Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette

Jeff,

In the latest The Digital Bits My Two Cents the following was posted:



Are these 'flippers'?

Let's call them the Jay Leno discs.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

Let's call them the Jay Leno discs.

#1 format forced out by NBC/Universal trying to keep another format under contract and then broght back because they made a mistake?

[Bizi Jones]

if u mean gave the #1 format for the 'old folks home' demographic a 5 year window to gently ease into retirement, only instead for the format to flip and continue the crappy playback of the same shit, stale material that was on the other side that it promised to retire, then yes, yes that was a mistake.

[Jeff Kleist]

There are no flippers not from Universal even on the drawing board to my knowlege, and I know they didn't want to schedule more until they saw how Bourne did

FTETTM has an issue that the FX will not hold up very well in HD. When they did the 16:9 versions they retransferred all the footage in HD, but they should probably do it again anyway. I expect that's why they missed the Moon anniversary, and will probably miss this one too. Very sadly. It's a top want for me as well

[Braktastic]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There are no flippers not from Universal even on the drawing board to my knowlege...

Thanks, Jeff.

[cjamescook]

Odd question: When a movie, like Oklahoma, was shot in Todd-AO, my understanding is that this was a 30 fps format. Is the 30 fps preserved in the Blu-ray, or is it commonly reduced to 24 fps?

Just curious if anyone knows.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Odd question: When a movie, like Oklahoma, was shot in Todd-AO, my understanding is that this was a 30 fps format. Is the 30 fps preserved in the Blu-ray, or is it commonly reduced to 24 fps?

Just curious if anyone knows.

Of course, In the case of Oaklahoma, it was shot twice... once with the 30 fps camera and once with a 24 fps camera. So the conventional film that's been released in the past has been the 24fps version.

But you raise a good point... if you've got the 30 fps version... how can you encode that on Blu-ray? Does Blu-ray allow for 1080p30 encoding? Or would you have to cheat by encoding as 1080i60?

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Of course, In the case of Oaklahoma, it was shot twice... once with the 30 fps camera and once with a 24 fps camera.

Huh? Oklahoma was shot twice? Why?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Huh? Oklahoma was shot twice? Why?

Because the 30fps film wasn't compatible with all theaters... so they did a traditional 24 fps shoot along side the 30 fps shoot. Each time they'd do a different take for each camera... so the two versions of the movie are actually a little different since they aren't the exact same performances. In fact, it wasn't until the THX laserdisc that the 30 fps version had ever been seen outside the theater... up until that release, all home-video and TV versions had been the 24 fps version (the DVD was the 30 fps version, I can't remember if it had the 24 fps version as an option or not).

Many films were shot twice in similar ways. I think that both Brigadoon and 7 brides for 7 brothers were also shot twice... once for cinemascope and once for 1.85:1.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

But you raise a good point... if you've got the 30 fps version... how can you encode that on Blu-ray? Does Blu-ray allow for 1080p30 encoding? Or would you have to cheat by encoding as 1080i60?

There's no support for 30p so you'd have to encode in 60i, but unless the player did some funky de-interlacing there wouldn't really be a difference. It's the same deal as with presenting 25p content, which can only be done through 50i.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

There's no support for 30p so you'd have to encode in 60i, but unless the player did some funky de-interlacing there wouldn't really be a difference. It's the same deal as with presenting 25p content, which can only be done through 50i.

All chip-based displays deinterlace, so that has to be considered.

How many processors are able to "zip back" 30 fps that's been encoded into 60i or 20p that's been encoded as 50i? I would think most processors would simply do the usual bob/weave/interpolate that they always do on 60i or 50i since there's no 3-2 cadence for them to see to inform them that this is a film-source that needs to be reconstructed by zipping up adjacent field-pairs versus the "usual" interpolation algorithms to fill in the gaps.

Real 30 fps looks different than 60 with motion, so the method of deinterlacing would have a notable impact on motion, even if overall resolution/detail looks pretty much the same.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Because the 30fps film wasn't compatible with all theaters... so they did a traditional 24 fps shoot along side the 30 fps shoot. Each time they'd do a different take for each camera... so the two versions of the movie are actually a little different since they aren't the exact same performances. In fact, it wasn't until the THX laserdisc that the 30 fps version had ever been seen outside the theater... up until that release, all home-video and TV versions had been the 24 fps version (the DVD was the 30 fps version, I can't remember if it had the 24 fps version as an option or not).

Many films were shot twice in similar ways. I think that both Brigadoon and 7 brides for 7 brothers were also shot twice... once for cinemascope and once for 1.85:1.

Not only was it 30fps, it was 65MM Todd-AO with the intention of projection on a curved screen. A proper version would be "smileboxed" ala How The West Was Won.

It's also not just the performances, but the shots are different too. The CinemaScope version of the train station is a pan, while the Todd-AO is a lock-down (probably due to the heavier camera).

The DVD SE has both versions. Oddly enough, the 'scope version is the superior transfer. The Todd-AO has lackluster color and sharpness in comparison. A new transfer is needed (preferably smileboxed).

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

A proper version would be "smileboxed" ala How The West Was Won.

I think the "smilebox" transfer is a noble inclusion and a useful educational tool, but I question the idea that it actually gets you closer to the Cinerama experience than a traditional "flat" transfer does.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

How many processors are able to "zip back" 30 fps that's been encoded into 60i or 20p that's been encoded as 50i? I would think most processors would simply do the usual bob/weave/interpolate that they always do on 60i or 50i since there's no 3-2 cadence for them to see to inform them that this is a film-source that needs to be reconstructed by zipping up adjacent field-pairs versus the "usual" interpolation algorithms to fill in the gaps.

The mode called "weave" is the de-interlacing method you use to get the 30p out of 60i or 25p out of 50i. If there's an option to set it to that, then it should be good. I imagine there are also chips that can recognize that it's a progressive stream underneath, and use the correct mode, though I don't know how common that function is. Perhaps there are some progressive flags on Blu-ray similar to what's on DVD?

And I don't think the difference would be that big either in terms of motion or detail, if you happened to use some other de-interlacer, as long as it was reasonably modern (e.g. vector adaptive, bob might be nasty.)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think the "smilebox" transfer is a noble inclusion and a useful educational tool, but I question the idea that it actually gets you closer to the Cinerama experience than a traditional "flat" transfer does.

It gets rid of that fisheye distortion effect.

The unnatural curves in the horizon and buildings is particularly distracting.
You also get slightly more picture information because there's less matting of the image.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There are no flippers not from Universal even on the drawing board to my knowlege, and I know they didn't want to schedule more until they saw how Bourne did

Well there is cover art already released for The Jackal, Out of Africa, and Traffic, and they sure look like they'll be flippers.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Jeff,

Do you have any information (or know where I could find) about the John Wayne classic "The Quiet Man" being released on Blu-day? I would love to see this hillarious and fun movie with the fantastic Irish landscape on Blu-ray. The classic fight scene would be a winner.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bizi Jones

if u mean gave the #1 format for the 'old folks home' demographic a 5 year window to gently ease into retirement, only instead for the format to flip and continue the crappy playback of the same material that more than double the people like than the replacement's material that it FORCED to retire, then yes, yes that was a mistake.

FIFY

Just because you don't find Leno funny doesn't mean no-one else does. Apparently twice the people found him funnier at 11:30 than Conan. And I don't buy the "lead-in" crap because CBS has been kicking NBC's ass for more than a few years now and Letterman still was losing to Leno.

For the record I like both Conan & Jay and knew when they announced it in 2004 I knew Conan probably wouldn't play to a Tonight Show audience. As for you thinking things are "stale" because they've been around for a while, Johnny Carson had the same formula for 30 years.

[Nick Graham]

Tens of millions of people listen to Britney Spears music, millions of people flock to the newest wretched Sandra Bullock or Hugh Grant or Matthew McConaughey or Kate Hudson movie when it comes out, millions of people watch the newest reality show on MTV.

The fact that millions of people like something enough to make it number 1 does not mean it has any artistic value whatsoever, it just shows that America as a whole gets dumber and dumber with every passing year. That's the Tonight Show With Jay Leno's dominance in a nutshell.

PS, Carson never got stale, because he was sharp as a tack even in the end. Jay does the most purposefully homogenized, edgeless humor he can manufacture, including many things Carson would not be caught dead doing.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

Tens of millions of people listen to Britney Spears music, millions of people flock to the newest wretched Sandra Bullock or Hugh Grant or Matthew McConaughey or Kate Hudson movie when it comes out, millions of people watch the newest reality show on MTV.

The fact that millions of people like something enough to make it number 1 does not mean it has any artistic value whatsoever, it just shows that America as a whole gets dumber and dumber with every passing year.
That's the Tonight Show With Jay Leno's dominance in a nutshell.

Up until that line I thought you were talking about Avatar.