Hacker News Reader

Comment by pier25 | Hacker News Reader

> For people that hate going to the movies, this could be a new acceptable norm.

I'd pay $30 right now to see Tenet in 4K Dolby Vision/Atmos via streaming.

Id actually recommend watching it at home. Without subtitles that film is difficult to watch in a cinema.

Or if you have 3.1 (or better) stereo set up, you could probably just turn the center channel higher relative to the rest to increase dialog (which is usually on the center channel).

Would be great if HT receivers had a mode to do that without having to manually increase and decrease the C channel.

Streaming such a high fidelity movie seems like a waste. Seeing the difference between a UHD 4K Blu-ray and a stream of the “same quality” it’s almost night and day.

I do have most Nolan films in 4K Bluray but Tenet isn't available yet. Before buying the physical media I'd be more than happy to see it via streaming with acceptable quality.

On the other hand, if the cost of streaming it as a rental is as high as the physical media copy...

Totally. But as a Nolan fanboy I really want to see Tenet and wouldn't mind paying extra to see it before the physical release.

If you can afford a comparable display and sound system to a Dolby certified cinema then $30 means a lot less to you than the typical viewer

If you can't afford $30 then what is wrong with waiting until you can?

Nothing! But the point I'm making is that Dolby Cinema isn't appreciable for most consumers' home theaters and that price point might be a bit different for someone who has a home theater with the capabilities and has spent the time/money calibrating it.

You don't need super high end gear to appreciate Dolby Vision. LG OLED displays are not that expensive these days.

I think they are that expensive. The cheapest OLEDs are around $1500, which is a lot of money for a lot of people.

Lets say you need an income of at least ~$30k to reasonably afford a $1000-2000 TV. I would argue that is a little low to afford a TV of that price, but at 30k that would be around a month's take-home pay. Doable I guess.

That's a tiny fraction of world population than can even possibly buy that TV, and only a fraction of those that can will. Even in rich countries, a large number of households wont have it. Dropping a grand+ on a TV would be considered a high-end luxury to the vast majority of the world's population.

Not sure what your point is or why you'd go on this tangent about who can or cannot afford an OLED TV.

My point is simply that OLED TVs are much less expensive than they used to be. Only 4-5 years ago you had to spend over $5,000 to get one.

The reason your confused is that your point is orthogonal to the discussion that was being had, but the other poster is still trying to have that discussion.

If you can't afford $30 then what is wrong with waiting until it's not $30.

If you can't afford $30, then you never will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com