Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about…™ The Banshees of Inisherin – in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Although the title of Martin McDonagh's film may sound akin to a horror epic of sorts, it isn't.

With Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in the leads, in two extraordinary performances, the film is the tale of two life-long friends living apart from the mainland on a small Irish island.

If it had taken place today as opposed to 1923, there may have been no story, as one might have simply "un-friended" the other, and that might have been the end of it.

But they live in the same tiny, insular community, and one isn't quite prepared to be "un-friended."

The down-spiral in events is catastrophic.

The film is so good, that one really must work to get past the more depressing elements in the tale, and just go with the mesmerizing performances.

Photographed by Ben Davis (look him up) with a high resolution Arri Alexa Mine LF, and finished in 4k, the resultant down-rez to 2k (Blu-ray) seems to retain every bit of 4k information when viewed at a normal distance.

This is a gorgeous - reference quality - Blu-ray from Fox/Disney, and could serve as stock footage for Irish tourism. The locations in Inishmore in the Aran Islands and other various locations in Mayo take on a life of their own.

Take a gander at the cast and tech credits, and you'll find how closely Mr. McDonagh works with his Ford-like stock company, and how many films tie together.

Image – 5

Audio – 4 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Works in projection - Yes

Works up-rezzed to 4k - Beautifully

Very Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate, HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Love this film's grimly humorous tone. Brendan Gleeson is never less than superb, and Colin Farrell continues to impress, playing a "dull" character without resorting to stereotype or pantomime.

 

[Jeffrey D]

I really like this film. A shame that cinematography was not one of its nominations- sure is a well shot and pretty film.

 

[titch]

Having seen this on blu-ray, projected at home, before I saw it projected theatrically last weekend, when it premiered in Norway, I was struck by how ENORMOUS the superiority in picture quality was on the cinema picture. Granted, I only have a cheap DLP 4K projector at home, which in no way can compare with the 4K Christie DLP projector in my local cinema. But the colour in the picture from the DCP was vastly richer, than on the blu-ray. The verdant fields, the blue skies and the interior atmosphere in the pub were exponentially better.

I really wish that this had been a 4K UHD release.

 

[madfloyd]

I loved this film!

 

[Kyle_D]

Having seen this on blu-ray, projected at home, before I saw it projected theatrically last weekend, when it premiered in Norway, I was struck by how ENORMOUS the superiority in picture quality was on the cinema picture. Granted, I only have a cheap DLP 4K projector at home, which in no way can compare with the 4K Christie DLP projector in my local cinema. But the colour in the picture from the DCP was vastly richer, than on the blu-ray. The verdant fields, the blue skies and the interior atmosphere in the pub were exponentially better.

I really wish that this had been a 4K UHD release.

Agreed - I watched the first 2/3 of the disc last night on my OLED, and the Rec.709 colorspace really seems to hold the disc back compared to the P3 DCP I saw in the theater. The greens, skies, and highlights were much richer in the cinema. I've been to the Aran islands, the the DCP represented them beautifully. The disc, comparatively, is "just a bit dull."

 

[Robert Harris]

Agreed - I watched the first 2/3 of the disc last night on my OLED, and the Rec.709 colorspace really seems to hold the disc back compared to the P3 DCP I saw in the theater. The greens, skies, and highlights were much richer in the cinema. I've been to the Aran islands, the the DCP represented them beautifully. The disc, comparatively, is "just a bit dull."

Possibly, if the film comes up with an award(s), there will be consideration for 4k.

Are we becoming too critical of color space in home theater environments? How does this read on Robert’s OLED?

 

[titch]

Possibly, if the film comes up with an award(s), there will be consideration for 4k.

Are we becoming too critical of color space in home theater environments? How does this read on Robert’s OLED?

I do not believe we are being too critical of colour space in home theatre environments. Too often, the argument against 4K discs, is insufficient pixel resolution from the film elements to warrant a 4K UHD. The increased colourspace potential in a 4K UHD doesn't appear to be considered of equal importance. I am aware too, that a 4K UHD is still a compressed version of a DCP. But it is closer to a cinema experience, than a blu-ray.

In this case, having seen the discrepancy between the cinema picture and the blu-ray, within a mere two weeks of each viewing, I would not consider the blu-ray to be of reference quality. The cinema picture was so immediately superior, I doubt it could be approximated from the blu-ray with an OLED screen or a high end home theatre projector. There is ample opportunity for people now to compare what they have at home on blu-ray, to the picture at the cinema. The film itself is so good, it bares repeat viewing.

 

[Carlo_M]

I have this on my To Watch list. Since RAH indicated that it was finished in 4K, I'd prefer my viewing/ownership of it to be in 4K. I'm still one of those holdouts for physical media so I'll wait a while longer and see if they do decide to release a 4K disc.

Of the streaming platforms I subscribe to, only HBO Max has it as part of their service and it's only in HD. Prime has it in UHD, but requires either renting or buying the movie. Since a UHD master is out there I'll hold on to hope that it will make its way on disc at some point.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have this on my To Watch list. Since RAH indicated that it was finished in 4K, I'd prefer my viewing/ownership of it to be in 4K. I'm still one of those holdouts for physical media so I'll wait a while longer and see if they do decide to release a 4K disc.

Of the streaming platforms I subscribe to, only HBO Max has it as part of their service and it's only in HD. Prime has it in UHD, but requires either renting or buying the movie. Since a UHD master is out there I'll hold on to hope that it will make its way on disc at some point.

I'm running out of disc storage space so my purchases of 4K digitals will increase in 2023. A couple of weeks ago I bought the iTunes 4K digital but haven't watched it yet. Will do so before the Oscars.

 

[Mark-P]

I'm running out of disc storage space so my purchases of 4K digitals will increase in 2023. A couple of weeks ago I bought the iTunes 4K digital but haven't watched it yet. Will do so before the Oscars.

Me too. I bought it on iTunes the first time it went on sale, and keep procrastinating in watching it for some odd reason, because I’m sure I’ll love it.

 

[Mike Boone]

Although the title of Martin McDonagh's film may sound akin to a horror epic of sorts, it isn't.

With Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in the leads, in two extraordinary performances, the film is the tale of two life-long friends living apart from the mainland on a small Irish island.

If it had taken place today as opposed to 1923, there may have been no story, as one might have simply "un-friended" the other, and that might have been the end of it.

But they live in the same tiny, insular community, and one isn't quite prepared to be "un-friended."

The down-spiral in events is catastrophic.

The film is so good, that one really must work to get past the more depressing elements in the tale, and just go with the mesmerizing performances.

Photographed by Ben Davis (look him up) with a high resolution Arri Alexa Mine LF, and finished in 4k, the resultant down-rez to 2k (Blu-ray) seems to retain every bit of 4k information when viewed at a normal distance.

This is a gorgeous - reference quality - Blu-ray from Fox/Disney, and could serve as stock footage for Irish tourism. The locations in Inishmore in the Aran Islands and other various locations in Mayo take on a life of their own.

Take a gander at the cast and tech credits, and you'll find how closely Mr. McDonagh works with his Ford-like stock company, and how many films tie together.

Image – 5

Audio – 4 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Works in projection - Yes

Works up-rezzed to 4k - Beautifully

Very Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate, HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

RAH, thank you for your review here of a movie that I've been looking forward to be able to finally introduce my wife and myself to, via a disc release.

But this review having these words "when viewed at a normal distance", a phrase you've included in a number of your reviews, reminded me that for some time, I've wanted to ask if you may have a recommended ratio of viewing distance to screen size, that can let your regular readers, like yours truly, know what you'd roughly define as normal viewing distances for screens of various sizes that are watched by people with good vision. Of course I do realize that there's a natural variance in how comfortable that different people can be in viewing movies at the same distance from a given screen. And a lady we knew, who otherwise had good vision, if looking straight ahead, needed to be considerably farther away from our widescreen TVs than where most other folks would choose to sit, because her peripheral vision was so poor that she couldn't pass the vision test to get an Ohio drivers license. So naturally, she needed to be at a relatively far distance to enable her to see all of the image shown on a sizable screen. Anyway, hers was a case of extreme variance. But folks with 20/20 vision (or with eyes corrected to 20/20 via glasses or contacts) if we also assume they have good peripheral vision, are the kind of movie audience that has me wonder, RAH, if you may have use for the sort of viewing distance standards recommended by THX or by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. Anyhow, in the case of my wife and myself, we view our movies (via Blu-ray or 4k UHD BD) on either a 77" OLED in our dark basement theater room, or on an 85" Neo QLED, that's in our living room. I'd very much appreciate knowing what you'd consider to be normal viewing distances from those size screens.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH, thank you for your review here of a movie that I've been looking forward to be able to finally introduce my wife and myself to, via a disc release.

But this review having these words "when viewed at a normal distance", a phrase you've included in a number of your reviews, reminded me that for some time, I've wanted to ask if you may have a recommended ratio of viewing distance to screen size, that can let your regular readers, like yours truly, know what you'd roughly define as normal viewing distances for screens of various sizes that are watched by people with good vision. Of course I do realize that there's a natural variance in how comfortable that different people can be in viewing movies at the same distance from a given screen. And a lady we knew, who otherwise had good vision, if looking straight ahead, needed to be considerably farther away from our widescreen TVs than where most other folks would choose to sit, because her peripheral vision was so poor that she couldn't pass the vision test to get an Ohio drivers license. So naturally, she needed to be at a relatively far distance to enable her to see all of the image shown on a sizable screen. Anyway, hers was a case of extreme variance. But folks with 20/20 vision (or with eyes corrected to 20/20 via glasses or contacts) if we also assume they have good peripheral vision, are the kind of movie audience that has me wonder, RAH, if you may have use for the sort of viewing distance standards recommended by THX or by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. Anyhow, in the case of my wife and myself, we view our movies (via Blu-ray or 4k UHD BD) on either a 77" OLED in our dark basement theater room, or on an 85" Neo QLED, that's in our living room. I'd very much appreciate knowing what you'd consider to be normal viewing distances from those size screens.

A good question, which for many comes down to personal taste. My projection screen is about 9 -10 feet in width, and I sit about 12 feet away. To check resolution/grain, I’ll go to the screen.

In a general sense, you want to be far enough away that you don’t have to turn your head to take in an image. I believe THX speaks of a 36 degree angle of view. Let’s take a good sample image - Some Like it Hot.

The difference in grain structure between the Criterion Blu-ray and the Kino 4k should be more visceral than obvious. You’re going to recognize grain from both, but the Kino should not jump out at you as overly grainy. Rather, it should have a pleasant, homogenized feel. If the Kino image appears overly grainy, you’re too close.

If you go to the great inter-web, you’ll find differing opinions, but this information seems reasonable.

https://image.benq.com/is/image/benqco/pic-2-8?$ResponsivePreset$&wid=1468

From this guide, 8 - 9 feet for your 77”.

Bottom line, it’s about general comfort, and ease of viewing.

 

[Mike Boone]

Having seen this on blu-ray, projected at home, before I saw it projected theatrically last weekend, when it premiered in Norway, I was struck by how ENORMOUS the superiority in picture quality was on the cinema picture. Granted, I only have a cheap DLP 4K projector at home, which in no way can compare with the 4K Christie DLP projector in my local cinema. But the colour in the picture from the DCP was vastly richer, than on the blu-ray. The verdant fields, the blue skies and the interior atmosphere in the pub were exponentially better.

I really wish that this had been a 4K UHD release.

Kevin, I can see exactly what you're saying. But though you are certainly accustomed to viewing an image at home with your DLP projector, that's MUCH larger than that of a flat panel TV, you'd easily notice that a flat panel like a 77" or 83" Sony or LG OLED, when displaying that same Blu-ray of The Banshees of Inisherin, would yield an image that's far better than what that DLP can provide. Because as you know, all the video experts, including video guru Joe Kane, who developed the very video parameter standards that every TV and projector reviewer (& calibrator) uses to get the best possible video performance from displays, are all folks who agree that contrast ratio is the number 1 aspect of performance that contributes to top notch picture quality, with resolution usually being ranked as the 3rd or 4th most important aspect of performance that goes into creating fine visuals. And until EXTREMELY expensive Micro-LED TVs can be produced efficiently enough that a decent sized display using that tech can be priced lower than a Lexus sports car, OLED will remain as the only practical video tech for non-millionaires that's able to produce ABSOLUTE BLACK. So even that extremely expensive 4K Christie DLP projector used in commercial theaters is soundly beaten in black level, by OLED panels, such as a $3,000 77" Sony OLED. Because when fed a pure black signal in a totally dark room, other than a Micro-LED unit, an OLED is the only type of video display that has viewers in that pitch black room, totally unable to detect any light coming from the OLED's screen as it's being energized by that black signal. So with such a signal basically producing zero light on the OLED's screen, that's why quality OLED TVs are defined as having "infinite contrast ratios". And as Joe Kane, & other video experts, have all noted, a deep black level provides the foundation required for top notch color saturation. And OLED has the deepest black level of any practical video tech, a black that NO projectors, even those using lasers, are able to match. That's why on sites like AVS Forum, one can often read posts by owners of 4K OLEDs, expressing their disappointment about the lackluster black levels that they've seen being displayed by the latest 4K commercial movie projectors at even the newest movie theaters. Such people make comments like the blacks at the movie theaters aren't truly black, but are just more like a very dark shade of gray compared to an OLED. And some have noted that the Blu-ray version of the movie Gravity, for example, if shown on an OLED, in a dark home theater, creates that deep black of the void of space, to a more realistic, darker degree, than 4K movie theater projectors seem capable of. And I saw the same thing as Gravity was on our 77" Sony OLED, in our dark basement theater room.

 

[Matt Hough]

I'm running out of disc storage space so my purchases of 4K digitals will increase in 2023. A couple of weeks ago I bought the iTunes 4K digital but haven't watched it yet. Will do so before the Oscars.

Same here. In fact, I started this a year ago since I was running out of space. I still haven't been able to clear my dining room table of all the discs piled up on it!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Same here. In fact, I started this a year ago since I was running out of space. I still haven't been able to clear my dining room table of all the discs piled up on it!

I am at that point, too. Most all my purchases are digital. I only have two disc purchases planned for this year: Avatar 3D and The Abyss 4k. Outside of that, I may pick up a WAC title here or there but new release films will remain digital purchases.

 

[Robert Harris]

Kevin, I can see exactly what you're saying. But though you are certainly accustomed to viewing an image at home with your DLP projector, that's MUCH larger than that of a flat panel TV, you'd easily notice that a flat panel like a 77" or 83" Sony or LG OLED, when displaying that same Blu-ray of The Banshees of Inisherin, would yield an image that's far better than what that DLP can provide. Because as you know, all the video experts, including video guru Joe Kane, who developed the very video parameter standards that every TV and projector reviewer (& calibrator) uses to get the best possible video performance from displays, are all folks who agree that contrast ratio is the number 1 aspect of performance that contributes to top notch picture quality, with resolution usually being ranked as the 3rd or 4th most important aspect of performance that goes into creating fine visuals. And until EXTREMELY expensive Micro-LED TVs can be produced efficiently enough that a decent sized display using that tech can be priced lower than a Lexus sports car, OLED will remain as the only practical video tech for non-millionaires that's able to produce ABSOLUTE BLACK. So even that extremely expensive 4K Christie DLP projector used in commercial theaters is soundly beaten in black level, by OLED panels, such as a $3,000 77" Sony OLED. Because when fed a pure black signal in a totally dark room, other than a Micro-LED unit, an OLED is the only type of video display that has viewers in that pitch black room, totally unable to detect any light coming from the OLED's screen as it's being energized by that black signal. So with such a signal basically producing zero light on the OLED's screen, that's why quality OLED TVs are defined as having "infinite contrast ratios". And as Joe Kane, & other video experts, have all noted, a deep black level provides the foundation required for top notch color saturation. And OLED has the deepest black level of any practical video tech, a black that NO projectors, even those using lasers, are able to match. That's why on sites like AVS Forum, one can often read posts by owners of 4K OLEDs, expressing their disappointment about the lackluster black levels that they've seen being displayed by the latest 4K commercial movie projectors at even the newest movie theaters. Such people make comments like the blacks at the movie theaters aren't truly black, but are just more like a very dark shade of gray compared to an OLED. And some have noted that the Blu-ray version of the movie Gravity, for example, if shown on an OLED, in a dark home theater, creates that deep black of the void of space, to a more realistic, darker degree, than 4K movie theater projectors seem capable of. And I saw the same thing as Gravity was on our 77" Sony OLED, in our dark basement theater room.

One additional thought to be added to this wonderful discussion, Mike:

When it came to projection of 35/4 in theaters, Technicolor reigned supreme not because of overall resolution, which was softer than direct positive, but because of the dyes, which created dense blacks, beautiful shadow detail and rich contrast.

And contrast creates PERCEIVED sharpness.

 

[Mike Boone]

A good question, which for many comes down to personal taste. My projection screen is about 9 -10 feet in width, and I sit about 12 feet away. To check resolution/grain, I’ll go to the screen.

In a general sense, you want to be far enough away that you don’t have to turn your head to take in an image. I believe THX speaks of a 36 degree angle of view. Let’s take a good sample image - Some Like it Hot.

The difference in grain structure between the Criterion Blu-ray and the Kino 4k should be more visceral than obvious. You’re going to recognize grain from both, but the Kino should not jump out at you as overly grainy. Rather, it should have a pleasant, homogenized feel. If the Kino image appears overly grainy, you’re too close.

If you go to the great inter-web, you’ll find differing opinions, but this information seems reasonable.

https://image.benq.com/is/image/benqco/pic-2-8?$ResponsivePreset$&wid=1468

From this guide, 8 - 9 feet for your 77”.

Bottom line, it’s about general comfort, and ease of viewing.

Thanks very much for such a quick reply, RAH. I'd have responded more quickly myself, to your answer, if not having gotten involved with responding to a fellow member in Norway, and having just finished that at about a minute after 5 in morning. (We're on Eastern Time, here in Ohio, and the Mrs will have a fit when hearing that I pulled another all-nighter)

Anyway, I appreciate so much that you took some of your time to address my query. And BTW, last night I'd been reading an old article from the August 2007 edition of the defunct The Perfect Vision magazine, which was written by Scott Wilkinson. (who I'd not be shocked to learn you could know personally.)

And in that article, some charts were printed showing various screen sizes & the viewing distances that both THX and the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers recommended in viewing screens of such sizes.

It's so cool to see you discuss the THX recommendation of having 36 degrees of one's field of view being occupied by the screen he views. Since that article has THX's screen size chart & the viewing distance needed for each size to reach the recommended 36 degree field of view being occupied by the screen. So for example, a 72" screen has 96" as its viewing distance, although the chart actually expresses it as 8 feet. And a 90" screen has its viewing distance listed as 10 feet.

Of course, IMO, what a reader should notice quite quickly, is that to arrive at the viewing distance at which a given size 16 X 9 ratio screen will occupy 36 degrees of one's field of view, he just needs to increase the number that defines a screen's size by ONE THIRD, so that a 6 foot (diagonal) screen needs viewers to be 8 ft away, so basically, just divide screen size by 3, add the answer to that size, and you've got your distance.

BTW RAH, in having just skimmed through a Feb./March 2010 Sound & Vision magazine article that mentions THX's 36 degree recommendation, a DIFFERENT formula for determining distance from 16 X 9 ratio screens involves using the screen's WIDTH instead of its diagonal measurement to be able to determine the viewing distance to have a screen occupy 36 degrees of one's field of view.

And Sound & Vision stated that the formula is to JUST multiply the screen WIDTH by 1.54 and the product of that will be the distance for THX's 36 degrees. So I just checked that out against that other formula by using my 85" Mini-LED TV which I measured as having a screen width of about 73.7 inches. So multiplying 73.7 X 1.54 yields a product of 113.498 inches. So to check that against the other method of determining the viewing distance, by dividing the 85" diagonal size by 3, which results in 28.333, and then adding that answer to the 85" size, yields a viewing distance of 113.333 inches, that's pretty damned close to 113.498", so I guess the 2 formulas sort of verify each other.

BTW RAH, I assume that your screen, instead of it having anything close to a 16 X 9 ratio, must be much closer to a 2.4 to 1 or 2.35 to 1 ratio with it having that 9 to 10 ft. width, & you sitting as close as 12 feet from it. Because a 12 ft. distance from your screen is a much closer viewing distance ratio than the 1.54 screen widths from a 16 X 9 ratio screen that results in 36 degrees of one's field of view being taken up by the screen. But I am very glad to know that you like a truly immersive picture, because a 12 foot viewing distance is only 1.2 times a 10 foot width, or only 1.333 times a 9 ft. width. I have very good peripheral vision and sometimes sit just 8 and a half feet from our living room's 85" TV that has a screen just over 6 ft. 1 and a half inches wide. But that's about as close as I'd sit, and that's for truly widescreen films like Apocalypse Now. But for example, when we'll soon view the 4k UHD BD of The Natural (that I bought on your recommendation, love that film), I'll be somewhat further from the screen, since as a 1.85 ratio film, The Natural will nearly fill the screen, though I realize that the width of its image will still be the same as the other film, just mentioned.

Well, mercifully for you, or for any of our fellow HTF members who may attempt to wade through my rambling, my Mrs is close to making threats if I don't hit the hay for my own good, since the sun is just barely starting to show itself on the back edge of a house to our east, which isn't very tall.

Oh damn! That sun sure isn't treating me in a very immersive way, as I doubt it's even occupying 5 degrees of my field of view!

(P.S. If RAH should even see this, I liked his discussion of Some Like It Hot and how Kino's 4k Blu-ray of it may seem somewhat over grainy if you sit too close to a screen. And that comment was so similar to what RAH said in his A few words about... coverage of the recently released 4k UHD BD of Paths of Glory. Since "Paths" is a longtime favorite of mine, though I have the Criterion Blu, RAH managed to stoke my enthusiasm for getting the 4k Blu of it, though recent heavy buying of some regular Blu-rays, like The Banshees of Inisherin, that was ordered here sometime in this all-night marathon, have probably made it quite necessary to delay getting the Paths of Glory 4k for at least a couple weeks if I don't want the neighbors seeing me sporting a black eye. In fact, right now, am going to try to get both eyes into a darker place, as quick as I can.)

Hope all of my fellow HTF members enjoy a good, safe, Thursday. And my thanks again to RAH!

 

[Mike Boone]

One additional thought to be added to this wonderful discussion, Mike:

When it came to projection of 35/4 in theaters, Technicolor reigned supreme not because of overall resolution, which was softer than direct positive, but because of the dyes, which created dense blacks, beautiful shadow detail and rich contrast.

And contrast creates PERCEIVED sharpness.

Gee, I should be hitting the hay, after having just finished my long response to you. But just seeing what you'd written while nearly turning off my laptop, just had to state something that relates to your point of PERCEIVED sharpness. About 14 or 15 years ago when Pioneer still made plasmas, Home Theater Magazine in having about six or seven 50 to 52 inch flat panel TVs evaluated by its group of experienced viewers, ended up with a fascinating result which demonstrated exactly what you've stated about high dense, or at least deep, blacks, as well as rich contrast adding to giving viewers the impression of better resolution and sharpness. Because the test group of viewers for Home Theater had all been under the impression that all of the 50" and 52" flat panels being evaluated were 1080p units. Most of the TVs, BTW, were LCD panels, as opposed to plasmas. But back then, in the 50 inch size, Pioneer made a 720p Kuro along with its famous 1080p Kuro model. And half of the viewers of the test group, who weren't even sure which brand was which, ended up picking the 720p resolution Pioneer plasma as having the sharpest picture. And after all the votes had been tabulated and the test viewers were informed that half of them picked a 720p unit as seeming sharper than the rest of the panels that all featured 1080p resolution, in tests which utilized 1080p resolution material, there were some red faced people who realized that they'd gone for the Pioneer. But the magazine editor explained that those folks who picked the Pioneer, with its famed Kuro black capability, had nothing at all to be embarrassed about, because the Pioneer's superior black level and contrast ratio would naturally tend to aid the appearance of its sharpness, because the deeper blacks and greater contrast ability of the Kuro were able to make certain objects, as well as borders, stand out more than they would with panels not having the Kuro's qualities.

I've got to hit the hay now, but it just occurred to this tired mind that the TVs in the test that went against the Pioneer, were working with a type of disadvantage that caused them, compared to the Kuro, to have to use a sort of unintentional camouflage that caused various small objects to come much closer to blending together as one more massive object, because the degree of difference in shades of dark to light of objects, which were alongside each other, was so much more limited than the much greater variance of shades of adjacent objects that the Pioneer could display, allowing it to succeed at differentiating similar objects from one another so that they stood out as separate things, rather than seeming to merge together in that sad type of camouflage that most of the panels being tested (LCDs, naturally) suffered from due to having poorer blacks & contrast than the Kuro had. Yup, good morning, and good night, already!

 

[Mike Boone]

I am at that point, too. Most all my purchases are digital. I only have two disc purchases planned for this year: Avatar 3D and The Abyss 4k. Outside of that, I may pick up a WAC title here or there but new release films will remain digital purchases.

Ronald, your mention of the Avatar 3D made me curious. Because I wonder if your enjoyment of 3D may indicate that you use some sort of DLP type display for the playing of 3D material.

I ask that because the first HD display that we ever had here was the 73 inch Mitsubishi DLP rear projection TV that I purchased in Sept. 2007, which was actually one of the first 2 units of its new model year that had arrived at the small home theater specialty store where I obtained that TV for $4,100 in cash. Anyhow, there'd been absolutely no intention on my part to get into 3D back when buying the DLP, and I couldn't have had such an intention anyway, since TV manufacturers didn't start promoting 3D TVs until about March 2010, when a line of Panasonic 3D plasmas launched. But sometime in late 2011, or in 2012, the manager at the store where I'd bought the Mits DLP informed me that my Mitsubishi, if equipped with a kit that included a signal receiving unit & a pair of active shutter 3D glasses, could provide high quality, ghost free 3D, from 3D Blu-rays, although unlike the Panny 3D plasmas he had, which also used active shutter glasses (which, as you know, also needed charging), the Mitsubishi, rather than presenting its 3D in 1080p resolution, like the Panasonic Plasmas did, would just display 3D at half of that resolution, because my Mits DLP employed a type of very quick pixel shifting to create its 2D 1080p picture, a method that some folks described as a cheating scheme so Mitsubishi could say its DLP rear projection sets were actual 1080p units. However, when later comparing the Mits TV to Sony's highly regarded (before they started failing) SXRD 60" & 70" 1080p rear projection TVs, the Mits sure seemed to hold its own in detail & clarity when playing Blu-rays. The Mits was in the company's flagship Diamond series line.

But long story short, when I finally did equip the Mits DLP with a pair of charged 3D glasses & the signal receiving unit for that TV (which cost me a little under $200, if memory serves), my wife & I sat down, put the 3D Blu-ray of Avatar into a Panasonic 3D capable BD player, and had our minds blown by the great looking, 99% ghost free 3D, that we both swore looked as good, and probably better, than the 3D presentation of Avatar that we'd seen in Jan. 2010 at our favorite movie theater complex, known as Tinseltown, a truly first class operation run by Cinemark in North Canton, Ohio.

The amazing thing is that the 3D capability built into that Mitsubishi DLP TV was originally intended to provide 3D by using the DLP set along with a PC. So I ended up being floored by the fact that to our eyes the 3D that the Mitsubishi produced via Blu-ray looked better than that shown on any of the numerous flat panel 3D TVs that we saw demonstrated in stores. The Mits even had better 3D than the Panasonic 58 inch plasma we bought in 2011, that had been the unanimous winner at the September 2010 Flat Panel Shootout at Value Electronics, in Scarsdale, N.Y. (according to the votes of 30 experts in attendance, but they weren't judging its 3D, though the Panny was known to suffer from less ghosting than the LCD 3D panels, due to plasma being a faster response tech.) BTW, never did get a chance to see any of the 3D capable OLED panels that LG made, until about 5 or 6 years ago, that I understand, may have provided the best 3D ever seen in flat panels, by far!

Also, almost neglected to mention that just as we were starting to really get into 3D, our Mitsubishi died, and with the dropping prices of much improved flat panels (with NO 3D capability), it simply didn't seem worth it to have the Mits repaired. And my step son now has the only other 3D TV that we seldom used for 3D, that top tier Panny Plasma, mentioned earlier, which had to go 2 years ago, as TVs had to be shifted around here, when our larger theater TV was moved to allow a 77" OLED.

Anyhow, Ronald, I've gotten carried away with being long winded here (as usual), but since I also read somewhere that DLP front projectors are particularly good at providing quality, ghost free, 3D, because DLP is a much faster responding tech than that of either LCD or LCOS based projectors, that's why I was guessing that you're probably using a DLP projector when you show a 3D movie. Have I been correct with that thought?