or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Django Unchained: Blu-ray vs. iTunes vs. Vudu HDX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Django Unchained: Blu-ray vs. iTunes vs. Vudu HDX - Page 2

post #31 of 128
Yeah, I can count. The biggest problem with your math is that at 9.5 mbps, the quality IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH ON MY CALIBRATED SCREENS IN MY DEDiCATED ROOM!!! If it's enough for you, then so be iy. Some people can't tell the difference between VCD and DVD, in your case you can't tell the difference between HDX and Blu-ray. More power to you, that means you can save more money -- no sarcasm here at all.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 128
The comparisons should include Xbox Movies as they typically are encoded better and stream at a very high rate. From my (limited) comparison to Blu-rays (side by side screen) it is typically better than what is shown here for Vudu and iTunes. (though I'm only generally using vudu for online due to ultraviolet as I won't buy anything locked to a service.)
post #33 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisb View Post

The comparisons should include Xbox Movies as they typically are encoded better and stream at a very high rate. From my (limited) comparison to Blu-rays (side by side screen) it is typically better than what is shown here for Vudu and iTunes. (though I'm only generally using vudu for online due to ultraviolet as I won't buy anything locked to a service.)

 

I will install the Zune software on my PC and check out Xbox video. I don't know when it will make it into a comparison, but I will definitely take a look. 

 

Update:

 

 

The funny thing is, I did not even know you could install the Zune player on a PC and watch Xbox video. I just looked at the 10-minute free preview of Jack Reacher. Viewed normally, it seems competitive—in terms of quality—with Vudu and iTunes 1080p offerings. Even a cursory glance into the shadows using my pixel peeping strategy reveals a different approach to encoding the video. It looks like Xbox 1080p video strives to eliminate noise in the deep shadows, but without blocking artifacts.

 

Thank you for the suggestion, I foresee Xbox video taking the place of 720p iTunes in future comparisons.


Edited by imagic - 4/25/13 at 6:39am
post #34 of 128
Honestly thanks for attempting to show the superior quality of bluray PQ compared to streams, and trust me I know bluray is superior in every way at the moment, but again I feel this is a pointless comparison. In motion very few if any of these issues would be seen and to the average viewer none of them will be seen and that's all that matters to any company. It all boils down to is it almost as good as the best. Is audio on iTunes as good as a CD? No. But I dare you to play both for someone, not telling them which is which and have them pick the difference with a untrained or even trained ear. If in the real world the PQ deficiencies in the video are unnoticeable in motion then it's not a real issue.
post #35 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1 View Post

Honestly thanks for attempting to show the superior quality of bluray PQ compared to streams, and trust me I know bluray is superior in every way at the moment, but again I feel this is a pointless comparison. In motion very few if any of these issues would be seen and to the average viewer none of them will be seen and that's all that matters to any company. It all boils down to is it almost as good as the best. Is audio on iTunes as good as a CD? No. But I dare you to play both for someone, not telling them which is which and have them pick the difference with a untrained or even trained ear. If in the real world the PQ deficiencies in the video are unnoticeable in motion then it's not a real issue.

 

Some movies are notably worse than others. Macro blocking in the shadow areas as the number one issue that becomes apparent that the online distribution versions. The quantity and severity of it varies from movie to movie and also between formats.
 
There is quite a variation in the quality of equipment being used to watch movies, so to some folks the difference in quality might be irrelevant and for others it might be glaringly obvious.
 
I'm certainly not discouraging anybody from using an online distribution format. I have watched a number of movies that way, and the quality difference is not enough to make me wait for Blu-ray. However if the movie enjoys a simultaneous release on disk, I usually buy that since it comes with the digital copies anyway and I do watch the disc version because it is of the highest quality.
 
The main point of these comparisons is to highlight the differences between the online distribution formats. Blu-ray is consistently better looking, and on a high resolution system where somebody is attempting to watch it using THX standards for viewing distance on a calibrated system — on those systems, the deficiencies in the online videos are completely noticeable. On my own system, they are quite noticeable, when a movie is not properly encoded.

Edited by imagic - 4/25/13 at 2:55pm
post #36 of 128
I agree with imagic. Furthermore, there is a time and place, even for me, for streaming videos. Comedy specials, documentaries, they are all fine by me even in SD because I gravitate towards content over presentation. However, even the best streaming has no place in my dedicated HT or even in my living room where the viewing distances are per THX and SMPTE optimum viewing distance respectively.
post #37 of 128
Are all the aspect ratio's the same. Would love to see if there are any differences.
post #38 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob West View Post

Are all the aspect ratio's the same. Would love to see if there are any differences.

I have yet to see any difference in aspect ratio between Blu-ray and online distribution, in any movie, on any of the services I have compared. 

post #39 of 128
imagic, thanks for taking the time to do these comparisons... but would like to ask if you have compared blu ray vs mkv files. Previously I had heard that there should be no difference between blu ray and mkv files...

Currently I am ripping my movies with DVDFab (In general file sizes are between 17G thru 36G depends on the movie) but the other day I attempted to compare blu ray movie to ripped movie and I noticed that mkv file was a bit blurry compared to blu ray... Am I correct that blu ray and mkv files are not the same ??
post #40 of 128
There should be no difference, but even lowering a 30GB blu-ray to 23 GB MKV, the softening of the picture is quite apparent in my HT.
post #41 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

There should be no difference, but even lowering a 30GB blu-ray to 23 GB MKV, the softening of the picture is quite apparent in my HT.

So, is there no way of ripping a movie and get no softening of picture ??
post #42 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I'm sorry you don't understand. No reason to be insulting, I'm trying to educate you.

Film grain is noise. It's presence is actually called "film grain noise". Reducing it is noise reduction, by definition

You are probably thinking about digital noise, when you say noise is "not the same thing" as film grain. Anyhow, Blu-ray is a compressed format, so there is already some loss of film grain right there. There is even more loss of film grain when the bitrate drops further. That loss of noise, when achieved in a controlled manner so as to make compression into a digital format more efficient, is called noise reduction. Vudu HDX clearly used more of it than Apple did, and Apple uses more of it on 1080p files than they do on 720p files.

Have a good day.
Digital noise is not at all the same as film grain. You photos illustrate digital pattern noise in its grid-like organization. Film grain is more random and can be pleasing. Digital noise arrangement is not pretty.
post #43 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by spike9876 View Post

So, is there no way of ripping a movie and get no softening of picture ??

I create .iso file for 1:1 copy ratio. This way everything is as they're supposed to be.
post #44 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

Digital noise is not at all the same as film grain. You photos illustrate digital pattern noise in its grid-like organization. Film grain is more random and can be pleasing. Digital noise arrangement is not pretty.

Yes they are not the same, but regardless they are two forms of noise. One is digital, another is analog.
post #45 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

And by that time people are already into 4K so streaming is once again playing catch-up... Except for BiggAW, of course, he thinks HDX is already transparant to Blu-ray quality when clearly it's not (and he'll respond that we 're pixel peeping etc etc, the same song and dance trolling in every thread.)
Bluray is dead. It won't ever take off and is already being supplanted be IP streaming. Heck even Microsoft and Sony next gen systems will require an always on network connection and will not use optical disks for gaming.
post #46 of 128
This interested me, so I did some research on the subject (and by that I mean 45 minutes of google searching).
Here's what I've learned and my interpretation, and please correct me if I am wrong:


Digital noise is almost never desired... but film grain sometimes is.



Film Grain: Actually created directly on the film and is there from the original filming, generally at random. Sometimes they attempt to touch it up and remove it, other times it's effect is desired.

I have not seen the "wizard of oz" on blu ray, but would certainly be disappointed if some film grain didn't exist. (just an example). Another example is "Jaws"(using because I JUST watched it for the first time on blu ray, and have seen many times years back in theater, VHS, and OTA). Being an older film, I expected some film grain.. and there was some. If they had tried to touch that up too much, it would have taken away from the film IMO. I would also expect most westerns (and movies portraying past wars or historical periods) to include film grain and probably even use certain types of film to encourage it. Even in modern films, directors sometimes like film grain and don't try to remove it as it gives it more of a "movie" look... not having it can almost give a fake "stage" look. Often, trying to remove it just leads to smoother and more blurry images...while this may remove much of the grain, it ultimately looses sharpness and contrast- leading to a less detailed image. (running out of words here, hope you catch my drift...) Basically it's a desired look.



Digital Noise: Added to the film during recording, transferring, compression, etc. and created from interference, compression, low quality equipment, etc. Digital noise is almost always bad.

Where we are seeing it most nowadays is in blu ray transfers. Some already existed from previous handling but was less noticeable at lower quality levels and some could be added while doing the transfer. The good news is that it is mostly algorithmic, predictable, and relatively easy to detect with the right tools (studios CAN usually remove it). The bad news is that sometimes they don't. A lot of the "bad transfers" to blu ray, basically are because there was not enough attention given to DNR (digital noise reduction) during the transfer. Transferring a film to a streaming service, besides other issues, can also introduce digital noise. Depending on the source material the netflix people used, there may or may not be digital noise.... and depending on their process in uploading it to the system, there may or may not be digitial noise reduction OR digital noise added.



In any event, a lot of equipment and even TV's have an option for DNR (digital noise reduction). These typically do a poor job with cleaning up film grain as it's randomness can make it difficult to "fix". They do a better job cleaning Digital Noise, but the DNR's effect is debatable. Even with digital noise (and certainly with film grain), DNR leads to smoother lines, blurry images, less clear picture, and an image that is different then intended by the director. Sometimes this leas to what many call a "soap opera" effect. Some people love DNR as they prefer to have NO noise in their picture, regardless of the director's intention and loss of quality but most people agree that turning off the DNR feature is best-film grain is natural and a part of movie watching and digital noise is frowned upon but not as much as altered image DNR creates.


Regardless, I don't think anyone disagrees with what is digital noise vs film grain.... just disagreeing on the terminology.


As far as these streaming services are concerned, here's how I understand film grain, digital noise, and DNR:
1-Film grain is natural, and should probably not be played with.
2-compressing/transferring/uploading the film by the streaming service may introduce further digital noise. Some of this may be removed on their end, resulting in no issue. Often, they care more about content then quality which leads to the digital noise many complain about with certain streaming services.
3-Your equipment or TV may have an option to apply DNR. While this may clean up some of the digital noise, it often does more harm then good. It can poorly remove some natural film grain and even removing digital noise can lead to an altered, smoother, blurrier, picture with less detail and sharpness. Not good..which is why most people will tell you to turn off this feature.
4-This digital noise and/or your equipment's less then spectacular job at trying to clean it up coupled with issues in streaming (low bandwidth, lag, latency, poor audio quality, etc) can disturb viewers...Depending on how many of these issues occur, the content being played, and what the viewer finds acceptable- noise can take away from the movie watching experience.


My advice would be this:
1- Understand the difference between Digital noise and Film grain
2- Turn off any DNR features your equipment/tv has
3- Deal with film grain, it's part of the film....removing it takes away from the film and can change what the studio intended for you to see.
4- for non action/adventure films (such as comedies and dramas where the image quality is less important), don't worry about it. Focus on the content instead of the quality. You're not watching "Meet the Parents" for the visual effects
5- For the films that you ARE watching for the visual effects, either deal with the noise when streaming OR do as I do, support the economy and rent/buy it on blu ray. But there IS a noticeable difference between streaming and blu ray. This difference bothers some more then others.

Is that accurate? or am I missing something here?
post #47 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonMan View Post

This interested me, so I did some research on the subject (and by that I mean 45 minutes of google searching).
Here's what I've learned and my interpretation, and please correct me if I am wrong:


Digital noise is almost never desired... but film grain sometimes is.



Film Grain: Actually created directly on the film and is there from the original filming, generally at random. Sometimes they attempt to touch it up and remove it, other times it's effect is desired.

I have not seen the "wizard of oz" on blu ray, but would certainly be disappointed if some film grain didn't exist. (just an example). Another example is "Jaws"(using because I JUST watched it for the first time on blu ray, and have seen many times years back in theater, VHS, and OTA). Being an older film, I expected some film grain.. and there was some. If they had tried to touch that up too much, it would have taken away from the film IMO. I would also expect most westerns (and movies portraying past wars or historical periods) to include film grain and probably even use certain types of film to encourage it. Even in modern films, directors sometimes like film grain and don't try to remove it as it gives it more of a "movie" look... not having it can almost give a fake "stage" look. Often, trying to remove it just leads to smoother and more blurry images...while this may remove much of the grain, it ultimately looses sharpness and contrast- leading to a less detailed image. (running out of words here, hope you catch my drift...) Basically it's a desired look.



Digital Noise: Added to the film during recording, transferring, compression, etc. and created from interference, compression, low quality equipment, etc. Digital noise is almost always bad.

Where we are seeing it most nowadays is in blu ray transfers. Some already existed from previous handling but was less noticeable at lower quality levels and some could be added while doing the transfer. The good news is that it is mostly algorithmic, predictable, and relatively easy to detect with the right tools (studios CAN usually remove it). The bad news is that sometimes they don't. A lot of the "bad transfers" to blu ray, basically are because there was not enough attention given to DNR (digital noise reduction) during the transfer. Transferring a film to a streaming service, besides other issues, can also introduce digital noise. Depending on the source material the netflix people used, there may or may not be digital noise.... and depending on their process in uploading it to the system, there may or may not be digitial noise reduction OR digital noise added.



In any event, a lot of equipment and even TV's have an option for DNR (digital noise reduction). These typically do a poor job with cleaning up film grain as it's randomness can make it difficult to "fix". They do a better job cleaning Digital Noise, but the DNR's effect is debatable. Even with digital noise (and certainly with film grain), DNR leads to smoother lines, blurry images, less clear picture, and an image that is different then intended by the director. Sometimes this leas to what many call a "soap opera" effect. Some people love DNR as they prefer to have NO noise in their picture, regardless of the director's intention and loss of quality but most people agree that turning off the DNR feature is best-film grain is natural and a part of movie watching and digital noise is frowned upon but not as much as altered image DNR creates.


Regardless, I don't think anyone disagrees with what is digital noise vs film grain.... just disagreeing on the terminology.


As far as these streaming services are concerned, here's how I understand film grain, digital noise, and DNR:
1-Film grain is natural, and should probably not be played with.
2-compressing/transferring/uploading the film by the streaming service may introduce further digital noise. Some of this may be removed on their end, resulting in no issue. Often, they care more about content then quality which leads to the digital noise many complain about with certain streaming services.
3-Your equipment or TV may have an option to apply DNR. While this may clean up some of the digital noise, it often does more harm then good. It can poorly remove some natural film grain and even removing digital noise can lead to an altered, smoother, blurrier, picture with less detail and sharpness. Not good..which is why most people will tell you to turn off this feature.
4-This digital noise and/or your equipment's less then spectacular job at trying to clean it up coupled with issues in streaming (low bandwidth, lag, latency, poor audio quality, etc) can disturb viewers...Depending on how many of these issues occur, the content being played, and what the viewer finds acceptable- noise can take away from the movie watching experience.


My advice would be this:
1- Understand the difference between Digital noise and Film grain
2- Turn off any DNR features your equipment/tv has
3- Deal with film grain, it's part of the film....removing it takes away from the film and can change what the studio intended for you to see.
4- for non action/adventure films (such as comedies and dramas where the image quality is less important), don't worry about it. Focus on the content instead of the quality. You're not watching "Meet the Parents" for the visual effects
5- For the films that you ARE watching for the visual effects, either deal with the noise when streaming OR do as I do, support the economy and rent/buy it on blu ray. But there IS a noticeable difference between streaming and blu ray. This difference bothers some more then others.

Is that accurate? or am I missing something here?

Most of what's being called "digital noise" are in fact artifacts that resulted from noise reduction and compression—like macro blocking.

 

You can't reduce digital noise but leave film grain alone, because they behave in the same manner. If you reduce noise, you effectively reduce all noise. 

 

In older films, Most of the time the inclusion of film grain was not an artistic decision—it was a practical reality of needing to choose a high-ISO film stock, because some aspect of filming a scene demanded it. Before the advent of digital photography, photographers dreamed of a fast film with no grain.

 

Generally speaking, your summary is accurate, especially the advice not to let the TV try and apply DNR.


Edited by imagic - 4/28/13 at 8:56am
post #48 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Most of what's being called "digital noise" are in fact artifacts. You can't reduce digital noise but leave film grain alone, because they behave in the same manner. If you reduce noise, you reduce all noise.   Noise reduction that is done badly results in blocking artifacts.

Most
of the time the inclusion of film grain is not quite an artistic decision—it was a practical reality of needing to choose a high-ISO film stock because some aspect of filming demanded it. Before the advent of digital photography, photographers dreamed of a fast film with no grain.


Generally speaking, your summary is accurate, especially the advice not to let the TV try and apply DNR.

Gotchya. So basically the studios probably have the means to reduce digital noise without affecting film grain, but consumer grade equipment cannot tell the difference. That would explain why some blu ray transfers AND some streaming uploads are better then others.... some movies were transferred/compressed with more attention to detail then others. Once it arrives on our equipment, there is little we can do to improve it with DNR because we don't have the tools to take out unwanted noise, leave film grain, and not negatively affect the image.


IMO, even if these streaming services start paying closer attention to detail with these movies and somehow manage to eliminate unwanted noise AND make the quality equal to blu ray AND everyone has affordable access to sufficient bandwidth- It still doesn't match blu ray. It may be acceptable for dramas, comedies, and tv series BUT the audio will still be a deal breaker for me. No way would I settle for the audio that is currently offered if I want to watch something like Thor or 300. As these comparisons are proving, visual quality is certainly getting there and if it isn't already 'good enough' it will be shortly for most people (assuming they have sufficient internet)..but do we know if it's possible for audio to catch up? Will I every hear a streaming movie with surround sound comparable to bu ray quality? What are the barriers involved and can it be / when will it be done?

I'm basically at a point where I require blu ray quality picture and audio for any action film. That said, blu ray is certainly good enough for me for the next 10 years. My plan is to now wait to upgrade any electronics until I can pick up a namebrand ~85 inch 4k set for under 3000 dollars. At that time, I have 2 plasmas that are 51 inch and 1080p that will go behind the bar, with the new big 4k going in front of the couches....perfect for movie night/football games/entertaining/etc. Also at that time, I will switch to a 100% digital/streaming, assuming the quality is equal to or better then blu ray. My blu ray collection (should be 500+ movies) will then go to the cabin where we have no internet, cable, or dish. I'm anxiously awaiting the day I can make the switch to streaming/digital...but I need an affordable upgrade for my display and the streaming service needs to be at least blu-ray or better.... then I'll be set until retirement. Keep up the great comparisons and info, I'm loving it.... things are REALLY moving faster then I imagined.
post #49 of 128
I am watching The Hobbit on Vudu HDX as I type. Looks just a little softer than my bluray. In my opinion the convenience and speed is worth the trade off.
post #50 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

I am watching The Hobbit on Vudu HDX as I type. Looks just a little softer than my bluray. In my opinion the convenience and speed is worth the trade off.

 

I am halfway through watching The Hobbit in 3-D. When it comes to home theater experiences, in my view nothing beats a 3-D Blu-ray. Ultimately, I'm going to do a comparison of the 2-D version of The Hobbit. I figure I'll watch some key scenes in 3-D and 2-D and try to describe the qualitative differences between the two experiences. I'm actually glad that Vudu does not offer The Hobbit in 3-D.

 

I just took a peek at the two-minute HDX preview that was available on Vudu. It does look like that movie will do pretty well overall. That's consistent with films that exhibit no grain compressing well. However, there is a huge difference in the overall experience between Blu-ray 3-D and online distribution 2-D.

post #51 of 128
Oh most certainly. 3d must be watched on bluray. I however do not watch any 3d material as I think is it just a fad. I wish I could have got my VT50 without 3d.
post #52 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

Oh most certainly. 3d must be watched on bluray. I however do not watch any 3d material as I think is it just a fad. I wish I could have got my VT50 without 3d.

 

I do not agree with the idea that 3-D is just a fad—or else I would call it a fad that will never go away; however I do think that in its current form it is not a must-have feature for TV. During the brief time I had a Panasonic plasma, I found the 3-D was beautiful but difficult to watch because of the glasses. I simply cannot get used to active shutter LCD. When combined with the limitations of plasma in terms of ultimate brightness, the experience left a lot to be desired.  However the quality of 2-D movies on that set did exceed what I get out of my current television.

 

Passive 3-D on an LED HDTV is very satisfying; in fact I would argue that it is the main strong point of the technology. The glasses dark in the overall scene just enough to mitigate some of the black level issues inherent to LED technology. The relatively light and bright glasses (that don't need to be charged, and are cheap) make all the difference, when combined with an LED panel's ability to bet super-bright. 

 

In the end, I know that the 3-D resolution of my passive set is half of what it was on the plasma, but the image is probably four times brighter. 

post #53 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

Bluray is dead. It won't ever take off and is already being supplanted be IP streaming. Heck even Microsoft and Sony next gen systems will require an always on network connection and will not use optical disks for gaming.

Too bad if you can't pay your Comcrap bill.
post #54 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I am halfway through watching The Hobbit in 3-D. When it comes to home theater experiences, in my view nothing beats a 3-D Blu-ray. Ultimately, I'm going to do a comparison of the 2-D version of The Hobbit. I figure I'll watch some key scenes in 3-D and 2-D and try to describe the qualitative differences between the two experiences. I'm actually glad that Vudu does not offer The Hobbit in 3-D.


I just took a peek at the two-minute HDX preview that was available on Vudu. It does look like that movie will do pretty well overall. That's consistent with films that exhibit no grain compressing well. 
However, there is a huge difference in the overall experience between Blu-ray 3-D and online distribution 2-D.

3D is a major annoyance most times.
post #55 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1 View Post

I honestly have a collection of over 800 blu rays. All this makes me realize is that if you need to pause a movie and zoom in on little unimportant things and nitpick there really isn't much difference to the eye in real world watching conditions. Now if you want to compare sound format differences I'd be hard pressed to say that most couldn't tell the difference between compressed Dolby Digital Plus and DTS HD-MA if both were played at a loud level and not told to the listener which was which. All,HD formats seem fine in regards to actually watching the movie and enjoying it in HD. Neither are different enough to warrant that blu ray is by far better like it was 6 years ago. I'd say in 2 years most streams will match in quality or come so close that while in motion it would be impossible to see a difference.

The sound differences between blu ray and stream have more to do with level differences than format, i.e., lossy vs lossless. I notice that on streaming content, the audio is lower than on your typical blu ray disc. I have crank up the volume on my receiver to get the same level as I normally get on my blu rays.
post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Too bad if you can't pay your Comcrap bill.
I have a 300 Mbps FIOS network that is free from my work.

I also watch free OTA channels so no Comcast.

I am currently streaming everything so I sold off all my optical media and have a lot more space.
post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

I have a 300 Mbps FIOS network that is free from my work.

I also watch free OTA channels so no Comcast.

I am currently streaming everything so I sold off all my optical media and have a lot more space.

I see you're all covered, but the rest of us will be in dire straits if we don't pay our Comcrap bill. I like the convenience of streaming, however I don't like the lack of content in comparison to optical and the second rate sound quality do to level issues.
post #58 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I see you're all covered, but the rest of us will be in dire straits if we don't pay our Comcrap bill. I like the convenience of streaming, however I don't like the lack of content in comparison to optical and the second rate sound quality do to level issues.

Well I am convinced that I made the correct choice going all digital. Much happier with clean setup
post #59 of 128
Sony will be distributing 4k content as downloads. Optical media is on life support.
post #60 of 128
Spoken like a true know it all rolleyes.gif Sony claims the requirement of a minimum file size of 100 GB for a 90-min movie. Not even Sony would expect people will get into 4K without physical media. wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Django Unchained: Blu-ray vs. iTunes vs. Vudu HDX