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

[DanFan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I think you asked it before, and I sent it in

Ok, thanks. I hadn't seen a response.

[dcowboy7]

Any chance of them releasing "seinfeld" on blu in the 16x9 format that they now show in the syndication runs ?

[Jeff Kleist]

Seinfeld will come out eventually, whether it's the 16:9 version or not I don't know considering that it isn't the usual chop n crop. They have HD masters of both

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Any chance of them releasing "seinfeld" on blu in the 16x9 format that they now show in the syndication runs ?

Here comes the "preserve the original aspect ratio" comments in 3..2..

[MerrickG]

Hey Jeff,

Much to my delight it seems that Universal has finally given the go for a third Riddick film that will have the harder edge.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/168...w-plot-details.
The link above contains minor potential film spoilers so keep that in mind.

Upon reading this I am glad that they have decided to return the series to the simple storyline present in Pitch Black, but upon reading this I do have to wonder if they are essentially remaking Pitch Black.

From the above link:

[Show spoiler]"Things turn to hell though with Riddick left for dead on a harsh planet with three moons, populated with nasty creatures like trisons and mud demons, and being hunted by two shipfuls of mercenaries."

Doesnt that sound almost EXACTLY like Pitch Black?

Is that what we really want to see? Although I cant really see them make another Riddick film without it telling a story similar to Pitch Black.

Although, I wouldnt mind if they just made a live adaption of Escape from Butcher Bay.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Well, expect to continue to be dissapointed, because that's the way the movies are. DNR was applied in the post production of the film and you watched it on the prints in the theater.

Jeff,

I'm really trying to understand this! It's as though I fell asleep in about 1998 and recently awakened in a new culture, as far as technical things go. The disconcerting thing is I'm not very often seeing the PQ I could see back then. I still have 20-20 vision with glasses.

• In regard to LOTR prints released in analog to theaters, are you talking about just the special effects, or the shots of people? Why is DNR applied to a film that will be shown in the theaters ... special effects aside, for shots of actors or natural settings, why is this necessary, when it was not before the digital age? Many films just before that dawn were sharp, detailed, relatively grainless and involving. In the decades before that, there were some films I could describe that way.
• Was Star Trek subjected to DNR or other digital processing before being released to theaters? I don't know for sure whether I saw a digital or analog presentation, but the facial shots were very sharp and detailed, and you could see every sharp pore in the young Spock's face -- I liked that! The close-ups reminded me of the old 70 mm. That PQ is good enough, so was it digitally processed, and if so what processes were used?
• If you were preparing films for very large screen presentation in theaters or high end Home Theater, what would you do .. what processes would you use?

[Jeff Kleist]

Every movie you see coming out today has had DNR and other processing applied to it. DNR is a tool like any other. It can be used to match different film stocks, and as Penton has noted in the past, the face is no longer a good place to look because all the actors are demanding that they be softened up so they look better. FOTR was created at the dawn of these tools

Comparing JJTrek and LOTR is completely apples and oranges. They're two completely different films shooting for completely different looks on radically different film stocks, one using tools 4-5 generations older than the other etc etc etc.

Budget not being a factor, I'd shoot my film in IMAX for a fine grained stock at super high resolution. What processing I'd use would be entirely dictated by the kind of film I was making, the mood and a dozen other factors.

[garyrc]

Thanks, Jeff.

True Imax has a level of pq I love!

[Jeff Kleist]

A good thing to look at these tools in action- Compare Lost season 1 to season 5, you'll notice all the fatial detail went away sometime in season 4 (which honestly helps since it was supposed to be 6 months not 7 years )

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

A good thing to look at these tools in action- Compare Lost season 1 to season 5, you'll notice all the fatial detail went away sometime in season 4 (which honestly helps since it was supposed to be 6 months not 7 years )

Thanks, I will. I will rent them just to take a look.

Yet, I was looking at Kate's face a few weeks ago [in the current BROADCAST LOST] and it had a great deal of detail, with "character lines," a pock-like mark and at least one so-called blemish, all of which made her all the more beautiful! Human faces, with the ambivalences, passions, and thoughts either showing, or being tellingly supressed, are both beautiful and make for three dimentional characters. I'm looking forward to seeing all their faces again tonight.

[NL197]

Ugly Betty (RIP, I love the show and will miss it dearly) and CSI / CSI Miami are full of heavily DNR'd actresses.

Vanessa Williams and Judith Light on Ugly Betty have so much digital blur on their faces (and even chests) they look almost like CGI characters.

Marg Helgenberger on CSI has undergone the blurring process but not to the same extent, and when the process started it was sloppy, because you would see a shot of her holding an object (say a glass or piece of equipment or paper) and the digital blur would stay in place despite her moving, and whatever moved into the area being blurred where her face was would end up blurred as well!

I've noticed it is regularly used on Emily Procter and once or twice on David Caruso on CSI Miami.

[NL197]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Thanks, I will. I will rent them just to take a look.

Yet, I was looking at Kate's face a few weeks ago [in the current BROADCAST LOST] and it had a great deal of detail, with "character lines," a pock-like mark and at least one so-called blemish, all of which made her all the more beautiful! Human faces, with the ambivalences, passions, and thoughts either showing, or being tellingly supressed, are both beautiful and make for three dimentional characters. I'm looking forward to seeing all their faces again tonight.

I'll never forget Rebecca Mader's first appearance on LOST, a flashback to her research in Tunisia and there was an extreme close-up on her face and you could see every freckle, every pore...and it was just beauty defined. I was mesmerized by that one scene.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Thanks, I will. I will rent them just to take a look.

Yet, I was looking at Kate's face a few weeks ago [in the current BROADCAST LOST] and it had a great deal of detail, with "character lines," a pock-like mark and at least one so-called blemish, all of which made her all the more beautiful! Human faces, with the ambivalences, passions, and thoughts either showing, or being tellingly supressed, are both beautiful and make for three dimentional characters. I'm looking forward to seeing all their faces again tonight.

While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying - if you are trying to present a 6 month span with 7 years worth of work, DNR applied to faces isn't a commentary on beauty.

That said, Lost actually spans 3 years+ unless I'm confused.

[Jeff Kleist]

yes, sorry, 3 years now. It used to be a month a season

[jaaguir]

Jeff, the "Out of Africa" dvd is reported to have the image horizontally stretched (like it was 1.66 and then they wanted to fill the 16:9 screens). Any idea if the blu-ray will be a corrected version? (I'm thinking of blind-buying due to a discount offer on Amazon).

Thanks

[Jeff Kleist]

No idea, I don't know anyone who has seen it

[Mr. Cinema]

I ordered Nightmare on Elm Street last night and it will be delivered tomorrow. I was excited to watch it until I started reading several comments about there being some audio-sync issues happening throughout the film.

Have you or Bill watched this one yet?

[Jeff Kleist]

No I haven't

Make sure you account for bad ADR It becomes more obvious when you watch it on bigger sets

[cjamescook]

Speaking of new releases, Jeff, over on the Upcoming DVD Artwork page at the Digital Bits there are a number of (re)releases on blu-ray that are annotated "WS" or "SPEC". For example,

Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) (Spec) [Blu-ray]

Day After Tomorrow (2004) (Ws) [Blu-ray]
Independence Day (Ws) [Blu-ray]
Fight Club (Ws) [Blu-ray]

I immediately translated "WS" to mean "WideScreen", but then started scratching my head. I mean, doesn't blu-ray automatically mean that a movie is widescreen if at all possible? And given that these three movies had already been released once in blu-ray, what is the difference with these new editions?

As for "Spec", I'm guessing that means "Special Edition", but I thought the current release of the Day the Earth Stood Still was pretty special other than one or two things missing from the previous DVD release.

[Jeff Kleist]

Movies are resolicited all the time. They're just little catalog annotation, butsy come with some kind of promotion like moviecash attached. Unless a big deal is made out of it, it's safe to assume it's the same thing