Best Ever Albums

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:03:22 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 11/27/2019 00:03

News mainly of interest to Badseed:

The Man of No Name Trilogy UHDs have been canceled. However, Kino plans to release at least three 4K titles in 2020:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=17081971&postcount=36092

Not that new news: It's a Wonderful Life's the first B&W film to be released on UHD.

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Mon, 17 Jun 2019 05:50:20 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/17/2019 09:50

badseed wrote:

I always thought the dubbing was hella awkward as they got Eastwood and Wallach to dub it 40 years late so you can tell, especially in Wallach's voice, how old he is. Not sure if that's the issue you're talking about with the extended version but yeah, weird.

Yeah, I was talking about issues related to the 2003 dubbing with Eastwood etc. I had to read the below review over several times, but I think I finally understand the issues. As you know, the 2003 redubbing had to be done for the extra material in the extended cut, because that cut was never released in the U.S. Originally, a lot of remixing of the entire track was done in order to blend the old dubbing in with the new. Apparently the Italian restoration company who did the 2014 resto prepared an English track that used the original English mono track for the rest of the film, without the additional manipulation, but still used the new dub for the extra material because it's the only English one that exists. But the 2014 MGM 4K-mastered version didn't use this new English track. Which is too bad for me, since that's the version I have and I'm not planning to buy a third version of the movie for now.

Since I didn't read any criticism, the Kino BD probably has the preferred new English track. So that's two significant improvements the Kino version has: The best audio track and the U.S. cut being in HD.

This is the part of the Bluray.com review of the 2014 version I'm going by:

Blu-ray.com wrote:

The 179-minute version of the film presented here [2014 version] and in 2009 was never released theatrically in America in 1964, so that an English-language version of the additional scenes had to be created from scratch in 2003, when the restoration project was undertaken by MGM. Eastwood and Wallach, among others, redubbed their lines, and substantial audio manipulation had to be applied to minimize synch issues. For the 2009 release, a mixdown was the only existing version of a mono track for those wishing to replicate the original theatrical experience.

In connection with this [2014] restoration, however, the Cineteca di Bologna has reportedly prepared a new mono track that uses the original English language mix for those portions of the film seen in the U.S. in 1964, inserting the "mixdown" only for the newly recorded scenes. For whatever reason, that newly created mono track was not used by MGM on this [2014] disc. Audio purists and cinemaphiles interested in experiencing films in as close to their original form as possible have objected...

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:15:06 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/16/2019 19:15

PurpleHazel wrote:

I'm not a transfer queen either; just a lot of trivial info I've picked up over the years. As you probably know, the 2014 MGM 4K-mastered version of GBU was controversial because it was very yellow -- the Italian restoration company claimed that was how the film originally looked. Kino gave the people what they wanted and swung the color palette back the other way. There have been at least a little criticism of the PQ of all three BD releases, but there have also been other issues, including the English audio track for the extended (Italian) cut, and versions missing a few minutes. The Kino edition's the first to offer the U.S. cut in HD, so that's pretty major. I couldn't find any major complaints about the Kino edition (other than the poor PQ of the extras), but I'd read something on CriterionForum about a few minutes missing from one of the cuts -- presumably the extended cut -- however I haven't been able to find the post. Well, Kino will now get a second bite at the apple and hopefully they correct whatever was wrong with the BD, if anything significant was actually wrong. I suspect that due to the condition of the original negative and the various cuts and maybe that English audio track there will never be a version that satisfies every home video reviewer and cinephile.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was my favorite film of all time back when they released the extended version on DVD for the first time. The extra scenes are okay but not essential, although there is one I particularly enjoy (the extended chat before running into the Union soldiers) but I always thought the dubbing was hella awkward as they got Eastwood and Wallach to dub it 40 years late so you can tell, especially in Wallach's voice, how old he is. Not sure if that's the issue you're talking about with the extended version but yeah, weird.

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:30:40 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/16/2019 09:30

badseed wrote:

Damn so it did come out. Torn whether to order it now or wait for the 4k set. Regarding the transfer (assuming that's what you meant got flak) of GBU, I don't know. I've never really been a transfer queen especially when it comes to old movies but it looks like 4k is gonna change that for me.

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 16:21:44 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/15/2019 20:21

I gradually wanted Evil Dead more and more that I picked it up today. Can't find a copy of part 2 in town. Also grabbed Forrest Gump today. Always enjoyed the visual effects on this film. 4K might point out some flaws but we'll see.

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:27:22 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/15/2019 18:27

PurpleHazel wrote:

Just checked -- came out late March.

I imagine they secured the rights to all three at the same time. But the Trilogy are the biggest films they've ever landed. Kino usually just puts out the transfers given to them, but I get the impression they really took their time with these, though their edition of TGTBATU's still gotten some flak.

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 04:02:04 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/15/2019 08:02

Just checked -- came out late March.

I imagine they secured the rights to all three at the same time. But the Trilogy are the biggest films they've ever landed. Kino usually just puts out the transfers given to them, but I get the impression they really took their time with these, though their edition of TGTBATU's still gotten some flak.

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 03:21:05 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/15/2019 07:21

Kino didn't ever release For a Few Dollars More on Blu did they? After buying their other three Leone releases I was waiting patiently for so long I forgot I was waiting. There was no official word they had rights last I heard (though apparently your sources are better than mine) but that was months ago.

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 19:44:05 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/14/2019 23:44

Thanks for finding that post quoting the Scream Factory guy. Either way, it sounds like Kino's going to release The Man With No Name Trilogy on UHD in 2020. From Bluray.com on May 4th:

Kino Lorber Insider wrote:

This whole project will take much longer and will be very expensive, but we still plan to release them on 4K, most likely early next year.

Shout Factory's actually already put out a few UHDs, but they're lowbrow documentaries like "The Mysteries of China" haha. But I believe Scream Factory when they say they're not planning get into UHD for now. I'd heard that already. Maybe Criterion isn't either.

badseed wrote:

So it's weird that the DVD didn't drop in price and now it cost more than the other two.

It's counter-intuitive, but Best Buy just didn't put the DVD on sale. It happens -- sometimes companies only want to promote newer formats.

EBay has a $3 off $3.01-or-more one item coupon code right now: PROMO3 Good for picking up a single movie (or album) if the price's already reasonable. Supposedly good till the 17th, but I'd use it today because sometimes there's a ceiling on how many times it can be used.

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:44:13 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/14/2019 20:44

PurpleHazel wrote:

When Amazon has a mainstream studio release for sale these days, they're usually price-matching Best Buy, Walmart or Target. In this case they're obviously price-matching Best Buy. Don't think it's a reflection of sales for Spider-Verse in particular -- in this case it may be tied to Spider-Man: Far From Home opening in a couple of weeks. Also Best Buy seems to have a good relationship with Sony -- BBy used to have those Sony Savestation displays.

You saying they have the DVD priced at both 9.99 and 17.99?

Shit my bad... Bluray is 9.99, 4K is 14.99, DVD is 17.99. So it's weird that the DVD didn't drop in price and now it cost more than the other two.

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:36:43 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/14/2019 20:36

PurpleHazel wrote:

Being bitten by the OOP bug is what got me to seriously start collecting DVDs in the first place. In 2010, almost every Paramount back catalog movie went OOP except for the Godfather, Star Trek and Audrey Hepburn movies. Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Sunset Blvd., Death Wish, even Zodiac -- all OOP. I was like, oh shit, if I ever want to have an excellent film library, I better start snapping things up, and went on from there. This guy who has a site called Michael's Movie Mayhem used to post lists of what what DVDs the studios were deleting on a DVD forum and it was invaluable for buying up DVDs before the secondhand prices started skyrocketing. Not long after, Warner did a big purge of DVDs, though in this case it wasn't big names, but a bunch of more obscure titles.

At the beginning of 2013, Paramount cut a distribution deal with WB and most of the Paramount titles, except for the most obscure ones, came back in print -- by this time Criterion had released some of them on Blu.

Quote:

the first two Evil Deads are on 4k but do those movies really call for crisp visuals? Then again I feel the same for the original Halloween but I put that movie on a higher level so of course I got it.

I actually kind of enjoy it when higher-definition formats expose flaws and details in movies that weren't meant to be seen. The original Evil Dead on Blu-ray is definitely a good example of that. Even Halloween had a higher budget than Evil Dead, so I could see buying that and not the others. But I would get a kick out of seeing Evil Dead in 4K!

Quote:

Another note, again this is very vague because I don't remember specifics but Kino released Hannibal of all movies as their first 4k and I think due to low sales they've decided not to make anymore. Criterion has a larger more dedicated fanbase than Kino but it's still a risk they may not plan to take anytime soon. I mean you're looking at 30 bucks minimum for one of those. They would probably want to experiment with that one before going all in. Hopefully they pick a better title than Hannibal for their first release.

I researched it, but I couldn't find any mention online that Kino's Hannibal 4K didn't sell well. A month ago Kino said they were "definitely planning more" 4K releases on FB. A week ago they announced they're doing The Man With No Name Trilogy.

Of course Kino and Criterion don't have the same business model, and Kino in particular has drastically changed in the last 5 years. It's absolutely true that nobody really knows whether Criterion will enter the UHD market. They were pretty slow to embrace Blu-ray (the end of 2008). I personally think it'll happen eventually as the core of their business is still physical media. As I'm sure you've noticed, they keep getting bigger and bigger Hollywood titles -- Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Blue Velvet, Silence of the Lambs (they put SotL out on DVD very early in the DVD era, but lost the rights when the DVD market heated up). I could see them dipping their toe into UHD with a title as popular as Silence of the Lambs or more so. On CriterionForum there's been idle speculation that they may land Citizen Kane, though I don't think WB's quite ready to cough that up yet.

When Criterion decided to go Blu-ray, they put out a slate of 10 titles in one month. But with UHD, I could see them just doing a couple of big titles over a few months and then take stock.

On one hand, Hannibal seemed like a weird choice for Kino's first UHD, but I think I get their thinking on it. They don't have much access to big-budget Hollywood movies from the last 20 years, and even though Hannibal is, IMO, a very bad movie, it's relatively recent (and recent sells) and it's got big above-the-title talent involved. Criterion would've never gone that route, but Criterion has access to better films and doesn't usually put out trashy movies, while Kino's been relying on them quite a bit in the last 5 years.

Thanks for all that... The more I think about it the more I do want Evil Dead in 4k haha.

Regarding Kino, I had to look it up, but this is what I found on facebook. Posted by Dawn of the Discs on May 3:

Quote:

According to Cliff Macmillan from Scream Factory (on Brainwaves Horror and Paranormal Podcast) on the question of whether SF would ever get into the 4K UHD territory, Cliff remarked that Kino Lorber was “so disappointed with the numbers on their “Hannibal” 4K release that they have actually cancelled their next planned 4K release” and that it would cost too much for SF to get into that world at the moment. I thought that was interesting and unfortunate (if true) about the Hannibal situation.

(I guess this sentiment was shared on Blu-ray.com forums by the KL insider, but I must have missed it)

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:13:19 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/14/2019 08:13

badseed wrote:

Quote:

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 01:40:58 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/14/2019 05:40

When Amazon has a mainstream studio release for sale these days, they're usually price-matching Best Buy, Walmart or Target. In this case they're obviously price-matching Best Buy. Don't think it's a reflection of sales for Spider-Verse in particular -- in this case it may be tied to Spider-Man: Far From Home opening in a couple of weeks. Also Best Buy seems to have a good relationship with Sony -- BBy used to have those Sony Savestation displays.

badseed wrote:

both of them have them priced at 9.99 for the DVD, 14.99 for the blu, and 17.99 for the DVD (WTF)

You saying they have the DVD priced at both 9.99 and 17.99?

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:24:18 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/14/2019 03:24

Yesterday I noticed Into the Spider-Verse had dropped in price on Amazon. The 4k was listed at $14.99. Before I got around to ordering it I stopped by Best Buy today and found it for the same price. Strangely both of them have them priced at 9.99 for the DVD, 14.99 for the blu, and 17.99 for the DVD (WTF). Been to Wal-Mart and Target today too and the 4K is still $28 and $30 respectively at those places so I'm guessing this is some kind of special sale if anyone wants to jump on it. I don't see why a film that good would have dropped so tremendously otherwise unless its sales have been ridiculously low, which would shock me.

Re: 4K UHD

CA Dreamin — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:48:32 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 06/13/2019 19:48

StreetSpirit wrote:

And two, no TV network in the US broadcasts in 4K (as of now, that I know of). So the only way to see something in TV's 4K potential, was to also buy 4K Blu-Rays/DVDs, or just wait for TV networks to broadcast in 4K (which could be a very long wait in the US, but I believe in Japan and South Korea, some TV networks broadcast in 4K, thus 4K TVs are a much bigger seller over there).

PurpleHazel wrote:

I'm no expert on 4K, but I believe many current and very recent Netflix seasons are 4K (of course, it's possible that some recent seasons are upscaled).

Ah yes, I forgot about Netflix. But this is accurate. Netflix can stream in 4K for a higher subscription. I don't think they would be upscaled. They were very likely filmed in 4K to begin with.

PurpleHazel wrote:

I read that 4K is the lowest resolution that can contain 100% all the information of 35mm film. What pisses me off a little is in the early days of Blu-ray/HD, an article in the NY Times claimed the same thing about 2K, so until recently I thought Blu-rays could hold all the information of pre-digital films. However, whether 4K or 2K, a lot of the time the most important issue for older films is the restoration. I have standard DVDs of black-and-white films that look great on my HD TV because the restorations were so good to begin with. And way too many Blu-rays look like shit. I've seen Blu-rays that look worse than DVDs of the same movie. In the Blu-ray era, Sony has had the reputation of releasing the best-looking Blu-rays. Presumably that has something to do with them being the ones who developed the format. Universal has a rep of putting out subpar Blu-rays though most of their B&W titles look pretty good (they haven't released that many). Haven't heard which studios have the best and worst reps regarding 4K, because I haven't read any reviews, but as time goes on, it will become more apparent -- wouldn't be surprised if Sony's still on top.

Those NY Times bastards, haha. It's worth noting DVD resolution is only 720, which can look fine because it leaves little room for error, which you brought up next...

Quote:

I don't know if they removed the grainy look that naturally accompanies film (if that bothers you one way or the other), but the clarity should be great and original, and (hopefully?) was not digitally altered.

PurpleHazel wrote:

One of the two main factors -- other than restoration -- in the picture quality of a Hollywood studio Blu-ray is how much DNR (digital noise reduction; also used for video) and edge enhancement was used on the movie. These tools were originally used to make DVDs look better, but with Blu-rays' higher resolution, these tools usually make the films look worse. Hopefully, the studios have learned from the mistakes of the early Blu-ray era and keep the natural-looking grain of older films in 4K. For instance, when Warner first released 2001: A Space Odyssey on Blu, I believe the PQ was considered pretty good. But as the format progressed, it became considered to be not so great: it was an older restoration and a little DNR and edge enhancement was visible. But it was an early Blu-ray (2007), so Warner has had plenty of time to do a new restoration, and if the 4K has a natural, filmic look, it should look the best the film ever has, except a restored version in a good theater.

Quote:

some movies simply can't be in 4K without digital enhancement or altering from its original version, which may or may not bother you.

PurpleHazel wrote:

I'm no expert, but I don't believe this is right. All you need is a top-notch restoration and proper encoding (and probably some other technical stuff I don't recall/know). From what I understand, the higher the resolution, the more it exposes the flaws of DNR and edge enhancement -- loss of detail, unnatural-looking grain, waxy-looking skin, haloing from edge enhancement. You want an older film's grain to look as natural as possible. That's become the ideal for critics, collectors and a majority of technicians (especially the ones who work for the high-end boutique labels like Criterion, Arrow US/UK and the UK's Masters of Cinema). It's possible that very delicate, restrained digital tweaking could help, but the problem is the studios can't be trusted to always do that.

My "some films can't be in 4K" was referring to older films that have been damaged, or were shot with an inferior quality of film that wouldn't translate to 4K. But anyway, your points on DNR and edge enhancement are completely valid. As long as the master copy or original negative are well preserved, the capacity to produce a fine-looking 4K is there. They would use a 4K scanner and scan each frame one by one. Then digital artists would go in there and do cleanup work on every frame such as removing dirt, scratches, cue marks, DNR and edge enhancement. I imagine it's a lengthy, laborious process. And yeah, if they do a half-assed job, it will show. It sucks though that DNR and EE can backfire because they make old movies look better. Some older films are just too grainy, or have faded or deteriorated. DNR and EE solve some problems but create others, such as haloing, loss of natural grain, and waxy skin as previously mentioned. But that can be corrected as well with subtle CGI, rotoscoping, and other post-production magic. My point was, I believe with proper time and labor, anything can get a fine 4K treatment. But it's up to the studios, and again background research before buying always helps.

Quote:

I don't know if any discs are being sold as 4K, when they're actually 2K

PurpleHazel wrote:

Yes, they are. Some are upscaled 2K, but I don't know which ones -- hopefully there aren't that many. Obviously movies from the last few years should be safe.

I don't see a problem with selling upscaled 2K on a 4K disc, as long as they don't charge as much money, and it simply says so on the label. Kind of like labeling genetically modified food, haha.

I'm surprised Ex Machina would look subpar on a 4K Blu-Ray. It was filmed in 4K, so what could go wrong?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

As for The Favourite, according to imdb, it was filmed on 35 mm, but the DI is in 2K, which could explain why you can't find it as a 4K Blu-Ray yet:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5083738/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Anyhoo, more nerding out. Just watch Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in 4K already.

Re: 4K UHD

Tha1ChiefRocka — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:23:22 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 06/13/2019 16:23

I worked at a bestbuy for several years, and I had all of this stuff a long time ago. 😉

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:38:04 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/13/2019 06:38

PurpleHazel wrote:

Think that's the one I heard was a little subpar too! Though Bluray.com gives it a good review.

I'm not going to jump into 4K till Criterion embraces it, and I'd like to see a few B&W Hollywood classics on the format too, like Citizen Kane or The Maltese Falcon. Also, I can't really afford to upgrade my TV till it's on its way out.

I've been bitten by the OOP bug too often so I can't help but start now in case some BS goes down and suddenly a basic film (hello Apocalypto) disappears from sight and goes for stupid numbers online. But it's not an exclusive thing. Not everything even gets 4K yet (I didn't see one for The Favourite, but maybe Wal-Mart just didn't stock it?) I'm mainly going for titles with really good cinematography or visual effects for the most part. A few all time favorites but action and sci-fi mostly. Maybe some musicals. Horror too of course but that still really depends. For example, the first two Evil Deads and the original Pet Sematary are on 4k but do those movies really call for crisp visuals? Then again I feel the same for the original Halloween but I put that movie on a higher level so of course I got it (I currently own it 6 times between VHS, DVD, Blu and 4k). Torn on whether I want to repurchase all the Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Christopher Nolan movies I already have because although I'm sure they're great, that's a lot of movies that generally don't drop below 25 bucks each (with the exception of the WB films) so I feel like I'd rather spend that money on some Criterion or Arrow titles.

Another note, again this is very vague because I don't remember specifics but Kino released Hannibal of all movies as their first 4k and I think due to low sales they've decided not to make anymore. Criterion has a larger more dedicated fanbase than Kino but it's still a risk they may not plan to take anytime soon. I mean you're looking at 30 bucks minimum for one of those. They would probably want to experiment with that one before going all in. Hopefully they pick a better title than Hannibal for their first release.

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:29:30 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/13/2019 05:29

badseed wrote:

For the record I've heard the Ex Machina 4k is not that impressive. I'm no expert and I don't remember what the issue is but apparently there is one.

Re: 4K UHD

badseed — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:55:44 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 06/13/2019 04:55

Thanks for all the info guys...

For the record I've heard the Ex Machina 4k is not that impressive. I'm no expert and I don't remember what the issue is but apparently there is one.

Re: 4K UHD

PurpleHazel — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:14:32 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/13/2019 00:14

StreetSpirit wrote:

I'm no expert on 4K, but I believe many current and very recent Netflix seasons are 4K (of course, it's possible that some recent seasons are upscaled).

Quote:

But as for older movies, or newer movies shot on film as opposed to digital, it gets trickier. First off, film has no definite resolution because it's a different process. 35 mm film was a popular choice in the industry for decades, which is estimated to have 4K resolution (with the graininess of course). So in theory, digitizing older movies shot in 35 mm should come out to approximately a 4K look. However, that's assuming the master copy has been properly preserved. Film naturally deteriorates over time, which is why older films have to be restored. Do your research beforehand, but film historians and preservationists know what they're doing so I'd say you're safe with most titles. You mentioned Alien and 2001, two beloved classics that I'm sure will get a fine treatment and look great on a 4K Blu-Ray. I don't know if they removed the grainy look that naturally accompanies film (if that bothers you one way or the other), but the clarity should the great and original, and (hopefully?) was not digitally altered. In fact, 2001 was shot on 70 mm film, which has even higher resolution than 35 mm and 4K. So by getting a 4K Blu-Ray copy of 2001, you're actually getting a scaled-down version from the 1968 original. Nevertheless, I'm sure it will look awesome. Same goes for modern directors who prefer to continue shooting on film as opposed to digital. QT famously shoots everything on 35 or 70 mm and he works with great DPs, so there should be no problem with any of his films on a 4K disc.

Quote:

I don't know if they removed the grainy look that naturally accompanies film (if that bothers you one way or the other), but the clarity should the great and original, and (hopefully?) was not digitally altered.

Quote:

some movies simply can't be in 4K without digital enhancement or altering from its original version, which may or may not bother you.

I'm no expert, but I don't believe this is right. All you need is a top-notch restoration and proper encoding (and probably some other technical stuff I don't recall/know). From what I understand, the higher the resolution, the more it exposes the flaws of DNR and edge enhancement -- loss of detail, unnatural-looking grain, waxy-looking skin, haloing from edge enhancement. You want an older film's grain to look as natural as possible. That's become the ideal for critics, collectors and a majority of technicians (especially the ones who work for the high-end boutique labels like Criterion, Arrrow US/UK and the UK's Masters of Cinema). It's possible that very delicate, restrained digital tweaking could help, but the problem is the studios can't be trusted to always do that.

Quote:

I don't know if any discs are being sold as 4K, when they're actually 2K

Yes, they are. Some are upscaled 2K, but I don't know which ones -- hopefully there aren't that many. Obviously movies from the last few years should be safe.

OK, now I've nerded out a little. I have no professional expertise; I'm not even a videophile -- just picked this stuff up over the years by frequenting Blu-ray and DVD forums.