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
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory 4K (Blu-ray)
$25.99
1 day ago
Animal House 4K (Blu-ray)
$19.96
16 hrs ago
The Unholy (Blu-ray)
$22.99
16 hrs ago
Space Jam 4K (Blu-ray)
$25.99
 
Top Gun 4K (Blu-ray)
$17.99
4 hrs ago
Terror Express (Blu-ray)
$19.99
2 hrs ago
Godzilla vs. Kong 4K (Blu-ray)
$42.99
 
Drive (Blu-ray)
$27.99
 
RahXephon: Complete Collection (Blu-ray)
$89.99
 
Dragonheart: 5-Movie Collection (Blu-ray)
$19.99
 
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$77.97
 
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.49
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Displays > Display Theory and Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2009, 04:09 AM   #1
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syncguy View Post
HDTV took sometime to pickup because the price was not right. Check in a store to see how many people purchasing new TVs everyday. These days people are agile to tech change - it is vastly different to last fifty years. They do not wait until their five year old set dies. They will go for the latest if they like or love it and price is right. It is an easy sell once a scope movie is demonstrated on a 21x9 set.
if that was even remotely true then the digital transition would have been extremely different and digital converter boxes would not be needed. ATSC has existed for ~10 years and in 2005 35"+ TVs had to have an ATSC tuner, if you where right in your assumption that people don't keep a TV for more the 5 years then everyone would have a TV with ATSC tuner.

Quote:
No need to go into technology analysis. Simple fact is technology evolves around human desires. 21x9 sets will be purchased to watch scope content in the way that they were made to be watched and in the way that people love such content. It is really nuts to propose for people to stampbox scope content on a 21x9 set because content is artificially limited to 16x9 sets by placing subs on blackbars.
god forbid we actually analyse things and make posts that make sense, why let facts get in the way of complete drivel. The answer is BDwon't ever be 21:9 if you are right and one day sets are only 21:9 and canít show 16:9 something other then BD will need to be used that alowes for 21:9 so who gives a crap what is on BD now. You won't be watching BDs so why bring it into a BD discussion, they could make the appropriate subs then. On the other hand movies where 4:3 and Academy ratio before TV but it was too close to TVs and in order to make them different movies became wider. Who knows, maybe now that TVs are getting wider (16:9 now and you assume 21:9 some day in the future) movies will go the opposite way (that is what Imax did ). One can make any insane assertion under technology evolves. PS where is my flying car and my mal in a pill and space bus to Mars?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:15 AM   #2
syncguy syncguy is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
syncguy's Avatar
 
Mar 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
if that was even remotely true then the digital transition would have been extremely different and digital converter boxes would not be needed. ATSC has existed for ~10 years and in 2005 35"+ TVs had to have an ATSC tuner, if you where right in your assumption that people don't keep a TV for more the 5 years then everyone would have a TV with ATSC tuner.
It is true, it took some time to get plasma/LCD prices close to CRT TV prices. People have a mindset that they would pay $x for a TV set. Once 16x9 plasma/LCD get close to that level, it started selling. It took time to get the prices of fundamental LCD/Plasma technology close to CRT prices. Once this is achieved, changing aspect from 16x9 to 21x9 cannot be hard.

It is not that people will not keep a TV for more than five years. Rather, if a new technology is offered and if they love it and if price is right they will jump on it. It is already proven that people love 21x9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
god forbid we actually analyse things and make posts that make sense, why let facts get in the way of complete drivel. The answer is BDwon't ever be 21:9 if you are right and one day sets are only 21:9 and can’t show 16:9 something other then BD will need to be used that alowes for 21:9 so who gives a crap what is on BD now. You won't be watching BDs so why bring it into a BD discussion, they could make the appropriate subs then. On the other hand movies where 4:3 and Academy ratio before TV but it was too close to TVs and in order to make them different movies became wider. Who knows, maybe now that TVs are getting wider (16:9 now and you assume 21:9 some day in the future) movies will go the opposite way (that is what Imax did ). One can make any insane assertion under technology evolves. PS where is my flying car and my mal in a pill and space bus to Mars?
You are telling people to tolerate artificially limiting content to 16x9 technology and double-dip once technology has evolved. That will not be a very popular viewpoint. 21x9 displays are already here – people love that aspect – it will sell once price is right. So, blu-ray slim-line HD subs should be placed in the picture to achieve universal compatibility to ensure people can enjoy blu-ray content with other evolving display technologies.

2.35:1 scope is protected by many billions of dollars worth investment around the world and IMAX will not change that for another fifty years. IMAX really needs huge screens to be effective - both height and width, so I don't think scope theaters and the desire to watch panoramic images will change any time soon.

Last edited by syncguy; 07-23-2009 at 05:20 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 09:35 AM   #3
Eternal_Sunshine Eternal_Sunshine is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2007
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
so phansson where can I buy one
All over Europe you can...

http://www.grobi.tv/seiten/neuigkeit...ilips21-9.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 02:44 PM   #4
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine View Post
It doesn't have LED backlighting like many other of the latest LCD HDTVs, so black bars on the sides of 1.85:1-4:3:1 content will all be grey, and black levels will be poor across the screen compared to LED backlit LCD HDTVs. It's about £4500 too - a lot more expensive than HDTVs that do have LED backlighting, which you can get for a lot less than a quarter of the price.

Last edited by 4K2K; 07-23-2009 at 02:48 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 02:47 PM   #5
ilsiu ilsiu is offline
Member
 
Nov 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilian View Post
If Sony at the outset wants to implement the change or intends to do so especially for CIH screen owners by all means do so and it's not a problem per se. No need for any poll or a pat on the back. But to base this change on the poll results does not give it legitimacy and it is simply misguided.
To me, this is like voting in an election. If you have a stake in the outcome, then vote for the option that best suits you. If you have no stake in any outcome, then you probably don't care enough to vote. Proponents of either option are free to campaign as hard and as often as they like. There's is no requirement for the campaigning to be equal, and unbalanced representation does not invalidate the outcome.

So what CIH users are over-represented? So what Josh openly endorses option 1, has an audience and encourages others to do so? If there are people that feel equally strongly about option 2, it's their responsibility to spread the word and draw in voters, not the operators of the poll. All the operator of the poll can do is make sure everyone has equal access to voting.

I think it says alot that no one is clamoring on other sites for people to vote for option 2 or 3. I guess option2 supporters aren't as passionate about it as option1 supporters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 02:54 PM   #6
ilsiu ilsiu is offline
Member
 
Nov 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilian View Post
A better way to do it will be to record if the voter has CIH screen or not at the time of survey. This will at least provide a solid number of CIH screen owners, and enables the analyser to correlate this with their choice and calculate how much this affects the overall results. We don't want to poll only or mostly CIH screen owners. It is possible for Sony to do a worldwide poll on their websites in different languages as long as it is well publicised so more BD buyers and BD viewers in other countries can participate.

A much more correct way to do it will be to randomly select from two groups, one with CIH screen and the without in equal (or approximately equal) numbers and do the survey.
Why does all this matter? Let's apply your logic to last year's presidential election.

A certain block of voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama. A different block of voters voted for McCain. Should the vote count be normalised based on the relative size of the voting blocks?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 03:35 PM   #7
Eternal_Sunshine Eternal_Sunshine is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2007
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K
It doesn't have LED backlighting like many other of the latest LCD HDTVs, so black bars on the sides of 1.85:1-4:3:1 content will all be grey
Black level of LCD TVs has massively improved, even without LED backlighting. Check out a current non-LED Sony model, for example.

And you can check out some pictures of the Philips 21:9 LCD TV here (cookies must be enabled):
https://fotoalbum.web.de/gast/grossb...CinemascopeLCD

You can clearly see in the picures with 16:9 material that the black bars on the sides are very black indeed and not grey. You may also notice that black bars on the side are much less annoying than on top and bottom...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K
It's about £4500 too
No it's not. List price is 4.000 Euros, which amounts to about £3500.

Anyways, the point was that Anthony P called the Philips 21:9 TV a "prototype" while it is a shipping product.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:00 PM   #8
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine View Post
Black level of LCD TVs has massively improved, even without LED backlighting. Check out a current non-LED Sony model, for example.

And you can check out some pictures of the Philips 21:9 LCD TV here (cookies must be enabled):
https://fotoalbum.web.de/gast/grossb...CinemascopeLCD

You can clearly see in the picures with 16:9 material that the black bars on the sides are very black indeed and not grey. You may also notice that black bars on the side are much less annoying than on top and bottom...



No it's not. List price is 4.000 Euros, which amounts to about £3500.

Anyways, the point was that Anthony P called the Philips 21:9 TV a "prototype" while it is a shipping product.
They look grey to me. Not black like the frame. And please show me where in the UK they are selling for £3500. And even if they were that's still loads more than a similar sized 1.78:1 HDTV that, unlike the Philips 21:9, does have local dimming LED back-lighting. And unlike the Philips, won't have huge sidebars on practically all TV broadcasts. 1.78:1 is closer to the aspect ratio of human vision too.

Last edited by 4K2K; 07-23-2009 at 04:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:44 PM   #9
Eternal_Sunshine Eternal_Sunshine is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2007
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
They look grey to me.
Then we have a very different definition of grey...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
And please show me where in the UK they are selling for £3500.
I don't know about the UK. In Germany list price is 3999 Euros (about £3500).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
1.78:1 is closer to the aspect ratio of human vision too.
Your vision must be very different from mine then, too. My vision is definitely not 16:9 shaped but much, much wider.

But, once again, the point wasn't if the Philips 21:9 is a good deal or even a good TV or not, but that it is a shipping product and not a "prototype".

P.S.Those who are interested can judge themselves how black or grey the bars are in the attached pic.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg philips.jpg (91.2 KB, 13 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:17 PM   #10
Josh Z Josh Z is offline
Member
 
Jul 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
And please show me where in the UK they are selling for £3500. And even if they were that's still loads more than a similar sized 1.78:1 HDTV that, unlike the Philips 21:9, does have local dimming LED back-lighting.
Why is the price of the set important?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 06:09 AM   #11
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Why is the price of the set important?
I was thinking 21:9 sets would be unlikely to sell a lot if they were very expensive eg. £4500. Also, someone looking for quality and features would probably be put off by the lack of things like LED back-lighting. I know if I was thinking of buying one, and I also would like to watch TV programming, which would have black bars on practically all the time, the lack of local dimming backlighting would put me off - I already own a locally dimming LCD HDTV and the lack of that feature on a set over 4x the price that I paid for mine just makes it seem very overpriced and lacking in features and unlikely to sell in big numbers.

It could be that people who want 2.35:1 aspect ratio would be more likely to buy projection systems than these TVs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 07:48 AM   #12
#Darren #Darren is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
#Darren's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
1471
62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine View Post
Your vision must be very different from mine then, too. My vision is definitely not 16:9 shaped but much, much wider.
Then your vision is very different to the majority of human beings,
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 12:39 PM   #13
ilsiu ilsiu is offline
Member
 
Nov 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iDarren View Post
Then your vision is very different to the majority of human beings,
I suppose my vision is in the minority as well. I'm looking at a 16:10 monitor; when I move close enough so it fills my vertical field of view, it hasn't filled my horizontal field of view, so I'd say that my field of vision is wider than 16:9.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:19 PM   #14
H9k_ H9k_ is offline
Active Member
 
H9k_'s Avatar
 
Sep 2007
Vikingland
Default Semi blind?

I guess he suffers from tunnel vision.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:28 PM   #15
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post
I suppose my vision is in the minority as well. I'm looking at a 16:10 monitor; when I move close enough so it fills my vertical field of view, it hasn't filled my horizontal field of view, so I'd say that my field of vision is wider than 16:9.
I think mine must be wider than 16:9 too after all .
I had read this website that said "Your field of view is roughly 180 degrees wide and something like 150 degrees high". 180/150=1.2.

http://www.reddit.com/r/cogsci/comme...uman_field_of/

Here's an old revision of wiki that said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=102478358
Quote:
One rationale for widescreen is that, since the human eye has a field of view that extends farther to the sides than it does above or below, a widescreen image makes more effective use of the field of view, thereby producing a more immersive viewing experience. Critics of widescreen point out that the human field of vision, based upon the angular ratio of our fields of view (180 degrees horizontal, 135 degrees vertical), is in fact closer to the older ratio of 4 to 3, and not widescreen ratios such as 16:9 or 2.35:1. Consequently, large-format technologies like IMAX favor a 4:3 format
Isn't the IMAX format wasteful then in terms of aspect ratio use if a human's field of view is really >=2.35?

Though for people watching on a 1.78:1 display, ie. the majority, if they're watching 1.78:1 content then view 2.39:1 content from the same viewing distance they watched the 1.78:1 content, the 2.39:1 content would take up less of their field of view, if the 1.78:1 was inside their FOV.

Is there a more scientific page that accurately says what the field of view of humans actually is? I know it isn't really rectangular.

Last edited by 4K2K; 07-24-2009 at 01:57 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 03:22 PM   #16
#Darren #Darren is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
#Darren's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
1471
62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post
I suppose my vision is in the minority as well. I'm looking at a 16:10 monitor; when I move close enough so it fills my vertical field of view, it hasn't filled my horizontal field of view, so I'd say that my field of vision is wider than 16:9.
So are you telling me that you can see BOTH sides of a 21x9 screen without having large areas of unused vision at top and bottom?

A 16x9 screen will achieve that effect much more successfully.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 04:57 PM   #17
ZombieTheater ZombieTheater is offline
Junior Member
 
Jul 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
But only for those films formatted in that format. There is no series programming that I am aware of that is in 'scope ratio. And there is no reason it ever needs to be, 16:9 programming fits the 21:9 display model with no adverse effects. The height stays the same, therefore maintaining the impact of the image. Though human vision is biased towards a horizontal feild of view it is vertical size that makes it "feel" large.

All the talk of "the future" has been about some kind of 3-D display technology and the possible format battles over it. 21:9 is a niche of a niche. You think there's problems with getting people to buy catalog titles now, what about the thousands of titles that are 4x3? 21x9 displays will have severe pillarboxing on those titles.

3D has been on the market for nearly a year there is just no buzz, why? lack of content and impractical implementation.
21:9 is a theater standard but they are also capable of displaying 16:9(1.85) or 4:3 for that matter. Do you scoff at a 1.85 picture when you go to the theater because it is pillarboxed?
I can say from experience that 4:3 pillarboxed loses very little impact on a 21:9(cinemascope) screen.




I will still argue 21:9 will never be mainstream in my lifetime, even the 4K demos made are still in a 16x9 ratio.
Though 4K seems to be the next buzz I am almost certin the "masses" won't go for it. At the distance most people sit from their display there will not be a huge difference compared to what they see now.

There were quite a few CRTs and rear-projection sets sold in 4x3 format. Even now there are still some smaller LCDs that are 4x3 still in stores. Letterboxing on those displays with the subtitles in the picture will make them even more difficult to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilian View Post
If Sony at the outset wants to implement the change or intends to do so especially for CIH screen owners by all means do so and it's not a problem per se. No need for any poll or a pat on the back. But to base this change on the poll results does not give it legitimacy and it is simply misguided. There are two serious related issues which I want to say more about. I have done research and published peer-reviewed papers so I know something about correct use of statistics.

1. The sample is non-representative
I don't know how large the catalogue of non-English language films Sony has but I presume it is a small minority. If Sony is going to change its policy as a direct result of this poll, the people who are affected will mostly by those who would watch Sony English language BD with non-English subtitles, as native or fluent English speakers won't need to read English subtitles except the HOH. The people who vote here are all English speaking, either native or if non-native, still fluent. So the people who vote aren't really affected by the change but those who didn't vote will be.

Another way of looking at it is: a poll result with a thousand odd participants, mostly English speaking (and likely to be from North America) will affect all the BD viewers who watch Sony BDs worldwide. How do we know if people in Asia or Russia have similar preferences? We don't and nobody can make the assumption that they do. So the poll is targeting the wrong cohort.

2. The sample is biased and the poll fails to correct for this
From the replies here and elsewhere it is clear that CIH screen owners overwhelmingly or perhaps even unanimously want in-picture subtitles whereas non-CIH screen owners are divided in some way. So any survey which has a disproportionate high number of CIH screen owners are likely to skew the result in that direction thus causing bias.

Would you change your argument if you found that of all the votes cast approimatly 30 votes were from people with a CIH set up? We are the "niche" afterall

People who still don't follow please read on. If everyone in the poll has CIH screen you'd expect 100% vote for option 1. If 50% has CIH screen you might expect somewhere between 50% and 100% vote for option 1. If nobody has CIH you might expect a lower than 50% vote or higher or the same - we just don't know.

The problem here is in this poll nobody knows how many voters have CIH screens. So how to correct for the result? Just saying it will be factored in or there is a 'cyber-coefficient' isn't good enough. We need to know exactly how it's done, otherwise it is just dismissive mumbo-jumbo.

Another way of looking at it and related to the first issue is an unknown number but not more than a few hundred CIH screen owners demand a change which affects all BD viewers worldwide.

A better way to do it will be to record if the voter has CIH screen or not at the time of survey. This will at least provide a solid number of CIH screen owners, and enables the analyser to correlate this with their choice and calculate how much this affects the overall results. We don't want to poll only or mostly CIH screen owners. It is possible for Sony to do a worldwide poll on their websites in different languages as long as it is well publicised so more BD buyers and BD viewers in other countries can participate.

A much more correct way to do it will be to randomly select from two groups, one with CIH screen and the without in equal (or approximately equal) numbers and do the survey.

By the sound of it I won't be surprised if it goes in one particular way. Before the 'winners' congratulate themselves just spare a thought to the manner this poll has been conducted and implications of change based on this methodology. While on this occasion it goes in your favour next time it may not. If you are still lost I strongly recommend reading a book on basic statistics.


Here is what I think, the only obsticle standing in the way of 21:9 displays in the USA are theater owners and Hollywood. Neither of them want to give up market share to allow you to sit at home and enjoy the theater experience. They love the fact that you have black bars on your 16:9 screen with 2.35 Bluray movies, that means you still have a reason to come to the theaters! The people who really want it(21:9) will get it though. CIH can be done cost effectively. IE, I spent less money on my CIH set up than I spent on my first HDRPTV wich was only 61inches , the CIH set up is nearly twice that size corner to corner at 120inches.

Once the masses see 3D,4K,21:9, which do you think will have the greatest impact on them?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 08:10 PM   #18
PeterTHX PeterTHX is online now
Blu-ray Count
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
561
12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieTheater View Post
Once the masses see 3D,4K,21:9, which do you think will have the greatest impact on them?
Probably 3D.

For 21:9 they'd ask "Why does the HD Super Bowl now have black bars on the sides of the picture???"
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2009, 12:19 AM   #19
Kilian Kilian is offline
Member
 
Nov 2007
1
Wink this is not a general election

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
Here's a poll that asks what people watch 2.35-2.40:1 Blu-ray movies on:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=106418

Curently 12.77% say they watch on a CIH setup.
Thank you. The numbers who participate are too small and no firm conclusion can be drawn except to say CIH group is a small minority. In reality I suspect the percentage of CIH screen owners globally is very likely to be much lower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post
To me, this is like voting in an election.
This is a marketing poll involving a small number of people about a consumer choice and simply can't be compared to a national election or referendum where a susbstantial proportion (a 30% turnout is considered low) of the whole eligible cohort participate, or parliamentary/congressional vote where a minority previleged few have been democratically elected by the masses prior to the vote. Also, in a referendum or government vote a pre-determined minimum turnout rate, something like 50% or more, and a pre-determined level of majority like two-thirds is required for the results to be valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post
Why does all this matter? Let's apply your logic to last year's presidential election.

A certain block of voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama. A different block of voters voted for McCain. Should the vote count be normalised based on the relative size of the voting blocks?
It matters in this case when the number of voters is so small and comprises substantially of voters with a special need and they are not randomly selected. As I already said, this is not a national election.

You have not come across a postal (mail), internet or phone marketing poll or survey which asks you many questions to collection information on certain characteristics of the pollster? Do you think they do this for fun or rather to look for any underlying bias and correct for this when necessary? Do you not think they would want to sample a fair representation, a cross section of the target population?

So far this poll has 1,169 votes, out of 69,521 forum members: a mere 1.68%. The percentage is even substantially lower and insignificant compared to the millions of Blu-ray adopters worldwide. It neither mimics an election nor a referendum. I've argued that the voters or even the whole membership of this forum are not a fair representation of the worldwide community of BD viewers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2009, 06:09 PM   #20
syncguy syncguy is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
syncguy's Avatar
 
Mar 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilian View Post
...
So far this poll has 1,169 votes, out of 69,521 forum members: a mere 1.68%.
...
Although this is a technically accurate statement, it needs to be analysed while considering human behaviour. It is worthwhile finding out the number of members who read this thread and actively chose not to vote. It is fair to assume that they chose not to vote because they don't care whether subs are in or out. If subs are there for them to understand the dialogue, they are satisfied and did not bother to vote. That is human behaviour. That is the reason for some countries to make voting compulsory.

If Administrators could find out how many members read this thread and actively chose not to vote, that will give a valuable statistic on relevancy of sub position to the majority.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Displays > Display Theory and Discussion

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
Field of Dreams Reviews? Blu-ray Movies - North America CHERRYGARCIA 47 09-18-2016 10:38 PM
How to customize our Profile Custom Field? Feedback Forum DarkDune 3 08-31-2009 09:37 PM
Home Field Advantage Movies carpaltonnel 26 02-06-2009 10:10 PM
Field Of Dreams Movies gwswsa 18 01-02-2009 12:47 PM
A question to anyone in the IT/Computer field General Chat helli3yte 17 07-10-2007 05:47 PM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 03:12 AM.