This is topic Blu-Ray Quality - Is it me....? in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=8;t=001581

Posted by Keith Ashfield (Member # 741) on January 22, 2010, 03:55 AM:
After years of faithful service, my old DVD player was starting to get noisy and a bit temperamental, so I though, having just under a 1000 DVDs of various “Region ratings”, that I would purchase a HDMI “up-scaling” unit.

When in our local ASDA (Wal-Mart), checking out the HDMI capable players, I noticed a Phillips Blu-ray player at the “reasonable” price of £77.00. So I purchased this player, along with the “G-Force” Combi Pack Blu-ray + DVD pack.

Eagerly went home, set up the player with my 32” Sony Bravia T.V and loaded the disc. The quality was “stunning”. I thought that my decision to go with the Blu-ray player was “spot-on”.

However, in order to ascertain the true difference between DVD and Blu-ray, I loaded the DVD of “G-Force” and my “excitement” was somewhat diminished. The quality, to me, did not seem to be that different.

I then put the “G-Force” DVD into my DVD Recorder and then, comparing the difference between that, and the Blu-ray player, the quality difference was VERY apparent. The “up-scaling” of the DVD on the Blu-ray player really made a big difference to the picture quality. I checked a few other “normal” DVDs and continued to be impressed by the “better picture quality” afforded by the 1080i “up-scaling”.

Considering the price that I paid for the Phillips unit, and the fact that it is now “Multi-Region” for DVDs (due to a “handset hack), I am not complaining.

I will certainly not be replacing “all” of my ordinary DVD collection with Blu-ray, but will purchase any “Blu-ray combi” releases, dependent on the price. This will at least give the benefit of having the “Blu” disc and also the “ordinary” DVD, to play on my DVD projector.

No doubt the quality of the Blu-ray presentation is more apparent when seen on a larger screen, compared to a 32” television. It may be that my old eyesight is not what it used to be. Whatever the reason, I am glad that I did not “jump into the Blu-ray sea” too early, when the prices were higher.

I’m happy with what I have, for the price that I paid, and that’s all that matters really.
Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on January 22, 2010, 04:55 AM:
I too have noticed this. I currently have a PS3 which I use for Blu-Rays and video-over-LAN (1080p films), and a DVD player with HDMI that upscales to 1080p.

However, the PS3 also plays DVDs and "low-resolution" video, without upscaling. The difference is pretty noticeable. I watched the same film on both (a bootleg concert video with Pink Floyd) and it was two different worlds. On the PS3 it was pixelized and hard to watch, reminding me more of a worn old VHS then a DVD, while on the DVD player it was upscaled pretty decently and the quality was very good.

This is on a Full HD (1080p) 42" LG LCD-TV.
Posted by Barry Johnson (Member # 84) on January 22, 2010, 06:24 AM:
Im with you chaps on this one.I show DVD and BluRay exclusively via video projection,on to a six foot wide screen.I obviously expected too much from the BR claims as my Sony DVD player gives better results from different discs.Yes,BR is positively fresh and a well produced product.The area it does excel in is the soundtracks,they really are brilliant.My kit is connected via the YCP leads and NOT scart and all audio is on seperate connections.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 22, 2010, 08:33 AM:
BR may be going through what people went through with DVD compared to Laserdisc back in the day.

The truth is, currently, the same master is used for the BR as for the DVD release, it's just that the DVD is not capable of reproducing the transfer at the same level of detail as the BR.

To the trained eye, the difference is percieveable, but it really doesn't come down to enough of a difference to matter for most people.

Instead of the BR, I went to the HDMI upgrade of DVD, and have been very pleased with the results with my ole fashioned DVD's.
Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on January 22, 2010, 09:26 AM:
Blu-ray IS better in both picture and sound but of course it depends on the individual release ( quality of the master ) and the size of screen and quality of sound equipment used. The VistaVision releases on BD are incredible... Try NORTH BY NORTHWEST on a big screen. Fine grain, amazing colour and depth to the image even at 80" plus diagonal. Like home IMAX.
Posted by Keith Ashfield (Member # 741) on January 22, 2010, 11:50 AM:
Steven - you are no doubt correct about Blu-ray being better on a "Big screen" but I must have been expecting too much. As I said, initially when I viewed the Blu-ray disc, I was very impressed with the amount of detail and clarity on the 32" television screen. It was only when I put in the "normal" DVD of the same film, in the Blu-ray player, that the difference between the two was not that noticable.

Perhaps I was expecting the old "VHS to DVD" comparison?

I would say that that criteria would certainly apply from "DVD to HDMI DVD". But the difference, in my opinion, between HDMI and Blu-ray is very little.

I am still happy that I purchased the Blu-ray player, instead of just an HDMI machine. At least I now have the ability to watch either format.
Posted by Mark Howard (Member # 870) on January 22, 2010, 12:39 PM:
Well I can't comment on how good blu-ray is. My wife says our upscaling dvd through hdmi leads is fine and that's how it's staying. In our house it's best not to rock the boat, that way she won't notice the film prints going in through the back door! [Razz]
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 22, 2010, 12:47 PM:
Blu ray discs are quite variable in quality (kind of like super 8 prints [Big Grin] ). The best BD's are visually stunning and clearly a step up over DVD'S. In this category I put all the Disney BD's and the classics such as Wizard of Oz, North by Northwest, South Pacific
Others, perhaps the majority, are not much better than regular DVD's and I suspect most people would not notice the difference even on an 8ft wide screen.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 23, 2010, 09:09 AM:
Something I'd forgotten about, a BR, DVD will only show as good as the monitor it is displayed on. For instance, I could buy a BR, but with an ole fashioned 27 inch Sanyo TV, (which we have) it will only display as many lines of resolution as is possible for that TV, (which I believe is somewhere around 500 lines), so it wouldn't matter if I showed it even on my 1080p DVD upgrade, it will still display at 500 lines. Not all digital or plasma TV's are created equal, as I'm sure that many on this forum can
Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on January 25, 2010, 05:54 AM:

the question is: What's the real resolution of a Bluray?
The official page only says "up to 1920 × 1080 pixel"...
... well, I don't doubt that the video was 1920 × 1080 before getting compressed. But I doubt that the details really survived the compression! E.g. let's take a look at these two images. Both have been made from the same uncompressed 64x64-pixel image (using Gimp). The first one ("high") was made with JPEG-compression set to "100", the second one ("low") was made with JPEG-compression set to "0".
Even though the computer will tell you that both images are 64x64 pixel, you'll have to agree that "low" looks worse than this scaled image ("high" scaled down to 24x24, then blown up to 64x64 again) and that "low" looks more like 16x16 pixel:

I guess that this example probably explains why some DVDs with up-scaling look better than the same film on BD.
And as the compression factor used for BDs isn't "100", you can easily see that the current "high" definition is kind of a hoax. You would probably have a much better image when using the BD as a storage for uncompressed video @ PAL-resolution (or at least using a loss-less compression).
I'm pretty sure that the industry is fully aware of this and hence is hiding behind "up to"-terms. Because this industry doesn't want us to have the best possible quality at home (as they fear that we all could be video-pirates). And because this industry wants us to get new devices at least every 5 years (and that hence need room for improvements to make us buy the new gadgets).

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 25, 2010, 06:14 AM:
IMO, DVD is good enough isn't it?
Why the constant upgrades to HD, BluRay, etc. I'll never understand.
Bigger, better, clearer, higher what!!!
These are all becoming ends in themselves rather than adding ANYTHING to the quality of the actual film.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 25, 2010, 08:42 AM:
Hear hear Micheal!

I'd much rather have a superb movie like "It's a Wonderful Life" on a crappy VHS, than have the latest lousy fratboy comedy on a BR with stunning quality.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 25, 2010, 08:47 AM:
Well just wait til ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE comes out on BluRay, Osi (if it hasn't already!) - it'll be like watching the film for the first time.....NOT!!!

[Roll Eyes]
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 25, 2010, 09:09 AM:
I think, to a large extent, the public has already voted on blu-ray. Whereas Blu Ray sales are up quite a bit over the past year, they still only account for about 8% of the disc market. DVD is still the overwhelming choice, with a far superior catalogue of titles, and at much lower cost. My latest visit to super Wal-Mart shows the display of BD titles almost non existant, down to one little shelf unit, while DVD has hundreds of titles on display. So for 99% of the public DVD is ,quite simply, good enough.
After 6 months I still have mixed feelings about blu ray. There is no doubt that BD can provide a superior quality picture if its done right, as in the Disney releases and the Warner Brothers transfers. On the other hand I have DVD titles like Vertigo that look every bit as good as a BD. For 'prestige' films like Snow White, Wizard of Oz, North by NorthWest the extra cost of a BD version is well worth it to me as a film collector, and I relish the extra PQ that those BD's provide. But for run of the mill titles of recent films, which unfortunately is 99% of the BD catalogue, forget it. And I know now that BD releases will just never happen for over 95% of the classic titles in my DVD collection. And I agree with everything that Osi and Michael have said - high definition means nothing if its a crappy film, which unfortunately most of the BD releases are.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 25, 2010, 09:24 AM:
Fair points, but it's not just Blu Ray. It's HD televisions, and dedicated HD channels - it's nonsensical "keeping up with the Jones's" in many ways.
Just how much detail do you need to see on Derek Jeter's face, or Cary Grant's for that matter.

My son was extolling the virtues of Blu Ray to me just the other week - "it's like you're looking through the window at the characters - they're that real" he said. SO WHAT???!!

DVD and regular sports and movie broadcasts on regular TV are more than adequate.
Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on January 25, 2010, 10:25 AM:
It's not difficult keeping up with me! A TV engineer for 45 years dealing with the finest TV system in the world, I am still using CRT televisions working on 625 lines, which were capable on displaying EVERY spot and blemish on Irene Handl's face in all their glory. ALL those spots and blemishes simply disappeared
into a flat smudge when Digital TV broadcasts were introduced: the introduction of HD television is simply an attempt to re-establish the status quo. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; it depends on programme content and on the type of screen it's being displayed on. For resolution, contrast and general picture quality the CRT still reigns supreme: I will be using mine until they no longer work.
BUT, the progression from VHS/BETA, through CED Videodisc, to Laserdisc, DVD and now Blu-Ray is a definite step by step improvement in the recording and display of visual content AT THE DOMESTIC LEVEL. None of these can yet equal the ability of professional Videotape and of (the ultimate) photographic film to produce images approaching natural vision.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 25, 2010, 01:04 PM:
I'm gettin slightly off track, but the last post has a good point. I'm fond of looking at digital or plasma monitors at stores and such (our back, for instance, has them), and I'm struck that, while things are pin sharp when things are standing still, but as soon as things move, you that "boxing", pixilated blur that is just off putting, even with a straight digital signal into the TV.

Granted, TV broadcasts are, in general, not as the same grade of digital quality as a BR release, but it quite of putting. When we watch wrestling on Friday nights, (we have a digital converter box), and there's a big explosion, (as a wrestler enters the arena) it just becomes a big mess on the TV, which we never had with analog ...

... and the same thing happens on those digital TV's.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 25, 2010, 01:22 PM:

[ August 01, 2014, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Bill Phelps ]
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 25, 2010, 07:25 PM:
Last year we took the plunge and replaced our old TV with a 42 inch Panasonic Plasma even with normal DVDs is good but when we added a Panasonic Blu-ray the picture quality is impressive. One of the Blu-ray disc was "Logans Run" the improvement picture wise over the standard dvd of that title is huge also check out the Blu-ray disc of "Baraka" its truly amazing.

Graham. [Smile]
Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on January 25, 2010, 11:39 PM:
I dunno. Why trash Blu-Ray simply because some people want a better home video experience? DVD is good enough for you? Great! But don't bash a format you don't even own. It's bad form.

The lack of classic films on Blu-Ray is simple: they aren't selling well. The studios would LOVE to put more out and more are coming but they need the sales to be there. It was the same with DVD in the beginning. Most of the classic films only really started coming out on DVD within the past 5 years or so.

It's A Wonderful Life was released on Blu-Ray last November along with A Christmas Carol (1951) and Miracle on 34th Street. I only have ACC which looks fantastic. Reviews of IAWL are mixed but most seem happy with it. Haven't heard anything about MO34S.

Yes there are some compression issues with Blu-Ray. Season 1 of Robin Hood has obvious macroblocking and several titles I have from Echo Bridge have compression issues.

However, we MUST remember that this is a new format. These issues will be worked out in time as they were with DVD. Look at any early DVD and you'll see pretty much the same issues.

For the record, the actual video difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is 6%. That's it. So it just comes down to condition of the source, the mastering and pressing.

As for Wal-Mart, they only carry the new titles for any given week along with a select few popular catalog titles. It's the same at every Wal-Mart store I've been in. Target, too but their catalog selection is much larger. Best Buy has the biggest Blu-Ray section I've seen in a store with several hundred titles.

It really too soon to say "the public has spoken about Blu-Ray". DVD did not overtake VHS overnight. It took a couple of years. Blu-Ray really just came into it's own last year. Give it a couple more years.

Big things are in store for Blu-Ray. Lucasfilm announced last year that work has begun on the Star Wars titles. The original three Indiana Jones films are rumored for 4th quarter this year as well as the Jurassic Park films and several other Spielberg titles. Several of James Cameron's films may be out this year including The Abyss and True Lies.

Finally, Gone With The Wind and Wizard Of OZ were big sellers last fall so that bodes well for future classic films. Blu-Ray is just warming up so don't count it out yet!
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 26, 2010, 01:21 AM:
I'm not bashing Blu Ray in particular. If you read my posts this is pretty clear.
It's the mentality behind wanting bigger, brighter, higher resolution, clearer, BETTER.... that I don't understand.
...and that is my feeling on the matter.

[ January 26, 2010, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Michael O'Regan ]
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 26, 2010, 02:02 AM:
Did a little comparison test tonight with the Blu-ray "Waterworld" HDMI input against the normal DVD version from another player with its component input, both players are Panasonic and connected to our plasma 42 inch TV.

On the pause mode the Blu-ray disc looked much better and during normal play while both players were running I tried switching either way from the Blu-ray to the DVD the results was the Blu-ray disc image won out big time, even my wife went into.. wow.. that looks good and she does not usually say things like that [Wink] Its certainly a far cry from our old 20 inch Philips B/W TV that we had up to the mid-eighties [Eek!] there was no VHS or DVD in those days. [Roll Eyes]

Graham. [Smile]
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 26, 2010, 02:34 AM:
"looked much better" in what way? Did it make a crappy movie better? Did it make an excellent movie better?
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 26, 2010, 03:24 AM:
Hi Michael

You can see a lot more detail.. face.. objects.. background.. etc, a cleaner image overall compared with DVD. Its much better to watch, eg with "Baraka" Blu-ray with its stunning scenery and filmed in 70mm it was scanned at 8K Ultra High Resolution and this is where 1080p High Definition really does shine. I guess it comes down to how good the master material is but with Blu-ray if its done right is really something that with standard DVD just cant be achieved.

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on January 26, 2010, 06:48 AM:
I think we can all relate to Super 8. Its like the difference between a Walton and Derann copy of 'Beauty and the beast'. Which would you prefer to watch? I know what I would?

Blu-Ray is certaintly better and if the price was the same the BR would win hands down!

BR will eventually become the norm and the players will get much cheaper and more discs available. Yes not every BR disc is top notch but most are. As has been said, give it 2 more years.

The biggest worry however is how long BR lasts before there is yet another new format.

Graham S
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 26, 2010, 08:55 AM:
I think Graham has a point there about the longevity of the BR format. The next generation of movies will be sold on memory sticks and the spinning disc will possibly be a thing of the past. Probably only a couple of years away. All the more reason to buy those DVD's and BR's while you can.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 26, 2010, 08:57 AM:
But, maybe the memory sticks will be even better than Blu Ray.
Posted by Jim Schrader (Member # 9) on January 26, 2010, 12:21 PM:
How about dvd-r's will a br player make these look better?
Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on January 26, 2010, 07:04 PM:
Michael O'Regan, my comments about Blu-Ray bashing were not directed at you. I was speaking in generalities.

Yes, better picture quality CAN increase enjoyment of a film good or bad. No, it will not make the film better or worse as that is strictly a personal opinion and has nothing to do with picture quality.

Your point seems to be that the movie is the same no matter how high the quality is. True, but ask Steven Spielberg which he would prefer, VHS or Blu-Ray? Which do you think he would choose? It's all the same, right?
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 26, 2010, 08:48 PM:
Just as a matter of curiosity, does anybody remember how Speilberg was at first vowing that his movies would not be released on DVD? I remember that.
Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on January 26, 2010, 10:06 PM:
He never said that Osi. What he said was that his movies would not be released on DVD untill player sales reached a certain number. He just wanted to make sure the format would last. Once that number was reached, he allowed his movies to be released.

Remember, there wasn't a lot of faith in DVD when it was introduced. VHS was so huge that it seemed impossible that a format that had (at the time) no recording capabilities could surpass it.

So far, Close Encounters and Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull have been released to Blu-Ray. The rest of the Indiana Jones films are rumored for this fall.

Oh, just remembered! Minority Report was announced this morning for Blu-Ray. So looks like Spielberg feels that Blu-Ray is going to be around for a while.

George Lucas has released the animated Clone Wars movie and the entire first season of the CGI Clone Wars series. The live action movies are in the works for either this year or next.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on January 26, 2010, 10:20 PM:
Interestingly enough, Spielberg also said he would not release the last Indiana Jones to digital theaters if they still had 35mm capability, that he wanted as many theaters to run it on film as possible.

Obviously he was over-ruled by the studio. Ahhhh, the almighty dollar! [Wink]

...and memory sticks would indeed be awesome. A much better format for storing the material.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 27, 2010, 08:40 AM:
Except for the truth that we really don't know how stabile and longlasting digital stotage is. We already know that a CD can last a long time, but can last as short a time as a year or so, given conditions.

Film, as we have already seen and proven, can last well over a hundred years. If the early silents were lubricated and cleaned and taken care of like todays prints, that longevity would be even longer.

So many things can affect digital storage.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 27, 2010, 12:55 PM:
Hi Thomas,

What has Spielberg got to do with anything? I know he's a filmmaker but his feelings about DVD, Blu Ray, Huge TV's, HD, etc. don't necessarily have any more validity than yours or mine.
He'll just have his opinion.
-Mike [Smile]
Posted by Jim Schrader (Member # 9) on January 27, 2010, 01:35 PM:
How about DVD'Rs will a blue ray player make these look better? [Confused]
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 27, 2010, 06:27 PM:

[ August 01, 2014, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Bill Phelps ]
Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on January 27, 2010, 10:55 PM:
Michael, I was just saying that Spielberg would choose the format that would best represent his movies and right now, that's Blu-Ray.

Look if you're happy with what you have, fine. Some of us want better than "good enough". What's so hard to understand about that?

You know, I suspect that if we ever meet in person, we would either become very good friends or I would try and shove a Blu-Ray disc down your throat! [Wink] [Smile]

Jim Schrader, I don't understand your DVD-R question. As I said, upconversion is a scam. All that's happening is that the player is taking the 480i/p content and scaling it to whatever resolution the player is set for. The resolution on the disc itself cannot change. Any improvement is because the scaling is bypassing the noise reduction and other filtering many DVD players have.

I actually spent some time once, flipping through the resolutions on my Oppo and I never once saw a difference in the DVD's picture quality. It looked the same at all resolutions no matter what the player was set at. I eventually left the player set at 480i because the video projector upscales the signal to 720p anyway.

It's the same with DVD-R. Whatever is recorded on it will still be the same quality no matter the resolution it's being shown at.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 28, 2010, 01:32 AM:

I understand THAT some want better than "good enough" - I just don't understand WHY.

We would be good friends, I'm sure - but, on occasion you would probably want to shove a Blu Ray disc down my throat!!
Enjoy your Blu Ray!!
[Smile] [Smile]

[ January 28, 2010, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Michael O'Regan ]
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 28, 2010, 09:00 AM:
Thomas ...

I think that it can depend on just what DVD your watching.

I bought an Asian box set of the BBC Sherlock Holmes series
(an excellent series, by the way!), and it only played on an earlier region free Coby regular DVD player.

I bought my upconverter 1080p Memorex DVD player, and it was like night and day! The image quality really showed a difference. I just thought it was a botched DVD set. It wasn't.
Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on January 28, 2010, 10:46 AM:

It's hard to say if a BluRay player (and they're not all equal) will make a DVD-R look better. The problem is there is such a variation in quality among DVD-Rs. Is it progressive or interlaced? Is it done correctly? (You'd be amazed how many DVDs are out that have errors on them in formating or compression and the way the original signal was handled).

Most of the new BluRay discs are coming from new masters. Slowly the studios re-master films (generally on a seven year cycle). For example, if you have the first release of "Showboat" on DVD you'll see a lot of MPEG noise around the title letters. If you have the second release, it isn't there.

The problem with comparing BluRay is that it's largely a factor of the display device. If you have a 56 inch screen capable of 1080p display, you'll see a bigger difference between DVD and BluRay. For example in "Angles & Demons" in blu-ray the large crowd sequences have much more detail and you can "see people" instead of just "colors of blobs in the background".

Your problem with still vs movement is a major problem with all the new displays. With a film in a theatre you're actually staring at a blank screen about 60% of the time. With the digital displays they work like your computer and only the pixels that have changed are updated. This works great on computers but when you look at a movie at the praised 24P mode you see a lot of stuttering of the picture as the camera pans where there are large seen changes. This has been overcome with a lot of "imaginary" frames where the display processor interpolates frames that would have been there. But there are reviews of the bluray "Casablanca" with time code to specific problem with specific sets and players.

There's a lot that goes into all of this and look for more problems/observations as digital projectors invade theatres and they find more areas that have to be fixed/tweaked due to the method of display.

But generally, the larger your screen with the higher resolution, the more likely you are to notice the difference between blu-ray and dvd. And a good dvd with good upconversion can look much better than the same disc on a regular player with a lower resolution display.
Posted by John Almond (Member # 1782) on January 28, 2010, 04:26 PM:
I think in the future we could be just downloading movies and other media right onto a hard drive and storing them that way. In a sense you could then tranfer them to a disk or pen drive.
All at blue ray quality or beyond
Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on January 28, 2010, 10:10 PM:
Bingo, John! Downloading is going to be the next step in home video. But not for 10 years at least. They need to get the kinks worked out. But, it IS in the works.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 30, 2010, 09:25 AM:
What will you do then? Save onto memory sticks and then trasnport the memory stick to your digital TV?
Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on January 31, 2010, 05:02 PM:
The long term plan is to get rid of all physical media. You'll buy a "license" to view say "Casablanca" and then you'll just choose it from your tv set that's connected to the new fiber connection port and it'll start playing.

That way the studios will have back the way it was in a theatre, you won't "own" anything you can sell (under the first sale of copyright). So they get back control and everyone that wants to view the program has to either buy it or go to Osi's house.


Visit for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation