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

[Race Bannon]

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.

The two DVD box sets on my shelf that puzzle/intrigue me the most are the Sam Peckinpah westerns you list, and my Greta Garbo. All of these films need a blu-ray, and hopefully hit Wild Bunch again in the process.

 

[OliverK]

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.

Saw it twice in 70mm and it was one of the sharpest peresentations ever in one of those prints - all that sun in the desert scenes certainly helped! This could go straight to a Blu-ray and UHD releasye as this is one film that really would profit from UHD. Too bad that of all the movies you mention I find it to be the weakest by some considerable margin.

 

[Mike Boone]

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

So RAH, are you meaning to indicate that even though at the time of your review of The Wild Bunch Blu-ray, you thought its color was dead on perfect compared to your early roadshow print, if you still had that same print now, today's display technology might reveal the BD to be exaggerating brown to the degree some fellow HTF members have stated, though none of that exaggeration seemed to be present at the time of your review? That would seem strange, since, at the time of that Oct. 2007 review, Pioneer Kuros, for example, had already recently been introduced to the market that still compare favorably in color accuracy with any flat panel sold today, whether that panel be an LCD or OLED model.


Or sir, is it quite possible that if you still had that roadshow print, perfectly preserved to look exactly as it appeared when you owned it, the Blu-ray's critics might find that your particular print was just as brown as the Blu-ray?

 

[Alan Tully]

I was really more concerned about the electronic look of the Blu-ray than I was about the colour. It's the focus that's been wound in, it gives it a video look. A new transfer from the original negatives would give the pictures a more rounded look (that's the best way I can think to put it), maybe not as sharp as the current transfer, but a lot more film like.

 

[Mike Boone]

I was really more concerned about the electronic look of the Blu-ray than I was about the colour. It's the focus that's been wound in, it gives it a video look. A new transfer from the original negatives would give the pictures a more rounded look (that's the best way I can think to put it), maybe not as sharp as the current transfer, but a lot more film like.

Alan, am I correct in thinking that you are referring to edge enhancement having been employed in the authoring of the BD?

 

[haineshisway]

Back when Mr. Harris reviewed The Wild Bunch, I believe he was not viewing things on equipment that is anywhere near as good as what we have today - he can correct me if I'm wrong. The advances since 2007 have not been slight in terms of color reproduction and all the other stuff he mentions. It seems like Mr. Boone keeps trying to paint Mr. Harris (and others) into a tiny little corner. People's perceptions change over time - eight years is a long time and the changes in everything have been unbelievable in that time. We've all seen transfers from 2007 that we all thought were splendid and amazing because - you know - Blu-ray was new and exciting and a huge step up. Eight years later, I look at a lot of those transfers and think, hmmm, this really doesn't look as good as it did back in 2007 - a perfect example of this outside of The Wild Bunch (and don't even get me started on The Searchers) is 2001. When I got that disc back in 2008 I couldn't believe it - I thought nothing could ever look better, I thought it was absolutely spectacular. Now that disc, which was praised to the stars, gets nothing but comments about how much better it would be today, if redone. Why? Because it doesn't look as good now as it did then because we've had so many advances and the work today is amazing - just as it will be even more amazing in the future.

 

[Alan Tully]

Alan, am I correct in thinking that you are referring to edge enhancement having been employed in the authoring of the BD?

Yup, hac & vac as we used to call in in my telecine days (horizontal & vertical aperture correction). When the Blu-ray was done it was all about focus (it still is with some people), but the studios have come on a long way since then. If you look at the new Universal Apollo 13 caps, some of them don't look as sharp as the old transfer, that's because the old transfer had the electronic focus wound up, but the new one looks so much better & really film-like.


...& of course, sharpening makes the picture noisy, so you apply DNR which softens the picture, so you make it a wee bit sharper, & so on. You end up with a real plastic picture, I'm not saying The Wild Bunch is that bad, but some old transfers are.

 

[Mike Boone]

Back when Mr. Harris reviewed The Wild Bunch, I believe he was not viewing things on equipment that is anywhere near as good as what we have today - he can correct me if I'm wrong. The advances since 2007 have not been slight in terms of color reproduction and all the other stuff he mentions. It seems like Mr. Boone keeps trying to paint Mr. Harris (and others) into a tiny little corner. People's perceptions change over time - eight years is a long time and the changes in everything have been unbelievable in that time. We've all seen transfers from 2007 that we all thought were splendid and amazing because - you know - Blu-ray was new and exciting and a huge step up. Eight years later, I look at a lot of those transfers and think, hmmm, this really doesn't look as good as it did back in 2007 - a perfect example of this outside of The Wild Bunch (and don't even get me started on The Searchers) is 2001. When I got that disc back in 2008 I couldn't believe it - I thought nothing could ever look better, I thought it was absolutely spectacular. Now that disc, which was praised to the stars, gets nothing but comments about how much better it would be today, if redone. Why? Because it doesn't look as good now as it did then because we've had so many advances and the work today is amazing - just as it will be even more amazing in the future.

Before any of my fellow members begin sticking pins in a voodoo doll representation of yours truly, I want to assure all of you that I'm now at the end of expressing thinking that has to have been a lot more wearing on me, than I'd imagine it has been on those who read my posts. Although it certainly seems, regrettably, that I've tried some people's patience too much.


And Bruce, I absolutely agree with you that, overall, the average performance of video equipment, here in 2015, is much raised compared to most of what was available in 2007. However as I indicated earlier, the Pioneer Kuros available to consumers when RAH's review was written, are still considered by many to have never been surpassed in total performance by today's best flat panels. Yes, LG's OLED's have a marginally better black level, (although the Kuros also seemed to be turned off when displaying a black signal in a totally dark room) but the OLEDs fall short of the Kuros in color accuracy, and certainly don't handle motion as well as Pioneer's Kuros did. And many samples of today's LG OLED TVs display a yellow color band, as well as a slight pink tint, which are problems that the Kuros did not have 8 years ago. So in terms of absolute accuracy in displaying films, with the Kuros gone, in some ways the picture quality of flat panels has regressed in the last 8 years. And with all of the drawbacks of the incredibly popular, but compromised LCD/LED back-lit technology, experts like Joe Kane tell us that no LCD/LED panel can approach a Kuro's performance. And since he developed the actual video standards that calibrators and reviewers use to get the best performance out of today's video displays, it seems that Mr Kane certainly knows of what he speaks.


It's just a shame that RAH no longer has that early roadshow print of The Wild Bunch, because its absence makes it impossible to be sure of precisely how it was rendering brown. And since Mr Harris just restated on Saturday that various prints can look different, who among my fellow members can honestly say that the version of the film they remember best is the most accurate one? Come on guys, be honest, let's face it, you just can't be sure. For my part, I'm candid enough to admit that I certainly can't be sure that my position is correct. But honestly, wouldn't it make sense that if RAH's print was actually considerably more brown than a number of other prints, then that's why the BD seemed to him to be such a great match? And if that happened to be the case, that print, if shown today, could possibly look as brown as the Blu-ray appears when it's played on one of today's quality displays. We just can't know, so I really think the argument ends up as a draw.


Other posts on this thread certainly indicate that a number of my fellow HTF members would like me to shut up about this topic, already. So I'll ease their annoyance by making sure this my last post on this topic, unless, in the somewhat unlikely event that I'll be extending a brief thank you to someone who, at this point, might still want to risk saying something positive about my thinking.


Readers of this thread will recall that in the last paragraph of post #53, on Saturday, Mike Frezon introduced his concept of "an even greater perfection." Of course there is no such thing as a "greater perfection", because once perfection is reached, there is nothing greater. If a student scores a perfect 800 on the math section of the SAT, no matter how many times, over the years, that others take the test after him, no one is ever going to achieve greater perfection. Mike seems to me to obviously be a lot smarter and more sophisticated than myself, so I was pretty surprised that he would inject such illogical silliness into the discussion by inventing a term like greater perfection. But it's also equally obvious from the likes given to other posts that support views in opposition to my own, that my statements are quite unpopular with many members. And actually, I would have abandoned this subject much sooner if someone had effectively demonstrated why my logic is in error, especially related to the fact that various film prints can look quite different. People simply not owning up to that reality really helped to spur me on. I honestly felt that not only was logic receiving little consideration from some fellow HTF members, but it wasn't even being given the benefit of the doubt.


Anyhow, if I raised anyone's blood pressure too much, I apologize. But I'll always wonder what the real deal was with RAH's print, not for the sake of being proven right, (whether you believe that, or not) but really because I always want to know what the true answer to a mystery is.


Even being on Social Security with less than a thousand bucks of our savings left, (partly from buying 178 Blu-rays since Oct 2014, fortunately house is paid for, and no car loans) I'm being as honest as I can possibly be in saying that I'd gladly contribute a hundred bucks if it helped to make it possible for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to lend that print of The Wild Bunch, that RAH used to own, to Home Theater Forum so that seasoned members could conduct an A-B comparison with the BD. I'm just extremely curious about what might be found, and it would be fine if results proved that I'd been way off base. But I realize that such a test is just a fantasy, and probably, a less healthy one than that which results from watching Jean Simmons in Spartacus. (And, man, she was also quite the vision when she was 7 years younger, in The Robe)


Anyway, am very glad here that this, like all things, both good or bad, comes to an end, eventually. Yeah, finally already!!

 

[Mike Boone]

Back when Mr. Harris reviewed The Wild Bunch, I believe he was not viewing things on equipment that is anywhere near as good as what we have today - he can correct me if I'm wrong. The advances since 2007 have not been slight in terms of color reproduction and all the other stuff he mentions. It seems like Mr. Boone keeps trying to paint Mr. Harris (and others) into a tiny little corner. People's perceptions change over time - eight years is a long time and the changes in everything have been unbelievable in that time. We've all seen transfers from 2007 that we all thought were splendid and amazing because - you know - Blu-ray was new and exciting and a huge step up. Eight years later, I look at a lot of those transfers and think, hmmm, this really doesn't look as good as it did back in 2007 - a perfect example of this outside of The Wild Bunch (and don't even get me started on The Searchers) is 2001. When I got that disc back in 2008 I couldn't believe it - I thought nothing could ever look better, I thought it was absolutely spectacular. Now that disc, which was praised to the stars, gets nothing but comments about how much better it would be today, if redone. Why? Because it doesn't look as good now as it did then because we've had so many advances and the work today is amazing - just as it will be even more amazing in the future.

Bruce, in my last post I promised to say no more about that 1969 western, and I'm sticking to it. But your points about changing technology had me wanting to comment some about how the technology present in the early days of HD discs did not make it impossible to get some really spectacular results, but that the more basic tech back then did mean that those authoring discs had to work a lot harder to get great results than their counterparts now have to. In the past when I'd demo my theater system for people, if not surprising them with how good older restored films like Lawrence or Oklahoma look, traditionally I would put on newer films such as Skyfall, The Help, Edge of Tomorrow, Titanic, or Pacific Rim. But now, the first relatively modern movie I reach for is Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. If you've seen that Blu-ray you know how flawless it is. Amazing detail and depth, with no artifacts, edge enhancement, or DNR to diminish its very film-like image. It's just absolutely stunning. I have the HD-DVD also, which is equally stunning, as it should be, since the same encode was used for both formats. And the thing is, the HD-DVD was released on Nov. 14 2006, which means the encode which it shares with the Blu-ray is 9 years old. But in spite of that, for sheer sumptuous video quality, with incredible detail, I'll put the Blu-ray or HD-DVD of King Kong up against any recent release. And, the bigger the screen that the Blu-ray or HD-DVD is shown on, the more impressive it's video looks. It's one disc that certainly makes me wish that my screen was larger than 80 inches.


I only brought this up Bruce, because King Kong proves that even in the first year that high-def discs were available, although being produced with the technology of 2006, if a painstaking job was done in authoring a disc, spectacular results could be achieved that can still stand with the best of today.


Obviously, I'll grant you that such excellent results 9 years ago, were rare, while such quality is getting close to being routine with releases today. But maybe that's because newer technology simply makes it easier (and cheaper) to get excellent results without having to strain too much by having to do such a meticulous job to get those results. I'm sure they really had to work at it back in 2006, but at least if producers were very focused on not compromising quality, great results could be achieved even with the technology of the time.


Anyway, just a thought, or reminder, that not all of the early HD discs were a quality compromise by today's standards.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think we're done here. Maybe???

 

[Robert Harris]

Before any of my fellow members begin sticking pins in a voodoo doll representation of yours truly, I want to assure all of you that I'm now at the end of expressing thinking that has to have been a lot more wearing on me, than I'd imagine it has been on those who read my posts. Although it certainly seems, regrettably, that I've tried some people's patience too much.

And Bruce, I absolutely agree with you that, overall, the average performance of video equipment, here in 2015, is much raised compared to most of what was available in 2007. However as I indicated earlier, the Pioneer Kuros available to consumers when RAH's review was written, are still considered by many to have never been surpassed in total performance by today's best flat panels. Yes, LG's OLED's have a marginally better black level, (although the Kuros also seemed to be turned off when displaying a black signal in a totally dark room) but the OLEDs fall short of the Kuros in color accuracy, and certainly don't handle motion as well as Pioneer's Kuros did. And many samples of today's LG OLED TVs display a yellow color band, as well as a slight pink tint, which are problems that the Kuros did not have 8 years ago. So in terms of absolute accuracy in displaying films, with the Kuros gone, in some ways the picture quality of flat panels has regressed in the last 8 years. And with all of the drawbacks of the incredibly popular, but compromised LCD/LED back-lit technology, experts like Joe Kane tell us that no LCD/LED panel can approach a Kuro's performance. And since he developed the actual video standards that calibrators and reviewers use to get the best performance out of today's video displays, it seems that Mr Kane certainly knows of what he speaks.

It's just a shame that RAH no longer has that early roadshow print of The Wild Bunch, because its absence makes it impossible to be sure of precisely how it was rendering brown. And since Mr Harris just restated on Saturday that various prints can look different, who among my fellow members can honestly say that the version of the film they remember best is the most accurate one? Come on guys, be honest, let's face it, you just can't be sure. For my part, I'm candid enough to admit that I certainly can't be sure that my position is correct. But honestly, wouldn't it make sense that if RAH's print was actually considerably more brown than a number of other prints, then that's why the BD seemed to him to be such a great match? And if that happened to be the case, that print, if shown today, could possibly look as brown as the Blu-ray appears when it's played on one of today's quality displays. We just can't know, so I really think the argument ends up as a draw.

Other posts on this thread certainly indicate that a number of my fellow HTF members would like me to shut up about this topic, already. So I'll ease their annoyance by making sure this my last post on this topic, unless, in the somewhat unlikely event that I'll be extending a brief thank you to someone who, at this point, might still want to risk saying something positive about my thinking.

Readers of this thread will recall that in the last paragraph of post #53, on Saturday, Mike Frezon introduced his concept of "an even greater perfection." Of course there is no such thing as a "greater perfection", because once perfection is reached, there is nothing greater. If a student scores a perfect 800 on the math section of the SAT, no matter how many times, over the years, that others take the test after him, no one is ever going to achieve greater perfection. Mike seems to me to obviously be a lot smarter and more sophisticated than myself, so I was pretty surprised that he would inject such illogical silliness into the discussion by inventing a term like greater perfection. But it's also equally obvious from the likes given to other posts that support views in opposition to my own, that my statements are quite unpopular with many members. And actually, I would have abandoned this subject much sooner if someone had effectively demonstrated why my logic is in error, especially related to the fact that various film prints can look quite different. People simply not owning up to that reality really helped to spur me on. I honestly felt that not only was logic receiving little consideration from some fellow HTF members, but it wasn't even being given the benefit of the doubt.

Anyhow, if I raised anyone's blood pressure too much, I apologize. But I'll always wonder what the real deal was with RAH's print, not for the sake of being proven right, (whether you believe that, or not) but really because I always want to know what the true answer to a mystery is.

Even being on Social Security with less than a thousand bucks of our savings left, (partly from buying 178 Blu-rays since Oct 2014, fortunately house is paid for, and no car loans) I'm being as honest as I can possibly be in saying that I'd gladly contribute a hundred bucks if it helped to make it possible for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to lend that print of The Wild Bunch, that RAH used to own, to Home Theater Forum so that seasoned members could conduct an A-B comparison with the BD. I'm just extremely curious about what might be found, and it would be fine if results proved that I'd been way off base. But I realize that such a test is just a fantasy, and probably, a less healthy one than that which results from watching Jean Simmons in Spartacus. (And, man, she was also quite the vision when she was 7 years younger, in The Robe)

Anyway, am very glad here that this, like all things, both good or bad, comes to an end, eventually. Yeah, finally already!!

"That print" will not be loaned to any individual or organization. "That print" has not changed, and is protected in the Academy's vaults, specifically because they can protect it.

"That print" had an overall warm texture to it, which beautifully matched what I saw on the Blu-ray. Not on a Kuro, an example of which I had, but rather in projection, in a properly calibrated environment.

As Mr. Kimmel states, our technologies are moving rapidly, but far more rapidly on the capture side than in displays.

The Kuro was a good set for its time, with superior black reproduction. That has now been surpassed by the LG OLED panels, however those have problems, as they cannot hold calibration. They're great TVs, but potentially not great as QC devices.

There is talk that another entity will be coming out with a new variant using their control system along with LG class, and that could be of interest.

I don't recall what scanner or telecine was used for the Wild work, but today our abilities to further gain accuracy continue to advance.

I'm aware of four 4k scans from 2007, the three Godfather films, and Strangelove. Was Wild even a 4k base file, and if so, at what bit depth?

Would Wild appear different if it were scanned today? It could.

Would the final color and densities be different?

If they were based upon my print, not by much. If based upon another print, without further investigation? Anything is possible. The trick is locating the correct print, or parts of prints, and then knowing how to read them.

I will shortly be upgrading to a new 4k SONY projection device, which will enable me to properly reproduce the latest advances on BD and UHD. Will Wild appear different on that device? Possibly a bit.

Might the film be in line for a rescan for UHD?

Could be nice.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

Bruce, in my last post I promised to say no more about that 1969 western, and I'm sticking to it. But your points about changing technology had me wanting to comment some about how the technology present in the early days of HD discs did not make it impossible to get some really spectacular results, but that the more basic tech back then did mean that those authoring discs had to work a lot harder to get great results than their counterparts now have to. In the past when I'd demo my theater system for people, if not surprising them with how good older restored films like Lawrence or Oklahoma look, traditionally I would put on newer films such as Skyfall, The Help, Edge of Tomorrow, Titanic, or Pacific Rim. But now, the first relatively modern movie I reach for is Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. If you've seen that Blu-ray you know how flawless it is. Amazing detail and depth, with no artifacts, edge enhancement, or DNR to diminish its very film-like image. It's just absolutely stunning. I have the HD-DVD also, which is equally stunning, as it should be, since the same encode was used for both formats. And the thing is, the HD-DVD was released on Nov. 14 2006, which means the encode which it shares with the Blu-ray is 9 years old. But in spite of that, for sheer sumptuous video quality, with incredible detail, I'll put the Blu-ray or HD-DVD of King Kong up against any recent release. And, the bigger the screen that the Blu-ray or HD-DVD is shown on, the more impressive it's video looks. It's one disc that certainly makes me wish that my screen was larger than 80 inches.

I only brought this up Bruce, because King Kong proves that even in the first year that high-def discs were available, although being produced with the technology of 2006, if a painstaking job was done in authoring a disc, spectacular results could be achieved that can still stand with the best of today.

Obviously, I'll grant you that such excellent results 9 years ago, were rare, while such quality is getting close to being routine with releases today. But maybe that's because newer technology simply makes it easier (and cheaper) to get excellent results without having to strain too much by having to do such a meticulous job to get those results. I'm sure they really had to work at it back in 2006, but at least if producers were very focused on not compromising quality, great results could be achieved even with the technology of the time.

Anyway, just a thought, or reminder, that not all of the early HD discs were a quality compromise by today's standards.

King Kong can look as good as it does because, although shot on film, it was completed as a 2k DI. What we see on disc is merely a slight modification down from 2k to HD.

 

[atfree]

After reading some of the comments on this thread, I feel a little like Mugsy:

"But gee Boss, I kinda like "The Wild Bunch" blu-ray"

 

[TravisR]

After reading some of the comments on this thread, I feel a little like Mugsy:

"But gee Boss, I kinda like "The Wild Bunch" blu-ray"

"Shaddup, Mugsy!"

 

[Michel_Hafner]

But now, the first relatively modern movie I reach for is Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. If you've seen that Blu-ray you know how flawless it is. Amazing detail and depth, with no artifacts, edge enhancement, or DNR to diminish its very film-like image. It's just absolutely stunning. I have the HD-DVD also, which is equally stunning, as it should be, since the same encode was used for both formats. And the thing is, the HD-DVD was released on Nov. 14 2006, which means the encode which it shares with the Blu-ray is 9 years old. But in spite of that, for sheer sumptuous video quality, with incredible detail, I'll put the Blu-ray or HD-DVD of King Kong up against any recent release.

I rewatched this BD not long ago and also thought that technically this disc has hold up remarkably well despite a VC-1 encoding that can't be state of the art anymore. Encoders have developed a lot since then. But KK is not very grainy so that helps. It was one of the first discs that showed the (full) potential of the format. Same as Apocalypto and Pixar shorts.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I will shortly be upgrading to a new 4k SONY projection device, which will enable me to properly reproduce the latest advances on BD and UHD. Will Wild appear different on that device? Possibly a bit.

Might the film be in line for a rescan for UHD?

Could be nice.

RAH

The new big dog Sony 4K!?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Readers of this thread will recall that in the last paragraph of post #53, on Saturday, Mike Frezon introduced his concept of "an even greater perfection." Of course there is no such thing as a "greater perfection", because once perfection is reached, there is nothing greater. If a student scores a perfect 800 on the math section of the SAT, no matter how many times, over the years, that others take the test after him, no one is ever going to achieve greater perfection. Mike seems to me to obviously be a lot smarter and more sophisticated than myself, so I was pretty surprised that he would inject such illogical silliness into the discussion by inventing a term like greater perfection. But it's also equally obvious from the likes given to other posts that support views in opposition to my own, that my statements are quite unpopular with many members.

It was my expectation to let this entire debate go on without me, but much like in the presidential debates, since I have been intentionally called out, I feel compelled to respond.


However silly or illogical some might find my thinking to be, I think I'll stand by it. After all, it's all I've got!


To use the example of the student who achieves a perfect 800 on the math SAT: in my mind, such testing is a rather arbitrary business (exemplified in the national debate taking place on such topics as Common Core). (I note that the example used is the math SAT as opposed to the writing SAT which has built-in obvious arbitrariness in the essay section.)


As demonstrated in reports HERE and HERE, the landscape of SAT testing is changing year-to-year. Different questions are asked, different subjects are covered. Simply, the tests are not the same.


So can a student take a math SAT one year and score an 800 and can another student score an 800 on a math SAT another year and claim to have taken a more difficult (different) test? Clearly. And while they may each achieved "perfection" in their particular data set, the underlying basis of that perfection has been altered.


And my point earlier was only that the basis of perfection in the HT hobby is about as fluid as it gets. New technology is being introduced daily (it seems at times). So what was perfect in 2007 (in terms of representing a 1969 film in our HTs) might not seem as perfect now when compared to something that has been created using the newer technologies which have been developed on both the producer and consumer ends in 2015. So, there might be achieved an "even greater perfection" than what was available several years ago. And this new version might be eclipsed in another dozen years or so (probably even sooner the rate things are going).


This is all semantics. I make no bones about it. I'm not out to win a stupid debate...I'm just here to defend what seems to be a common-sense thought process as far as I'm concerned. My old flip phone was pretty damn amazing...until I got my first iPhone...and then the next...and then the next. My sensibilities and expectations changed with each version of the technology as it was introduced and consumed by me.


Yes, "perfection" has a dictionary definition. But it is forever stretched (yes, misused) in hyperbolic measure to define a standard which is based on available technologies and understanding.

 

[Robert Harris]

The new big dog Sony 4K!?

What I don't do to provide meaningful and accurate reviews for HTF...

 

[Mark-P]

Even Mary Poppins knows better than to throw around the word "perfect" without a modifier in front of it.

 

[willyTass]

When I tweaked the voltages of my pioneer KRP 500m in the service menu I was shocked- OLED level blacks and a film like picture quality that trounced the LG 9300 oled

And no banding with perfect screen uniformity at low IRE