As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
The Mask 4K (Blu-ray)
$45.00
1 hr ago
A Better Tomorrow Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$82.99
1 day ago
Superman I-IV 5-Film Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$74.99
 
Weapons (Blu-ray)
$22.95
14 hrs ago
Aeon Flux 4K (Blu-ray)
$26.59
1 hr ago
Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning 4K (Blu-ray)
$27.99
9 hrs ago
The Good, the Bad, the Weird 4K (Blu-ray)
$41.99
6 hrs ago
The Shrouds (Blu-ray)
$20.99
1 hr ago
Shudder: A Decade of Fearless Horror (Blu-ray)
$101.99
1 day ago
Burden of Dreams 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.99
11 hrs ago
Avengers: Endgame (Blu-ray)
$7.00
4 hrs ago
Samurai Fury 4K (Blu-ray)
$19.96
8 hrs ago
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Insider Discussion
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-29-2009, 04:47 PM   #11701
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist View Post
I believe Spielberg actually did use DI for Crystal Skull
... which might explain the immediate subsequent return to Moviola.










I had a restless need to get a Spielberg dig in there, somewhere, despite my defense of his practice. Thanks for providing the opportunity, Jeff.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 05:03 PM   #11702
Bobby Henderson Bobby Henderson is offline
Power Member
 
Bobby Henderson's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
Oklahoma
96
12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi
Yes, obviously a 2K DI would be a limiting factor in the projection product. However, I would submit to you that a vast majority of commercial film presentations (regardless of source resolution on the print) don't approach 2K spatial resolution in practice, in the first place.
35mm release prints can store better than 2K levels of detail if they're given a sufficiently high quality source. If the high speed 35mm print is merely sourced from 2K, then the finished release print will have less than 2K resolution. And this is before one factors in the quality of film projection at a given theater where that print is shown.

Even with a 4K DI source, I'm sure more than a few film-based theaters with less than optimal projection would be would be showing an image with less than 2K worth of spatial resolution. But why punish theaters who show film done right by cooking a 2K limit into the print itself?

Any movie project using digital intermediate in the post production process ends up with the digital intermediate being the real "master print." If the finished product is merely 2K, I'm not going to feel inclined to see the movie in a film-based theater. Not even 15/70 IMAX. I think it's a waste of time. There's only so many native pixels in that finished image. And I'll see pretty much all of them in a standard 2K d-cinema theater or even at home on Blu-ray.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 05:22 PM   #11703
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson View Post
And this is before one factors in the quality of film projection at a given theater where that print is shown.
... which is the factor that makes the upper resolution limit of that print kinda moot, if you ask me.

Seriously, it's gotta be a handful of 35mm theatres that can beat a 2K projector for viewable pixels. And while I will never argue against assuming the best and shooting for the moon, I think there's much to be said for considering the practical realities of the marketplace and weighing them against diminishing returns.

Even a print made from a 2K DI (which, I agree with you, needs to be relegated to the past, ASAP) is going to present greater spatial resolution than probably a majority of pre-digital release prints (again, before the shaky projection gate makes it all moot, anyway).

Last edited by Doctorossi; 12-29-2009 at 05:25 PM.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 05:34 PM   #11704
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post
How about shaking the damn seat.
Yeah or Nay?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/enterta...National_.html
Nobody?
Well, the theater they are speaking of (UltraStar Cinema) in the piece is located in the Mission Valley area near San Diego and is currently showing (feeling, I guess would be also applicable in this case) Sherlock Holmes with this technology.

If anyone decides to attend let us know about the experience. Other locations in North America per the D-BOX press release from this month are as follows:

Santikos Theatres Silverado 19 in Tomball, Texas;
Wehrenberg Theatres Ronnies 20 Cine in St. Louis,Missouri;
Emagine Entertainment’s Canton Theatre in Canton, Michigan;
Emagine Entertainment’s Cinema Hollywood Theatre in Birch Run, Michigan;
Cinéma Beloeil, in Beloeil Quebec;
Cineplex Odeon Queensway Theatre in Etobicoke, Ontario;
Mann Chinese 6 Theatre in Los Angeles, California;
Theatres at Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota;
Galaxy at the Cannery in Las Vegas, Nevada;
Galaxy Highland Theatre in Austin, Texas;
UltraStar Cinemas in Surprise, Arizona;
and UltraStar Apple Valley in San Bernardino, California.

P.S.
I don’t know if it would be a good idea though to completely outfit a theater in Calif. with only these D-BOX seats because if there was an earthquake during the presentation, I guess there’s a chance that nobody in the audience would recognize the event and thusly not even attempt to duck for cover. Of course, from personal experience, if you’re doing the wild thing early in the morning, you’ll also completely miss a magnitude 6.7 earthquake too ………
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northridge_earthquake

Last edited by Penton-Man; 12-29-2009 at 05:38 PM. Reason: added a P.S.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 06:32 PM   #11705
DenonCI DenonCI is offline
Senior Member
 
DenonCI's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
596
1620
138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post
Nobody?
Of course, from personal experience, if you’re doing the wild thing early in the morning, you’ll also completely miss a magnitude 6.7 earthquake too ………
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northridge_earthquake
AT 4:31 in the morning! Wow Penton, you are an early riser
 
Old 12-29-2009, 09:10 PM   #11706
sharkshark sharkshark is offline
Banned
 
Feb 2009
Toronto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist View Post
I believe Spielberg actually did use DI for Crystal Skull, but I wouldn't be suprised if they were still doing the early cuts on the moviola
DI or no, he's still making editing -decisions- on a moviola... You really don't think that Khan has someone with an AVID making match-perfect EDLs? That's certainly the way that Altman worked (cut on Moviola, get a 2nd assistant to make the -same- frame accurate cut on the avid, etc.) My ex was an intern on one of his films, and Altman had three suites in a NY hotel - one for him, one for the moviola (which was all -he- saw, of course), and an Avid in suite 3.

I have can only assume that the workflow for DI involves scanning either a cut neg (doubt it), or scanning each relevant reel and a consolidation based on EDL only done at Scanning output. But, then again, I've only stepped foot in Technicolour here in Toronto for a screening, never for a full DI.

And, yeah, I'm again with you... Frankly, we'd have fewer Michael Bays without digital editing allowing for patently rediculous overcutting, and the "analogue" nature of the steenbeck/moviola would result, hypothetically, in a different editing style.

As per good old Murch, remember, he likes to -stand- while cutting, and uses his spacebar as his main cut too (play clip, hit space, and if he does it on the same frame twice in a row, he makes a cut there... there's footage of this on the edting doc on the Bullet BD, as I'm sure you lot know...)

And yeah, Doc, my 'crazypants' wasn't meant entirely to be an epithet... Yet, in the end, know of any sound designers still doing filmwork where they're cutting tape?

Last edited by sharkshark; 12-29-2009 at 09:12 PM.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 09:16 PM   #11707
sharkshark sharkshark is offline
Banned
 
Feb 2009
Toronto
Default

Sorry, Penton, we were talking about film editing, not rumble seats...

Haven't been yet to the local one (Etobicoke is the West end of Toronto...), but had a friend see both 2012 and SH in D-Box. SH was aparently disapointingly shakey, but aparently for 2012 it made for some amusing times.

And, no, I know of nobody rediculous enough to do this at home... I mean, are there really no other upgrades you can make to your Home Theatre before investing in ass vibrators and shaky platforms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post
Nobody?
Well, the theater they are speaking of (UltraStar Cinema) in the piece is located in the Mission Valley area near San Diego and is currently showing (feeling, I guess would be also applicable in this case) Sherlock Holmes with this technology.

If anyone decides to attend let us know about the experience. Other locations in North America per the D-BOX press release from this month are as follows:

Santikos Theatres Silverado 19 in Tomball, Texas;
Wehrenberg Theatres Ronnies 20 Cine in St. Louis,Missouri;
Emagine Entertainment’s Canton Theatre in Canton, Michigan;
Emagine Entertainment’s Cinema Hollywood Theatre in Birch Run, Michigan;
Cinéma Beloeil, in Beloeil Quebec;
Cineplex Odeon Queensway Theatre in Etobicoke, Ontario;
Mann Chinese 6 Theatre in Los Angeles, California;
Theatres at Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota;
Galaxy at the Cannery in Las Vegas, Nevada;
Galaxy Highland Theatre in Austin, Texas;
UltraStar Cinemas in Surprise, Arizona;
and UltraStar Apple Valley in San Bernardino, California.

P.S.
I don’t know if it would be a good idea though to completely outfit a theater in Calif. with only these D-BOX seats because if there was an earthquake during the presentation, I guess there’s a chance that nobody in the audience would recognize the event and thusly not even attempt to duck for cover. Of course, from personal experience, if you’re doing the wild thing early in the morning, you’ll also completely miss a magnitude 6.7 earthquake too ………
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northridge_earthquake
 
Old 12-29-2009, 09:55 PM   #11708
Deciazulado Deciazulado is offline
Site Manager
 
Deciazulado's Avatar
 
Aug 2006
USiberia
6
1160
7048
4045
Default

Interestingly the D-Box feature seemed to interest females much more than stereo or 3-D when they experienced it.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 09:59 PM   #11709
Blu Titan Blu Titan is offline
Super Moderator
 
Blu Titan's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Edo, Land of the Samurai
42
41
2864
2
92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deciazulado View Post
Interestingly the D-Box feature seemed to interest females much more than stereo or 3-D when they experienced it.
Seems very logical.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 10:36 PM   #11710
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi View Post
... which is the factor that makes the upper resolution limit of that print kinda moot, if you ask me.

Seriously, it's gotta be a handful of 35mm theatres that can beat a 2K projector for viewable pixels. And while I will never argue against assuming the best and shooting for the moon, I think there's much to be said for considering the practical realities of the marketplace and weighing them against diminishing returns.

Even a print made from a 2K DI (which, I agree with you, needs to be relegated to the past, ASAP) is going to present greater spatial resolution than probably a majority of pre-digital release prints (again, before the shaky projection gate makes it all moot, anyway).
if I understand your guys discussion I must agree with Bobby.

let me explain why with a fictional (and possibly slightlty exagerated example)

Lets say something is shot on film and it is the equivalent of 8k, it then goes through the normal "film" process and gets projected in the theatre where it is the equivalent of 2k. How did it go from 8 to 2? some of the detail is lost by making copies (going from negative to positive or positive to negative), some is lost due to cheaper film stock used for projection, some is lost due to the projectioning set-up(screen, lens, focus....). Now let's say I go back to the start and the 8k print, I go through a DI for editing and it is now 2K, but that 2K print will be printed on film and go through all the exact same steps of the previous example. Now the effect won't be as bad, 2k won't go 6k less or even 3/4 less to .5k but it will soften it and so your 2k could end up showing at an equivalent 1.7k. On the other hand if we stay digital (for the sake of argument shown on a digital 2k projector) then it stays 2K but the "theatre" set-up will be similar, how good is the screen, what is the uniformity of the lens, how well it is focused. At my home, even though I have an LCOS projector, I can see each pixel (and even then the focus is not perfect) in theatres, when they have the DLP projectors, I can tell because I get a headache and feel "uncomfortable" (would not call it nauseous, but a bit like that),but even though I know it is a DLP (which tends to have larger space then LCoS between pixels)and the image is much bigger, no matter how close I go, the pixel structure cannot be seen. That does not mean that real detail is lost, but it could (especially when we all agree how badly they focus film projectors)
 
Old 12-29-2009, 10:57 PM   #11711
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi View Post
So, what do you want? A slightly improved top end? Or a substantially improved average?
can't talk for Bobby, but slightly improved top end (or improved start to be more precise). It is all that matters. Let me ask you this, let's say in a few years we get a new home format that is 2160p if the DI was 2K what will it mean for what it will look like? let's say a few years back they used a DI that was close to 720p because 720p was more then good enough for DVD, what would we be getting today on BD? Yes maybe the theatres can't show it as well as we do now, yes BD is limited to 1080p, but movies are for ever. Some of my BDs go back to the 40's, long before I was borne. Why limit ourselves to small improvement in the top end now when in the future that choice will be big improvement at any end when we don't need to?
 
Old 12-29-2009, 11:19 PM   #11712
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

I see where you're going, Anthony, but I don't agree with the math you use to get there.

If we're talking about a typical 35mm production, we're looking at vaguely 4K available in the exposure, at best (plus or minus, depending on a million variables). If we make a print-master from the cut negative and print off of that (ignoring any opticals), we're two generations away from the neg and we've lost some resolution each time. What's left (in this idealized scenario, probably a little more than 2K) goes into the projector, where it copes with a wobbly gate.

Meanwhile, if we take that same negative and DI it at 2K, we can put that 2K pretty much straight onto the screen (focus of the film and digital projectors being essentially equal for the sake of argument).

Now, while your best-case film print may be putting a little more than 2K onto the screen, it's doing so within the loosey-goosey tolerances of that commercial projector gate. Meanwhile, the digital projector, at a consistent 2K (depending on photography, of course), is throwing those pixels with dead-on precision. The result is greater visible/usable resolution.
 
Old 12-29-2009, 11:29 PM   #11713
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
can't talk for Bobby, but slightly improved top end (or improved start to be more precise). It is all that matters. Let me ask you this, let's say in a few years we get a new home format that is 2160p if the DI was 2K what will it mean for what it will look like?
I think you've jumped the rails, Anthony. I'm not arguing that 2K DIs are fine; I'm arguing that the spatial resolution performance of 2K projection is superior to that of almost all commercial 35mm film projection.

As for DIs, I prefer a visual-acuity-centric approach to a media-centric one and advocate scanning to 1.2K per 10 degrees of intended image width.
 
Old 12-30-2009, 12:42 AM   #11714
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi View Post
I think you've jumped the rails, Anthony. I'm not arguing that 2K DIs are fine; I'm arguing that the spatial resolution performance of 2K projection is superior to that of almost all commercial 35mm film projection.
not sure what you mean. If I go to a theatre to watch a presentation, I will judge it on the quality of the screen that is just in front of me I don't care about hypothetical and in what way they are related (i.e. if ewe use your type of example, if digital means 2k and for film high=2.2k, average 1.7k low 1k. If it is knowable and my choice is 2k digital and 2.2k film then why not film, on the other hand if it is 1.6 for film then my digital theatre is better, so I should pick that one, would it really matter what the choices are elsewhere?

On the other hand (since the discussion was to DI or not DI for film presentations -no choice for digital presentations) why not have the best possible for film presentations. If you DI at 2K then that is the max the theatrical presentation can be even for film projection. And like I said before it also limits you in the future.
 
Old 12-30-2009, 01:32 AM   #11715
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
not sure what you mean.
I think you're misunderstanding the discussion point. It wasn't about 'to DI or not to DI' or at what resolution to DI (I think we are all in agreement with the higher-the-better principle); it was about the relative benefits of film versus digital projection as an end-product.

A by-product of this discussion may be the impression that I prefer digital projection, which is not (often) the case. My point is just that, for most theatrical feature presentations, digital provides more viewable spatial resolution than does 35mm film. Spatial resolution is, of course, not the only criterion of interest to me.
 
Old 12-30-2009, 04:20 AM   #11716
Bobby Henderson Bobby Henderson is offline
Power Member
 
Bobby Henderson's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
Oklahoma
96
12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi
Seriously, it's gotta be a handful of 35mm theatres that can beat a 2K projector for viewable pixels.
Seriously, it's pretty sad whenever anyone is arguing in favor of the lowest common denominator. I think you're doing that with your last few posts, Doc.

Do you really, honestly think 35mm release prints are capable of only less than HDTV quality resolution? I disagree with that absolutely. If the source material is of high enough quality a 35mm print will trounce 2K digital, especially in a theater showing film done right.

Also, that sort of statement doesn't make any sense when earlier you said a 35mm film presentation of 2K material would provide better contrast than a D-cinema show. That's at least sort of contradictory.

Any movie studio choosing to go with 2K just because some multiplex theaters are goofing up film projection shows is a blatant invitation for any movie-goer to just stay at home and watch movies on TV. If I'm going to go with the notion that commercial theaters can't do the job right, why should I bother watching the movie at all until it appears on HBO?

The movie industry needs to get its collective head out of the deep recesses of its collective rear ends and start paying attention to how its product is displayed on the theatrical end. If the movie industry cannot summon the will to do this then they will be done in by the ordinary television industry eventually.

Right now Hollywood movie distributors only seem fit to keep commercial movie theater businesses teetering on the brink on bankruptcy. They don't seem to realize those commercial movie theaters they love to abuse are the lone thing keeping them in business. What are they going to do without the theaters? Try to market their movie product to HBO, NBC, CBS, etc.? Good luck on that!!
 
Old 12-30-2009, 05:49 AM   #11717
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson View Post
Seriously, it's pretty sad whenever anyone is arguing in favor of the lowest common denominator. I think you're doing that with your last few posts, Doc.
And here I thought I had gone out of my way to clarify that that's not what I'm doing. I don't think I'm arguing in favor of what you seem to think I am, Bobby.

I'm disagreeing with your assertion that commercially-screened 35mm release prints provide increased spatial resolution. I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that they can provide a better viewing experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson View Post
Do you really, honestly think 35mm release prints are capable of only less than HDTV quality resolution? I disagree with that absolutely. If the source material is of high enough quality a 35mm print will trounce 2K digital, especially in a theater showing film done right.
Here we go in circles... I've acknowledged from the beginning that "film done right" can be superior. My argument is that "film done right", for most practical purposes, doesn't really exist on a commercial level.

I would pose that not many real-world 35mm release prints carry notably more than 2K in the celluloid. Factor in getting that info onto the screen, viewable, and we're describing the cinema-going experience of a lucky very few.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson View Post
Also, that sort of statement doesn't make any sense when earlier you said a 35mm film presentation of 2K material would provide better contrast than a D-cinema show. That's at least sort of contradictory.
And that's precisely why I didn't make "that sort of statement". Again, I'm not advocating the digital presentation and, again, I'm not talking about any criteria beyond spatial resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson View Post
Any movie studio choosing to go with 2K just because some multiplex theaters are goofing up film projection shows is a blatant invitation for any movie-goer to just stay at home and watch movies on TV. If I'm going to go with the notion that commercial theaters can't do the job right, why should I bother watching the movie at all until it appears on HBO?

The movie industry needs to get its collective head out of the deep recesses of its collective rear ends and start paying attention to how its product is displayed on the theatrical end. If the movie industry cannot summon the will to do this then they will be done in by the ordinary television industry eventually.
Welcome to the last 50 years.


Anyway, to reiterate, I agree that a good 35mm film presentation can produce a better experience than a 2K digital projection. Generally, I prefer the film print. However, this is because of contrast, as I think that even in the best of circumstances, the difference in spatial resolution between what you actually see on the screen with 35mm film and with a 2K projection is negligible.
 
Old 12-30-2009, 06:08 AM   #11718
sharkshark sharkshark is offline
Banned
 
Feb 2009
Toronto
Default

heh, Bobby, you should read the Doctor's posts more carefully. He's a nuanced guy...

Anyhoo, if I may re-butt in again, Doc, what's being overlooked is that resolution is hardly ever of consequence (how many sit too far back in a theatre to begin with?), yet the differences in colour representation between some digital and film presentations are for many clear.

When was the last time you saw a digital presentation that fooled you into thinking it was actually projected film, or vice versa? Was this strictly because of image stability or percieved resolution, or is it that the subtle differences in colour representation twig the educated viewer to see the distinguishing characteristics.

If this may be granted, then, again, the DI output to film versus DI > existing digital projection systems lacks the sense of irony that at first blush seems to hold.

Obviously there's nobody here that would argue that at the capture stage there's a digital technology that's identical to any given film aquisition. In fact, that link that Penton provided a few weeks back where they tested the various rigs shows that these differences are real, and the whole point was to demonstrate clearly the differences so that they could be exploited creatively.

Thus, in the end, QT prefers the look of light shining through film stock over digital projection, and as I said before, I'm not sure for his type of films that many would make the contrary position, given the obvious caveats regarding the care required for a top notch cinematic presentation (analogue or otherwise).
 
Old 12-30-2009, 06:26 AM   #11719
Doctorossi Doctorossi is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Doctorossi's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
134
478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark View Post
Anyhoo, if I may re-butt in again, Doc, what's being overlooked is that resolution is hardly ever of consequence (how many sit too far back in a theatre to begin with?), yet the differences in colour representation between some digital and film presentations are for many clear.
Quite! In spatial resolution, there's a point of diminishing returns, IMO, somewhere around the area of a typical film print (which I might callously, wantonly compare to, say... 720p video, give or take a couple hundred vertical lines), at which the significance/relevance of additional spatial resolution begins to pale for many viewing positions to the impact of color and light-output variables.

I hesitate to put any disgustingly finer point on it, as this is all anecdotal, unscientific (though somewhat scientifically-informed) and deeply subjective.

Meanwhile, no need to 'butt in', shark. Surely to the chagrin of some, this remains a public discussion.
 
Old 12-30-2009, 08:04 PM   #11720
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark View Post
Sorry, Penton, we were talking about film editing, not rumble seats...
I’ll try to see if I can wrangle one of the data wranglers from District 9 to share with you all some of his experiences on the set with accumulating and passing on the plethora of data files to editorial for that motion picture.
 
Closed Thread
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Insider Discussion

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
Ask questions to Compression Engineer insider "drmpeg" Insider Discussion iceman 145 01-31-2024 04:00 PM
Ask questions to Blu-ray Music insider "Alexander J" Insider Discussion iceman 280 07-04-2011 06:18 PM
Ask questions to Sony Pictures Entertainment insider "paidgeek" Insider Discussion iceman 958 04-06-2008 05:48 PM
Ask questions to Sony Computer Entertainment insider "SCE Insider" Insider Discussion Ben 13 01-21-2008 09:45 PM
UK gets "Kill Bill" 1&2, "Pulp Fiction", "Beowulf", "Jesse James", and more in March? Blu-ray Movies - North America JBlacklow 21 12-07-2007 11:05 AM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.