"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Could never win the race as they’ve always had an unfair head-start with a hotline to Amir when he was a V.P.

Now don’t be too hard on them as perhaps they lost it (the detail) in the lights….watch the clip to the very end – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqmRQaKG50

I’m on a beer/baseball theme this weekend.

That clip is really embarassing for the guy!

Regarding Warner: While it may be a bit harsh in the Hamlet thread by Xylon somebody mentioned that Warner had a "corporate mandate to half-ass everything when it comes to quality". Even though this does not seem completely accurate to me I found that to be a funny remark

So I would really like to hear from somebody at Warner about what happened with Hamlet and if we can expect something similar for Ben Hur.

[captveg]

In regards to Hamlet (1996) and the good, but shoulda-been-GREAT transfer...

I'm pretty sure that the disc was essentially supposed to come out back in 2007 on both BD and HD-DVD, and that it was merely postponed in the process of making it out. So the transfer was more than likely prepared for optimization on both formats three years prior to its actual release, which would explain the lack of "breathing room" for the disc.

As it is, if one doesn't own the DVD, the Blu-ray is notably superior, IMO. It just doesn't scream for an upgrade, and it isn't the mind-blowing experience one would hope for.

[Penton-Man]

Not sure how we evolved to deciding that it was “a good transfer” but, if your information is accurate, I see now….a major Hollywood studio in 2010 issuing a technologically outdated transfer characterized by the pre-processing of video by dnr to accomplish a low pre-determined bitrate budget for generic (Blu-ray and HD DVD) usage.

Didn’t we have a rant about that (throwing out old transfers to movie ‘enthusiasts’) on the internet a couple months back? Then, it seems all the studios weren’t paying attention.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Not sure how we evolved to deciding that it was “a good transfer” but, if your information is accurate, I see now….a major Hollywood studio in 2010 issuing a technologically outdated transfer characterized by the pre-processing of video by dnr to accomplish a low pre-determined bitrate budget for generic (Blu-ray and HD DVD) usage.

Didn’t we have a rant about that (throwing out old transfers to movie ‘enthusiasts’) on the internet a couple months back? Then, it seems all the studios weren’t paying attention.

legit question - could there be another reason for lower bitrates other than assuming it's because of a need to satisfy so-called "bit-starved", deceased formats? ie., without resorting to snarkiness, what could/would account for these transfer issues (if, in fact, there are any, I don't have the disc, just speaking from what you guys are talking about)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

legit question - could there be another reason for lower bitrates other than assuming it's because of a need to satisfy so-called "bit-starved", deceased formats?....

You have to go back to reviewer Ken Brown’s original premise, who I’ll quote as the original Alpha reviewer dog, as I think his review predates the Xylon or eric’s screenshot thread over at AVS. Ken wrote - “a troubled 1080p/VC-1 presentation littered with waxy closeups and flushed cheeks. The film has been scrubbed and polished to some degree” …see - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hamle.../10381/#Review.

Forget all implications to the format war for a moment. Here shark, I’ll make you feel a little better, let’s remove HD DVD completely from the equation. Hypothetically, suppose the marketing folks inform you that you’ve got to fit a 4 hr. motion picture onto a BD25 or onto a BD 50 packed full of a lot of supplements on the same disc with the main feature. Or even putting the main feature on a BD 50 where you leave a lot of used space left over…..for some possible future need like adding more extras, etc.

So now, the idea is not exclusive to making something fit on a “deceased format”, the idea is….What is the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to come in under a bitrate budget…..the goal being to get rid of some or all of the bitrate hogging data. All random noise is a bitrate hog. Film grain is essentially random noise. So, short of slashing out any scenes with random input data such as confetti, leaves on trees bouncing in the wind or a waterfall which stress any compression codec (see - https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...tml#post690593 ), the next best thing is to turn up the “dnr knob” a little or a lot, depending on your need, and suddenly magically space savings occurs. Few will notice what you've done anyway.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

While I do not really share that fascination for the folks in the first link I surely do share the fascination for the ladies in the second one

And of course you got to tell us about that little event called the Reel Thing - it has been more than a day already and not a word from you about the surprise screening or all the other interesting stuff

Sorry, been busy pickin all that free fruit off the trees in Kalifornia….”You never have to buy no fruit on account it's all on the trees everywhere you turn.” Give me a few minutes and I’ll type up something right now.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

While I do not really share that fascination for the folks in the first link I surely do share the fascination for the ladies in the second one

And of course you got to tell us about that little event called the Reel Thing -it has been more than a day already and not a word from you about the surprise screening or all the other interesting stuff

Already mentioned the screening about a week back. As regards to other interesting stuff –

Potentially most Blu-ray related -
Although I missed it, apparently the crowd was very impressed with Andrew O.’s film case study of FotoKem’s restoration of The Sound of Music as evidenced by its 4K digital cinema incarnation which looked very good. As a backdrop to the presentation, Andrew showed images from previous restorations done to this motion picture over the past couple of decades and the latest work exceeds all others.

Most fun screening – For me -
This one, of course….http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...gram.htm#music < This silent movie by Frank Capra essentially mocks machismo with light-hearted comedy about a romantic rivalry taken all the way to the boxing ring by the main actor to get the girl of his dreams.
Anyway, to add to the already stunning organist accompaniment by Alan Stark of Film Tech (whom I’m confident will do justice to the restoration of my own personal 16mm underwater footage, here- http://www.filmtech.com/) and also to encourage audience participation, noise-makers were passed out (I’m entirely serious) to the attendees for which to express themselves with during particular scenes of this silent motion picture. I’ll tell you, lab technicians, archivists, new media technologists and preservationists can indeed be a rowdy bunch when encouraged to do so.

Most interesting technical presentation - For me -

http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...rogram.htm#360
The presenter claimed (and showed some illustrative examples of their process with comparisons to standard YCMs) that their method ultimately yields a film product having the same amount of detail (or possibly more) as traditional YCMs with none of the potential complications (i.e. stabilization issues, registration errors, etc.). Also note, when YCMs are used, the operator is adding 3 layers of grain to the source image but, their proprietary process only adds one layer of grain to the source image…unlike three for traditional seps. You’ll need their software to prep the frames for recording as well as other computer software to un-archive the image on the film back to a watchable state. I’m not endorsing their new product, as only time will tell if it catches on with the studio community, but I certainly found the mathematical thought (bayer pattern with proprietary algorithm) and engineering implementation that went into the whole thing to be quite impressive.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Not sure how we evolved to deciding that it was “a good transfer”

I'm far more forgiving, in general, towards these matters. Just one man's opinion.

As far as my speculation is concerned, it makes sense in this instance. Warner's 2006-2007 releases, while praised at the time, are not fairing so well with the "enthusiast" crowd in 2010 (see more recent online chatter about 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Wild Bunch, The Searchers, etc.). If Hamlet was originally prepared to be released in 2007 (and by all accounts it was all but announced at that time), then it stands to reason that they used the same method to prepare the HD master that has led to complaints about "softness" of such titles as those I listed above. Knowing Warner, there would be no reason (business-wise) to redo the process a mere three years later.

Again, speculation on my part, but in this specific case it seems to fit.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Already mentioned the screening about a week back. As regards to other interesting stuff –

Potentially most Blu-ray related -
Although I missed it, apparently the crowd was very impressed with Andrew O.’s film case study of FotoKem’s restoration of The Sound of Music as evidenced by its 4K digital cinema incarnation which looked very good. As a backdrop to the presentation, Andrew showed images from previous restorations done to this motion picture over the past couple of decades and the latest work exceeds all others.

Most fun screening – For me -
This one, of course….http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...gram.htm#music < This silent movie by Frank Capra essentially mocks machismo with light-hearted comedy about a romantic rivalry taken all the way to the boxing ring by the main actor to get the girl of his dreams.
Anyway, to add to the already stunning organist accompaniment by Alan Stark of Film Tech (whom I’m confident will do justice to the restoration of my own personal 16mm underwater footage, here- http://www.filmtech.com/) and also to encourage audience participation, noise-makers were passed out (I’m entirely serious) to the attendees for which to express themselves with during particular scenes of this silent motion picture. I’ll tell you, lab technicians, archivists, new media technologists and preservationists can indeed be a rowdy bunch when encouraged to do so.

Most interesting technical presentation - For me -

http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...rogram.htm#360
The presenter claimed (and showed some illustrative examples of their process with comparisons to standard YCMs) that their method ultimately yields a film product having the same amount of detail (or possibly more) as traditional YCMs with none of the potential complications (i.e. stabilization issues, registration errors, etc.). Also note, when YCMs are used, the operator is adding 3 layers of grain to the source image but, their proprietary process only adds one layer of grain to the source image…unlike three for traditional seps. You’ll need their software to prep the frames for recording as well as other computer software to un-archive the image on the film back to a watchable state. I’m not endorsing their new product, as only time will tell if it catches on with the studio community, but I certainly found the mathematical thought (bayer pattern with proprietary algorithm) and engineering implementation that went into the whole thing to be quite impressive.

Thanks a lot, seems we can be looking forward to The Sound of Music then

I agree that this method for replacing YCM separations looks very interesting and I would hope that it catches on if it is indeed that good. Imo registration errors and grain buildup are what really makes separations a last resort when everything else fails - this could change with such a process. Of course the part with the proprietary software is a bit frightening as opposed to traditional separations that can used as is.

I am also impressed with the Capra-movie being restored and him being so productive in his first year with the studio - with 7 of his movies being released in 1928 Columbia certainly got their moneys worth with him!

I have one more question: Were the screenings done with an SRX-R220 or SRX-R320?

[iceman]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So now, the idea is not exclusive to making something fit on a “deceased format”, the idea is….What is the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to come in under a bitrate budget…..the goal being to get rid of some or all of the bitrate hogging data. All random noise is a bitrate hog. Film grain is essentially random noise. So, short of slashing out any scenes with random input data such as confetti, leaves on trees bouncing in the wind or a waterfall which stress any compression codec (see - https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...tml#post690593 ), the next best thing is to turn up the “dnr knob” a little or a lot, depending on your need, and suddenly magically space savings occurs. Few will notice what you've done anyway.

Interesting point.

[captveg]

Speaking of Capra.... Any chance we see a film from his Sony catalog on Blu anytime soon Penton? I know there's element issues with them, but surely if Sony is to dip into the 1.33:1 B&W films on Blu the Capra titles, particularly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and It Happened One Night, would be the ideal candidates.

[johndoyle123]

Originally Posted by captveg

Speaking of Capra.... Any chance we see a film from his Sony catalog on Blu anytime soon Penton? I know there's element issues with them, but surely if Sony is to dip into the 1.33:1 B&W films on Blu the Capra titles, particularly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and It Happened One Night, would be the ideal candidates.

i would hope sony would release them all when the time is right



please mr penton sir ,, can we have some more

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You have to go back to reviewer Ken Brown’s original premise, who I’ll quote as the original Alpha reviewer dog, as I think his review predates the Xylon or eric’s screenshot thread over at AVS. Ken wrote - “a troubled 1080p/VC-1 presentation littered with waxy closeups and flushed cheeks. The film has been scrubbed and polished to some degree” …see - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hamle.../10381/#Review.

Forget all implications to the format war for a moment. Here shark, I’ll make you feel a little better, let’s remove HD DVD completely from the equation. Hypothetically, suppose the marketing folks inform you that you’ve got to fit a 4 hr. motion picture onto a BD25 or onto a BD 50 packed full of a lot of supplements on the same disc with the main feature. Or even putting the main feature on a BD 50 where you leave a lot of used space left over…..for some possible future need like adding more extras, etc.

So now, the idea is not exclusive to making something fit on a “deceased format”, the idea is….What is the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to come in under a bitrate budget…..the goal being to get rid of some or all of the bitrate hogging data. All random noise is a bitrate hog. Film grain is essentially random noise. So, short of slashing out any scenes with random input data such as confetti, leaves on trees bouncing in the wind or a waterfall which stress any compression codec (see - https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...tml#post690593 ), the next best thing is to turn up the “dnr knob” a little or a lot, depending on your need, and suddenly magically space savings occurs. Few will notice what you've done anyway.

cool, cheers. I'd heard that articulated before, but it does make sense.

As you know, any knee-jerk reactions about this stuff (Warner sucks! VC1 Sucks!) does little to actually understand what may be going on here. The thought that this was a 2007 transfer does make the most sense, in that it was trying to serve lots of, erm, "masters" - marketing folks, cost-per-disc replication, multi-format production, etc.

I appreciate the response.

[sharkshark]

OOOOH:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html

That'd make me super happy... Lolita's great, but Lyndon!! IN HD!!!

(see, Warner can make me very happy)

ps. I bought the DVD set of Kubricks twice, it wouldn't be beyond me to rebuy the whole damn thing again. Sigh...

[captveg]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

OOOOH:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html

That'd make me super happy... Lolita's great, but Lyndon!! IN HD!!!

(see, Warner can make me very happy)

Indeed.

As an aside, I think people who complain a) that Warner didn't release Barry Lyndon on Blu back in 2007 who also b) complain that Warner's BDs from the 2006-2007 era aren't as good as they now expect BD releases to look should be glad they waited another 4 years.

[sharkshark]

heh, perhaps.

meanwhile:

http://hcc.techradar.com/playback/co...u-ray-12-08-10

Interesting - it's a FANTASTIC series, just mindblowing. I do with they'd leave the aspect alone (see my comments way back on WWII in HD), but this just might be worth picking up. Still, the director and editor like it (at least, based on marketing materials )

While purists will undoubtedly moan, the new framing has the approval of series' producer Jeremy Isaacs and supervising editor Alan Afriat. And as Glaridis is keen to point out, 'it's not an automated process - we're adjusting the image manually, moving it up and down, left and right to ensure that the focus remains on the most important part of the image. You are going from 4:3 to 16:9 so, unavoidably, you do lose a little of the original image. But back when all of this material was shot, even then it was pretty much on the fine line, there weren't many rules going on with framing anyway. So while some people might look at the 16:9 version and think that it's cropping a little head and that, if you go back to the original, it's often shot like that anyway, or it's blurred, and it's like "No, no, this is how it is anyway". Hopefully it won't be judged that much because if you did go back and compare it's really not far off from the original'.

Damn it, we're getting to the point in this format where I'm rebuying stuff I thought would never come out... I'm so, so screwed.

So, P, can you shed any light on the "Snell Archangel HD" mentioned?

http://www.snellgroup.com/news-and-e...-to-hd-content

http://www.snellgroup.com/documents/...gel_PhC_HD.pdf

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

heh, perhaps.

meanwhile:

http://hcc.techradar.com/playback/co...u-ray-12-08-10

Interesting - it's a FANTASTIC series, just mindblowing. I do with they'd leave the aspect alone (see my comments way back on WWII in HD), but this just might be worth picking up. Still, the director and editor like it (at least, based on marketing materials )



Damn it, we're getting to the point in this format where I'm rebuying stuff I thought would never come out... I'm so, so screwed.

Hmmm discarding a quarter of the picture is not good

Too bad as I would have bought this if it was correctly framed.

The point they are making about TV stations is ridiculous as they easily could have made this 4:3 on DVD and Blu-Ray and then used the 16:9 version for the TV stations.

I also don't see the purpose to make everything extra pretty and clean with devices like the Archangel and other stuff on top - this is WWII footage and it is expected to look less than stellar, that is also part of its charme.

[mark antony]

WaW has been fully restored at 4:3 and then they produced the 16:9 version from that, so why they couldn't have released the OAR edition on Blu is beyond me.

Penton, you keep on making little digs at Bill and the Digital Bits, given what's happened recently isn't it time to let bygones be bygones, surely a blog can't be that personally offensive to you and worthy of such continued criticism implied or otherwise? As i've said before, why can't we all be friends?

M

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Hmmm discarding a quarter of the picture is not good

Too bad as I would have bought this if it was correctly framed.

The point they are making about TV stations is ridiculous as they easily could have made this 4:3 on DVD and Blu-Ray and then used the 16:9 version for the TV stations.

I also don't see the purpose to make everything extra pretty and clean with devices like the Archangel and other stuff on top - this is WWII footage and it is expected to look less than stellar, that is also part of its charme.

"OOO... zee Germans!" - Mr. Burns.

Yeah, they spend a lot of time on that article talking about the framing. Again, =Director's Intent=, apparently (the new catch-all). Your comments, though, reflect exactly those on the site.

Ever seen the doc? Narrated by Olivier, it's a pretty big deal as it was the first that was pretty comprehensive. They actually get some unapologetic SS dudes on Camera, it's fairly unique for the likes of that.

I've got no idea what the upgrade will be, but (like with WWII in HD above) the framing thing is an annoyance, but for handheld/unframed doc footage, and with careful P&S (poop and scoop?) it might not suck. I dunno, I take your point, naturally, and it's an unnecessary distraction from what otherwise might be a really impressive release. We'll see...

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

"OOO... zee Germans!" - Mr. Burns.

Yeah, they spend a lot of time on that article talking about the framing. Again, =Director's Intent=, apparently (the new catch-all). Your comments, though, reflect exactly those on the site.

Ever seen the doc? Narrated by Olivier, it's a pretty big deal as it was the first that was pretty comprehensive. They actually get some unapologetic SS dudes on Camera, it's fairly unique for the likes of that.

I've got no idea what the upgrade will be, but (like with WWII in HD above) the framing thing is an annoyance, but for handheld/unframed doc footage, and with careful P&S (poop and scoop?) it might not suck. I dunno, I take your point, naturally, and it's an unnecessary distraction from what otherwise might be a really impressive release. We'll see...

yes, zee Germans, zey don't like zee pan and scan

I saw it once on TV a long time ago and it was really a very good documentary. As I do not have TV any more I sometimes buy a series or two that I watch when it suits me and this would have been a candidate.

I can still get the old DVD version though - I expect the prices on this one to drop.