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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a marvelous film, no doubt, and the work done on it was fantastic as well. Truly a top-quality release.

But the film is hardly the type to break sales records in the first week. This isn't E.T., Jurassic Park, or The Godfather - the popular interest simply isn't there in the same way. I don't say this as any reflection on the movie's quality, but it's not a movie that the whole family looks forward to sitting down and watching, nor one that more mainstream audiences are going to be super excited for.........

Do you think there will be broader *mass appeal* for LoA now, than Close Encounters of the Third Kind, completely excluding the fact that the production costs for LoA even prior to the encoding/authoring stage far exceed those incurred with Close Encounters ?

Meanwhile, it should be interesting to see how the upcoming classic A Passage to India sells.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I'm very happy Close Encounters was released; but I'm surprised they released it so early. I will say the price tag didn't help - though this release was WELL worth the money to me.

I wonder if they prepped it for release because Spielberg directed it. After all, he came out saying his Universal movies weren't going to be HD-DVD exclusive. May it was moved up as a poke in the eye.

[JasonR]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do you think there will be broader *mass appeal* for LoA now, than Close Encounters of the Third Kind, completely excluding the fact that the production costs for LoA even prior to the encoding/authoring stage far exceed those incurred with Close Encounters ?

Meanwhile, it should be interesting to see how the upcoming classic A Passage to India sells.

I can tell you I would buy LoA any day over CE3K, it is in a different league as far as I am concerned. That said, I could see the need to hold off for a larger install base.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do you think there will be broader *mass appeal* for LoA now, than Close Encounters of the Third Kind, completely excluding the fact that the production costs for LoA even prior to the encoding/authoring stage far exceed those incurred with Close Encounters ?

Meanwhile, it should be interesting to see how the upcoming classic A Passage to India sells.

No, I don't think LoA would sell much more than CEot3K at this point in time. If that's what you took from my post, I'm sorry for not being clearer. I meant that films like this are needed to bring in certain groups of people - no one film will make people rush to the format, but films like CE, LoA, and others make it more attractive and will do their part. I don't want to say anything specific about LoA because I obviously know nothing of its status. But if all films of LoA's caliber are currently off-limits because of CE's sales, well that's a move that I disagree with. This is the kind of thing where you can't expect immediate results - you have to keep on plugging.

Obviously blockbusters like E.T., Jurassic Park, Star Wars, LotR, etc. will appeal to a larger number of people - but I imagine these are the ones where studios want to sell millions of discs right away. If both popular blockbusters AND the classics are off-limits for now, that really hurts Blu-ray's appeal to large groups of people.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do you think there will be broader *mass appeal* for LoA now, than Close Encounters of the Third Kind, completely excluding the fact that the production costs for LoA even prior to the encoding/authoring stage far exceed those incurred with Close Encounters ?

Meanwhile, it should be interesting to see how the upcoming classic A Passage to India sells.

I think classic films have their fan bases that will buy them no matter what. The challenge is to break out and reach the rest of the audience.

I know I'll buy Casablanca as soon as it comes out and there are a lot of other people like me. But, will it cross over, especially since the last DVD release was so exceptional? Not for huge sales, but I bet it will be consistent. Different media, but wasn't Bat Out of Hell on the Billboard catalog list at the top for 10+ years. No one week of sales was impressive, but over the long term, those numbers were remarkable.

Also, I think there's a mindset among a lot of people that some of these older films don't benefit from HD. And, even if it does, many older films will always look old regardless of quality because of the stock used.

[TheLion]

Originally Posted by patrick99

What makes me question that is on SPE releases I almost never see the bitrate go over 30, whereas on Fox or Disney releases I do see this frequently. It seems that SPE has something like a "rule" that the bitrate must not go over 30, which does not correspond with the notion of using whatever bitrate the material requires. I know that not everyone gives any credence to the AVS tier thread, but why is it that, apart from animation and a concert film, SPE has only one title in Tier 0, whereas Fox and Disney have many?

Sorry to hijack your thread, Penton-Man, but please allow me to make some comments about "the issue of applied bandwidth with HDM encoding".

Those who know me quite well are aware of my position regarding the allocation of plenty bandwidth instead of barely enough...I guess nobody argues that "more bandwidth equals less quantization equals objectively better PQ in context with any given source".

But the point is:

Is the soft PQ because of the low bit rate or is the bit rate low because the source is soft?

What needs to be understood is the following - Variable Bitrate encoding (like is used with any HDM release) is per definition a concept of CONSTANT QUALITY. To put it very simple - The compressionist sets a certain quantization parameter for any given release - this defines the relative quality in relation to the source - and the quantization level is directly linked to the available bandwidth budget and inherent characteristics of any given source (to put it very simple again: a highly detailed and dynamic source requires more bandwidth for any given quantization level than a more static one).

So - A low bitrate as isolated parameter DOESN'T tell you anything about the "quality" of any given encoding. Ergo an inherently soft,static source (=a movie shot this way on purpose or just a bad/dated transfer or for whatever other reason) is encoded at a relatively low bitrate level. BUT it can still be encoded with very low quantization -> ergo it is very close to the quality of the source DESPITE the low bitrate. Such an transfer can objectively be even "better" (truer to the source) than something like DH4 or Becoming Jane - objectively meaning encoded with lower quantization.


The argument often used is that "there are softer scenes/shots in some transfers and the bitrate is relatively low during those". The argument is something like due to bandwidth limitations those scenes are encoded at "less than optimal bitrates" and therefor the "PQ suffers" (something like low bitrate = heavy AVC/VC-1 deblocking loop filtering = lack of definition/softer/smoother picture)...

Well - we are now were my post started - the basic principle of VBR encoding is constant quality - therefor any given scene of a encoding is (give or take) encoded at a similar level of transparency to the source. Therefor if a given transfer shows "great shots with outstanding definition and a very high applied bitrate (which comes quite naturally with these exceptional scenes) " they are encoded at a very similar quantization level than all the softer/"lacking" shots of an given transfer.

This leads to the logic conclusion that:

- these "softer/smoother/less detailed" scenes are much easier to encode and therefor less bitrate is necessary than with more "difficult scenes". Although both these extremes show the same relative quality to the source.

- therefor the next logic conclusion is that bitrate limitation/starvation shows itself during scenes that are the "toughest to encode" and certainly NOT during easy shots (eg. out of focus, static,...). They don't look "nice" because they are shot this way and/or the transfer itself isn't very good - in both cases the source is to be blamed and NOT the encoding and therefor certainly NOT the low bitrate -> which is - following the VBR concept - just a consequence of the input.


In short: Looking at the isolated parameter of "applied bitrate per shot/scene/movie" DOES NOT conclusively tell you ANYTHING about the quality of any given encoding! It can just serve as a hint about the level of quantization among other factors.

To put it another way - Across the Universe looks pretty decent IMHO - "tack sharp" it is not nor is it "intended to be" (keyword: diffuse lightning) - BUT encoding at much higher bitrates (like 35mbps ABR) wouldBitrates certainly not change this attribute in any observable manner.


btw I am looking very much forward to the upcoming BD of A Passage to India and I sincerely hope it will be profitable enough for SPHE to warrant other future releases of such true classics.

[darkpoet25]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Different media, but wasn't Bat Out of Hell on the Billboard catalog list at the top for 10+ years. No one week of sales was impressive, but over the long term, those numbers were remarkable.

Are you thinking of Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by TheLion

Sorry to hijack your thread, Penton-Man, but please allow me to make some comments about.....

Not to worry , as I think my thread is inherently un-hijackable as discussions often lead-off into many directions with more elaboration or what not.

[Penton-Man]

P.S.
I’ve asked the Huntster to make an appearance and answer some peoples’ questions regarding Uni and Paramount, etc. - so keep an eye out for the Bitsy dude possibly this evening or the next day or so.

It appears he’s been busy of late, possibly trying to find his house? as I think he lives in the quintessential *planned community* where everything pretty much looks like everything else.

[WickyWoo]

Bill has been busy the last 3 days with personal matters. Not to worry he should be unbusy soon

[1974]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Oh please. not here too.

Then how come this title didn't sell better?

[1974]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, I can’t get into specifics but, in general………like……more profitability.
Not to worry though, the classics will continue to trickle out at a measured pace but, the ones that incurred a great deal of up-front restoration/production cost may be held back a tad until there is more of an installed user base.

What do you mean by more of an installed user base?

[thebluemax]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

P.S.
And please everyone, stop with the PM’s regarding a projected debut date for LoA on Blu-ray. For the record, I really can’t tell anyone anything in a PM that I couldn’t post publicly online anyway.

I will tell you that the film will not debut on Blu-ray in 2008.
I doubt that it will even debut in 2009, as Close Encounters of The Third Kind, barely made any money factoring in all the work/expense that was put into it.

Such is the business.

I find it difficult to believe, Sony has released many not so good movies on BD. Close Encounters and Passage to India are good, but not in the same league as LOA. LOA is a great film and would sell.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

I find it difficult to believe, Sony has released many not so good movies on BD. Close Encounters and Passage to India are good, but not in the same league as LOA. LOA is a great film and would sell.

The film is one of the few "classic" gems that Sony owns. Yes, any serious collector will need to have this movie. However, it makes financial sense to wait for it's BD release. Just look at how poorly the HD DVD (obviously an inferior format with much less support) versions of Casablanca, Robin Hood, and Spartacus performed.

[scraptor]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

But if all films of LoA's caliber are currently off-limits because of CE's sales, well that's a move that I disagree with.

Obviously blockbusters like E.T., Jurassic Park, Star Wars, LotR, etc. will appeal to a larger number of people - but I imagine these are the ones where studios want to sell millions of discs right away. If both popular blockbusters AND the classics are off-limits for now, that really hurts Blu-ray's appeal to large groups of people.

I fully agree. It's a question of push vs. pull.... the lack of these blockbusters may make the average consumer skeptical about the format. Video games have demonstrated the effectiveness of pulling sales via exclusives (Halo,FF). Now that the war has been decided an incredible amount of risk is off the table. Rather than outright failure you only have a waiting game with inventories. A collective investment now is what's needed... expand the market with a LOTR, and CE3K takes care of itself.

But Penton, do you think studios are getting gunshy with the state of the economy? Because I could see execs worrying about the state of discretionary spending.

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by patrick99

What makes me question that is on SPE releases I almost never see the bitrate go over 30, whereas on Fox or Disney releases I do see this frequently. It seems that SPE has something like a "rule" that the bitrate must not go over 30, which does not correspond with the notion of using whatever bitrate the material requires. I know that not everyone gives any credence to the AVS tier thread, but why is it that, apart from animation and a concert film, SPE has only one title in Tier 0, whereas Fox and Disney have many?

I personally can't answer for why that is the case. My point was just that the PQ is what matters, so for example you saying here that they don't seem to have many tier 0 PQ titles is a more meaningful question than why their bitrate rarely gets up to a certain level. It may very well be that those two things are related. Or maybe not.

Hopefully if there is something keeping Sony from hitting the very top level of PQ they will figure it out.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Meanwhile, it should be interesting to see how the upcoming classic A Passage to India sells.

Cross your fingers. Naturally, I have it on pre-order.

But, I sometimes sense I'm surrounded with people ready to scream "enough with this old crap, give me Star Wars!"

(sigh)

[WickyWoo]

I find it difficult to believe, Sony has released many not so good movies on BD. Close Encounters and Passage to India are good, but not in the same league as LOA. LOA is a great film and would sell

I hate to say this, but every fan of something believes this

You would not believe how many variations of "I'd buy a copy and so would all my friends (who are the entire existing fanbase of said property)" I've seen over the years

There simply aren't enough classic film lovers with decks yet. In a few years there will be. IN the meantime, buy PTI to show them that the Lean lovers are in full force, and buy River Kwai when it hits (hopefully still later this year)

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

IN the meantime, buy PTI to show them that the Lean lovers are in full force, and buy River Kwai when it hits (hopefully still later this year)

Wicky (or Penton - whoever gets it first),

The LoA DVD looks pretty good and I believe the film itself has gone through some extensive restorative processes over the years so I can only imagine the BD will look amazing. But speaking of River Kwai, or even Guns of Navarone, the DVDs have never been impressive.

Do you know if this is due to the source or bad transfers to DVD? And how do you think these will translate onto BD?

[WickyWoo]

I believe the source negative of Kwai is damaged, don't know about navarone