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

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The Blu-rays are sourced from the resulting masters just as he describes

Thanks for that. That settles it in my mind.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

We know... that's what we're saying. That the current master was sourced from a photochemical print rather than from a DI like the other two films (because some parts of Fellowship were sources from digital files versus other scenes that were live-action all the way to the final print).

But since certain *parts* of Fellowship were printed to that film from DI (the digital effects scenes), those scenes could be ported directly to a new DI without incurring the additional loss of printing to film and then *back* to digital. Then the portions of Fellowship that were "finalized" in the photochemical realm could be scanned at the earliest-generation possible (like the photochemical interpositive rather than print) to gain better resolution. The end result would be an improvevement worth the effort.

Jeffs just stating whats in the piece at the digital bits.I'm just wondering if it just comes down to money to do what your saying. To me the question in my mind is what movies do studios consider important. IMportant enough to put $$ in for a proper transfer.Is lotr any less important then say gone with the wind. How many years old does lotr have to be before its considered for a proper transfer?

If its a case where the studio counldn't get the money to do the right job,ok.I just think the money these 3 movies made for the studio they could have done a better job for the blu-ray movies.They had all the time they needed to make a di for fotr.Its WARNERS ,no surprize here.
I was one that was pissed off at the way PARAMOUNT treated the first 6 STARTREK movies. So i know how some LOTR fans feel.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Yes, I'm not sure which photochemical element it is exactly for Fellowship so rather than state all possibilities every time I mention it I'm saying "print". However, "Print" was precisely the term I saw used in a technical discussion of the source for the current digital transfer of Fellowship in another forum, but like you I'm not convinced that it literally was a final release "print" versus the other earlier-generation photochemical options you mention. [Whatever the case, the photochemical master (whatever it may be) the primary reason that Fellowship has a distinctively flatter, less sharp, and less detailed appearance versus the later two films, and it should be possible to produce a better looking Fellowship by scanning analog sequences from earlier-generation material and then digitally porting DI sequences to assemble a real "DI" for the complete film.

I agree, and I posted the exact same thing here some time ago (I think in Penton's thread) re: combining the DI footage for FELLOWSHIP from the original DI files (provided they are still archived digitally) with fresh scans of the non-DI footage from the OCN to potentially result in a better final Blu-ray. My point is, it muddies the water to keep saying "print" because a lot of folks WILL think you're talking about an actual release print, and there's no way they used a "print" for the FELLOWSHIP transfer, whatever its flaws. Call if "film sourced" or some other terminology to differentiate it from a DI conversion, but to keep saying "print" will just put the wrong idea in a lot of folks' minds.

Vincent

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Hello Penton,

RAH gives a big thumbs up to you guys at Sony with a special mention of Grover:....

He also mentions Shawn Belston from Fox and deservedly so as with the exception of Patton I think that Fox also has a rather good track record of classic releases although they are still not in the same league as Sony as far as I am concerned.

I always thought you and RAH had good taste for the finer things in life.

His ears must have been burning when he typed that because I was literally discussing him with Grover, just a wee bit prior to the time he made that post.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

I agree, and I posted the exact same thing here some time ago (I think in Penton's thread) re: combining the DI footage for FELLOWSHIP from the original DI files (provided they are still archived digitally) with fresh scans of the non-DI footage from the OCN to potentially result in a better final Blu-ray. My point is, it muddies the water to keep saying "print" because a lot of folks WILL think you're talking about an actual release print, and there's no way they used a "print" for the FELLOWSHIP transfer, whatever its flaws. Call if "film sourced" or some other terminology to differentiate it from a DI conversion, but to keep saying "print" will just put the wrong idea in a lot of folks' minds.

Vincent

Vincent,

The continuous use of the term "print" on the web and in the press only occurs because no one is taking the time to make an attempt to educate the public. The concept of OCNs, IPs, dupes and DIs really isn't all that difficult, especially for websites oriented (orientated for our friends in the UK) toward more technical discussions.

One can take it too far. Attempts to discuss shot by shot recombines from newly scanned OCNs, along with bits and pieces of DIs, as necessary for the Fellowship continuity, could make some folks' hair curl.

But in the end, it really isn't that difficult. Much the same as more complex film restoration, where within a single sequence, shots are pulled from OCN, IP, CRI and sep masters toward the creation of a new preservation negative.

Is it doable?

Surely.

Is the expense horrific and beyond the scope of potential income.

Nope.

"It's simply a matter of going."

RAH

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Yes it is, but theatrical 3d should cause you less problems due to larger screen and higher refresh. Check out the coral reef demo, it's the best one

Well, that's just odd, it looks like it's the opposite for me.

Also I think CGI benefits much less from the 3D treatment, I wasn't impressed much by Ice Age and the Astro Boy trailer.

[Penton-Man]

DaViD, Vincent and Robert…Over a month ago, in response to a question posed to me regarding a link to another Michael Pellerin interview, which was similar in content, and actually preceded the Digital Bits interview by a couple of weeks or so, I already commented upon what I saw as the ‘crux’ of the matter, namely the HD master semantic vagary…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3155258

Honestly, with little tado, to put it as simply and economically as possible, I think many home theater enthusiasts would be happy to at least know for certain that a “new” scan was done even of a *lowly* color timed film source like an archival Answer print (if that was the best film source readily available without jumping through a lot of hoops) to produce the “new” HD master for FOTR…rather than essentially repurposing an old HD master into a “new” master like this…
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mi...ray/index.html

To the best of my knowledge, no spokesperson has addressed that simple question with clarity and without equivocation, which is pertinent, given those infamous comparison screenshots which allegedly match up pixel for pixel with an old HDTV broadcast of the movie, if they are indeed accurate….and I'm beginning to doubt anyone ever will answer the question.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol,
I just clicked on the HTF link which was a review of Spartacus by RAH.

I see it got rowdy over there since Oliver K passed along that link.

My advice (esp. to Robert George and Robert Harris) -

Just pick up the phone and call Bob O'Neil at Uni…
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Univer......-a090834018

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I see it got rowdy over there since Oliver K passed along that link.

My advice (esp. to Robert George and Robert Harris) -

Just pick up the phone and call Bob O'Neil at Uni…
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Univer......-a090834018

Penton,

Bob O. is an innocent to all of this. He knows precisely where all of the elements that we produced are, as all the 65s seem congregate in the same area, most likely chatting and drinking after hours. AFAIK, no one asked him to do anything. Or he would.

RAH

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Small reminder: After the laser disc release, George Lucas originally intended to wait for a high definition format before releasing the Star Wars saga again in disk form. It took a fan letter campaign to change his mind about waiting, convincing him to release on DVD. This probably accounts for some of the delay for the DVD release.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

(...)Eh, it was more the fact that he was certain high definition discs would be out in 2002-3ish, and when it failed to materialize and wasn't even close, he did the DVDs

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Be that as it may, he releases Star Wars to home video when he feels he can make the most money for that marketing cycle.

High Definition was not really the key factor in this equasion; Lucasfilm were waiting for a sizable (very sizable) market penetration as well as a significant improvement in development of the DVD format before releasing the films together with a "huge, never before seen" background of the each and every step of the making of the films, "much like you would learn it in film school". Rick McCallum was very keen in stressing that point when we talked about why a DVD release is not imminent just before the premiere of EP 1. High Definition, as one can see on the EP 1 master, was not a defining issue then (yet).

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Vincent,

The continuous use of the term "print" on the web and in the press only occurs because no one is taking the time to make an attempt to educate the public. The concept of OCNs, IPs, dupes and DIs really isn't all that difficult, especially for websites oriented (orientated for our friends in the UK) toward more technical discussions.
One can take it too far. Attempts to discuss shot by shot recombines from newly scanned OCNs, along with bits and pieces of DIs, as necessary for the Fellowship continuity, could make some folks' hair curl.
But in the end, it really isn't that difficult. Much the same as more complex film restoration, where within a single sequence, shots are pulled from OCN, IP, CRI and sep masters toward the creation of a new preservation negative.
Is it doable?
Surely.
Is the expense horrific and beyond the scope of potential income.
Nope.
"It's simply a matter of going."
RAH

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

DaViD, Vincent and Robert…Over a month ago, in response to a question posed to me regarding a link to another Michael Pellerin interview, which was similar in content, and actually preceded the Digital Bits interview by a couple of weeks or so, I already commented upon what I saw as the ‘crux’ of the matter, namely the HD master semantic vagary…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3155258

Honestly, with little tado, to put it as simply and economically as possible, I think many home theater enthusiasts would be happy to at least know for certain that a “new” scan was done even of a *lowly* color timed film source like an archival Answer print (if that was the best film source readily available without jumping through a lot of hoops) to produce the “new” HD master for FOTR…rather than essentially repurposing an old HD master into a “new” master like this…
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mi...ray/index.html

To the best of my knowledge, no spokesperson has addressed that simple question with clarity and without equivocation, which is pertinent, given those infamous comparison screenshots which allegedly match up pixel for pixel with an old HDTV broadcast of the movie, if they are indeed accurate….and I'm beginning to doubt anyone ever will answer the question.

The [very loose] use of the word "print" confuses a lot of people, especially when considering that with the status of the respective element there are also changes in how that particular element has to be handled re: duplication, scanning, color timing etc. The look of a typical print element is often not what people refer to. Yes, a bit more clarity and education would, no doubt, be useful.

Penton -
Re: your comments on the vague statements as to LotR - FotR mastering / choice of master for Blu-ray were spot-on. Having seen the BD disc I find that vague language for a HomeVideo format producer rather disconcerting. Let's put it this way: I find it hard to believe that he would not know the difference between making a new master and using the old to make some changes with some 10 years having passed since... So his answers do leave at least the impression that his being vague was more out of PR necessity [keeping one's cards close] rather than being poorly informed on technical issues.

[Jeff Kleist]

High Definition was not really the key factor in this equasion; Lucasfilm were waiting for a sizable (very sizable) market penetration as well as a significant improvement in development of the DVD format before releasing the films together with a "huge, never before seen" background of the each and every step of the making of the films, "much like you would learn it in film school". Rick McCallum was very keen in stressing that point when we talked about why a DVD release is not imminent just before the premiere of EP 1. High Definition, as one can see on the EP 1 master, was not a defining issue then (yet).

Same info, different angles. He never thought that DVD would hit that bit penetration because the HD formats would hit quickly after

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Penton,

Bob O. is an innocent to all of this. He knows precisely where all of the elements that we produced are, as all the 65s seem congregate in the same area, most likely chatting and drinking after hours. AFAIK, no one asked him to do anything. Or he would.

RAH

I see.
In essence, you’re implying that you personally don’t have any influential contact person over at Uni to make the changes you see fit and necessary for Uni Blu-ray movie nirvana.

So, after my reading of a bunch of posts on that outside forum thread, as a strategic alternative, you and others, for the time being, are preoccupied with publically shaming them into submission to *do the right thing*.

What can I say?
Robert, I don’t want to appear insensitive and I truly sympathize with your professional outrage, disappointment, etc. regarding this latest home media disappointment combined with your strong sense of entitlement as a Blu-ray movie consumer.

Lots of luck with the plan though. I truly wish you the best as I think you’ll need it.
And that Robert George guy, I love his debating skill, not to mention the fact that he seems to travel in the same “shinola” cosmic universe as me but as a lurker?….

(from last March) –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3011246

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Penton -
Re: your comments on the vague statements as to LotR - FotR mastering / choice of master for Blu-ray were spot-on. Having seen the BD disc I find that vague language for a HomeVideo format producer rather disconcerting. Let's put it this way: I find it hard to believe that he would not know the difference between making a new master and using the old to make some changes with some 10 years having passed since... So his answers do leave at least the impression that his being vague was more out of PR necessity [keeping one's cards close] rather than being poorly informed on technical issues.

I'm not a PR guy.

Regardless, it’s not that difficult to be a little bit more forthcoming, esp. when you’re promoting a product or practice.

Heck, I told people a long time ago back in the early days of Blu-ray (when even the format war was still brewing) that in regards to the Blu-ray of The Fifth Element, that the same interpositive was utilized for both HD masters which were the source for the two Blu-ray releases. The difference being, that two different types of film transfer equipment were used. Namely, a flying spot telecine in the original case and a film scanner in the second.

In short, it got a new scan for a new master.

[MerrickG]

Hey Jeff,

Enjoying Alan Wake? Im playing it right now and I must say that Im having an absolute blast with it. My only complain is that the controls can get a little clunky at times especially when you get ambushed.

But the game is immersive and really hooks you to see what happens next.

In short, its Stephen King the video game.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Hey Jeff,

Enjoying Alan Wake? Im playing it right now and I must say that Im having an absolute blast with it. My only complain is that the controls can get a little clunky at times especially when you get ambushed.

But the game is immersive and really hooks you to see what happens next.

In short, its Stephen King the video game.

Red Dead Redemption has blown me away (hated GTA4 with a passion) but RDR is amazing.

Also ModNation Racers is just fantastic, I've spent all weekend playing it with my wife and nine year old and then all my mates on Saturday night!

Another good month for games.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by aygie

Red Dead Redemption has blown me away (hated GTA4 with a passion) but RDR is amazing.

Also ModNation Racers is just fantastic, I've spent all weekend playing it with my wife and nine year old and then all my mates on Saturday night!

Another good month for games.

I didnt hate GTA4 so much, I just felt that it was far too linear for a GTA game. It had next to no side missions and all the "extra" stuff you could amounted to very little in the overall experience.

Thats why I hope the next GTA game is more like Vice City in that the main story missions are rather short, but the length of the game in increased via a lot of side missions.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I didnt hate GTA4 so much, I just felt that it was far too linear for a GTA game. It had next to no side missions and all the "extra" stuff you could amounted to very little in the overall experience.

Thats why I hope the next GTA game is more like Vice City in that the main story missions are rather short, but the length of the game in increased via a lot of side missions.

Vice city is my favourite GTA game

But you should definitely get RDR, its so damn good.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I see.
In essence, you’re implying that you personally don’t have any influential contact person over at Uni to make the changes you see fit and necessary for Uni Blu-ray movie nirvana.

So, after my reading of a bunch of posts on that outside forum thread, as a strategic alternative, you and others, for the time being, are preoccupied with publically shaming them into submission to *do the right thing*.

I'm not attempting to shame anyone into anything. I'm merely making the point that the disc does not represent the film, and is not a worthy addition one's library. This entire situation may be beyond Universal.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I'm not attempting to shame anyone into anything. I'm merely making the point that the disc does not represent the film, and is not a worthy addition one's library. This entire situation may be beyond Universal.

Hmm…has there been any *innovative* editing or deletion of posts in that 6 or 7 page HTF Spartacus thread since I last visited it on Saturday?
Especially any of those exchanges between Robert George, yourself and others?

You know, one of those “pink noise” deletions like of Elizabeth and Out of Africa…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3279638

If not, unless I got the wrong impression, I think you and others made that point quite repetitively and ‘with gusto’.
However, who am I to argue with someone who recognizes the fact that, as you so eloquently stated, “As far as overall quality, I'd have to disagree with your WB assessment, and place Sony at the top of the heap. Warner may spend more, but Sony, release after release, has better overall quality.”
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...0#post_3693168

As long as you feel that ^ way Robert, I have absolutely no problems with your postings.

Carry on, if you are so inclined.