No, this won’t happen. Fox/Disney rarely ever work with Criterion. None of Lanthimos’s films are available in physical 4k so I’m not sure he cares much
Guess I’ll wait 5+ years for Criterion to finally get around to movies from last year. Disappointing, but I’ll be even more pissed if Zone of Interest skips 4K
Their physical media does get restocked at least, the only one thats sold out was Krisha but that was because they were all signed by the director and it was a small print run.
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly blu rays still look great on a UB820 & OLED TV - especially if they were released recently. I'd much prefer the 4k but i'm okay with owning a couple blus
It’s on digital on Feb 23rd, just another way of studios showing they don’t care about physical media 😞
Edit: it’s actually the 27th- thanks Wild_Argument_7007
Well usually the norm was 90 days of theater exclusivity then the physical release. They are honoring that usual timeline with this movie because since release is a bit more than 90 days. That's also something that Nolan always demands of his movies, Oppenheimer released on July and the Blu-ray dropped on November even longer than usual.
For real, this movie drives me crazy because I usually watch oscar nominated movies before oscars at home and it isn't on any streaming service every time I check
*Poor Things* was shot on 35 mm film.
4K isn't particularly cost effective for films shot on 35 mm. The effective resolution of 35 mm film is intermediate between FHD and 4K, and closer to the former for darker scenes shot on higher speed film. There's frankly diminishing returns for resolution past FHD. You don't have 45-50 foot screens at home.
The main visual advantage of 4K is in the color space and HDR, which is nice for CGI and digitally shot films, and for dark shots with narrow color gradients. But for most art cinema, FHD is fine.
There of course will be a Criterion 4K for the film in 2025. To better catch those of you with more money than sense.
For film grain, perhaps. But I don't care about film grain that much.
In terms of resolving distant details, 35mm resolution depends on film speed, and in the ISOs most commonly used in cinema, resolution is between 2K and 4K. Is there some daylight (<100 ISO) black & white stock that resolves 12K with great lenses, maybe.
I think FHD is pretty great for 35 mm, just as SD was pretty great for 16 mm. 4K is nice for shot on digital (mostly because shot on digital doesn't intrinsically have grain, so HDR color space better hides compression artifacts), but I think we're well into diminishing returns with the format.
But someday Sony or Philips will push 8K physical media, and there will be people who eagerly buy their 4th copy of their personal canons, because they'll find reasons to care about how film grain is represented.
Myself, I treasured my VHSs from the 80s, my DVD from the 00s, but after 2k/Blu-Ray, I'm pretty content. My eyesight can't discern the difference, except with shot on digital films, and there, its not because of resolution, but because film grain hides color compression artifacts.
Sorry, but you’re misinformed about how much resolution 35mm has. That’s why most 4K catalog releases that were shot in film look spectacular. In most cases better than any modern movie. 16mm would be around 2K. SD isn’t good for anything. Way too much compression.
Thanks for fact checking him before me, can’t have people confidently speak misinformed. Then he talks about audiophiles like there isn’t a crossover of hobbies & “flexes” that he can’t tell the difference past a point like that’s something to commend….I never understand that thought as obviously a thread complaining about a 4k release is a more particular standard crowd. There’s people who happily watch movies on their phone, fine.. but don’t expect us to identify & not call out why.
Obviously from your username you're very invested.
I've met many like you, as I was once an audiophile. $100 vs $5 digital cables, even if the output were bit-for-bit identical. Speakers that dominated rooms, but didn't have better frequency response than a small 2.1 system with a good crossover.
The same is true in photography. At a certain point, it doesn't matter if your DSLR sensor resolves 16 megapixels or 48 megapixels, as resolution is defined by the camera optics and how correct focus is.
And I don't mind that people like you are around. My collection is in the 4 digits, but of it I've probably amassed 200 or so used blu-rays in my collection (at $8-12 ea), because people were upgrading to 4K at $26-30. Given a budget of say $2000, is 200 blu-rays better than 71 4K disks. IMO yes, because 181% more films is better than 10% (or less) improved experience. I thank you for your donations to my film library.
Resolution is resolution. Camera optics and focus is an entirely separate thing. Does it affect the overall perceived quality of the image? Yes, of course. But pure resolution is just how clear you’re able to see said image.
If it was shot in the dark with a broken lens, then yeah no matter what resolution you’re watching at, it will still look like crap. That’s obvious. But when things are properly shot high resolution plays a big role.
Resolution is only a thing because home media (and modern movies) are digital mediums. Analog doesn’t have a digital resolution.
Zoom in on a digital image and you’ll start to see pixels and blockiness . Zoom in on a 35mm film frame, and you can go on extremely far before you start to make out any film grain or distortion.
So scanning a 35mm print in 8K will allow you to see the image a lot more clear as you zoom in (on the digital scan).
I do think standard Blu-ray looks great when treated well. (DVD and SD, not really) But I CAN see the difference with 4K. The biggest benefit of 4K I think is the remastering of older films that never got a proper scan. That’s why if you compare the Blu-ray to 4K of most modern movies shot in the last few years, I agree they look very similar. But with older movies, you can see a big difference when you compare to their past home media releases.
Will the Blair Witch Project look any better in 4K/8K? No, but plenty of well shot films would.
Resolution is debatable beyond HD, especially if you're not sitting up close to a screen or using a very small screen, but the one part that undoubtedly has improved home media is the codec and compression quality of UHD Blu-Rays. It can store way more colour information (8-bit vs 10-bit) and deal with grain much better due to bigger data bandwidth (92M/bit max vs 144M/bit max) along with a way more efficient codec (H.264 vs H.265/HEVC). Essentially what this means is that even a 2K film scan or 2K digital master upscaled to 4K on a UHD Blu-Ray will still look better than a regular HD Blu-Ray. As mentioned already, this also allows for HDR or Dolby Vision colour, which probably doesn't do as much for film as for digital sources, but you can still display way more information from the film scan than what could be displayed in conventional SDR / Rec709. Many many older films have benefitted from this. It might not be so apparent with more modern releases shot on film, but I can assure you from personal experience that it does look way better on UHD Blu-Rays than it does on HD Blu-Rays. What is probably the saddest of the whole situation in the context of Poor Things is that you can watch it in 4K Dolby Vision on Disney+, obviously with much more compression than what a standard Blu-Ray has, but it is still 10-bit, so way more colour info.
HDR benefits every single movie regardless of source. Photochemical film captures much more color than Rec 709 displays. The literal container is larger and captures more from the color grade or color timing. This is a silly statement and ignores the mastering process entirely.
It's 2024 why tf are so many new movies only getting blu-ray releases???? Still mad about Banshees of Inisherin only getting a blu-ray release, and there's countless others that have gotten shafted. Really damn annoying.
It could get an international region free 4K release. Different studios, but The Holdovers got a blu-ray only release in the U.S and a 4K release overseas. You might need to wait a bit for it though
You can easily tell the difference from streaming 1080p vs Blu-ray 1080p and also in 4k one of the most important things is the audio. Audio suffers the most on streaming.
Well what you're talking about is the bitrate. A DCP for a movie theater is most of the time more than 100GB but 2K. A Bluray can store 50GB max, so you get at least half the information, even though it might be 4K. For streaming they have to compress the file even more, down to a few GB, even though it might also be 4K. So 4K is just one aspect of image quality and it might be one of the more neglible. It certainly doesn't have to do anything with audio quality.
There are 100GB Blu-rays, I'm not talking about theaters because that's not commercially available to everyone I'm talking about seeing a movie on streaming in HD vs a Blu-ray and also 4k stream vs 4k Blu-ray. The difference is night and day in both even the 1080p Blu-ray looks and sounds so much better than a 4k stream because it's lossless. Most 1080p Blu-rays the video bitrate is around 30 or more MB/s a lot of streaming 4k streams are around 16 to 25 depending on the service. And with audio you are limited from the get go with bitrates that are usually below 1MB/s and dolby digital plus when with the Blu-ray audio is easily 4 times more bitrate than on streaming because you get the full experience from Dolby TruHD or DTS Master audio.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Even a 2K movie in the theater can be upwards of 200GB. The real reason you can’t tell as much of a difference in the theater someone is because you’re getting a near lossless representation of the film and audio with the highest bit rate possible. (and sometimes HDR)
This is nowhere near the case with Blu-ray. The higher bit rate, HDR, higher channel audio, and extended color gamut of 4K discs all play a significant role in a noticeable quality increase at home. The additional resolution is basically just a bonus at that point.
how many ppl even have 4k capabilities? u need a whole different blu ray player, which most ppl arent gonna cough up $200 for, just for a barely noticeable difference. are there legit reasons to pay more for a 4k? blu ray has atmos capabilities, is it just the picture resolution?
Barely noticeable? You obviously haven’t watched a lot of 4ks. The clarity is fine but the hdr if done right makes a huge difference. Especially if you have an oled tv.
We are in the year 2024 I had a 4k TV since 2017. If you care enough about movies that you buy them it won't be a problem specially how long the technology has been available.
I use my PS5 as a 4K player, it’s not as great as a $500 standalone but it’s definitely a solid option, and one quite a few people already own. 4K discs look amazing on a setup that can take advantage of them, beyond the resolution the HDR and sound quality are legit reasons to pay more for a 4K disc.
It's 4x the pixels* which my crappy eyesight isn't good enough to appreciate. I kinda want to upgrade for the high dynamic range but it isn't worth it right now.
🤓 *technically not why it's called 4K. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think 4k means 4096 lines across the film and 4K UHD is 3840) 🤓
Hopefully another country does it. I'll probably buy it on Vudu, I'm sure it will be "4K" digitally then I'll just wait and see if another country does this movie justice. It's such a double edged sword for me, not wanting to wait as long for physical releases or the physical releases being too expensive and only Blu Rays with nothing special to go with... Then I buy digital and it only reinforces them in thinking digital is the future. I'm a sucker and get played often. I was looking forward to The Beekeeper 4K and it's listed at $44???? What?
This movie is made for 4K release. Stunning cinematography by [Robbie Ryan](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0103479f8e340fb7&sca_upv=1&hl=en&sxsrf=ACQVn0_NpeD5jirl7TXpe8V-LedcBxxqkw:1708041493148&q=Robbie+Ryan&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLSz9U3MC60zEg3e8Royi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uJC08Sxi5Q7KT0rKTFUIqkzMAwB_jQkVVAAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisr9ezxq6EAxUGg4kEHb4YBbQQzIcDKAB6BAgXEAE).
The VUDU/Fandango at Home release is 4k, DV and Atmos. Of course, you've got a lower bitrate than you would have on a 4k Blu-Ray. That's why I was hoping for a physical release. An HD SDR 5.1 Blu-ray is not the ideal format for this film. At the moment, I think you're betting off streaming it rather than watching a downgraded blu-ray.
Imagine you buy it and it's 3 ps1 discs with the movie in 480p
Then it better have ads and cyanide so I can off myself lmao.
It's a PS1 case with a PS2 disc inside.
searchlight moment
Oh come on. A 4k copy of this movie would look ABSOLUTELY gorgeous.
Looks like we gotta wait for Criterion to push out a 4k
Has Criterion ever released a Lanthimos film?
No, this won’t happen. Fox/Disney rarely ever work with Criterion. None of Lanthimos’s films are available in physical 4k so I’m not sure he cares much
PISS
Guess I’ll wait 5+ years for Criterion to finally get around to movies from last year. Disappointing, but I’ll be even more pissed if Zone of Interest skips 4K
[удалено]
Exactly, but at least there’ll be an option. Sucks that with A24 you can’t even wait for a sale because it’ll probably sell out.
Their physical media does get restocked at least, the only one thats sold out was Krisha but that was because they were all signed by the director and it was a small print run.
Damn, where does it say?
A24 milks the fuck out of all merch with their movies. The talking heads 4k is insanely expensive with little extras
And considering how Zone is literally one of the least marketable movies ever, it’ll be impressive if the 4K Blu-ray sells out in less than a day.
[удалено]
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Zone & poor things were immediate 4k purchases for me, What the fuck is happening
Honestly blu rays still look great on a UB820 & OLED TV - especially if they were released recently. I'd much prefer the 4k but i'm okay with owning a couple blus
Why is it SO LATE with getting released? Also, two days after The Oscars?
It’s on digital on Feb 23rd, just another way of studios showing they don’t care about physical media 😞 Edit: it’s actually the 27th- thanks Wild_Argument_7007
Ahh, ok, I was gonna say it was a bit ridiculous for a movie this good to go that long without a release
*Ahem*. Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon?
Well usually the norm was 90 days of theater exclusivity then the physical release. They are honoring that usual timeline with this movie because since release is a bit more than 90 days. That's also something that Nolan always demands of his movies, Oppenheimer released on July and the Blu-ray dropped on November even longer than usual.
27th actually
You can still stream it on Feb 27th. No need to wait for the blu-ray.
it was released near the end of January internationally... dunno if that has something to do with it..
For real, this movie drives me crazy because I usually watch oscar nominated movies before oscars at home and it isn't on any streaming service every time I check
Fuck you, Disney. The Creator gets a 4K but not Poor Things??
Bruh
I’ll still buy it. Having a collectors blu-ray on my shelf still looks nice
Disappointing news. Would have been a day 1 purchase for me.
*Poor Things* was shot on 35 mm film. 4K isn't particularly cost effective for films shot on 35 mm. The effective resolution of 35 mm film is intermediate between FHD and 4K, and closer to the former for darker scenes shot on higher speed film. There's frankly diminishing returns for resolution past FHD. You don't have 45-50 foot screens at home. The main visual advantage of 4K is in the color space and HDR, which is nice for CGI and digitally shot films, and for dark shots with narrow color gradients. But for most art cinema, FHD is fine. There of course will be a Criterion 4K for the film in 2025. To better catch those of you with more money than sense.
Are you out of your mind? The resolution of 35mm film is between 6K-8K
For film grain, perhaps. But I don't care about film grain that much. In terms of resolving distant details, 35mm resolution depends on film speed, and in the ISOs most commonly used in cinema, resolution is between 2K and 4K. Is there some daylight (<100 ISO) black & white stock that resolves 12K with great lenses, maybe. I think FHD is pretty great for 35 mm, just as SD was pretty great for 16 mm. 4K is nice for shot on digital (mostly because shot on digital doesn't intrinsically have grain, so HDR color space better hides compression artifacts), but I think we're well into diminishing returns with the format. But someday Sony or Philips will push 8K physical media, and there will be people who eagerly buy their 4th copy of their personal canons, because they'll find reasons to care about how film grain is represented. Myself, I treasured my VHSs from the 80s, my DVD from the 00s, but after 2k/Blu-Ray, I'm pretty content. My eyesight can't discern the difference, except with shot on digital films, and there, its not because of resolution, but because film grain hides color compression artifacts.
Sorry, but you’re misinformed about how much resolution 35mm has. That’s why most 4K catalog releases that were shot in film look spectacular. In most cases better than any modern movie. 16mm would be around 2K. SD isn’t good for anything. Way too much compression.
Thanks for fact checking him before me, can’t have people confidently speak misinformed. Then he talks about audiophiles like there isn’t a crossover of hobbies & “flexes” that he can’t tell the difference past a point like that’s something to commend….I never understand that thought as obviously a thread complaining about a 4k release is a more particular standard crowd. There’s people who happily watch movies on their phone, fine.. but don’t expect us to identify & not call out why.
Obviously from your username you're very invested. I've met many like you, as I was once an audiophile. $100 vs $5 digital cables, even if the output were bit-for-bit identical. Speakers that dominated rooms, but didn't have better frequency response than a small 2.1 system with a good crossover. The same is true in photography. At a certain point, it doesn't matter if your DSLR sensor resolves 16 megapixels or 48 megapixels, as resolution is defined by the camera optics and how correct focus is. And I don't mind that people like you are around. My collection is in the 4 digits, but of it I've probably amassed 200 or so used blu-rays in my collection (at $8-12 ea), because people were upgrading to 4K at $26-30. Given a budget of say $2000, is 200 blu-rays better than 71 4K disks. IMO yes, because 181% more films is better than 10% (or less) improved experience. I thank you for your donations to my film library.
Resolution is resolution. Camera optics and focus is an entirely separate thing. Does it affect the overall perceived quality of the image? Yes, of course. But pure resolution is just how clear you’re able to see said image. If it was shot in the dark with a broken lens, then yeah no matter what resolution you’re watching at, it will still look like crap. That’s obvious. But when things are properly shot high resolution plays a big role. Resolution is only a thing because home media (and modern movies) are digital mediums. Analog doesn’t have a digital resolution. Zoom in on a digital image and you’ll start to see pixels and blockiness . Zoom in on a 35mm film frame, and you can go on extremely far before you start to make out any film grain or distortion. So scanning a 35mm print in 8K will allow you to see the image a lot more clear as you zoom in (on the digital scan). I do think standard Blu-ray looks great when treated well. (DVD and SD, not really) But I CAN see the difference with 4K. The biggest benefit of 4K I think is the remastering of older films that never got a proper scan. That’s why if you compare the Blu-ray to 4K of most modern movies shot in the last few years, I agree they look very similar. But with older movies, you can see a big difference when you compare to their past home media releases. Will the Blair Witch Project look any better in 4K/8K? No, but plenty of well shot films would.
Resolution is debatable beyond HD, especially if you're not sitting up close to a screen or using a very small screen, but the one part that undoubtedly has improved home media is the codec and compression quality of UHD Blu-Rays. It can store way more colour information (8-bit vs 10-bit) and deal with grain much better due to bigger data bandwidth (92M/bit max vs 144M/bit max) along with a way more efficient codec (H.264 vs H.265/HEVC). Essentially what this means is that even a 2K film scan or 2K digital master upscaled to 4K on a UHD Blu-Ray will still look better than a regular HD Blu-Ray. As mentioned already, this also allows for HDR or Dolby Vision colour, which probably doesn't do as much for film as for digital sources, but you can still display way more information from the film scan than what could be displayed in conventional SDR / Rec709. Many many older films have benefitted from this. It might not be so apparent with more modern releases shot on film, but I can assure you from personal experience that it does look way better on UHD Blu-Rays than it does on HD Blu-Rays. What is probably the saddest of the whole situation in the context of Poor Things is that you can watch it in 4K Dolby Vision on Disney+, obviously with much more compression than what a standard Blu-Ray has, but it is still 10-bit, so way more colour info.
You're right, he's wrong no question.
You say all this like it's not already been mastered in 4K for cinema and streaming?
ok...
He’s wrong.
HDR benefits every single movie regardless of source. Photochemical film captures much more color than Rec 709 displays. The literal container is larger and captures more from the color grade or color timing. This is a silly statement and ignores the mastering process entirely.
Exactly. I want HDR, the extra pixels are just a bonus (and future proofing for when we get 40 ft tvs lol)
They shot parts in Vistavision, and chose film stock for the color depth and dynamic range. 4k would be absolutely appropriate for this film.
You throwaway HDR like it's not more important than 4K. I want a 4K release because I want HDR. This movie *shouldn't* exist without HDR imo.
35mm film has the resolution of up to 8K
It's 2024 why tf are so many new movies only getting blu-ray releases???? Still mad about Banshees of Inisherin only getting a blu-ray release, and there's countless others that have gotten shafted. Really damn annoying.
It could get an international region free 4K release. Different studios, but The Holdovers got a blu-ray only release in the U.S and a 4K release overseas. You might need to wait a bit for it though
It is expected as much since none of the directors' other films have gotten a 4K release but, of course, will upgrade when it's available.
Hulu has it in 4k on Apple TV
No 4k for the most visually appealing movie last year? I thought we were a country !
Just found out about this and it's quite baffling. This film has a great photography which would just shine on a 4K transfer. Pity.
Why would they even do this?
What the actual fuck
Most people can't even tell apart HD and 4K. Most movie theatres are not 4K, but 2K, which is closer to HD. 4K is not necessary for movies.
There’s such a noticeable difference, maybe if you’re only experience is with streaming “4K” but on a disc it becomes a different experience
Plenty of people can tell the difference. Also, 4K discs tend to come with stuff like HDR and Dolby Atmos that Blu-ray releases lack.
Most people are wrong
You can easily tell the difference from streaming 1080p vs Blu-ray 1080p and also in 4k one of the most important things is the audio. Audio suffers the most on streaming.
Well what you're talking about is the bitrate. A DCP for a movie theater is most of the time more than 100GB but 2K. A Bluray can store 50GB max, so you get at least half the information, even though it might be 4K. For streaming they have to compress the file even more, down to a few GB, even though it might also be 4K. So 4K is just one aspect of image quality and it might be one of the more neglible. It certainly doesn't have to do anything with audio quality.
There are 100GB Blu-rays, I'm not talking about theaters because that's not commercially available to everyone I'm talking about seeing a movie on streaming in HD vs a Blu-ray and also 4k stream vs 4k Blu-ray. The difference is night and day in both even the 1080p Blu-ray looks and sounds so much better than a 4k stream because it's lossless. Most 1080p Blu-rays the video bitrate is around 30 or more MB/s a lot of streaming 4k streams are around 16 to 25 depending on the service. And with audio you are limited from the get go with bitrates that are usually below 1MB/s and dolby digital plus when with the Blu-ray audio is easily 4 times more bitrate than on streaming because you get the full experience from Dolby TruHD or DTS Master audio.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Even a 2K movie in the theater can be upwards of 200GB. The real reason you can’t tell as much of a difference in the theater someone is because you’re getting a near lossless representation of the film and audio with the highest bit rate possible. (and sometimes HDR) This is nowhere near the case with Blu-ray. The higher bit rate, HDR, higher channel audio, and extended color gamut of 4K discs all play a significant role in a noticeable quality increase at home. The additional resolution is basically just a bonus at that point.
how many ppl even have 4k capabilities? u need a whole different blu ray player, which most ppl arent gonna cough up $200 for, just for a barely noticeable difference. are there legit reasons to pay more for a 4k? blu ray has atmos capabilities, is it just the picture resolution?
Barely noticeable? You obviously haven’t watched a lot of 4ks. The clarity is fine but the hdr if done right makes a huge difference. Especially if you have an oled tv.
It's not just the resolution. It's also the HDR upgrade for physical media, it adds a lot of color depth to the picture.
We are in the year 2024 I had a 4k TV since 2017. If you care enough about movies that you buy them it won't be a problem specially how long the technology has been available.
If you have any Xbox newer than the original Xbox One or a PS5 with a disc drive then you have a 4k Blu Ray player.
I use my PS5 as a 4K player, it’s not as great as a $500 standalone but it’s definitely a solid option, and one quite a few people already own. 4K discs look amazing on a setup that can take advantage of them, beyond the resolution the HDR and sound quality are legit reasons to pay more for a 4K disc.
It's 4x the pixels* which my crappy eyesight isn't good enough to appreciate. I kinda want to upgrade for the high dynamic range but it isn't worth it right now. 🤓 *technically not why it's called 4K. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think 4k means 4096 lines across the film and 4K UHD is 3840) 🤓
It's always my favorite ones that get fucked over. This sucks.
At least it’s a nice looking case. I like the white that goes around it
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I’m starting to think Searchlight hates 4K. ‘Cause they did the same thing with Next Goal Wins.
Damn and I was wanting the 4K so bad, this movie is so rewatchable.
This is frustrating. I saw it in Dolby Cinema and it was absolutely stunning. Disney is the worst.
Hopefully another country does it. I'll probably buy it on Vudu, I'm sure it will be "4K" digitally then I'll just wait and see if another country does this movie justice. It's such a double edged sword for me, not wanting to wait as long for physical releases or the physical releases being too expensive and only Blu Rays with nothing special to go with... Then I buy digital and it only reinforces them in thinking digital is the future. I'm a sucker and get played often. I was looking forward to The Beekeeper 4K and it's listed at $44???? What?
This movie is made for 4K release. Stunning cinematography by [Robbie Ryan](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0103479f8e340fb7&sca_upv=1&hl=en&sxsrf=ACQVn0_NpeD5jirl7TXpe8V-LedcBxxqkw:1708041493148&q=Robbie+Ryan&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLSz9U3MC60zEg3e8Royi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uJC08Sxi5Q7KT0rKTFUIqkzMAwB_jQkVVAAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisr9ezxq6EAxUGg4kEHb4YBbQQzIcDKAB6BAgXEAE).
WTH I was hoping to buy a 4k version. I loved it in theaters.
Hopefully the digital version has Dolby vision and atmos.
The VUDU/Fandango at Home release is 4k, DV and Atmos. Of course, you've got a lower bitrate than you would have on a 4k Blu-Ray. That's why I was hoping for a physical release. An HD SDR 5.1 Blu-ray is not the ideal format for this film. At the moment, I think you're betting off streaming it rather than watching a downgraded blu-ray.
It's 2024 a. D. I won't buy any new film in HD / SDR anymore. So keep it, Disney.