, they're both using lossy compression, both can be the same bit-length and sample rate (e.g. 16-bit, stereo, 44.1Khz) but they will sound very different. 16-bit, 2ch, 44.1kHz gives a raw/uncompressed data rate of 1411kbps. 320kbps lossy MP3 is "transparent"* to most people while 96kbps is pretty poor quality and should be easily noticed as crap compared to the original/uncompressed source.
*By transparent I mean the person can't easily or reliably tell between the uncompressed original and the MP3-compressed version.


Well I dunno if I'd call them "garbage" but really it doesn't look any better than the 1080p BD upscaled by the TV, provided you have a TV that doesn't have crap upscaling. But the same is true for many 4K discs, and in particular the ones that never came from 4K material. Marvel movies, due to the heavy use of special effects, CGI, etc. aren't native 4K so there's not really much you can expect. IMO 4K UHD discs are only worth buying if:
-they are a deal--either low cost in absolute terms or the same or cheaper than the regular BD
-the movie/source was native 4K or in the case of older stuff mastered from the original in 4K

Some people will blabber on about HDR :rolleyes: being on the 4K discs and that's true, but I don't even really like HDR that much (I feel it just makes things frosty lookin'); and, many TVs that have "HDR" support can't even get bright enough to really show it well either.


Wait what? Let's say the average 4K disc is $30, that's like 100 discs per month...every month? Surely in a few months you'd have gone through every 4K disc you could even buy lol.
It wasn't just the resolution, the colors lacked any real pop compared to movie releases by Sony or Fox. Disney are just straight up lazy with their 4K transfers. A lot of Disney releases don't even have Dolby Atmos or DTS tracks. HDR can be amazing if it is done right but it falls on the studio to put it together. Disney, however, is not one of those companies that care about putting out a quality 4K release. It's just meant to make them money.
teksavvy sucks
Member
Feb 22, 2010
399 posts
309 upvotes
ES_Revenge wrote: It's real if you mean the resolution, sure it's 3840x2160. No denying that. But anything can be 3840x2160--you can take 720p, "record" (upscale, re-encode) to 4K and you've got a "4k source" lol. I'm not saying that's what streaming is doing but streaming has very real bandwidth concerns. These are not uncompressed video streams, none of them, even what you get on BDs is encoded with loss (i.e. lossy compression) with AVC or similar; UHD BD with HEVC. The raw video data (what goes over an HDMI cable) would be far too much data to capture on a storage medium or stream at this point in time. Compression schemes can be used to compress to varying degrees, so 4K heavily compressed with HEVC will still look poor compared to a UHD disc with much more data (less compression, less data lost or thrown out) with similar HEVC coding.

It's like taking an MP3 at 96kbps and comparing to one at the max. rate of 320kbps. They're both MP3, they're both using lossy compression, both can be the same bit-length and sample rate (e.g. 16-bit, stereo, 44.1Khz) but they will sound very different. 16-bit, 2ch, 44.1kHz gives a raw/uncompressed data rate of 1411kbps. 320kbps lossy MP3 is "transparent"* to most people while 96kbps is pretty poor quality and should be easily noticed as crap compared to the original/uncompressed source.
*By transparent I mean the person can't easily or reliably tell between the uncompressed original and the MP3-compressed version.
Yes, you got my sarcastic point. :) I prefer buying a UHD disc with more data rather than having to watch compressed video full of artefacts. And since you bring the MP3 comparison, I also prefer physical media for the LPCM sound track (ok, it's not always available, but mostly compared to streaming).
Jr. Member
Oct 24, 2009
191 posts
177 upvotes
Brighton, Ontario
roedoe wrote: Do people buy discs anymore? I thought those are long gone. I stream all my 4k content.
Why is it that every disk deal thread gets some variation on this comment? Enough already. If you're happy with streamed quality, why are you even viewing a disk deal thread?

Top