A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Wild Bunch -- in BD & HD (1 Viewer)

[Dr Griffin]

I agree. Looking at it now, there are some video telltales, whereas now that's the last thing we want to see on home video. The refinement of the technology to extract and carry over every bit of the look of the film, has spoiled us with some releases. Once you see what can be achieved, you can't forget it. I don't think it looks any more dated technically than The Omen, and that one is getting a 4K remaster, so who knows.

 

[andySu]

I think this film has been on one of the itv channels for the past few night/s repeated. In letterbox scope. Remix Dolby, that shows up as PLIIx on the AVR as I can't switch it to standard PL.


I recall when this was re-issued on laserdisc with Dolby AC-3 in late 90's.

I haven't watched the film all though as I only watch tv maybe a few times once every few months and when I do switch tv digital box on, its been playing for 20 minutes.


Like seeing Ernest Borgnine, in it who was in another Sam Peckinpah, film "Convoy".

 

[haineshisway]

I was in the mood for a western last night, so I looked at the Blu-ray of The Wild Bunch, a true classic that's more than stood the test of time, I love it. The Blu-ray is showing its age a bit. I can't put my finger on it, I dunno, too much of both noise reduction & sharpening, & some if it looks a bit brown. I just think it wouldn't get the same great reviews now that it got in 2007, that must be a good thing, it shows how far on standards have come in eight years.

It's just not good and yes, way too brown. Needs to be redone with correct color timing. It's not brain surgery.

 

[Mike Boone]

It's just not good and yes, way too brown. Needs to be redone with correct color timing. It's not brain surgery.

I find your opinion particularly interesting since RAH stated that both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs from WB, in terms of color, are "virtually a match" to the high quality 35mm dye transfer print that he formerly owned, but donated to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, because of its rarity.


You request that any future edition of The Wild Bunch "be redone with correct color timing", and while Mr Harris did say that the color of the film could "easily be mis-timed", he also stated that the color he sees on the HD disc versions is "dead on perfect."


I tend to doubt that your color perception is that superior to the highly experienced, well trained, eyes of Robert Harris. Since Mr Harris is such a fan of The Wild Bunch that he had gone to the trouble of acquiring a quality print of the film, I take him very seriously when he writes that the HD discs of The Wild Bunch, "replicate the film to perfection."


Considering RAH's experience viewing The Wild Bunch, from theater showings, to a dye transfer print at home, to 1080p disc, it seems safe to assume that the man knows what the film should look like, better than about anyone, except for, perhaps, its cinematographer. But, unfortunately, Lucien Ballard exited this mortal coil more than a quarter century ago, so only a medium might claim that he's available for any comment.

 

[OliverK]

The Wild Bunch when I last checked it had a massive problem with textures and resolution. Given strong beliefs with regard to how certain movies should look I will not waste any time discussing colors but I would think that the opinion of RAH is as valid as anybodys given the fact that he also had the option to compare it to actual unfaded prints.

I will say that I saw a 70mm blowup of the Wild Bunch with exceptional resolution some years ago. Some of the outdoor scenes had outstanding detail and clarity and I would like to see that replicated in a new Blu-ray. This is an important title for Warner and the current Blu-ray has shamefully low resolution and clarity compared to what it could look like.

 

[haineshisway]

I find your opinion particularly interesting since RAH stated that both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs from WB, in terms of color, are "virtually a match" to the high quality 35mm dye transfer print that he formerly owned, but donated to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, because of its rarity.


You request that any future edition of The Wild Bunch "be redone with correct color timing", and while Mr Harris did say that the color of the film could "easily be mis-timed", he also stated that the color he sees on the HD disc versions is "dead on perfect."


I tend to doubt that your color perception is that superior to the highly experienced, well trained, eyes of Robert Harris. Since Mr Harris is such a fan of The Wild Bunch that he had gone to the trouble of acquiring a quality print of the film, I take him very seriously when he writes that the HD discs of The Wild Bunch, "replicate the film to perfection."


Considering RAH's experience viewing The Wild Bunch, from theater showings, to a dye transfer print at home, to 1080p disc, it seems safe to assume that the man knows what the film should look like, better than about anyone, except for, perhaps, its cinematographer. But, unfortunately, Lucien Ballard exited this mortal coil more than a quarter century ago, so only a medium might claim that he's available for any comment.

You can doubt whatever you like. Mr. Harris will be the first to tell you about my color perception - and I, too, owned a 35mm dye transfer print. The transfer used for the Blu-ray and whatever else was okay for its time but can obviously be much better now and have more accurate color. This review was written eight YEARS ago - perceptions change and I have no doubt he would tell you the same thing, although I would never profess to speak for him. Back then, we were thrilled to be getting ANY title on Blu-ray and what was acceptable then is most certainly NOT acceptable now. In fact, Mr. Harris and I have discussed ad nauseum both this film and The Searchers in terms of better color.

 

[Mike Boone]

You can doubt whatever you like. Mr. Harris will be the first to tell you about my color perception - and I, too, owned a 35mm dye transfer print. The transfer used for the Blu-ray and whatever else was okay for its time but can obviously be much better now and have more accurate color. This review was written eight YEARS ago - perceptions change and I have no doubt he would tell you the same thing, although I would never profess to speak for him. Back then, we were thrilled to be getting ANY title on Blu-ray and what was acceptable then is most certainly NOT acceptable now. In fact, Mr. Harris and I have discussed ad nauseum both this film and The Searchers in terms of better color.

Yes, it was ill advised of me, and I apologize for, making an assumption, and a comment, about your capacity for assessing color accuracy, since, not knowing you, I honestly cannot deny that laboratory tests could actually even reveal that your ability in this area equals or surpasses that of any other HTF member. However, going by the dictionary definition of "perfect", when RAH, one of the world's foremost authorities on film, in judging BD and HD-DVD 1080p disc transfers of a film, makes statements like the discs "replicate the film to perfection" and the color is "dead on perfect", that means he was saying that he saw no significant room for improvement in the color reproduction the discs displayed.


Obviously, I personally have a lot of room for improvement, or my post would not have resulted in owing you an apology. But perfect does mean precisely that there is no room for improvement, just like getting all 100 points possible, by answering correctly every one of the 100 questions on an exam.


And please consider another facet of The Wild Bunch situation for a minute. Since RAH has previously talked about the considerable variance in quality that can occur as print runs are made of the same film, it's quite possible that Mr Harris's print was indeed a very close match to the BD and HD-DVD versions of the film, (as his review stated) while your print looked significantly different. Also, in dealing with a 1969 film, it cannot be denied that the aging celluloid of one print, while being stored in somewhat different conditions of humidity and temperature than the other one, may have been more affected by the passage of time, than was the case with the other print. We'll probably never have anything like precise answers to questions about how the prints that you two gentlemen owned, may have differed from each other.

 

[OliverK]

Back then, we were thrilled to be getting ANY title on Blu-ray and what was acceptable then is most certainly NOT acceptable now.

I am not sure about the thrilled part but I fully agree with the second part of your statement. We now have seen exceptional quality with so many new releases that it is almost sad that some movies will be stuck with their dubious looking Blu-ray for the foreseeable future and the better the movie originally looked the more deplorable the situation is.

So sometimes it is indeed good to be late with technology progressing so much.

 

[Mike Boone]

You can doubt whatever you like. Mr. Harris will be the first to tell you about my color perception - and I, too, owned a 35mm dye transfer print. The transfer used for the Blu-ray and whatever else was okay for its time but can obviously be much better now and have more accurate color. This review was written eight YEARS ago - perceptions change and I have no doubt he would tell you the same thing, although I would never profess to speak for him. Back then, we were thrilled to be getting ANY title on Blu-ray and what was acceptable then is most certainly NOT acceptable now. In fact, Mr. Harris and I have discussed ad nauseum both this film and The Searchers in terms of better color.

With all due respect, Bruce, RAH did not see the BD of The Wild Bunch as displaying any of the excessive brown that you have complained about, or he would not have described the disc's color timing as "Dead on perfect", while also writing that "Warner's

HD and BD variants of The Wild Bunch replicate the film to perfection."

If indeed, your color perception happens to be as accurate as that of Mr Harris, then the logical conclusion is that your dye transfer print was faded compared to the reference RAH was going by, resulting in you honestly believing that the BD is too brown.


As you must know from cases such as the restoration of Vertigo, it can be very difficult even for the top film experts to achieve proper color timing, unless they can find a reference that they can agree upon, as the one that should be used to arrive at a proper color balance.


People who are griping about the color timing of The Wild Bunch, not only disagree with RAH's review that said it was perfect, but such folks lack an absolutely reliable frame of reference unless they were actually on location to see how things really looked when The Wild Bunch was filmed. Of course, even then, they would need to know precisely what sort of color filtering that Lucien Ballard may or may not have employed, as he shot the film.

So people who want to carp about the color timing of The Wild Bunch really lack the evidence, or an absolute standard, to show why their opinions should be taken with any more than a grain of salt.

 

[Robert Crawford]

With all due respect, Bruce, RAH did not see the BD of The Wild Bunch as displaying any of the excessive brown that you have complained about, or he would not have described the disc's color timing as "Dead on perfect", while also writing that "Warner's

HD and BD variants of The Wild Bunch replicate the film to perfection."

If indeed, your color perception happens to be as accurate as that of Mr Harris, then the logical conclusion is that your dye transfer print was faded compared to the reference RAH was going by, resulting in you honestly believing that the BD is too brown.


As you must know from cases such as the restoration of Vertigo, it can be very difficult even for the top film experts to achieve proper color timing, unless they can find a reference that they can agree upon, as the one that should be used to arrive at a proper color balance.


People who are griping about the color timing of The Wild Bunch, not only disagree with RAH's review that said it was perfect, but such folks lack an absolutely reliable frame of reference unless they were actually on location to see how things really looked when The Wild Bunch was filmed. Of course, even then, they would need to know precisely what sort of color filtering that Lucien Ballard may or may not have employed, as he shot the film.

So people who want to carp about the color timing of The Wild Bunch really lack the evidence, or an absolute standard, to show why their opinions should be taken with any more than a grain of salt.

I think there are some issues with The Wild Bunch and I don't think RAH would disagree about the issues today versus what he said eight years ago. I thought the BD was fine when released back in 2007, but it's 2015 now and I think this title can be improved video-wise.

 

[Mike Boone]

I think there are some issues with The Wild Bunch and I don't think RAH would disagree about the issues today versus what he said eight years ago.

Robert, I understand what your saying, but since to RAH's eyes the BD of The Wild Bunch perfectly replicated what he saw on film and had in his words "Dead on perfect" color timing, he was saying that the BD looked exactly like the film. If Mr Harris really meant what he was saying in using definitive phrases like "replicates the film to perfection" that means he was seeing no difference between the BD and film for the attributes that he was judging. Now if suddenly RAH says that the perfection he was describing can be improved upon, then Mr Harris must be given to using the term perfection quite loosely, because Webster's dictionary defines perfection as "freedom from fault or defect" as well as "an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence."


So it would be fascinating for RAH to now expound on how, today, he might think a new edition of The Wild Bunch could be capable of surpassing the perfection he saw with the old one. It certainly would be interesting to hear how Mr Harris, with eyes that were 8 years younger when he evaluated that Blu-ray, somehow managed to totally miss defects in that BD, that people claim are so obvious today. Seems to me like the two possibilities are either that RAH wrote a defective review which missed substantial shortcomings of the BD compared to the film, or the people complaining about the Blu-ray's supposed shortcomings in color timing don't know what they're talking about, because RAH was correct in the first place when he described it as "Dead on perfect."

Words are supposed to have meaning, and perfect means not able to be surpassed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert, I understand what your saying, but since to RAH's eyes the BD of The Wild Bunch perfectly replicated what he saw on film and had in his words "Dead on perfect" color timing, he was saying that the BD looked exactly like the film. If Mr Harris really meant what he was saying in using definitive phrases like "replicates the film to perfection" that means he was seeing no difference between the BD and film for the attributes that he was judging. Now if suddenly RAH says that the perfection he was describing can be improved upon, then Mr Harris must be given to using the term perfection quite loosely, because Webster's dictionary defines perfection as "freedom from fault or defect" as well as "an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence."


So it would be fascinating for RAH to now expound on how, today, he might think a new edition of The Wild Bunch could be capable of surpassing the perfection he saw with the old one. It certainly would be interesting to hear how Mr Harris, with eyes that were 8 years younger when he evaluated that Blu-ray, somehow managed to totally miss defects in that BD, that people claim are so obvious today. Seems to me like the two possibilities are either that RAH wrote a defective review which missed substantial shortcomings of the BD compared to the film, or the people complaining about the Blu-ray's supposed shortcomings in color timing don't know what they're talking about, because RAH was correct in the first place when he described it as "Dead on perfect."

Words are supposed to have meaning, and perfect means not able to be surpassed.

Well I said my piece on this subject matter so I'm not going to belabor the point.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Robert, I understand what your saying, but since to RAH's eyes the BD of The Wild Bunch perfectly replicated what he saw on film and had in his words "Dead on perfect" color timing, he was saying that the BD looked exactly like the film. If Mr Harris really meant what he was saying in using definitive phrases like "replicates the film to perfection" that means he was seeing no difference between the BD and film for the attributes that he was judging. Now if suddenly RAH says that the perfection he was describing can be improved upon, then Mr Harris must be given to using the term perfection quite loosely, because Webster's dictionary defines perfection as "freedom from fault or defect" as well as "an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence."


So it would be fascinating for RAH to now expound on how, today, he might think a new edition of The Wild Bunch could be capable of surpassing the perfection he saw with the old one. It certainly would be interesting to hear how Mr Harris, with eyes that were 8 years younger when he evaluated that Blu-ray, somehow managed to totally miss defects in that BD, that people claim are so obvious today. Seems to me like the two possibilities are either that RAH wrote a defective review which missed substantial shortcomings of the BD compared to the film, or the people complaining about the Blu-ray's supposed shortcomings in color timing don't know what they're talking about, because RAH was correct in the first place when he described it as "Dead on perfect."

Words are supposed to have meaning, and perfect means not able to be surpassed.

Mike:


When you write a post such as that above, you seem quite eager to pin someone to the mat and have a referee award you a TKO as someone with a more precise usage of the English language.


If you are going to haul out the dictionary for definitions of words like perfection, I think you also need to be able to grasp the concept that the ideals (or parameters) that one uses to ascertain perfection can change over time--especially in a technological hobby such as home theater. [What once was perfect is now--five years later--not-so-perfect.]


And when you also throw in the subjectivity which underwrites everyone's attempt to ascertain those parameters we are not dealing with a "perfect" science here.


It is very plausible to me that while RAH described the first Blu of The Wild Bunch as perfect years ago, changes in the authoring technologies as well as the viewing technologies could allow for an even greater perfection now in terms of one's home viewing experience being even closer to what one would have experienced in the theater during the film's initial run. Times change and so do sensibilities.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, it was ill advised of me, and I apologize for, making an assumption, and a comment, about your capacity for assessing color accuracy, since, not knowing you, I honestly cannot deny that laboratory tests could actually even reveal that your ability in this area equals or surpasses that of any other HTF member. However, going by the dictionary definition of "perfect", when RAH, one of the world's foremost authorities on film, in judging BD and HD-DVD 1080p disc transfers of a film, makes statements like the discs "replicate the film to perfection" and the color is "dead on perfect", that means he was saying that he saw no significant room for improvement in the color reproduction the discs displayed.

Obviously, I personally have a lot of room for improvement, or my post would not have resulted in owing you an apology. But perfect does mean precisely that there is no room for improvement, just like getting all 100 points possible, by answering correctly every one of the 100 questions on an exam.

And please consider another facet of The Wild Bunch situation for a minute. Since RAH has previously talked about the considerable variance in quality that can occur as print runs are made of the same film, it's quite possible that Mr Harris's print was indeed a very close match to the BD and HD-DVD versions of the film, (as his review stated) while your print looked significantly different. Also, in dealing with a 1969 film, it cannot be denied that the aging celluloid of one print, while being stored in somewhat different conditions of humidity and temperature than the other one, may have been more affected by the passage of time, than was the case with the other print. We'll probably never have anything like precise answers to questions about how the prints that you two gentlemen owned, may have differed from each other.

Bingo!

Different run of prints. Mine was very early and roadshow. Prints made even a few months later could be different.

For the record, Mr. Kimmel's concept of color, and memory thereof, is one of the few that I trust.

RAH

 

[RMajidi]

"Dead-on perfect" has no qualifiers, and is not subject to change over time.

What I think I'm reading is that respected Messers Kimmel, Crawford and Frezon don't believe the existing Blu has correct colour - which is fine; but that opinion differs to RAH's as stated - which is also fine. It is also just fine *if* RAH has indeed changed his opinion about the colour of this BD.

What *to me* isn't so fine, is for anyone other than RAH explaining what he meant by his use of unambiguously absolute terms such as 'perfect' in describing the colour. Irrespective of any technology changes, the colour spectrum has not changed in the past eight years.

Whether or not RAH wishes to weigh in on this is absolutely his choice; but as it stands, his stated opinion on this release appears in post 1. Unless and until he himself posts otherwise, I'll pay him the respect of continuing to take his own words as his position on this release.

[Edit: Late with my post - I see RAH has kindly clarified - without revision to his original opinion - thank you, sir]

 

[Mike Boone]

Mike:


When you write a post such as that above, you seem quite eager to pin someone to the mat and have a referee award you a TKO as someone with a more precise usage of the English language.


If you are going to haul out the dictionary for definitions of words like perfection, I think you also need to be able to grasp the concept that the ideals (or parameters) that one uses to ascertain perfection can change over time--especially in a technological hobby such as home theater. [What once was perfect is now--five years later--not-so-perfect.]


And when you also throw in the subjectivity which underwrites everyone's attempt to ascertain those parameters we are not dealing with a "perfect" science here.


It is very plausible to me that while RAH described the first Blu of The Wild Bunch as perfect years ago, changes in the authoring technologies as well as the viewing technologies could allow for an even greater perfection now in terms of one's home viewing experience being even closer to what one would have experienced in the theater during the film's initial run. Times change and so do sensibilities.

Actually Mike I don't need a referee to verify that my logic is sound and that the other folks that have engaged in this discussion can't seem to admit to the fact that the look of different prints of the same film can vary from each other. And prints looking different can account for the different reactions that various people have about whether the color of The Wild Bunch BD is accurate, including RAH's statement that the BD perfectly replicates the film. Obviously no Blu-ray can ever be faithful to the look of every print, if the prints don't all look the same. But Mr Harris was very clear in saying that the Blu-ray perfectly replicated what he saw with his own print.


But I was partially wrong earlier today when saying that some others don't know what they're talking about. I should have said that their observations cannot be questioned if they are simply comparing the BD to the versions of The Wild Bunch that they have seen, but without knowing precisely how accurate the color of those particular versions was they cannot make definitive statements about the BD's accuracy.


And Mike, I hear what you are saying about newer advances in authoring technology, and so on. But that does not alter the fact that Robert Harris said the Blu-ray looked exactly like his dye transfer print, (as in replicated to perfection) and if he had kept that print, carefully stored to prevent quality loss, one would expect it to look as similar to the Blu-ray as it did 8 years ago, when RAH indicated that the color of the 2 formats matched each other perfectly. If the 2 matched each other 8 years ago, they should still be a match today.


Yes, I got a little over wound up about this, Mike. But I just found it annoying that without even having a known reference standard to go by, everyone pretends to be an expert on supposed defects in that BD's color timing, even though one of the world's top experts on film stated that Warner Brothers got the discs's color timing "Dead on perfect."


Finally, I have to wonder what certain HTF members think RAH means when he uses the word perfect. Do many of you guys think he merely means good to very good, because that would leave room for improvement. But the commonly understood meaning of the word is that you are dealing with something that cannot be significantly improved upon. And I'll now calm the temperature, and improve the present climate, by logging out, so I can attend to the trick or treaters that are heading this way.


Edit: I see that I was also somewhat late with this post, since right after clicking, I read RAH's new post on this subject.

 

[Mike Boone]

Bingo!

Different run of prints. Mine was very early and roadshow. Prints made even a few months later could be different.

For the record, Mr. Kimmel's concept of color, and memory thereof, is one of the few that I trust.

RAH

Thank you very much RAH, now I can die a happy man.

 

[Dick]

When I saw this in 1969, at age 19, I was literally unable to speak for an hour after I exited the theater. That shootout at the climax simply left me temporarily traumatized. Since then, of course, graphic bloodletting has become just about passe, and little kids get regular doses of it all the time. But, although BONNIE AND CLYDE had a quite violent ending for 1967, it would now be viewed as mild, and even then could not have prepared us for the sort of thing we would soon be seeing in westerns such as SOLDIER BLUE, LITTLE BIG MAN and, firstly and especially, THE WILD BUNCH.


The reason the film works is that it contains actual characters and motivations and emotions and you come to give a shit about them. A lot of it is subtle -- unspoken, in the eyes -- but Peckinpah obviously poured his soul into this one, and it remains, arguably, his finest achievement. I am appreciative that it has emerged on video in a 145-minute cut, but I've never been especially happy with the video releases, including the (so far) one and only Blu-ray of 2006. Blu-ray has come a long distance quality-wise since those days of arbitrary edge enhancement and aliasing and dull color. I agree with those who have described the extant Blu-ray as overly brown...I can tell you with absolutely accuracy that the film did not look that way in 1969, by which time my interest in film and the production process was sophisticated enough (thanks to time spent as a student of RIT) that I was picking apart every aspect of every film I saw theatrically. Had it looked brown then, I'd have remembered. It didn't. The color was full-spectrum and often beautiful, except when it was meant to be brown and yellow and dusty.


Thousands of us (I would guess) are anxiously awaiting a Sam Peckinpah set from Warner Bros. that would include THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE, RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, PAT GARRETT AND BILL THE KID and a restored WILD BUNCH. It would be amazing to learn that the studio wasn't already investing in a 4K on this one.

 

[Mark-P]

It's actually not the Blu-ray spec that has changed that much. What has drastically changed and improved over the years is the remastering technique. People seem to forget that the studios began creating HD masters of their films an entire decade before the Blu-ray format even hit the stores. In fact some films had HD masters created before the US HD broadcast spec was even finalized. So a lot is dependent upon when an HD master was created as to how good it is. Personally I would rather Warner put out a Blu-ray of Cheyenne Autumn instead of revisiting The Wild Bunch or The Searchers. Sure they could be improved, but I'd like to get some other great Westerns onto the Blu-ray format before needing to upgrade ones I already own.

 

[Robert Harris]

Don't forget our most recent abilities to more properly display color, densities, black levels and shadow detail via flat panels or projection.