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

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well Vincent, in lieu of that, you may want to fly out to L.A. for this -

http://3cp.gammadensity.com/index-3-Learn-Pages.html
as it has finally been announced as part of the Cine Gear Expo offerings.

VERY tempting. If I hadn't already attended that surprise screening of the restored THE GODFATHER at the Jacob Burns Film Center in March 2008 with Gordon Willis, Allen Daviau, and Robert Harris present and giving a post-screening Q&A moderated by Janet Maslin, I'd start saving right now and make it a definite go

Vincent

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m not sure of when Road to Perdition will debut on Blu-ray but, if memory serves, there was some mention of it initially becoming available in Germany this month.

It should be interesting to see how Blu-ray home theater enthusiasts respond to the focus in that particular motion picture……..as well as the lighting, etc.

If anyone plans on doing a review of Road to Perdition in the future, it may be wise to Google something like “Conrad Hall soft noir” or some variant of that phrase to be truly informed.

I am looking forward to Road to Perdition and would suggest that for releases like that the studios make it known that a rather unexpected look is not a defect but intended.

Another recent title that has imo not fared as well due to choices made about the look of the movie is Australia - despite having some extremely detailed scenery shots many reviewers criticize it for being uneven, lacking detail and having a shifted color palette or blown up contrast - never mind that this clearly was the choice of the director and the DOP

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I am looking forward to Road to Perdition and would suggest that for releases like that the studios make it known that a rather unexpected look is not a defect but intended.

Another recent title that has imo not fared as well due to choices made about the look of the movie is Australia - despite having some extremely detailed scenery shots many reviewers criticize it for being uneven, lacking detail and having a shifted color palette or blown up contrast - never mind that this clearly was the choice of the director and the DOP

Absolutely. I seem to remember some comments about The Aviator's first section on Blu-ray too, even though the two strip technicolor look is A) completely intentional and B) works a treat.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

C.M.C. and I’d bet on a Husky 400……………..
http://dirtbike.off-road.com/dirtbik....jsp?id=264476
read some of the GREAT old stories.

From near the bottom. Damn, I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and see this kind of stuff. I must have been 5 or 6 when this happened.

A.J. Agajanian, the owner of Ascot, turned to Eddie, and said, "Here's a spare bike from Torsten Hallman. Why don't you go out and kick their butt?" So Eddie lined up against Roger DeCoster, Joel Robert, a bunch of Swedes and Englishmen, and let them all go into the first turn. By turn three, Eddie had slipped by all of them to take the lead. Like he said, "They didn't know how to slide on hard-packed surfaces." Eddie went on to win the exhibition race by a land-slide on the borrowed Husky. Later, he noted: "They're nice guys ? good racers ? and they invited me to race a motocross next Sunday."

That next Sunday, they "put a squish on me," said Eddie. "I pulled the holeshot, and then when they hit the bumps I might as well have parked it. Those guys were rockets!"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I am looking forward to Road to Perdition and would suggest that for releases like that the studios make it known that a rather unexpected look is not a defect but intended.

Well, that’s fine and dandy in a perfect world but, I can just hear some studio executives saying something to the effect…..

“And when exactly are we obligated to inform viewers as to certain cinematographic styles and when are we not? Where do we draw the line as to what technique and how much of it (% of the movie) deems ‘needing explanation’.”

I mean, does the studios’ obligation end with certain camera techniques used for storytelling or does it extend to certain techniques used in the digital intermediate suite?
And then, what camera techniques would be considered ‘well-known’ by the typical viewing audience at home and not need any *studio heads-up* insert, etc. and what camera techniques are more esoteric to the typical viewing audience?

For example, there is at least one intentional selective focus scene (Redford making a critical phone call at his desk) that Gordon Willis pulled off in All the President’s Men, that I think many viewers may presume was an out-of-focus screw-up in the principal photography or the transfer, when it was not. Do those require any supplemental informational pamphlets?

Even when you shoot low-lit interiors on something like Zeiss T1.3 primes, wide open, on short lenses, the images may come out comparatively soft so, every time this happens is it the studios’ obligation to provide official notice so people don’t think the filmmakers screwed up or the post house screwed the pooch on the transfer?

When there’s motion blur with some capture due to the camera and set-up, are the studios’ obligated to give an ‘official’ heads-up to home viewers that this is not due to dnr but, inherent to the principal photography?
Heck, personally I would rather watch the screenshot scientists freak out about the presumed dnr on the *science* forum.

If memory serves, different frame rates are used for each of the fights in Raging Bull by Marty S., sometimes with the frame rate slowing down and picking up without warning, so potentially some home viewers may actually think that there may be something wrong with their Blu-ray players. ‘Official’ notification of this cinematographic style needed? Hey, don’t laugh, I’ve read on more than forum, where home viewers thought that the colors of their displays were “off” or their optical block was failing when they viewed Slumdog Millionaire.

All this can become a sticky wicket very quickly. Add to the fact that with some of these older motion pictures, the primary filmmakers have passed away. So, who does legal contact to make certain that the informational inserts or what not, are acceptable to the original creators’ intent?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

From near the bottom. Damn, I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and see this kind of stuff. I must have been 5 or 6 when this happened.

Before 'my time' too.
Although, when I first got on a starting line I was so young my father had to have a milk crate next to the bike so I wouldn't tip over. < That's great incentive to never crash during a race, because when you're that young and thusly short of stature, once you do fall down, you aint never going to be able to get back on your mount to finish.

I got a kick out of the funny stories in that article too, like the two riders that parachuted in and landed next to their bikes on the starting line, surprising other riders…. and the time they placed dynamite under the starting banner before it was dropped, stunning the starting field so the Checkers riders all could get a good holeshot (lead at the start-- to the uninformed) while everyone else was motionless due to amazement.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, that’s fine and dandy in a perfect world but, I can just hear some studio executives saying something to the effect…..

“And when exactly are we obligated to inform viewers as to certain cinematographic styles and when are we not? Where do we draw the line as to what technique and how much of it (% of the movie) deems ‘needing explanation’.”

I mean, does the studios’ obligation end with certain camera techniques used for storytelling or does it extend to certain techniques used in the digital intermediate suite?
And then, what camera techniques would be considered ‘well-known’ by the typical viewing audience at home and not need any *studio heads-up* insert, etc. and what camera techniques are more esoteric to the typical viewing audience?

For example, there is at least one intentional selective focus scene (Redford making a critical phone call at his desk) that Gordon Willis pulled off in All the President’s Men, that I think many viewers may presume was an out-of-focus screw-up in the principal photography or the transfer, when it was not. Do those require any supplemental informational pamphlets?

Even when you shoot low-lit interiors on something like Zeiss T1.3 primes, wide open, on short lenses, the images may come out comparatively soft so, every time this happens is it the studios’ obligation to provide official notice so people don’t think the filmmakers screwed up or the post house screwed the pooch on the transfer?

When there’s motion blur with some capture due to the camera and set-up, are the studios’ obligated to give an ‘official’ heads-up to home viewers that this is not due to dnr but, inherent to the principal photography?
Heck, personally I would rather watch the screenshot scientists freak out about the presumed dnr on the *science* forum.

If memory serves, different frame rates are used for each of the fights in Raging Bull by Marty S., sometimes with the frame rate slowing down and picking up without warning, so potentially some home viewers may actually think that there may be something wrong with their Blu-ray players. ‘Official’ notification of this cinematographic style needed? Hey, don’t laugh, I’ve read on more than forum, where home viewers thought that the colors of their displays were “off” or their optical block was failing when they viewed Slumdog Millionaire.

All this can become a sticky wicket very quickly. Add to the fact that with some of these older motion pictures, the primary filmmakers have passed away. So, who does legal contact to make certain that the informational inserts or what not, are acceptable to the original creators’ intent?

I can see that you have given this much more thought than I have

I would not see it as an obligation but a chance for the studio to make people understand certain choices - if Road to Perdition is soft focus for most of the movie it might be a good idea, other worthwhile examples might be Miami Vice or 300.

But I can see where that could lead and why studios would hesitate to even start going down that road.

[Bobby Henderson]

It's one thing if any visual limitations of a movie were put there deliberately or not. The "defect" is part of the native original image.

Lots of movies are shot in a less than perfect manner. Some of that is out of artistic choice. Then there's the stereotype of the aging actor who doesn't want his face photographed with too sharp a level of focus. A scene could be shot with very low depth of field to cover up flaws or distractions in the movie set/shooting location. Light challenged situations will take away the opportunity to shoot the footage with the best aperture. A lot of high quality still camera lenses will still be their sharpest between f8 and f11 in spite of them being able to open to big apertures like f2.8, f2.0 or even f1.2.

All that aside, the methods used to acquire the movie into the digital realm are going to put their own touch onto the footage. The most sophisticated (and expensive) methods are going to provide a more faithful reproduction of the original image while the older, cheaper methods will effectively throw in another loss of generation in quality.

The unfortunate thing for us "armchair quarterbacks" is we can't tell for certain what was a compromise in how the movie was acquired/authored or if it was really just photographed that way.

In the end as Blu-ray and HDTV in general becomes more popular viewers are going to be more demanding with wanting razor sharp image quality whether the footage is garishly colorful or all but desaturated. That may take away some artistic choices from some cinematographers who prefer to shoot footage with a soft look.

[Esox50]

Paisano ,

In relation to Paragraph #3 of this previous post of mine here:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=5275

I am wondering if you could let paidgeek know that as I sit here watching the "Angels & Demons Decoded" documentary on the History Channel, I am thinking it would make a great addition to the eventual Blu-Ray Special Edition later this year. Good stuff!!

I believe in the past SPHE has previously licensed use of History Channel documentaries on releases like Black Hawk Down. So hopefully the relationships to get it done are already in place.

Thanks,
Esox

[Beast]

They didn't include the great 'Beyond the Da Vinci Code' documentary from the History Channel with the first film. So don't expect it this time. I think it was released as a bonus disc with the movie at Target though. I kept the 90 minute documentary when I dumped my DVD cause it's a nice companion piece to the new Blu-Ray.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Beast

They didn't include the great 'Beyond the Da Vinci Code' documentary from the History Channel with the first film. So don't expect it this time.

Well, I don't "expect" anything. But, it never hurts to ask. . I would think the disc is probably in production, or will be very shortly.

[BluLobsta]

Don't suppose there is going to be a webcast of the Q&A session at the UCLA Zsigmond screening tonight??

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

Don't suppose there is going to be a webcast of the Q&A session at the UCLA Zsigmond screening tonight??

Unfortunately, no there isn’t and probably thankfully (in the following case) neither will there be one of this……
http://www.ascmag.com/news/News_Articles/News_217.php

And speaking of screenings, I saw the new Star Trek movie last week at Sony Imageworks so, I am no longer ‘Star Trek challenged’, which should at least make Jeff and Bill feel happy. Overall, I thought it was an okay to good popcorn flick.
It should be interesting to see how home theater enthusiasts respond to the conspicuous number of lens flare shots when that film eventually makes it to Blu-ray.

As an aside to Squid, the first time I ever had an opportunity to meet Leonard Nimoy was while eating breakfast in the hotel restaurant of the Carriage Inn of Ridgecrest (Ca.), he was there for the filming of one of those old Star Trek movies (I have no idea which one), me – competing in one of those dez events.

Later.

[AstroBlu]

I was just watching the launch of the shuttle Atlantis on HDNet and they mentioned that there are three Imax cameras on board.

The Hubble telescope repair would make for a great Imax film.

[juanell]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And speaking of screenings, I saw the new Star Trek movie last week at Sony Imageworks so, I am no longer ‘Star Trek challenged’, which should at least make Jeff and Bill feel happy. Overall, I thought it was an okay to good popcorn flick.
It should be interesting to see how home theater enthusiasts respond to the conspicuous number of lens flare shots when that film eventually makes it to Blu-ray.



Later.

I was thinking that has to be a record for lens flares. I for one can't get enough of them.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by juanell

I was thinking that has to be a record for lens flares.

Haskell Wexler should get a royalty. $.10 a flare and he could take a nice vacation.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by juanell

I was thinking that has to be a record for lens flares. I for one can't get enough of them.

Michael Bay loves 'em too.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As an aside to Squid, the first time I ever had an opportunity to meet Leonard Nimoy was while eating breakfast in the hotel restaurant of the Carriage Inn of Ridgecrest (Ca.), he was there for the filming of one of those old Star Trek movies (I have no idea which one), me – competing in one of those dez events.

Later.

Did you catch this? Number 1 is pretty good.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/11/...lm/#more-27769

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Unfortunately, no there isn’t and probably thankfully (in the following case) neither will there be one of this……
http://www.ascmag.com/news/News_Articles/News_217.php

And speaking of screenings, I saw the new Star Trek movie last week at Sony Imageworks so, I am no longer ‘Star Trek challenged’, which should at least make Jeff and Bill feel happy. Overall, I thought it was an okay to good popcorn flick.
It should be interesting to see how home theater enthusiasts respond to the conspicuous number of lens flare shots when that film eventually makes it to Blu-ray.

As an aside to Squid, the first time I ever had an opportunity to meet Leonard Nimoy was while eating breakfast in the hotel restaurant of the Carriage Inn of Ridgecrest (Ca.), he was there for the filming of one of those old Star Trek movies (I have no idea which one), me – competing in one of those dez events.

Later.

I also noticed some judder when panning across the bridge on at least 3 occasions. Regardless, the movie was a lot of fun and the opening sequence should make for a great Blu-ray demo!

[Jeff Kleist]

And speaking of screenings, I saw the new Star Trek movie last week at Sony Imageworks so, I am no longer ‘Star Trek challenged’, which should at least make Jeff and Bill feel happy. Overall, I thought it was an okay to good popcorn flick.

Hardly, that wasn't Star Trek, disgregard everything you saw That was, as my friend put it "A superficial representation of the hazy collective memory of what Star Trek is, lacking the heart and soul that made it a winning franchise for 40 years"

I even took my mother to it yesterday at her request for Mother's day, and while she does not usually subscribe to my views on remakes, she agreed with that assessment Just remember, the masses used to want to burn witches too, eventually they'll come around

Watch Khan this weekend, you'll see the difference.

I'm sure Bill's happy though