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

[Xorp]

I'm not doing any "science" like comparing to other shots, zooming, or manipulating, just saying there's a crap load of grain there and its all very well resolved with almost invisible artifacting. Would you say untouched scans could have even more?

[Jeff Kleist]

ve noticed that these days the time between a movie going from theaters to home video, where it effectively "leaves existence" for a lil while has gotten much shorter versus how it was in the 80s and 90s. Is there any particular reason why?

Also on that note, Taken is set for release on May, barely 3 months after its theater debut. How'd that happen so fast? Does this have anything to do with the fact that it actually played in theaters overseas over a year ago?

Internet piracy, overseas piracy, the death of rental windows, the syncing of overseas releases (that's a big one) among other things. There's no need to keep it away because you have to move fast these days

Actually you'll find most movies, by the time they leave theaters on a minimum 4 week run will be in hotels the week after they split the theater

SW Episode 1 my friends and I had a party when the local hotel got it. $79 for the room, $5 for the rental split 5 ways, several fifths split 5 ways, and MST3K night

Good times

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I'm not doing any "science" like comparing to other shots, zooming, or manipulating, just saying there's a crap load of grain there and its all very well resolved with almost invisible artifacting. Would you say untouched scans could have even more?

What I'm saying is that even purist companies like Criterion have admitted that some degree of grain reduction is often neccessary in order to achieve a final Blu-ray product that looks like an actual film print. You brought up Criterion as your example of a company that does not use grain reduction, I was merely pointing out that very recently they said that they do in fact use some grain reduction in the preparation of their masters. The fact that nobody knew this until they admitted it simply proves my point- that grain reduction can be used and be used well, so long as the folks using it know what they are doing and don't overdo it. The end result should be a Blu-ray that looks like an approved show-print, and sometimes some grain reduction might be neccessary in order to achieve that goal.

Vincent

[cembros]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

What I'm saying is that even purist companies like Criterion have admitted that some degree of grain reduction is often neccessary in order to achieve a final Blu-ray product that looks like an actual film print. You brought up Criterion as your example of a company that does not use grain reduction, I was merely pointing out that very recently they said that they do in fact use some grain reduction in the preparation of their masters.

Vincent

could you provide a source for your statments

[Xorp]

Right here it sounds like absolutely no grain was removed from The Third Man: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8602

Vincent is probably referring to this: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...5-post200.html
But they said they MAY tone it down, no guarantee every release is slightly degrained. I still feel confident El Norte was untouched

[Musashi]

Thanks Jeff!

Guys, there's actually a thread on BD Tech and Discussion about film grain. I wasn't looking to bring the discussion here. I was more making a funny about Q's sig than anything else.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I'm not doing any "science" like comparing to other shots, zooming, or manipulating.....

Good to hear.

And to all new membership, we sort of frown on that 'faux science' hereabouts.
Why?

There are many reasons for that, one being noted by myself back in Jan. of this year, namely unbeknownst to some viewers, the cherry picking of different frames by some *screenshot scientists*……
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ng#post1570353

which in fact, we caught a previous member doing here (among other manipulative things) with screenshot comparisons, who has since moved on with his *PIX* to redder pastures and more gullible readers and moderators.

What I’m referring to for people that don’t understand is that you can post a screenshot of what appears to be exactly the same image with one in reality being a “B” frame of the encode and the other being an “I” frame of another encode. However, since B frames are quantized higher than I frames, I frames will appear worse. People have no proof that they are actually viewing exactly comparable frames (B/B or I/I) as being presented by these *scientists* for these comparisons.

Enthusiasts should also not underestimate the importance of viewing motion pictures in real-time. For example, if one were to post a screenshot from the Blu-ray encode of Click or Black Hawk Down and post side by side a screenshot from the exact same frame of the D5 master of Click or Black Hawk Down, one would see a noticeable increase in the picture quality of the screenshots from the HD masters but, so what?

As this matters little to nothing in terms of significance when watching the movie in real-time on a 1080p display, like it was meant to be seen and in which viewers during this demo could determine no significant difference between the Blu-ray and the HD master itself……………..
http://www.avforums.com/forums/blu-r...on-eklund.html < In fact, if I recall without reading that post in its entirety, one experienced home theater enthusiast thought the BD of Click was the D5 master, and vice versa, plus that demo was with the old mpeg2 codec!

Screenshots are fun and valuable for people to get a general idea of the quality of a Blu-ray movie but, to use them for critical determination of picture quality or as some kind of *scientific* standard that is translatable into real-time viewing is just baloney or ‘faux-science’.

[jw]

Originally Posted by Beast

Now... back to the thread. Jeff or Bill...

Any word on extras for the TMNT Blu-Ray Boxset?

All the swag is nice, but some substantial extras would be nicer swag.

Please tell me they're not gonna cheap out with barebones for the older films.

found this
tmnt details.jpg

after you get through the junk, I have no idea whats gonna be on the discs

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

Im curious of your opinion on the new Wolverine movie.

I thought it was pretty good actually. Very enjoyable and Liev Schreiber was perfectly cast as Sabretooth. So much so that it made Tyler Mane's rendition lame, too and I wish they would refilm those scenes from the first one and replace Tyler Mane with Schreiber.

I also thought Danny Huston made a better Striker.

Bottom line:
Not a classic, but if you want to see a film about WOlverine kicking ass. It works.

[Jeff Kleist]

Tyler Mane was chosen because he was big and blond, not because they thought he could act

It's funny because Danny Huston was aping the guy from X2, the way he should do. Mannerisms, vocal inflections, all very close

I wonder if Fox cut the finishing budget on the SFX because a lot of them looked very digital, and the body double they shoved the Patrick Stewart "young" CG mask on, man that looked terrible.

Wolverine's origin has changed so many times, I have no idea what the official current version is.

They definately should have shot Gambit's scenes as late as possilbe to get Josh Holloway in there though, he really would be perfect

All in all, it was OK, it wasn't great, wasn't horrible. The first hour was pretty good

[Beast]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

found this
Attachment 6009

after you get through the junk, I have no idea whats gonna be on the discs

I like some of the swag. But a beanie? Seriously?

They do realize that a lot of people buying these are old farts who grew up with the Turtles.

The pizza disc art is fantastic though. Just hope we get some decent extras for the trilogy.

[SBrooks1]

Jeff, with Grease coming out next week, any plans for Grease 2?

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Originally Posted by racerx1965

Any word if there will be Steelbook versions of the forthcoming 'The Man With the Golden Gun' and 'License To Kill' on May 12? I just have a hard time believing they would release the first nine in Steelbooks and not the remaining titles...


Thanks!

thats what im saying id hate to have to sell my steelbooks for reg versions to match them up please anyone with news on this please advise us

also when do you think bits will review the trek films thanks

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Fanboys are we getting a blu ray ? its a wonderful film quite moving in some ways esp as geeky as me and my friends are I think we would go to the lengths in the movie for each other

[Jeff Kleist]

No domestic Blu for Fanboys, like was said before, pretty much anything not high profile form Weinstein, don't hope for Blu for the forseeable future

We'll review the Trek films when we get them, I hope early next week, but they aren't even in the Paramount warehouse as of Thursday night when I last checked

Nothing for Grease 2 I'm aware of

If you haven't seen steels up for order on License to Kill or Golden Gun, guess you have to hope a retailer has them

[JonBidinger]

Jeff, do you think that it is possible that Universal will release Halloween II to tie into Rob Zombie's new Halloween flick in August?

[Jeff Kleist]

Probably not, but you never know

[bajor27]

Originally Posted by Beast

I like some of the swag. But a beanie? Seriously?

They do realize that a lot of people buying these are old farts who grew up with the Turtles.

The pizza disc art is fantastic though. Just hope we get some decent extras for the trilogy.

Beanie... Silly Americans. It's a toque!

I too love the disc art. Kinda hate the box, and really want to see what they are using for case artwork - I didn't mind the look of the most recent DVDs. Still a bit disappointed that TMNT is being included though

[bajor27]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No domestic Blu for Fanboys, like was said before, pretty much anything not high profile form Weinstein, don't hope for Blu for the forseeable future

We'll review the Trek films when we get them, I hope early next week, but they aren't even in the Paramount warehouse as of Thursday night when I last checked

Nothing for Grease 2 I'm aware of

If you haven't seen steels up for order on License to Kill or Golden Gun, guess you have to hope a retailer has them

You mention no domestic Blu. Do you mean North America, or just USA. I ask mainly because Amazon.ca is still showing that a Blu is coming and shows that it's being released by Alliance. The box art they have shown for the DVD release has an Alliance logo on it, so I'm guessing they definitely do own the rights to the home video release in Canada.

I know Alliance is next to impossible to get information from, but do you have any info on this possible release?

[Anthony P]

You mention no domestic Blu. Do you mean North America, or just USA. I ask mainly because Amazon.ca is still showing that a Blu is coming and shows that it's being released by Alliance. The box art they have shown for the DVD release has an Alliance logo on it, so I'm guessing they definitely do own the rights to the home video release in Canada.

I know Alliance is next to impossible to get information from, but do you have any info on this possible release?

I don't know, but Alliance is a different studio then Weinstein and so is not affected by them.

PS that is why we have some other titles that are not released or where released later in the US.