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

[patrick99]

The stretching on EH is vertical, whereas apparently the stretching on TS is horizontal.

[Squozen]

I'm assuming that there is no word yet on a release date for Slumdog Millionaire? I'm really hoping that this gem isn't too small to come out on Blu - I seriously think it will be my best of 2009.

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm looking at EH right now, looking for circles to go oval and such

I think what you're seeing is intentional photographic trickery to increase unease, that people are only noticing for the first time on larger TVs combined with the typical distortion you get from anamorphic lenses. I put in an inquiry on both titles to Paramount, but my source is iextremely familiar with EH and he doesn't see it either, but concurs with that hypothesis. Notice how many ovals (intentional extreme ovals) are used in the design.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Event Horizon is a scope movie, so why it would be stretched is beyond me

EH is a scope movie. I'll have to look at Truman again. I know it's 1.66:1 originally

I do know that some people complained about DNR on Truman, but I believe that's actually intended so it'll look like TV

I'll ask about it, but don't expect a reissue

Re: EH -- this can happen on some types of tube telecine or during (wrong) playout to datafile. It should have popped up at the very latest during QC. The color (re-)timing is definitively wrong, which is very odd to say the least.

Jeff,
could you check with your source what telecine was used for the respective transfer, when and to what (tape source format) the transfer master was made / played out to ?

Re: TS -- Peter Weir's preferred framing is 1.66:1, however, theatrically it was projected in the U.S. at 1.85:1. If the screen shots are representative of the file(s) on the Blu-ray (many frames that were made from different sources have similar "earmarks", so it seems, indeed, that there is something wrong) then at the very least these contradict the text of some of the reviews they come with, which were just praise of the highest order.

With regard to "intention" -- TS was filmed with spherical lenses 35mm on Eastman EXR 100T and 200T stocks and the Kodak Vision(1) 500T, and no tape sources such as on BLAIRWITCH PROJECT were used and put out to the 35mm Negative; also, the 35mm elements were never played out to videotape (such as D1) and put back out to film again (such as was the case with BREAKING THE WAVES) to achieve the video look. Peter Weir always goes for detail, and the photography indicates that pretty clearly (choice of highly textured costumes being one of them). So, the severe loss in detail (all high frequency information) on these screen shots, if an accurate representation of the Blu-ray, is, in fact, contradicting his original intent. The 35mm elements I remember being shown were also considerably more detailed. The horizontal stretching is not part of the original, either.

[Jeff Kleist]

Mr. Kaiser is an expert here, and I bow to his superior knowlege as a more definitive answer without access to Mr. Weir or Mr. Anderson

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Mr. Kaiser is an expert here, and I bow to his superior knowlege as a more definitive answer without access to Mr. Weir or Mr. Anderson

Many thanks to both of you for your responses.

[woodlandwolf]

I just read on TVSHOWSONDVD.COM that South Park Season 12 blu is in widescreen. They say the HD masters are in wide, now my question is how many seasons are in wide then?

And also said its in 1080i. Now what is the difference in 1080i and 1080p. And in the furture could itbe higher then that or will it all ways be in 1080p.

Thanks,

Woodlandwolf

[Jeff Kleist]

South Park is delievered just in time, a few hours before broadcast so it is rendered 1080i. Comedy Central just went HD, so no previous seasons had been created in it

http://desktop.thomsongrassvalley.co...interlaced.php

will explain it

I don't expect any resolutions over 1080p at home for at least 20 years. Higher res will be the realm of movie theaters. Given the usual size of home televisions, even 1080p is overkill for the majority of people. Your TV will automatically de-interlace the signal, it shouldn't make a difference for you

[woodlandwolf]

Jeff thank you very much for that info. That makes sense and now I can explane this to my family and freinds, so thank you very much.

Now for the next fun question, my dad was asking me this one. Why isnt most movies done in 7.1 if its out there. And does it really matter for sound if its 7.1 or 5.1? And when it comes to lossless, does that really matter for some films? If a movie is 1.0 or 2.0 would that make it sound better or about the same?

Thanks,

Woodlandwolf

[GGX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm looking at EH right now, looking for circles to go oval and such

I think what you're seeing is intentional photographic trickery to increase unease, that people are only noticing for the first time on larger TVs combined with the typical distortion you get from anamorphic lenses. I put in an inquiry on both titles to Paramount, but my source is iextremely familiar with EH and he doesn't see it either, but concurs with that hypothesis. Notice how many ovals (intentional extreme ovals) are used in the design.

I think this is a good thread to refer to for The Truman Show:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1103757

[Jeff Kleist]

Now for the next fun question, my dad was asking me this one. Why isnt most movies done in 7.1 if its out there. And does it really matter for sound if its 7.1 or 5.1? And when it comes to lossless, does that really matter for some films? If a movie is 1.0 or 2.0 would that make it sound better or about the same?

Because 5.1 is theatrical standard. You can get the same effect by enabling various processing modes on your receiver, they're just doing it for you in an engineering booth. So no, it doesn't matter. Some films are mixed for Dolby surround EX that adds a phantom rear channel, but again, it's not standard. 7.1 is only not 6.1 because they split that rear channel to remove its directionality and make it sound more natural

[MerrickG]

Hey Jeff,

Do you know if Universal plans to release the 2005 thriller, Breach on bluray this year? I know its on HD-DVD and would love to see it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

[FONT="Tahoma"]
Re: TS -- Peter Weir's preferred framing is 1.66:1, however, theatrically it was projected in the U.S. at 1.85:1. If the screen shots are representative of the file(s) on the Blu-ray (many frames that were made from different sources have similar "earmarks", so it seems, indeed, that there is something wrong) then at the very least these contradict the text of some of the reviews they come with, which were just praise of the highest order.

It does look like they took a 1.66 master and stretched it to fill 1.78

Would those slight pillarbox bars really be that much of a dealbreaker for Paramount?

[Michael.Schinke]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It does look like they took a 1.66 master and stretched it to fill 1.78

Would those slight pillarbox bars really be that much of a dealbreaker for Paramount?

Its beginning to look like many of the studios are learning bad habits as to what the lowest common denominator of consumers is willing to accept in a Blu-ray presentation. Thus, instead of swinging for the fences with every release, they are content to just hit ground ball singles. Lowest possible investment for the most modest of returns.

[Michael.Schinke]

I've often wondered, in terms of the visual presentation of a film, is the intent to accurately reproduce the material from whatever given source is available or is it to present the movie in what is considered to be the best possible manner? Take a movie like Patton, which is a film that gets a lot of knocks for DNR processing. Now, was the transfer or encoding just plain wrecked and no one at WB thought it was important, or was the decision made in order to compensate for what was considered a sub par source?

[Jeff Kleist]

The Truman show master has been done for a long time (remember it was supposed to be an early title). My guess is that someone looked at it and didn't see a problem with it and put it out. The only time you see a problem, aside from the medium level DNR is when you compare the 2

Honestly, the side bars on 1.66:1 are so minor it's a non-issue, I don't even notice them 90% of the time. It seems as if both discs are the result of a clueless telecine operator.

Before anyone asks, don't expect either disc to be redone or for there to be some kind of statement. It's highly unlikely because in the end neither problem is really that severe.

If Mr. Weir is a DGA member, I would hope that someone would inform him about this, because obviously they forgot to have him look at it. I know that was the case with one Oscar winning director who was shocked when I emailed him and told him that an obscure film of his was hitting DVD, they hadn't even told him, let alone called him in for his DGA required approval on the new anamorphic transfer

[nick1091]

Jeff et al,

Thanks for all the info in this thread. Just a few questions hopefully you might provide an answer to:

1. At the same time Universal Soldier was announced, Lionsgate teased a release of Angel Heart. Is this title still in the works, and if so, any idea when we'll see it?

2. Also, any idea if/when Anchor Bay/Starz will release the second season of Masters of Horror?

Thanks in advance for any reply.

[Jeff Kleist]

1- No, sorry

2- Anchor Bay is undergoing some changes right now, so while I remain hopeful, I couldn't say either way

[woodlandwolf]

Thank you for the info on 7.1 and 5.1. And also thank you for not giving us BS, you just say it how it is and you get to the point.

When is somes to realesing a title on any format, what makes a studio do one title over a another. Just like with dvd we had the Batman films before we had the Superman films, and then on blu, we had at lease some Supermans first then Batman. Just wondering how these studios work and think.

Thanks,

Woodlandwolf

[Jeff Kleist]

Commercial tie-ins and past performance for the most part. New |Batman movie, batman release. John Travolta has a career resurgance, get his stuff out etc etc

People hate Superman 2 and 3, and Batman 3 and 4 do suprising well overseas. WB did the 2 Superman movies that connected to Returns and left it at that