dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7143
share rss forum feed


bull3964

@verizon.net
reply to MURICA

Re: Ultra HD at CES

said by MURICA:

Actually, they HAVE rescanned a lot of their back catalog in 4K so that the Blu-ray release would look better. This is why catalog shows like That '70s Show, Friends, and Star Trek look so good on Blu-ray. They've been scanned at 4K then downrezzed to 1080p for BD. Any catalog titles getting HD scans since the mid-2000's are being done at 4K. Lots of content is already available in 4K, sitting in studio vaults.

Scanning at 2K and then releasing on BD produces shit results. An example of a company that does this is Universal, with their catalog releases. They scanned in a lot of material in the late '90s/early 2000's at 2K for the DVD release. They have been incredibly lazy when it comes to releasing these titles on Blu-ray so they just put the old 2K transfer on them. Universal's catalog Blu-ray releases are widely panned for this reason.

Companies like Sony and Disney take more pride in their work and don't put out a crap release sourced from an early 2K master. The bulk of Sony and Disney's material that has been mastered for Blu-ray is coming from a re-done 4K scan, and it shows. They don't just use the old 2K scan that was done in the early 2000's.

You are completely missing the point that a LOT of stuff that was done since 2000 was done using 2k digital intermediates, especially for special effects. They can go back and do a 4k master, an 8k master, even a 16k master and the resolution of the final product is never going to get any better than 2k. NEVER. Take my Spiderman 2 example. Unless Sony decides to go back and re-render the majority of the special effects in the movie, Spiderman 2 will never be a full 4k title. It won't. They can go back and scan the 35mm print at any resolution they want to, the source elements they used to create that print were still resolution limited.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to JPL

The LG LED is the one I wound up with lol!


JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

That's a damn nice TV - I came very close to buying it. Some of the reviews talked about how there was a halo effect during some scenes because of the LED lighting. I didn't see it. I must have stared at that screen for 15 minutes in the local Best Buy, and I never saw what some were complaining about. Like I said, the Panny plasma that I got edged it out in PQ (from my perspective) but only barely (the LG was a very close second choice, followed by an equivalently spec'd 2D Samsung LED/LCD). In the end, it came down to price and size more than anything (the PQ was close enough on both TVs that I would have been happy with either). Not only was the Panasonic slightly larger (50" vs. 47"), but I got a ridiculous deal on it (b2b deal through my employer), and I just couldn't pass up those kind of savings.


fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA

The only odd thing with it is that it supposedly has local dimming but it can only be enabled on the service menu. That and it's a 120hz tv but i cannot figure out how to get it to 120hz (so setting and it always shows as 60hz). My guess is that nothing is coming through cable at 120hz...could this be right?
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to JPL

said by JPL:

The pipe going from Verizon to your house isn't the only one that needs to be expanded is my point. And the reason I made that point is because I kept reading postings on here that made the claim that if these service providers just upped their bandwidth, we could easily go 4k. No, we can't. Because the link from service provider to your house is only one link in the chain. And Rainbow isn't the only one doing that. They just seem to be the one that fosters the greatest number of complaints.

The link from the program provider to the service provider is relatively easy to upgrade; they do that all the time to meet the needs of different program providers. Some providers use satellite backhaul, others use fiber links. In either case, the TV service provider can, upgrade its gear and set up the link relatively easily.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to bull3964

said by bull3964 :

Take my Spiderman 2 example. Unless Sony decides to go back and re-render the majority of the special effects in the movie, Spiderman 2 will never be a full 4k title.

What makes you think they wouldn't do that? All the source material for the SFX is going to be on a storage NAS somewhere; there's nothing stopping them from re-running the render job at a higher target resolution.

kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2
reply to UnnDunn

The link from the program provider to the service provider is relatively easy to upgrade; they do that all the time to meet the needs of different program providers. Some providers use satellite backhaul, others use fiber links. In either case, the TV service provider can, upgrade its gear and set up the link relatively easily.

Yes, however program providers are compressing their signals so they can save money on the uplink transmissions -- see Comcast / NBC Universal merger -- Comcast now compresses their channels so they can save on the uplink and the quality has gone to crap.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY

How would that affect a fiber link?


kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2

said by UnnDunn:

How would that affect a fiber link?

It wouldn't, but not everything is sent to Vz via Fiber.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY

Chances are, if they really wanted to offer a 4K channel, they'd use a fiber link to ingest it.


kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2

said by UnnDunn:

Chances are, if they really wanted to offer a 4K channel, they'd use a fiber link to ingest it.

But I believe the point being made is that several channels on a few providers aren't even really being sent up to what we would consider HD quality, so which provider would step up and provide a 4k signal?


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

Pretty much any of today's major players could provide you with a 4K feed tomorrow if they so wished.

You don't get uncompressed 1080i or 720p today, you wont tomorrow. Bandwidth is not an issue codecs are that allow for clean & clear picture transmission to the STB from provider to customer.

MPEG-2 wont cut it, MPEG-4 could carry 4K today if it so wanted to.

There is no installed base to compel them to deliver 4K broadcasts, regardless of content. The same was true for HD till it reached critical mass, 3D at the current adoption rate will hit critical mass in about 15 years....if ever.....currently the only way it will reach mass is if its built in to TV's by default.



bull3964

@stargate.net
reply to UnnDunn

said by UnnDunn:

said by bull3964 :

Take my Spiderman 2 example. Unless Sony decides to go back and re-render the majority of the special effects in the movie, Spiderman 2 will never be a full 4k title.

What makes you think they wouldn't do that? All the source material for the SFX is going to be on a storage NAS somewhere; there's nothing stopping them from re-running the render job at a higher target resolution.

There's more involved than simply re-re-rendering the job at a higher target resolution. For example, are the textures used sufficient enough resolution to make it worthwhile?

Then you have to re-edit the movie to re-composite the SFX with the live action shots.

Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? Only in some select cases, yes. Don't expect it to be done across the board.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY

said by bull3964 :

There's more involved than simply re-re-rendering the job at a higher target resolution. For example, are the textures used sufficient enough resolution to make it worthwhile?

If not, the SFX house that did them should never have gotten the contract.

Then you have to re-edit the movie to re-composite the SFX with the live action shots.

Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? Only in some select cases, yes. Don't expect it to be done across the board.

I don't expect that, but it isn't nearly as difficult as it may seem.


bull3964

@verizon.net

said by UnnDunn:

If not, the SFX house that did them should never have gotten the contract.

Corners get cut, it's the nature of the business where everything is pushed to come in on time and under budget.

I would like to point to Star Trek:TMP as an example. Only this time is has to do with SD vs HD. The director's cut of TMP had many new SFX inserts done completely in CGI. They were really well done. They captured the look of the models perfectly and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the CGI and model work which is exactly what you want when blending old and new special effects.

However, the renders were only done in SD for the DVD. This was released in 2001. HD was already on the horizon. But the time and the money wasn't there to render for a resolution that wasn't going to be seen at the time so it wasn't done. The source files were allegedly lost so in order to get the director's cut on blu-ray those scenes would have to be recreated from scratch or upscaled.

The irony is, they are going to far more work converting ST:TNG to blu-ray, but that's also a much more profitable venture than a single movie.

Firefly ran in 2002, again right when HD was starting up, but all CGI was rendered in SD as a cost cutting measure. This show has about a rabid and devoted fanbase as you could possibly imagine

This happens all the time. A modern sfx movie could have the effects farmed out to half dozen or more firms. Who's to say 15 years down the line that these firms will be able to locate all the source files for a scene, have software that can even re-render from those files, or even still be in business.

I leave you with a blog quote from someone that works in the field on the subject.

»darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/12/···ent-1492

When I was working on Serenity, there was a lot of arguing between the Lightwave and Maya artists about texture resolution. The Maya folks, who had worked on a lot of big movies, swore up and down that, for a movie, your texture maps had to be AT LEAST 4k or else the models would look like crap.

The Lightwave artists, who had mostly come from TV projects, said that was bull**** and lower res maps would hold up just fine.

But something had to be done, because 2 gigs of RAM was the maximum our machines could utilize at the time, and the shots were choking on all those hi-res image maps.

So, we all agreed to do a test. We rendered 4 versions of identical shots in which the models had image maps of 4k, 2k, 1k and 512 pixels. Then we went to a theater and screened them all to see what differences we could visually perceive.

My favorite moment was hearing the Maya guys in the back go “wow, I can’t even see the difference between the 4k and 512 versions!”

Yes, the Lightwave folks walked out of that test screening very smug.

We deciced to use 1k maps for everything, and if an object got REALLY close to camera, we’d up it to 2k.

I think we did render everything at 1080, but I’m sure, even for a movie, you could get away with 720 and upres it. No one
would know the difference.

These are comments from an industry expert and validated by peers in the industry. Even the guys who do nothing BUT visuals for a living thing anything over than 2k is mostly overkill.

The biggest advantage of 4k for a large format presentation is honestly to minimize screen door effect. Otherwise, the eye is just too poor at picking out detail during motion.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to JPL

said by JPL:

You're missing the basic point. Regardless of WHY Rainbow isn't upping their bandwidth, the stuff is coming compressed FROM Rainbow! Verizon could give everyone 1Gps fiber, switch to full up IPTV, and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans for improving the PQ of the stuff coming from Rainbow. The pipe going from Verizon to your house isn't the only one that needs to be expanded is my point. And the reason I made that point is because I kept reading postings on here that made the claim that if these service providers just upped their bandwidth, we could easily go 4k. No, we can't. Because the link from service provider to your house is only one link in the chain. And Rainbow isn't the only one doing that. They just seem to be the one that fosters the greatest number of complaints.

Well, we don't care about Rainbow. Rainbow is the lowest common denominator.

The point is that if you build it, they will come. Saying 4K will never catch on because one shitty, cheap company won't be the first to upgrade their equipment and hop aboard is ludicrous. There are plenty of others who will be interested. Discovery Communications in particular likes to be among the first to explore these new technologies. Discovery HD Theater was one of the first high definition channels launched. They did it again with 3DTV with the launch of 3net.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a Discovery 4K Theater leading the forefront of 4K channels.

SONY will probably help with the launch of 4K channels.

You keep reading that the bandwidth is there because it's TRUE. I know far more about how television is distributed than you do. First of all, it's not a "pipe." All your cable television is distributed wirelessly via communications satellites. Verizon has a satellite farm in Florida and Illinois which pulls down these signals and sends them over fiber to you.

The transponder capacity on these satellites is there. That "link in the chain" is ready to be used. These communications satellites do not need additional capacity to deliver 4K video. They are already able to push out 70+ Mbps bitrate video on a single transponder with ease.

Take the way NBC is distributed for example. NBC has SIX 24/7 satellite transponders operating at 73 Mbps of bandwidth. They have EIGHTEEN variable bitrate 15-25 Mbps H.264 HD channels operating on these six DVB-S2 transponders simultaneously.

ABC has a similar operation. CBS is distributed as 36 Mbps MPEG-2 video to its affiliates. I have seen CBS backhauls with one 1080i channel going at a bitrate over 70 Mbps.

The point is, behind the scenes, there is tons of video being distributed at very high bitrates with whatever crazy codec scheme they want - the kinds of bitrates 4K video with HEVC would use. I've seen Dolby E. I've seen 70 Mbps 4:2:2 1080i MPEG-2 video. I've even seen 35 Mbps 4:2:2 1080i H.264 video. One of the nice things about not sending your signal directly to the customer and instead to a provider like Verizon who packages the signal and re-encodes it so it's all compatible with every end consumer's equipment is that you can use whatever bitrates and codecs you desire.

So behind the scenes, it's ready - it's all about the last mile providers like Verizon getting their shit together.

As for the 'explosion' of 3D... really?:

'Display Search analyst Paul Gagnon says that U.S. household penetration for 3D TVs is at about 3 percent. “To be fair, 3D TVs have only been available for sale in a significant way for about 18 months, so that’s why the penetration is so low,” Gagnon says. “That said, it’s still lower than what many in the industry had hoped for.”'

That's from this article:

»www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/01/···hnology/

Wow... 3%. I wonder how the TV manufacturers keep up with THAT demand... Gaming, while big, is still VERY small compared to the amount of TV viewing that's done. How many 3D channels are there? How many cable companies even offer 3D? Why would that be? Could it be because NO ONE HAS A 3D TV? Why, yes, I think that's it. And why is that? Is it because prices are too high for 3D? Not really. To entice customers into believing that you HAVE to have 3D, they've lowered the price on such sets, so much that they're right in line with equivalent 2D sets. So, despite artificially depressing the price, the manufacturers still couldn't create a market for the product. Why? Because consumers don't want it. You may have disdain for the 'lowest common demonimator', but unless that person actually buys into a technology, such technology will go nowhere.

That's very impressive. It's actually a lot higher than I thought. For a technology in its infancy after everyone just got done buying new HDTVs the fact 3D has already managed to capture several percentage points of the market shows that 3D is here to stay. When you say "3 percent" it sounds like a small number: but 3% of the American market is HUGE. The U.S. population is 320 million. What is that, 100 million households with an average of 3.2 people in them? So 3 million households, or nearly 10 million people, have access to a 3DTV within the first 18 months of the product's release.

What was HDTV's market penetration like in the 1990's after sets had been on the market for 18 months? Not any higher than 3% I'd bet. Did 10 million people have a HDTV in its first year?

It's January 2013 now, a year after that article was written. 3D has got to be at least 6% of American households now, or 20 million people. (You know, the same number of people who can subscribe to your precious FiOS service if they wanted to.) We're not all sitting here saying Verizon FiOS is a worthless technology because it's only available to 20 million people, are we?

As far as prices, good 3D sets still aren't in line with 2D sets. I just bought a new TV recently precisely because of its 3D capability even though it cost hundreds of dollars more than the equivalent 2D-only model. I don't regret it at all.

So your presumption that people aren't buying 3DTVs for the 3D is false as well because you still have to go and drop some extra scratch for the feature.

said by bull3964 :

You are completely missing the point that a LOT of stuff that was done since 2000 was done using 2k digital intermediates, especially for special effects. They can go back and do a 4k master, an 8k master, even a 16k master and the resolution of the final product is never going to get any better than 2k. NEVER. Take my Spiderman 2 example. Unless Sony decides to go back and re-render the majority of the special effects in the movie, Spiderman 2 will never be a full 4k title. It won't. They can go back and scan the 35mm print at any resolution they want to, the source elements they used to create that print were still resolution limited.

A selection of old movies which have 2K digital intermediates is your justification for why 4K will fail. Have you ever heard of NEW CONTENT? Anything new produced will be in 4K.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

3 edits

1 recommendation

First, where did I say that 4k will NEVER catch on? I didn't say that! Go back and read my postings. I said it will catch on, but uptake will be very slow. Eventually it'll be like 1080p - accepted because it's the default.

You may not care about Rainbow channels, but my point there is that they're not the only ones doing it! So, unless you don't also care about, say, the Discovery suite of channels, or the Disney suite of channels, or... just pick. They're all doing that. Maybe not to the degree that Rainbow is, but they're all over-compressed. Not to mention the fact that Verizon apparently cares about Rainbow - quite a bit. How much? When FiOS TV first came out, they didn't carry the Rainbow channels because CV wouldn't give them over. They went to the FCC who mandated that they be handed over. Still Rainbow played games with the channels, only offering up the SD versions, after the HD feeds became available. Again they refused to hand over the HD feeds because they thought they were cute about it - they claimed that the regulation only required that they give over A feed. Not EVERY type of feed. Again, Verizon was so non-plussed by the whole thing... the filed another formal complaint with the FCC. And again the FCC forced the issue. So... I have to ask... if NO ONE cares about Rainbow... why the hell did Verizon jump through so many hoops to get the channels? Just to stick it to CV? Um... no. Because they knew that without those channels, they would have a harder time getting customers. They were right - initially when FiOS TV was offered in my neighborhood (we already had internet at the time), I decided against it because they were missing one channel that was kinda key for me - AMC. That one channel stopped me from making the switch. But right... no one cares about those channels.

Now, maybe the solution to that bottle neck is as easy as many on here make it sound. But the question remains - if it's that easy/cheap... and they're still not doing it (and we're suffering pixellation and less than optimal PQ as a result) why on God's green earth do you think they would be just giddy about making those changes for UHD? Foot dragging is foot dragging. WHY they foot drag is utterly and totally irrelevent. It's simply not enough to get Verizon to up its bandwidth to your house. Bandwidth has to be increased TO Verizon as well.

Finally, with regard to 3D... that's not an impressive number. That's a lack-luster 'will this technology still be around a year from now' type of number. 3D is not in its infancy. Yes, it's still new, but when you compare the number of TVs sold last year with the number sold that had 3D... the numbers for 3D are, well, pathetic. You also ignored my comment, also made in that article, that many who have 3D sets didn't get them because they're 3D. They got them because they wanted higher end sets and 3D just happens to be a feature already baked in. Heck, a good number didn't even know the TV they were buyinig was 3D! There's no burning desire for 3D. Eventually it'll get there, but uptake will be slow. And it'll be slow because there's no burning desire for it. IF the TV manufacturers continue to produce technology for 3D, then you'll see it just filter down into most TVs sold, at some point. But that's a big IF. Also, you may be impressed with the 3% number, but clearly the interested parties (the manufacturers, the analysts, investors) are not. The article makes it clear that uptake for 3D is WAY below what the TV manufacturers themselves were predicting.

Yes, UHD will get there (as I said repeatedly), but slowly. It won't catch fire like HD did. That's my take on it.



bull3964

@verizon.net
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

A selection of old movies which have 2K digital intermediates is your justification for why 4K will fail. Have you ever heard of NEW CONTENT? Anything new produced will be in 4K.

No, it's just the reason why it's not something worth worrying about for a long while. And no, you are incorrect, things are not being produced with minimum 4k workflows from end to end by default even today. It is much more common, but still not the standard. It's not the standard because the industry experts who create these movies feel that the improvement is imperceptible in most cases. Until the cost/time penalty approaches zero for doing workflows at higher resolutions, it's not going to be embraced across the board.

Even something as new and high budget as The Hobbit, while shot in 4k, wasn't done with a 4k workflow from end to end.

That decision to shoot An Unexpected Journey in stereo and at 48fps presented two new challenges to Weta Digital at the same time. By fxguide’s own calculations, Weta Digital had to handle source footage with 25 times more pixels than on a usual production. “It was a lot more information for us,” explains Eric Saindon, “so rather than the normal 2K it was 4K images – so four times the information. Then you go to stereo which was two times that and 48fps so double it again. The amount of information we had on this film was staggering. On a film like Avatar we had about a petabyte of information – for Hobbit we’re about five or six times that information.” While shot in 4k or 5K – the post pipeline was primarily 2K, stereo, 48fps.

4k will eventually be the standard display because 4k is going to be a standard feature when you go and buy a TV (much the same way 1080p supplanted 720p and you can't buy a mid to upper end TV without 3D.)

However, 4k CONTENT is going to take a much much much longer time to have any significant library. This is why most of us just aren't that excited for it. I think we all recognize that we'll eventually own a 4k display because at some point that will be the only thing you can buy. However, as a headline item that's supposed to get us excited about future TV technology, it's a yawner. I want something that makes my currently library look better, not something that may give a marginal improvement on a hypothetical limited future library.


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

pfft...facts...so boring.....I think we have beaten this horse pretty well...going to go watch my backlit local dimming 1080p tv thats still one of the best ever made....


JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to MURICA

I know (and agree) that this has been beaten to death, but wanted to respond to one more thing you wrote. The notion that I don't know how TV is distributed because I used the word 'pipe'. Really? You actually think that I believe that there's a real pipe going from say Rainbow to Verizon? Is it PVC? Come on. That term is used, very commonly, to denote one thing - bandwidth. Whether you're talking about distribution through wireless signal, or fiber, or coax, or what have you - there is a bandwidth limitation that you're dealing with. I talk about the 'pipe' that DirecTV uses to get TV to your house too - do you really think I believe there's a massive pipe coming from their satellite to your house? Of course I understand that the medium is not an actual pipe. But that doesn't mean there isn't a limit to how much space they have to carry their signal. And like I said, that's a pretty standard term that's used to denote bandwidth.


Dliv

join:2010-03-29
Lutherville Timonium, MD
reply to fishacura

JPL is right on all points. I'm a big SACD and DVD Audio fan, but the masses never got on board with them, so they faded away.


fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA

said by Dliv:

JPL is right on all points. I'm a big SACD and DVD Audio fan, but the masses never got on board with them, so they faded away.

Ahhhh DVD Audio....I really wish that would have taken off. Had it in one of my old cars and in that confined space it was an amazing experience.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1

said by fishacura:

said by Dliv:

JPL is right on all points. I'm a big SACD and DVD Audio fan, but the masses never got on board with them, so they faded away.

Ahhhh DVD Audio....I really wish that would have taken off. Had it in one of my old cars and in that confined space it was an amazing experience.

Agreed. In my TL it sounds fantastic.
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to Dliv

said by Dliv:

JPL is right on all points. I'm a big SACD and DVD Audio fan, but the masses never got on board with them, so they faded away.

Don't look now, but SACD is alive and well with plenty of new releases and the support of an enthusiastic community. It's a niche market for people who enjoy more quality conscious musical genres, but it's a market.


rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA
reply to fishacura

said by fishacura:

re: gimmick....I don't see why. PQ comes out time after time as the thing people care about most. If (not sure as I have not seen it) the PQ is that much better, I don't see why people wouldn't pursue it.

re: whether the human eye can see a difference...not sure. I don't know if you need the 8k version, but if you walk up to a HD set, you can still see the pixels in a normal HD set...imagine what PQ would look like if you couldn't see them even at close range? I have to believe there is something better than HD. Maybe not 8k but to limit ourselves to HD as it stands today is tatamount to people who said "why would we ever need a car when we have horses".

because other than a bluray DVD that comes encoded at 1080p all else wil be at the mercy of the uploader, and then the cable company's extra compression as in cramming many channels in one satellite transponder etc. etc. etc just a gimmick for people that don't have a technical clue.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to Nezmo

said by Nezmo:

Agreed. In my TL it sounds fantastic.

:( I miss my TL thanks for reminding me!

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to rtcy

rtcy - you make a gross assumption that compression, bandwidth limitations, etc will continue in their current state. That may or may not happen and I go back to my original sentiment that the only certainty re: technology is that the future is always uncertain.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ

said by fishacura:

rtcy - you make a gross assumption that compression, bandwidth limitations, etc will continue in their current state. That may or may not happen and I go back to my original sentiment that the only certainty re: technology is that the future is always uncertain.

It's an assumption I'm also making, because I don't see evidence to the contrary. UHD != Profit/ROI.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to rtcy

said by rtcy See Profile
because other than a bluray DVD that comes encoded at 1080p all else wil be at the mercy of the uploader, and then the cable company's extra compression as in cramming many channels in one satellite transponder etc. etc. etc just a gimmick for people that don't have a technical clue.

"bluray DVD"??????? It's Blu-ray Disc. Where did the DVD come from? A BD has more in common with a CD than a DVD.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to Greg2600

@Greg2600 I don't either. And in 1980 people didn't see tablets but they're here.....It's a fact of life. It's when not if.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.