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

[Nick Graham]

Bill spent 90 minutes meeting with Universal's Senior Technical Team? Not bad for a lowly "blogger"
who has come here only to try and prop up his dying site.

In all seriousness, it's great to hear how receptive Universal was - while Spartacus and Out Of Africa were bad, hopefully in the end they will just been seen as anomalies.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

We?

What position are you playing?

Armchair quarterback. The best position of all because you can play it with a beer and a plate of buffalo wings.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Motivational line coach.

Bill Hunt, aka Matt Foley, motivational speaker, living in a van down by the river

Seriously Bill thanks for trying to convince them that film enthusiasts are not going to buy classics just because they are on Blu. The big reason why WHV's titles have been selling well is because they went the extra mile to ensure a quality product.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Having been on the short end of the stick with Brett Favre all those years he was a Packer, I know EXACTLY how good he is at QB. You bet your asteroids I want him back in Purple. I don't know if we'll win the Superbowl or not this year. But I know we've got a real shot at it now, just as we did last year. And I know this: It's going to be another fun season.

Not to mention the Twins are having a great season and look even stronger than last year.

[johndoyle123]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Bill Hunt, aka Matt Foley, motivational speaker, living in a van down by the river

Seriously Bill thanks for trying to convince them that film enthusiasts are not going to buy classics just because they are on Blu. The big reason why WHV's titles have been selling well is because they went the extra mile to ensure a quality product.

bill ..... im shocked .... we moan enough as it is

we all know where to head with the burning torches if they decide to "CUT-DOWN"

[Bobby Henderson]

A lot of attention has been paid to the video mastering of Aliens (and the other movies in the saga). What about the audio? I assume the Alien Anthology box set will feature DTS-HD Master Audio tracks for all the movies. I wonder if any new work is being done with the original audio elements in creating the new lossless surround audio tracks.

Originally Posted by Craig W

The big reason why WHV's titles have been selling well is because they went the extra mile to ensure a quality product.

WHV puts forth a good effort on some of their Blu-ray titles. But they don't treat all of their titles right. And I absolutely hate (and avoid) their rental Blu-ray discs.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

A lot of attention has been paid to the video mastering of Aliens (and the other movies in the saga). What about the audio? I assume the Alien Anthology box set will feature DTS-HD Master Audio tracks for all the movies.

Yes, I believe even the music-only tracks will be lossless too.

I wonder if any new work is being done with the original audio elements in creating the new lossless surround audio tracks.

The original release formats (not including the 35MM Dolby Stereo versions):

ALIEN: 70MM 4.2, 35MM 5.1 digital SE re-release
ALIENS: 70MM 4.2
ALIEN3: 70MM SR 5.1
ALIEN RESURRECTION: 35MM 5.1 digital

I believe they received 5.1 remixes on all the films, and the first 2 will have the original 4 channel mixes in Dolby Digital.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Sorry, yes. I meant 4K. In general, I think a higher resolution initial scan of the film elements captures more fine image detail, that's retained even when you downconvert for 1920x1080 BD release.

So do you think that the additional fine detail in an even higher resolution scan of the original film elements would make for a subtly more detailed BD? I think the 65 mm negative for Baraka was scanned at 8K before being downconverted to BD, and I think that RAH said that 8K was enough to fully capture the detail of the 65 mm neg of Lawrence of Arabia.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by garyrc

So do you think that the additional fine detail in an even higher resolution scan of the original film elements would make for a subtly more detailed BD? I think the 65 mm negative for Baraka was scanned at 8K before being downconverted to BD, and I think that RAH said that 8K was enough to fully capture the detail of the 65 mm neg of Lawrence of Arabia.

Yes, up to a certain point, I think the higher resolution the initial scan, the greater the amount of fine detail is going to be preserved in the resulting Blu-ray master. Robert and Penton can probably weigh in here, but I believe that's the basic principle. Of course, the higher the resolution, the more expensive the process, so there's a cost/benefit analysis involved. Some studios are willing to spend the money, others maybe not so much.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Yes, up to a certain point, I think the higher resolution the initial scan, the greater the amount of fine detail is going to be preserved in the resulting Blu-ray master. Robert and Penton can probably weigh in here, but I believe that's the basic principle. Of course, the higher the resolution, the more expensive the process, so there's a cost/benefit analysis involved. Some studios are willing to spend the money, others maybe not so much.

Really it is just Nyquist's Theorem. In order to fully capture video for 1920x1080 displays they should be scanning at least at 2x for both dimensions(3840x2160). Its basically the reason the 4k+ scans are delivering more HD-like results. Scaling does cause issues also. Trying to scale something down from something that is not an even multiple of 1920x1080 can cause issues also.

Also Joe Kane I believe is a proponent of using 2k elements with a slight modification of the aspect ratio (ie. cut the sides off to meet the 1920 x 1080 HD pixel resolution). According to JK, it provides a much better image than trying to use complex algorithm to change 2048 to 1920 and for a 1.85 film it really does not affect the 2K vertical resolution of 1108 much since the sets are not 1.85:1, but 1.78:1, aka 16:9, less than 30 lines of veritical resolution would be affected. So really you would only end up losing about 120 lines of horizontal resolution, 128 to be exact or 64lines/side, in the horizontal frame. I can live with that compromise, but I am sure some want every single speck of the original presentation.


I wonder sometimes if the soft pictures and DNR that are screamed to high heaven have more to do with some companies using complex algorithms to change 2k captures to HD resolutions. Remember when doing this operation every pixel is an approximation of what was contained in the original source.

[Bobby Henderson]

I have posted this link at the E-Film website at least a couple times before. I think it clearly shows the benefits of scanning at higher resolutions then down-sampling to the target resolution.

The Bayer pattern of the square pixel grid has lots of built in problem that wreak havoc on details like diagonal lines, frequency sweeps, striped patterns, etc. Straight 1:1 scans and output may result in lower levels of captured detail, not to mention problems with moiré.

There are challenges in down-sampling too. Need to use the right techniques to avoid problems when reducing the image to the final target size.

[NL197]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes, I believe even the music-only tracks will be lossless too.

I for one am hoping the isolated scores won't be simple 2.0 stereo, lossless or not. I hope the original mixes are going to be used, as most DVDs featured surround isolated scores.

[micks_address]

It would be a great outcome if they could redo Spartacus.. even the way Paramount/Universal (Europe) have redone Gladiator.. and rather than a recall, let folks decide if they want to replace their copy or not.. they dont have to make a big fanfare of it.. even if they redid this one title, would go a long way to establish confidence with the 'enthusiasts' market.. as you put it..

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

I DID strongly suggest to them that they revisit at least Spartacus. That would go a long way towards restoring the goodwill with enthusiasts. I made the point a couple times, and even again today in an e-mail. So we'll see. The main thing is to start a dialogue and see what comes of it. That's more than I've seen done thus far. The Uni folks seemed to understand and get it. When we look back a year from now at the overall quality of their catalog product, we'll know one way or the other.

[kpkelley]

Jeff,

With the announcement of the October releases of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge from Fox, is there any word from Sony(I believe they have the rights) on the third member of The Red Curtain Trilogy, Strictly Ballroom?

Also, any update on the Hamlet inquiry?

TIA

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Yes, up to a certain point, I think the higher resolution the initial scan, the greater the amount of fine detail is going to be preserved in the resulting Blu-ray master. Robert and Penton can probably weigh in here, but I believe that's the basic principle. Of course, the higher the resolution, the more expensive the process, so there's a cost/benefit analysis involved. Some studios are willing to spend the money, others maybe not so much.

The phrase "up to a certain point" and the right way to downconvert are among the key factors in this equasion. An 8K scan does not do you any good if the material you want to process barely scratches the 3.5K level at its peak. It merely makes for good advertisement. But scanning a Normal or S35 at 4K for preservation and depending on the priority (such as Digital Cinema) even distibution does make a lot of sense. As was correctly mentioned before here, another key element in that chain is the right way of downconverting. If done wrong it potentially can lead to significant loss in detail by adding artifacts.

As for 4K or 2K being the essential "must" for Blu-ray mastering, its is not that clear cut. Bill, I noticed in your article reflecting on that Universal meeting (an interesting read) the comments made by the reps re: 1080p mastering - i.e. the claim that a native High Definition telecine transfer is ALWAYS a problem for Blu-ray consumption, suggesting 2K at least has to be there as a basis. Put that generally, I would have to say: No, not really. It very much depends on what you transfer, how, on what and how you viewed it while working on it. A wonderfully developed negative or excellent IP in very experienced hands on a SPIRIT DATACINE with a 100" projected screen or greater (either perfectly measured True HD or 2K DCI, even better) together with larger, wel calibrated monitors could result in an excellent rendition for a Blu-ray disc, I am sure.

Can 2K or 4K expand on that ? Yes, but only if done exactly as good in terms of quality craft during the mastering stages as its HD SPIRIT counterpart. And don't forget the cost factor, especially at the 4K level and above. Would it make a huge difference ? That depends very much on the material, the way it was "treated" and how it was downconverted, its original AR (flat 1.85:1 would have little gain in 2K vs HD, while 1.37 and even 1.66 can benefit greatly; an anamorphic element scanned in 2K is perfect for oversampling) being a great factor as well. Worked on in an environment where the monitor is not reference and properly calibrated and/or too small the whole scanning at greater resolution can end up potentially worth zipp. That was also the key problem with the most of Universal's (and other's) native HD masters. Not the native 1080p telecine transfers per se at all - but much rather the choice of elements and most of all monitoring while mastering. The monitors were mostly to small, often even poorly aligned. At that point it becomes a guessing game. When viewed on big screens, it is no surprise that often everything falls apart. I remember being ridiculed for the fact that we used 2K projection screens (130" minimum then [2003], now 240") during our work in mastering and restoration. "What do you need this for" a rep from a big studio asked. Three years after, 3 projection suites were created on the lot he worked.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Really it is just Nyquist's Theorem. In order to fully capture video for 1920x1080 displays they should be scanning at least at 2x for both dimensions(3840x2160). Its basically the reason the 4k+ scans are delivering more HD-like results. Scaling does cause issues also. Trying to scale something down from something that is not an even multiple of 1920x1080 can cause issues also.

Also Joe Kane I believe is a proponent of using 2k elements with a slight modification of the aspect ratio (ie. cut the sides off to meet the 1920 x 1080 HD pixel resolution). According to JK, it provides a much better image than trying to use complex algorithm to change 2048 to 1920 and for a 1.85 film it really does not affect the 2K vertical resolution of 1108 much since the sets are not 1.85:1, but 1.78:1, aka 16:9, less than 30 lines of veritical resolution would be affected. So really you would only end up losing about 120 lines of horizontal resolution, 128 to be exact or 64lines/side, in the horizontal frame. I can live with that compromise, but I am sure some want every single speck of the original presentation.


I wonder sometimes if the soft pictures and DNR that are screamed to high heaven have more to do with some companies using complex algorithms to change 2k captures to HD resolutions. Remember when doing this operation every pixel is an approximation of what was contained in the original source.

JK has a very valid point. I see it in much the same way. But scaling (output quality) also very much depends on with what you do the scaling. Some CC consoles work quite well, others don't do so hot at all. Clipster can do nice things, Baselight, so does S&W. The 2K = HD variant works best if you already plan it during the actual scan to the t. You can make it fit perfectly then, and get the scanners performance (another key factor) as an "add on", which of course, is the goal.

[Oliver_A]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The number of people who won't buy it because it's the SE probably number in the hundreds at best. It's a very vocal minority.

Whatever reason Lucas gives at any particular time, the real reason is that he doesn't ever want to see those versions again because they frustrate him creatively to no end.

Then why did they actually release the original versions in 2006? And even transferred the original 1977 opening for the very first time on home video from original elements?

Sorry, but the 2006 release contradicts both the "100 fans" and "George doesn't ever want to see them again" theory.

I personally think that the original trilogy deserves the same treatment as Blade Runner. Preserving their original, award winning special effects is preserving the history of modern cinema for future generations.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Oliver_A

Then why did they actually release the original versions in 2006? And even transferred the original 1977 opening for the very first time on home video from original elements?

Jeff might be right that only a relatively small number of "otherwise-purchasers" might skip the release for lack of the original versions, but I would bet that a rather large segment of the audience for this set would be interested in having them included, would prefer them to be included at the expense of any number of other extra features and/or the revised versions and might be a lot more enthused and ready/excited to pay a premium price for the set because of their inclusion. It might not be a deal-breaker for that many, but that doesn't mean that it's unimportant to them.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Oliver_A

Then why did they actually release the original versions in 2006? And even transferred the original 1977 opening for the very first time on home video from original elements?

Sorry, but the 2006 release contradicts both the "100 fans" and "George doesn't ever want to see them again" theory.

I personally think that the original trilogy deserves the same treatment as Blade Runner. Preserving their original, award winning special effects is preserving the history of modern cinema for future generations.

They did not transfer the original 1977 opening to the 2006 "original" DVD versions.

In fact, the release was really a slap in the face to fans. They merely re-used the existing master for the 1995 VHS and laser disc and threw it on the DVD. The 2006 "original" versions are NON-ANAMOPHIC which rendered them essentially useless to anyone with a large, high quality HD display. Aside from that, they are poor quality even for non-anamorphic DVD standards.

However, I do believe, one day, Lucas will release the originals on BD as Star Wars is and always will be a revenue stream. They are already now calling them the "classic" versions so I can just imagine the marketing in several years when these get announced.

"Due to popular demand, the original, classic versions fully restored in the higest quality possible for Blu-ray have arrived for a limited time only at $99.95 MSRP."

[garyrc]

RE: What makes for a high PQ BD ... Wow, what a wealth of information, guys! Thanks to all of you!

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

I remember being ridiculed for the fact that we used 2K projection screens (130" minimum then [2003], now 240") during our work in mastering and restoration. "What do you need this for" a rep from a big studio asked. Three years after, 3 projection suites were created on the lot he worked.

I hope that studio decision makers now know all of this stuff (unlike the rep mentioned above) -- and I hope they know that we consumers care.

But ... I vaguely remember when, in the '70s, either Douglas Trumbull or John Dykstra (which one was it?) said that several Hollywood executives he ran into didn't seem to know what a sprocket hole was, and were not aware that film usually moved at 24 fps. I'm guessing that this was not literally true, but was a way to say that they weren't particularly well educated in the technical aspects of their field.

No matter how uninformed some may be, at screenings (on a sufficiently large and high resolution screen) they could say something like "This doesn't look sharp and detailed enough ... fix it!"