Picture quality will be improved as it uses HDMI 2.0, of course not full 4K quality unless you use netflix but you should certainly see an improvement
HDMI 2.0 wouldn't make a blind bit of difference from a sky box. it's only any use if you are planning to watch 4K.
If you want a better picture, concentrate on your basic settings first, watch the picture perfect videos on AVforums.com to get an understanding of what each one does. if that doesn't fix an issue that you might be able to put down to the TV's internal scaler/de-interlacer then you should start looking at a new TV ( that has better processing built in) and or separate video processor .
You might just find something like the sharpness is set far to high and is highlighting every little blemish while hiding actual detail.
Admittedly a 4k screen is nice for 1080 and people who love edge enhancement as it is possible to add a little bit without hitting actual detail.
Not aware of any 42" OLED TV's, smallest screen is around the 55".
I'd have to say LCD is about the only choice at that screen size.
I'm honestly surprised at that. Maybe consumers are being deliberately pushed towards 4K screen configurations? Which seems a little disingenuous given the lack of 4K content and agreement of standards at this point?
Regards,
Why?, OLED is the 'technology that never was', it promised so much yet delivered so little - plus cost so much to actually scale up, that it will probably never make a profit.
Presumably the severe limitations of the technology means they can't make smaller ones than they do? - rather like the plasma size limitations as well.
Maybe consumers are being deliberately pushed towards 4K screen configurations? Which seems a little disingenuous given the lack of 4K content and agreement of standards at this point?
The resolution of the screen is governed by the technology available, screen resolution is going to continue to increase regardless of TV broadcasting increasing or not.
I'm honestly surprised at that. Maybe consumers are being deliberately pushed towards 4K screen configurations? Which seems a little disingenuous given the lack of 4K content and agreement of standards at this point?
Regards,
Lt. Dang
4k sets are increasing but they are greatly outnumbered by 2k sets, so there's still a great amount of choice if the consumer does not want to go 4k just yet.
Remember there was no HD standard when HD TV's were first released, and no HD content to speak of, 4k is no different and I doubt it will be no different for any other format in the future.
You only have to look back at passed technology to see the hardware hits the market first followed by the content/medium, that was the case with Colour TV and products like VCR's, game consoles, CD/DVD/HD DVD/Bluray players.
Ideally, you want the device that is best at performing upscaling to be doing it. I bet there are a lot of people out there who bought upscaling DVD players a few years ago without actually investigating whether their TV's upscaling was good to begin with - letting the DVD player do the upscaling could be worse!
Entirely correct although it can also be better. It does depends on the individual equipment.
I had an award winning Denon DVD player a few years ago, but it wasn't overly expensive - around £100. It had a Burr Brown A/D converter in it.
Up-scaling quality was sublime.
I have House of Flying Daggers on DVD (one of the very best DVD's ever produced for quality) and played it in the Denon, up-scaled to match my HD tv. Picture was amazing. Really did look like Blu Ray.
When Blu-Ray came out and fell in price, I was left wanting a true HD picture source, so I sold the DVD player and bought a Panasonic (so not cheap - £150) Blu Ray player that was highly acclaimed and had won awards.
Biggest mistake I ever made!
H of F D on the Panasonic Blu Ray, looked not a patch on the quality it was when it was upscaled by the Denon.
In fact, most Blu Rays, don't compare!!!
So a few useful rules for up-scaling:
1. Up-scaling can be good, it depends on the equipment - research of reviews is your friend here, especially reliable reviews and user reviews from enthusiasts. Avoid reviews that might not be 100% independent or from your average user - there are still people on here who say they can't see the difference between SD and HD! Star rating reviews from Joe Average on tv sales sites aren't going to help other than to give an idea of reliability or general build quality. Seek reviews from people who can truly recognise the differences from enthusiast sites.
2. If you have more than one device that can up-scale, try them all and see which looks best. Don't just assume the TV or DVD will be the best source. You could be watching an average source when you have a brilliant one located under your very nose and going un-used! 10 minutes spent playing could equal hundreds of hours of enhanced watching pleasure.
3. Don't fall for marketing blurb. Never take the manufacturers word for anything. Take a DVD with you when buying products and watch the DVD up-scaled in the shop and also watch the broadcast source up-scaled. - Never forget the shop wants to sell you a tv and many tv's in the shops display manufacturers specially produced Blu-Ray / hard drive based demo sources with highly detailed scenes and top quality rendition so as to showcase the screen to the very best. It doesn't follow you will see the same quality at home with a lesser source.
Also read screen reviews as most screens in the shops are not calibrated - in fact many have brightness and contrast settings way up to make the picture look good in a bright environment. They don't always looks as good in the home.
4K itself is a difficult call. From what I've seen there is a difference even now, but you're not going to see the brilliance until the full broadcast specs are agreed with the expanded colour space and gamma etc, so personally I wouldn't buy a set at the moment because of the compliance issues.
H of F D on the Panasonic Blu Ray, looked not a patch on the quality it was when it was upscaled by the Denon.
In fact, most Blu Rays, don't compare!!!
4K itself is a difficult call. From what I've seen there is a difference even now, but you're not going to see the brilliance until the full broadcast specs are agreed with the expanded colour space and gamma etc, so personally I wouldn't buy a set at the moment because of the compliance issues.
Holy crap. you must of had a very magical DVD player there.
Needless to say, it took a while for the masters to become available to actually show the best of blu-ray.
I used some fantastic scaling algorithms on my media PC and got great very good results from good DVD's. but when you did an A B comparison the HD-DVD or Blu-ray always had more actual detail. It was mostly down to the improvement in film scanners that where used to get the content. now that they are captured in 4k even films being rescanned today look better. Until digital masters came up to scratch is wasn't in your face obvious you where watching HD ( and I had a Faroudja DCDi scaler in my first HDTV so SD looked decent most of the time). Most recent movies look massively better on blu-ray.
Now we have a case of 4k masters which look ridiculously good on blu ray and dump all over dvd from a great hight. However we have the same issue with 4k again. The content on say Netflix 4k is slightly better but it not all that noticeable or obvious your watching 4k. The only content that seems to catch your eye is demo martial caught in perfect conditions which isn't representative of content you'd normally watch.
I do agree it'a a bad time to upgrade a TV, unless you have too I would avoid. My TV died this year and I was not happy having to drop my Pioneer plasma , and ended up with a 4k edge lit LCD. LG's OLED this year are brilliant, assuming you value picture quality and have £3k to spend, unfortunately I Didn't.
The only real way to determine whether the upscaling of a device will be any good is to find out what chip is inside it and hope that there are details about it on the internet. This is true of other areas too, like computing and music: the chip inside the branded device is the important thing, not the brand itself. Unfortunately this information isn't provided all the time.
Well, for what its worth, I've just ordered the 42 inch LG 4K online, and if I don't like it, I can return it to the local (ish) shop and change it for a non 4K Sony Bravia 50 inch...
I'll update this thread next week, and let you know what I think of it...
The resolution of the screen is governed by the technology available, screen resolution is going to continue to increase regardless of TV broadcasting increasing or not.
This is a n obvious given since technology inevitabley marches on but is not relevant to my point that 4K is being pushed in the UK right now even though source material and required standards are a bit thin on the ground?
Regards,
This is a n obvious given since technology inevitabley marches on but is not relevant to my point that 4K is being pushed in the UK right now even though source material and required standards are a bit thin on the ground?
I wouldn't say it's been 'pushed' as such, manufacturers have a small number of models and they are obviously hoping to sell them - but there doesn't seem any particular 'push' as of yet.
However, the presence of 4K panels is entirely relevant - because that's the only reason for it.
I wouldn't say it's been 'pushed' as such, manufacturers have a small number of models and they are obviously hoping to sell them - but there doesn't seem any particular 'push' as of yet.
However, the presence of 4K panels is entirely relevant - because that's the only reason for it.
Hmm... google samsung uk tv and hit their link and the TVs presented first are 4K? Do exactly the same with LG and Sony and the result is the same? Visit a store like John Lewis and the most prominent display in the TV department is? Yes, 4K.
I guess we will have to differ.
Regarding, your last line? Not sure what you mean. I said your reference to technology progressing was not relevant to my point as it is obvious that technology does progress.
Regards,
Hmm... google samsung uk tv and hit their link and the TVs presented first are 4K? Do exactly the same with LG and Sony and the result is the same? Visit a store like John Lewis and the most prominent display in the TV department is? Yes, 4K.
So they lead with the most expensive and newest models - makes no difference if they are now 4K or not, before 4K they still led with the most expensive and newest models, and always have.
But 4K is still only a small minority of their range, and an even smaller percentage of sales.
But 4K is still only a small minority of their range, and an even smaller percentage of sales.
Exactly, and yet their websites and, more significantly, their in-store promotions and TV ads still lead with these 4K products?
I understand what you are saying but I just don't agree.
By all means come back at me again if you really do feel that you need to but we really are going to have to differ on this point and that's not going to change.
Exactly, and yet their websites and, more significantly, their in-store promotions and TV ads still lead with these 4K products?
Of course they do. TV companies don't care what you watch, or in what resolution, they just want you to buy new TVs. They're not going to give pride of place to 'old' HD technology that people already buy as a commodity, they'll push the new stuff in hope that someone will be gullible enough to buy it even if there's almost nothing to watch
Of course they do. TV companies don't care what you watch, or in what resolution, they just want you to buy new TVs. They're not going to give pride of place to 'old' HD technology that people already buy as a commodity, they'll push the new stuff in hope that someone will be gullible enough to buy it even if there's almost nothing to watch
Lol so con people into thinking they need 4k, then don't tell them there isn't actually much they can watch in 4k! On top of that is when broadcasting standards catch up, they will be different and that tv will be useless for actual 4k broadcasts!
Though by the fact that 4k has made it to the market, means that broadcasters will develop it and HD will become even more 'normal' meaning sd can finally die, at least for the main channels and the SD HD simulcasting can come to an end.
Even if you bought a TV now, I am certain you'd be able to watch UHD content - just without some of the enhancements that will come. The TV or a separate STB would convert the content so no UHD TV sold today would be useless. By all accounts, the picture on a current TV is anything but bad.
I'm going to wait to upgrade my TV until there's a compelling reason to upgrade - and that will be buying one that supports the final spec for one, and lots of content for two. I didn't rush to buy a HD TV until there was some content, and don't see any reason to do that this time either.
That said, I've recorded some videos of my son in 4K as a bit of 'future proofing'.
4K Ultra HD interoperability test kicked off by DTG
The Digital TV Group has begun testing out 4K Ultra HD kit as it continues to help define future broadcast standards.
Described as a world first by the industry group, the test or ‘product testing zoo’ as it’s being called, is designed to see what 4K kit works the best together.
The initial DTG test saw 4K TVs from 10 different manufacturers hooked up to set-top boxes, an upscaling Blu-Ray player, an AV receiver and 4K testing equipment from two providers to see what kit works best together.
Don't sit too close, you'll get square eyes: A snapshot from the DTG's 4K gang bang4K Ultra HD interoperability test kicked off by DTG
Simon Gauntlett, chief technology officer at the DTG, said: “I would like to thank all the participants and observers that made it a successful and busy day.
“This event marks the beginning in a new era of testing facilities at the Digital TV Group and we look forward to further collaboration with industry to create a thriving 4K Ultra HD ecosystem in the UK.”
It’s not known which devices and products were used in the strictly invite-only test event, but the DTG said that all of the 12 4K displays tested are models that are currently on sale. HDMI test tools supplied by Rohde & Schwarz and Quantum Data.
The DTG convened the UK UHD Forum last year, bringing broadcasters including the BBC and Sky together to develop and agree on a standard for 4K Ultra HD.
So far both broadcasters have filmed a number of live sporting events including Premier League football matches the 2014 Commonwealth Games and most recently, the Ryder Cup golf tournament. The BBC also shot a short fight scene in a factory - to see how action scenes shot in 4K would turn out - using an advanced camera that captured Ultra HD video at 600fps (frames per second).
The DTG’s findings from the testing zoo are now being collated to see whether any specifications or guidelines can be created.
Future tests will focus on support for HEVC and 4K image quality. Early 4K TV sets that were rushed to market turned out to be incompatible with 4K services from Netflix and HEVC-encoded video files.
4K test footage has revealed problems with footage shot at certain frame rates not capturing live action like footage as well as higher rates.
Even if you bought a TV now, I am certain you'd be able to watch UHD content - just without some of the enhancements that will come. The TV or a separate STB would convert the content so no UHD TV sold today would be useless. By all accounts, the picture on a current TV is anything but bad.
I'm going to wait to upgrade my TV until there's a compelling reason to upgrade - and that will be buying one that supports the final spec for one, and lots of content for two. I didn't rush to buy a HD TV until there was some content, and don't see any reason to do that this time either.
That said, I've recorded some videos of my son in 4K as a bit of 'future proofing'.
When I said useless I didnt mean it wouldnt work at all, more that it wouldnt display the full advantages of what broadcast 4K would yield, hence when people realise they have a poor version of 4K they might be a bit annoyed about being an early adopter.
Well, for what its worth, I've just ordered the 42 inch LG 4K online, and if I don't like it, I can return it to the local (ish) shop and change it for a non 4K Sony Bravia 50 inch...
I'll update this thread next week, and let you know what I think of it...
Well, I got it set up a few hours ago, and I've been having a play. So far, so good. Certainly the quality I was realistically expecting anyway...
Lots of options to play with on it and stuff, but that wasn't really the point of this thread. I asked originally if I used this TV would it make my sky box picture look a little bit better than just HD and I think the answer is yes, it did
Lots of options to play with on it and stuff, but that wasn't really the point of this thread. I asked originally if I used this TV would it make my sky box picture look a little bit better than just HD and I think the answer is yes, it did
How can you possibly conclude that without an otherwise identical 1080p model? A new TV looking better than an old TV could be due to many factors, you have no way of knowing whether the UHD upscaling is the only or main cause.
When I said useless I didnt mean it wouldnt work at all, more that it wouldnt display the full advantages of what broadcast 4K would yield, hence when people realise they have a poor version of 4K they might be a bit annoyed about being an early adopter.
True, but I think the quality now is still pretty incredible and I doubt people will be too upset if they did take the plunge, and if you had to buy a new TV now then you might as well get one as against a cheap 'temporary' 1080 set. Keep it for 6-7 years then get a new one.
In fact, TVs are now getting some incredible pictures from even poor quality heavily compressed SD broadcasts. In many ways, that's a more important thing to look for in buying a new TV - given a lot of the content you will get may not be the same quality as that fed from Blu-ray players connected up in retail stores!
Comments
HDMI 2.0 wouldn't make a blind bit of difference from a sky box. it's only any use if you are planning to watch 4K.
If you want a better picture, concentrate on your basic settings first, watch the picture perfect videos on AVforums.com to get an understanding of what each one does. if that doesn't fix an issue that you might be able to put down to the TV's internal scaler/de-interlacer then you should start looking at a new TV ( that has better processing built in) and or separate video processor .
You might just find something like the sharpness is set far to high and is highlighting every little blemish while hiding actual detail.
Admittedly a 4k screen is nice for 1080 and people who love edge enhancement as it is possible to add a little bit without hitting actual detail.
I'm honestly surprised at that. Maybe consumers are being deliberately pushed towards 4K screen configurations? Which seems a little disingenuous given the lack of 4K content and agreement of standards at this point?
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Why?, OLED is the 'technology that never was', it promised so much yet delivered so little - plus cost so much to actually scale up, that it will probably never make a profit.
Presumably the severe limitations of the technology means they can't make smaller ones than they do? - rather like the plasma size limitations as well.
The resolution of the screen is governed by the technology available, screen resolution is going to continue to increase regardless of TV broadcasting increasing or not.
4k sets are increasing but they are greatly outnumbered by 2k sets, so there's still a great amount of choice if the consumer does not want to go 4k just yet.
Remember there was no HD standard when HD TV's were first released, and no HD content to speak of, 4k is no different and I doubt it will be no different for any other format in the future.
You only have to look back at passed technology to see the hardware hits the market first followed by the content/medium, that was the case with Colour TV and products like VCR's, game consoles, CD/DVD/HD DVD/Bluray players.
Entirely correct although it can also be better. It does depends on the individual equipment.
I had an award winning Denon DVD player a few years ago, but it wasn't overly expensive - around £100. It had a Burr Brown A/D converter in it.
Up-scaling quality was sublime.
I have House of Flying Daggers on DVD (one of the very best DVD's ever produced for quality) and played it in the Denon, up-scaled to match my HD tv. Picture was amazing. Really did look like Blu Ray.
When Blu-Ray came out and fell in price, I was left wanting a true HD picture source, so I sold the DVD player and bought a Panasonic (so not cheap - £150) Blu Ray player that was highly acclaimed and had won awards.
Biggest mistake I ever made!
H of F D on the Panasonic Blu Ray, looked not a patch on the quality it was when it was upscaled by the Denon.
In fact, most Blu Rays, don't compare!!!
So a few useful rules for up-scaling:
1. Up-scaling can be good, it depends on the equipment - research of reviews is your friend here, especially reliable reviews and user reviews from enthusiasts. Avoid reviews that might not be 100% independent or from your average user - there are still people on here who say they can't see the difference between SD and HD! Star rating reviews from Joe Average on tv sales sites aren't going to help other than to give an idea of reliability or general build quality. Seek reviews from people who can truly recognise the differences from enthusiast sites.
2. If you have more than one device that can up-scale, try them all and see which looks best. Don't just assume the TV or DVD will be the best source. You could be watching an average source when you have a brilliant one located under your very nose and going un-used! 10 minutes spent playing could equal hundreds of hours of enhanced watching pleasure.
3. Don't fall for marketing blurb. Never take the manufacturers word for anything. Take a DVD with you when buying products and watch the DVD up-scaled in the shop and also watch the broadcast source up-scaled. - Never forget the shop wants to sell you a tv and many tv's in the shops display manufacturers specially produced Blu-Ray / hard drive based demo sources with highly detailed scenes and top quality rendition so as to showcase the screen to the very best. It doesn't follow you will see the same quality at home with a lesser source.
Also read screen reviews as most screens in the shops are not calibrated - in fact many have brightness and contrast settings way up to make the picture look good in a bright environment. They don't always looks as good in the home.
4K itself is a difficult call. From what I've seen there is a difference even now, but you're not going to see the brilliance until the full broadcast specs are agreed with the expanded colour space and gamma etc, so personally I wouldn't buy a set at the moment because of the compliance issues.
Holy crap. you must of had a very magical DVD player there.
Needless to say, it took a while for the masters to become available to actually show the best of blu-ray.
I used some fantastic scaling algorithms on my media PC and got great very good results from good DVD's. but when you did an A B comparison the HD-DVD or Blu-ray always had more actual detail. It was mostly down to the improvement in film scanners that where used to get the content. now that they are captured in 4k even films being rescanned today look better. Until digital masters came up to scratch is wasn't in your face obvious you where watching HD ( and I had a Faroudja DCDi scaler in my first HDTV so SD looked decent most of the time). Most recent movies look massively better on blu-ray.
Now we have a case of 4k masters which look ridiculously good on blu ray and dump all over dvd from a great hight. However we have the same issue with 4k again. The content on say Netflix 4k is slightly better but it not all that noticeable or obvious your watching 4k. The only content that seems to catch your eye is demo martial caught in perfect conditions which isn't representative of content you'd normally watch.
I do agree it'a a bad time to upgrade a TV, unless you have too I would avoid. My TV died this year and I was not happy having to drop my Pioneer plasma , and ended up with a 4k edge lit LCD. LG's OLED this year are brilliant, assuming you value picture quality and have £3k to spend, unfortunately I Didn't.
I'll update this thread next week, and let you know what I think of it...
And:
Sky and everybody else will not release 4K/8K boxes until 2016 at the earliest or towards the end.
This is a n obvious given since technology inevitabley marches on but is not relevant to my point that 4K is being pushed in the UK right now even though source material and required standards are a bit thin on the ground?
Regards,
Lt. Dang
I wouldn't say it's been 'pushed' as such, manufacturers have a small number of models and they are obviously hoping to sell them - but there doesn't seem any particular 'push' as of yet.
However, the presence of 4K panels is entirely relevant - because that's the only reason for it.
Hmm... google samsung uk tv and hit their link and the TVs presented first are 4K? Do exactly the same with LG and Sony and the result is the same? Visit a store like John Lewis and the most prominent display in the TV department is? Yes, 4K.
I guess we will have to differ.
Regarding, your last line? Not sure what you mean. I said your reference to technology progressing was not relevant to my point as it is obvious that technology does progress.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
So they lead with the most expensive and newest models - makes no difference if they are now 4K or not, before 4K they still led with the most expensive and newest models, and always have.
But 4K is still only a small minority of their range, and an even smaller percentage of sales.
We probably will
Exactly, and yet their websites and, more significantly, their in-store promotions and TV ads still lead with these 4K products?
I understand what you are saying but I just don't agree.
By all means come back at me again if you really do feel that you need to but we really are going to have to differ on this point and that's not going to change.
Regards,
Lt. Dang
Of course they do. TV companies don't care what you watch, or in what resolution, they just want you to buy new TVs. They're not going to give pride of place to 'old' HD technology that people already buy as a commodity, they'll push the new stuff in hope that someone will be gullible enough to buy it even if there's almost nothing to watch
Lol so con people into thinking they need 4k, then don't tell them there isn't actually much they can watch in 4k! On top of that is when broadcasting standards catch up, they will be different and that tv will be useless for actual 4k broadcasts!
Though by the fact that 4k has made it to the market, means that broadcasters will develop it and HD will become even more 'normal' meaning sd can finally die, at least for the main channels and the SD HD simulcasting can come to an end.
I'm going to wait to upgrade my TV until there's a compelling reason to upgrade - and that will be buying one that supports the final spec for one, and lots of content for two. I didn't rush to buy a HD TV until there was some content, and don't see any reason to do that this time either.
That said, I've recorded some videos of my son in 4K as a bit of 'future proofing'.
The Digital TV Group has begun testing out 4K Ultra HD kit as it continues to help define future broadcast standards.
Described as a world first by the industry group, the test or ‘product testing zoo’ as it’s being called, is designed to see what 4K kit works the best together.
The initial DTG test saw 4K TVs from 10 different manufacturers hooked up to set-top boxes, an upscaling Blu-Ray player, an AV receiver and 4K testing equipment from two providers to see what kit works best together.
Don't sit too close, you'll get square eyes: A snapshot from the DTG's 4K gang bang4K Ultra HD interoperability test kicked off by DTG
Simon Gauntlett, chief technology officer at the DTG, said: “I would like to thank all the participants and observers that made it a successful and busy day.
“This event marks the beginning in a new era of testing facilities at the Digital TV Group and we look forward to further collaboration with industry to create a thriving 4K Ultra HD ecosystem in the UK.”
It’s not known which devices and products were used in the strictly invite-only test event, but the DTG said that all of the 12 4K displays tested are models that are currently on sale. HDMI test tools supplied by Rohde & Schwarz and Quantum Data.
The DTG convened the UK UHD Forum last year, bringing broadcasters including the BBC and Sky together to develop and agree on a standard for 4K Ultra HD.
So far both broadcasters have filmed a number of live sporting events including Premier League football matches the 2014 Commonwealth Games and most recently, the Ryder Cup golf tournament. The BBC also shot a short fight scene in a factory - to see how action scenes shot in 4K would turn out - using an advanced camera that captured Ultra HD video at 600fps (frames per second).
The DTG’s findings from the testing zoo are now being collated to see whether any specifications or guidelines can be created.
Future tests will focus on support for HEVC and 4K image quality. Early 4K TV sets that were rushed to market turned out to be incompatible with 4K services from Netflix and HEVC-encoded video files.
4K test footage has revealed problems with footage shot at certain frame rates not capturing live action like footage as well as higher rates.
When I said useless I didnt mean it wouldnt work at all, more that it wouldnt display the full advantages of what broadcast 4K would yield, hence when people realise they have a poor version of 4K they might be a bit annoyed about being an early adopter.
Regards
Mark
Well, I got it set up a few hours ago, and I've been having a play. So far, so good. Certainly the quality I was realistically expecting anyway...
Lots of options to play with on it and stuff, but that wasn't really the point of this thread. I asked originally if I used this TV would it make my sky box picture look a little bit better than just HD and I think the answer is yes, it did
How can you possibly conclude that without an otherwise identical 1080p model? A new TV looking better than an old TV could be due to many factors, you have no way of knowing whether the UHD upscaling is the only or main cause.
True, but I think the quality now is still pretty incredible and I doubt people will be too upset if they did take the plunge, and if you had to buy a new TV now then you might as well get one as against a cheap 'temporary' 1080 set. Keep it for 6-7 years then get a new one.
In fact, TVs are now getting some incredible pictures from even poor quality heavily compressed SD broadcasts. In many ways, that's a more important thing to look for in buying a new TV - given a lot of the content you will get may not be the same quality as that fed from Blu-ray players connected up in retail stores!