AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › A Comparison of Skyfall on iTunes, Vudu, and Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Comparison of Skyfall on iTunes, Vudu, and Blu-ray - Page 5

post #121 of 229
2/18/13 at 2:34pm
And a vast majority of the older codes are for SD downloads only. It is just within the last year that some, key 'some', of the studios have offered HD digital copies so again most of them are useless if you are looking for a quality representation. To me those 'digital copies' are just to keep the kiddies entertained in the car while driving to grandma's house.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #122 of 229
2/18/13 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

I don't know about in the US, in Canada, VOD is still using MPEG2 which is still very cruddy at 12 Mbps due to macroblocking.

Very true, but some MSOs in the US are making the transition to MPEG4.
Big issue is that most of the legacy boxes can't use it.frown.gif
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 229
2/18/13 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post

Very true, but some MSOs in the US are making the transition to MPEG4.
Big issue is that most of the legacy boxes can't use it.frown.gif

Most HD boxes out there (DCX3400 and similar) can do MPEG-4, and they could slowly choke off the older boxes from HD VOD or VOD at all without a massive disruption to linear channels. They should also leverage 1ghz, as the newer boxes (for VOD) and DOCSIS 3 modems can handle it, even though you can't put SDV or linear channels up there, as CableCard devices are limited to 860mhz.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 229
2/18/13 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

That's interesting. From my experience the 1080p itunes usually looks worse/has less detail than the 720p for anything besides animation because of the minimal bitrate increase (4000 vs. 5000 kbps).

720p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/b5bcee215520174
1080p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/ae08cc215520152

720p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/48d4ab213690873
1080p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/7f14ae213690893

720p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/d41c6d213690831
1080p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/9109dc213690853

720p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/1712ef215183213
1080p
http://www.imagebam.com/image/151ba4215183203

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/8096/picture:1

Is everyone reading over this post? Itunes 720p looks better than 1080p for everything besides animation. There is a huge detail loss in the 1080p encodes because of the 5 mbps bitrate. If you want to compare best vs best you should be using the 720p itunes version.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 229
2/18/13 at 8:30pm
Thread Starter 
The 720p files are over-sharpened, with an attendant increase in noise and artifacts. There is more actual detail in the 1080p examples.

edit - I stand corrected. iTunes 720p looks, better. That includes Skyfall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

Is everyone reading over this post? Itunes 720p looks better than 1080p for everything besides animation. There is a huge detail loss in the 1080p encodes because of the 5 mbps bitrate. If you want to compare best vs best you should be using the 720p itunes version.

Edited by imagic - 2/19/13 at 12:19pm
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 229
2/19/13 at 3:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

The 720p files are over-sharpened, with an attendant increase in noise and artifacts. There is more actual detail in the 1080p examples.

I've watched hundreds of tv shows/movies in 720p/1080p on itunes and you are completely wrong. 1080p has less detail 99% of the time, there is even speculation that they are DNR'd to get rid of the artifacts.

Not to mention the screenshots don't lie. 1080p is a blurfest with no detail. I wish it wasn't the case, but you can't increase bitrate from 4000 to 5000 kbps (20%) and expect the 1080p to look good when it is over 2x the amount of pixels. Apple is using 1080p completely as a marketing gimmick to sell new apple tvs, since the 1080p encodes don't work on the old one. They are not giving it the bitrate it needs to look good (8000-9000 kbps). Apple isn't dumb, their 1080p movie trailers are encoded at 9000-10000 kbps and look pretty good. They are limiting the bitrate on the itunes encodes probably because they don't want to hear a bunch of people complaining it is taking too long to stream on their slow connections. They are getting away with it though as the general public doesn't seem to care. They think 1080p is automatically better because that's what they have been trained to think.

The fact that you aren't aware of the discrepancy makes me invalidate your entire comparison. Do you not see the difference in detail between these 2 screens? The 1080p looks terrible. Sorry, but you sound like a noob. Your terrible screen captures don't show anything, these are actual native comparisons.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/8096/picture:1
Edited by StinDaWg - 2/19/13 at 12:36pm
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 229
2/19/13 at 5:46am
Thread Starter 
You are correct. I will include 720p streams in future comparisons. With skyfall, the improvement in the 720p version is too blatant to ignore. I am sorry I doubted you. The comparison itself is not invalidated, the relative differences between the 1080p streams are worth comparing. However you opened my eyes. I'm updating the original comparison when I get a chance.

I promised myself that if any commenter makes a valid point that contradicts my own opinion, that I would consider it fully. So here it is:


Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

I've watched hundreds of tv shows/movies in 720p/1080p on itunes and you are completely wrong. 1080p has less detail 99% of the time, there is even speculation that they are DNR'd to get rid of the artifacts.

Not to mention the screenshots don't lie. 1080p is a blurfest with no detail. I wish it wasn't the case, but you can't increase bitrate from 4000 to 5000 kbps and expect the 1080p to look good.

The fact that you aren't aware of the discrepancy makes me invalidate your entire comparison. Do you not see the difference in detail between these 2 screens? The 1080p looks terrible. Sorry, but you sound like a noob. Your terrible screen captures don't show anything, these are actual native comparisons.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/8096/picture:1

Edited by imagic - 2/19/13 at 5:57am
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 229
2/19/13 at 7:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

I've watched hundreds of tv shows/movies in 720p/1080p on itunes and you are completely wrong. 1080p has less detail 99% of the time, there is even speculation that they are DNR'd to get rid of the artifacts.

Not to mention the screenshots don't lie. 1080p is a blurfest with no detail. I wish it wasn't the case, but you can't increase bitrate from 4000 to 5000 kbps and expect the 1080p to look good.

The fact that you aren't aware of the discrepancy makes me invalidate your entire comparison. Do you not see the difference in detail between these 2 screens? The 1080p looks terrible. Sorry, but you sound like a noob. Your terrible screen captures don't show anything, these are actual native comparisons.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/8096/picture:1

That's a great point. Many of the streaming proponents (not saying imagic is one) want you to think that all 1080p video is equal. The fact is 1080p@5Mbps vs 1080p@25Mbps aren't even close to the same quality. Just because the output is flagged as 1080p video for your display doesn't mean it truly has all the possible detail it could have. The streaming companies want you to believe that all 1080p video is equal and therefore their services are Blu-ray quality. The reality is that they aren't even close.

Streaming and digital copies are a convenience option. If you want quality, then Blu-ray is still your best option.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 229
2/19/13 at 7:37am
You know, it amazing. All this bickering over how SKYFALL looks - bottom line - it's a horribly lit film, with horrible color. Like most films today they all look the same. Blue tint, or green tint, or orange tint. Everything looks like it was finished off with a poor usage of a Photoshop filter. True cinematography seems to be a thing of the past. What passes off as expectable in the past was never accepted for explained as poor film elements, poor lighting, or even bad lab work. I don't know about anyone else but I see in color, all colors - not this de-saturated crap. This bull excuse of it looking "grittier" is just that, "Bull". Films looked even "grittier" when done in 16mm or bumped up to 35mm in the 70's. (It like Quentin Tarintino adding digial scratches to make his film resemble a 70's over run print of a low budget film - really, why didn't he just save money and do it in 16mm then blow it up to 35mm and lab process it to bring out the grain - instead of spending millions to "make it look less" DUMB!
This new look is simply bad taste, and no quality - especially since everyone in Hollywood is doing it. Like all trailers seemingly having the need to show a scene, then fade to black, then fad into a scene, then fade to black is BORING and UNAMAGINITIVE. Where is the talent?! The screen grabs posted here are interesting, but really a better film should have been used to showcase the issue. Plainly, looking at what's been posted for comparison is noting more than more detail of a turd. A turd still stinks - and more detail is wasted.
- Scott
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 229
2/19/13 at 8:10am
Well you are entitled to your opinion but I'll side with the members of the American Society of Cinematographers who obviously disagree with you and nominated Deakins for an Oscar for his Skyfall work. But what do they know......
,
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 229
2/19/13 at 8:18am
Thread Starter 
Considering the national predilection for convenience over quality, the least we can do is help the uneducated consumer reach the best possible conclusion as to which streaming service comes closest to Blu-ray in quality. So far the iTunes 720p example is the winner. I'm thinking of limiting the comparison to Blu-ray in future threads and instead concentrating on the quality differences among the different streaming options. Because Amazon does not stream HD to the desktop, any future comparisons that include Amazon 720p HD will have to be photographed instead of screen captured. Same goes for Netflix on the PS3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

That's a great point. Many of the streaming proponents (not saying imagic is one) want you to think that all 1080p video is equal. The fact is 1080p@5Mbps vs 1080p@25Mbps aren't even close to the same quality. Just because the output is flagged as 1080p video for your display doesn't mean it truly has all the possible detail it could have. The streaming companies want you to believe that all 1080p video is equal and therefore their services are Blu-ray quality. The reality is that they aren't even close.

Streaming and digital copies are a convenience option. If you want quality, then Blu-ray is still your best option.

Edited by imagic - 2/19/13 at 12:20pm
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 229
2/19/13 at 8:26am
The problem is that many don't know any better. I can see with music why you would want to take your entire collection on one device when you go on a road trip or have it to listen to on your daily commutes. I just don't see why its important for video collections unless you have a lot of down time when you travel. Movies require attention when viewing. Music on the other hand is background noise or a soundtrack for your life.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 229
2/19/13 at 8:34am
Thread Starter 
You would think that is true but there are numerous reasons the streaming version's quality matters, including how it looks on an iPad or a Kindle. Some people like to watch movies in bed with their iPad, which is held close enough that the IQ matters a great deal. Also, with streaming apps being built into TV sets, the convenience factor is so high it's easy to see why someone would just click on Vudu to rent a new release instead of waiting for a Blu-ray to arrive in the mail or hiking out to a vending machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

The problem is that many don't know any better. I can see with music why you would want to take your entire collection on one device when you go on a road trip or have it to listen to on your daily commutes. I just don't see why its important for video collections unless you have a lot of down time when you travel. Movies require attention when viewing. Music on the other hand is background noise or a soundtrack for your life.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 229
2/19/13 at 8:43am
Watching a movie on iPad or other portable device.... blasphemy! tongue.gif

I'll watch TV shows, movies I don't really care about on a small device or use it to keep the kids entertained.

But if anyone is watching Lawrence of Arabia on a portable device they should have their AVS membership revoked. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 229
2/19/13 at 9:02am
If you've ever watched late night European hotel TV,, tablet movies at 720p or less don't look so bad.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 229
2/19/13 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post


I have good eyesight, and good display calibration. I can see Comcast's compression artifacts on almost every show/channel I watch. I can't see the difference between HDX and Blu-Ray. I understand there is lossiness, the issue is, on a good sized TV in a smallish room (I'm 9 feet from a 60" TV), it is physically impossible for a human to tell the difference between HDX and Blu-Ray. Amazon is like 90% as good as HDX/Blu-Ray (not quite as sharp), but iTunes, in my experience, has had a very sharp picture but some nasty compression artifacts that jump right off the screen just like Comcast. Also, if you think about it, the gold standard of HDTV is 19mbps MPEG-2, or a half a QAM, which is what FIOS is using. HDX uses up to 8 or 9mbps with MPEG-4 AVC using VBR, which is exactly in line with the gold standard given that a well tweaked MPEG-4 AVC is twice as efficient as MPEG-2, and it's compression artifacts are much less noticeable. That's also why HBO, ESPN and ESPN 2 look nearly perfect and immersive, while most other channels look like sh*t. Those three channels mandate their bitrate. If you're doing a good job with compression, which HDX is, there's nothing to be gained to the human eye above 8-9mpbs in MPEG-4 AVC or 19mbps on MPEG-2.

Sunday I watched some of the Skyfall HDX movie on VUDU. I got it from the UV version that came with the movie I bought from BestBuy. I am 9 feet away from my 82" DLP. Now it did look good from VUDU. Especially with my Darbee Darblet in the chain, but the BD I have of Skyfall was easy to see that it looked better. But the VUDU version was good, just not as good as a BD. I've been watching BD since it was launched in June 2006. There are some titles I purchase on BD, some titles I rent from BD(from Netflix, Blockbuster, RedBox, and 3DBDrental) and some streaming titles I rent from Vudu, Amazon, Xbox Live, PSN, Netflix etc. It really all depends on my mood and what i feel like watching at the time. Some titles I will wait for the BD, and some I won't. And since what I feel like watching can change on a daily or hourly basis, only streaming can give you instant access to the titles. So while I don't use streaming all the time it is certainly a nice option to have for the convenience factor.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 229
2/19/13 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

No problem. From Amazon's FAQ:

What is the quality of the videos?
The video quality we deliver will depend on your internet connection. We'll automatically detect your connection speed and send you the highest quality stream your connection can support. Our standard definition files are comparable to DVD quality and our HD files are even better. Our HD files are streamed in high-quality 720p resolution, or can be downloaded to TiVo at 1080i resolution. - source: Amazon.com

I checked out Amazon and it's not competitive with the current 1080p offerings from iTunes and Vudu - or even Netflix. Stay tuned for a comparison of "The Art of Flight" across a number of platforms. Recently it's caught on as the reference Blu-ray for showing off home theater installations. It will be a thorough comparison of sound and visual quality across as many delivery platforms as I can squeeze in. I can tell you - based on initial comparisons - Amazon HD version is among the worst.

Most of the content I've downloaded from Amazon has been in 1080P24, not 1080i. But most of what I download from amazon is also Tv shows.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 229
2/19/13 at 11:08am

Well I will take my Blu Ray and it's DTS Master Audio 7.1 thank you 

Reply
Reply
post #139 of 229
2/19/13 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Sunday I watched some of the Skyfall HDX movie on VUDU. I got it from the UV version that came with the movie I bought from BestBuy. I am 9 feet away from my 82" DLP. Now it did look good from VUDU. Especially with my Darbee Darblet in the chain, but the BD I have of Skyfall was easy to see that it looked better. But the VUDU version was good, just not as good as a BD. I've been watching BD since it was launched in June 2006. There are some titles I purchase on BD, some titles I rent from BD(from Netflix, Blockbuster, RedBox, and 3DBDrental) and some streaming titles I rent from Vudu, Amazon, Xbox Live, PSN, Netflix etc. It really all depends on my mood and what i feel like watching at the time. Some titles I will wait for the BD, and some I won't. And since what I feel like watching can change on a daily or hourly basis, only streaming can give you instant access to the titles. So while I don't use streaming all the time it is certainly a nice option to have for the convenience factor.

I'd be interested to see what the results of a blind test would be...
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 229
2/19/13 at 5:07pm
Not sure where you are getting the 7.1 audio from, as neither the official Blu-Ray release nor VUDU streaming offer that. The Blu-Ray release, just reviewed on AVS forum, states DTS-HD 5.1 and VUDU maintains DD+ 5.1
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 229
2/19/13 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by R_J View Post

Not sure where you are getting the 7.1 audio from, as neither the official Blu-Ray release nor VUDU streaming offer that. The Blu-Ray release, just reviewed on AVS forum, states DTS-HD 5.1 and VUDU maintains DD+ 5.1
In addition, Skyfall was "only" originally mastered as 5.1 during post production in the first place.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/mix-master-sound-iskyfalli
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 229
2/20/13 at 7:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R_J View Post

Not sure where you are getting the 7.1 audio from, as neither the official Blu-Ray release nor VUDU streaming offer that. The Blu-Ray release, just reviewed on AVS forum, states DTS-HD 5.1 and VUDU maintains DD+ 5.1

That's besides the point.... lossy is still lossy and lossless quality > lossy quality.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 229
2/21/13 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditcin View Post

You know, it amazing. All this bickering over how SKYFALL looks - bottom line - it's a horribly lit film, with horrible color. Like most films today they all look the same. Blue tint, or green tint, or orange tint. Everything looks like it was finished off with a poor usage of a Photoshop filter. True cinematography seems to be a thing of the past. What passes off as expectable in the past was never accepted for explained as poor film elements, poor lighting, or even bad lab work. I don't know about anyone else but I see in color, all colors - not this de-saturated crap. This bull excuse of it looking "grittier" is just that, "Bull". Films looked even "grittier" when done in 16mm or bumped up to 35mm in the 70's. (It like Quentin Tarintino adding digial scratches to make his film resemble a 70's over run print of a low budget film - really, why didn't he just save money and do it in 16mm then blow it up to 35mm and lab process it to bring out the grain - instead of spending millions to "make it look less" DUMB!
This new look is simply bad taste, and no quality - especially since everyone in Hollywood is doing it. Like all trailers seemingly having the need to show a scene, then fade to black, then fad into a scene, then fade to black is BORING and UNAMAGINITIVE. Where is the talent?! The screen grabs posted here are interesting, but really a better film should have been used to showcase the issue. Plainly, looking at what's been posted for comparison is noting more than more detail of a turd. A turd still stinks - and more detail is wasted.
- Scott

I too am getting tired of this over processed digital DI look and color timing scheme. It's long past its prime. IMHO.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 229
2/21/13 at 2:36pm
Downloaded UHD probably won't look as good as something that was placed on a larger capacity disc (in the BDXL range, at least) with premium object-oriented lossless audio. They'll want to keep the file sizes down to as small as possible due to cloud storage costs and the speed at which a customer can download said file, which will mean an inferior product for discriminating home theater types. Like MP3, they'll squeeze the life out of the master file for the sake of locking down and controlling content and making mad money in the process.

1080p Netflix streaming is no where near Blu-ray quality and now they want to do UHD-streaming??? Heck, my high speed internet via Comcast (or Concast) chokes every so often on single digital Netflix streams.

Plus, ISP's are notorious for bandwidth usage caps and many peg them using streaming services and online gaming. UHD streaming and downloading will only make things worse. Has Hollywood thought of that? Noooo... They're too busy seeing dollar signs dance in their heads.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 229
2/21/13 at 4:00pm
Thread Starter 
Discs are dead. You can always beat the quallity of a disc with download because there is no limit to capacity. Comcast internet really works well for me. I'll be comparing 'The Art of Flight" soon enough, including the Netflix 1080p version, which I happen to thing looks spectacular. I cant wait to compare it to Blu-ray, iTunes and Vudu.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Downloaded UHD probably won't look as good as something that was placed on a larger capacity disc (in the BDXL range, at least) with premium object-oriented lossless audio. They'll want to keep the file sizes down to as small as possible due to cloud storage costs and the speed at which a customer can download said file, which will mean an inferior product for discriminating home theater types. Like MP3, they'll squeeze the life out of the master file for the sake of locking down and controlling content and making mad money in the process.

1080p Netflix streaming is no where near Blu-ray quality and now they want to do UHD-streaming??? Heck, my high speed internet via Comcast (or Concast) chokes every so often on single digital Netflix streams.

Plus, ISP's are notorious for bandwidth usage caps and many peg them using streaming services and online gaming. UHD streaming and downloading will only make things worse. Has Hollywood thought of that? Noooo... They're too busy seeing dollar signs dance in their heads.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 229
2/21/13 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

I'd be interested to see what the results of a blind test would be...

Yeah, you'll need to be blind to not be able to see the differences. rolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 229
2/21/13 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Discs are dead. You can always beat the quallity of a disc with download because there is no limit to capacity. Comcast internet really works well for me. I'll be comparing 'The Art of Flight" soon enough, including the Netflix 1080p version, which I happen to thing looks spectacular. I cant wait to compare it to Blu-ray, iTunes and Vudu.


The limit will be the "average" user's internet speed (Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon have used that yardstick) and the amount the studios are willing to cough up for storage on their server farms. Mo' quality, mo' file storage needed, mo' cost to said studios. Even on Blu-ray, studios have chosen to cram more TV episodes on a disc rather than paying for just one more additional disc for the set to ease up on the filtering and compression used. Not as many special making of features as with LD's or DVD special editions because it would take more discs. This penny pinching mind set will convert to the internet business model. Money trumps quality. Always has.

You're too quick to actually want discs to die. I can envision how the studios want to control their media from here on out and it's going to be pretty anti-consumer. They've tried this every time a new A/V format comes out. Most notably DIVX and time destructive PPV HD discs.

Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 2/21/13 at 4:19pm
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 229
2/21/13 at 4:19pm
I think an interesting question in all this (and one I've been debating heavily) is who from a digital perspective is it best worth investing building a library with now? Who in the long run will provide the best quality, be most likely to update bitrates and compression, and deliver the most titles? I've done the rip all my discs things and set up meta data a few times over now for an htpc, appletv, and currently a pch a400. It's grown tiresome (especially for tv shows) and I keep thinking in the back of my mind a great quote from Wayne Gretsky to "skate to where the puck is going."

It's just so hard to purposefully take a quality hit, even if it may to some degree be imperceptible in actual practice. I'm growing more and more likely to stick with netflix bluray or red box to watch a movie for my first viewing but take my library for repeat viewing to vudu/UV for movies and amazon for TV shows. I'm too afraid of apple not being portable enougn if I eschew our iPads, iPhones, and macs for windows platform devices.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 229
2/21/13 at 4:35pm
Thread Starter 
I'll be thrilled if discs disappeared tomorrow. I have no need or desire to own a physical copy of movie. Books full of DVDs and CDs and now some Blu-rays just sitting in my basement are a testament to how dead discs are. The only thing that got me back into Blu-ray was 3D. I like Blu-ray quality but I definitely think there is a tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to streaming video IQ problems. Eliminating the whole physical media supply chain and all the crazy overhead that involves while simplifying digital distribution should be the top goal of all the studios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

The limit will be the "average" user's internet speed (Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon have used that yardstick) and the amount the studios are willing to cough up for storage on their server farms. Mo' quality, mo' file storage needed, mo' cost to said studios. Even on Blu-ray, studios have chosen to cram more TV episodes on a disc rather than paying for just one more additional disc for the set to ease up on the filtering and compression used. Not as many special making of features as with LD's or DVD special editions because it would take more discs. This penny pinching mind set will convert to the internet business model. Money trumps quality. Always has.

You're too quick to actually want discs to die. I can envision how the studios want to control their media from here on out and it's going to be pretty anti-consumer. They've tried this every time a new A/V format comes out. Most notably DIVX and time destructive PPV HD discs.

Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.

Edited by imagic - 2/21/13 at 4:46pm
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 229
2/21/13 at 6:53pm
Did you even bother reading ANY of my posts regarding the visible differences?

NO PIXEL PEEPING NECESSARY

Please please PLEASE come to my dedicated theatre. IF I'm not accurate at least 85% of the time, you can take ALL of my HT gears, and my other 3 sets of HT systems in my house !!!!

All ANYBODY need is THX recommended viewing distance and ANYBODY (maybe YOU are the exception) WiLL be ale to tell the difference especially from the macroblocking and colour banding.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › A Comparison of Skyfall on iTunes, Vudu, and Blu-ray