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

[Penton-Man]

Oh, and Happy Boxing Day to all Premier League soccer fanatics.
I’m looking forward (hopefully) to see Arsenal pop back into the top 4 despite the MCL? injury to Cess Fabregas.

My New Year’s resolution was to change the tired old Signature which I have been carrying since I became a member of this forum.
I took care of that this morning……….with a Signature Post to carry into 2009.

[Jeff Kleist]

I still think, especially after the Wal-mart disaster that Black Friday should be renamed Boxing Day

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, I have a friend and we where over to watch a hockey game one day after he just bought his wide screen HDTV. I asked him why all the players where fat, and that he should not have it in stretch mode because it just distorts the image. His response was that he liked it that way because it fills up the screen.

I've encountered the same.

[PaulGo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

Same to you (especially for all the passion and enthusiasm you have shown in helping to make Blu-ray.com a success).

And a happy holidays to everyone!

[JimSD]

Merry Christmas Penton and lots of singletrack for you in the New Year!

[Knight-Errant]

Merry Christmas to all. And right back at ya, P-Man!

[plee]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, I have a friend and we where over to watch a hockey game one day after he just bought his wide screen HDTV. I asked him why all the players where fat, and that he should not have it in stretch mode because it just distorts the image. His response was that he liked it that way because it fills up the screen.

Oh god...let's not get into the Letterbox "Black bars" thing with those people...

[H9k_]

Merry Christmas fellow blu-brothers around the world.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I have a friend and we where over to watch a hockey game one day after he just bought his wide screen HDTV. I asked him why all the players where fat, and that he should not have it in stretch mode because it just distorts the image. His response was that he liked it that way because it fills up the screen.

Very common problem.

The one that gets me laughing is the new HDTV owner playing his "full screen" DVDs in stretch-o-vision mode. It's especially hilarious (or just painful) when the DVD is a panned and scanned version of an anamorphic 35mm sourced movie. That's a pretty extreme difference to watching the movie on Blu-ray in its original aspect ratio. It would be really funny to see that sort of comparison side by side on two identical HDTV monitors.

[lgans316]

Penton,

Could you please request SONY reps to feature 24-bit audio on all their super hit titles ?

I recently purchased Casino Royale - Collector's Edition and it features a lackluster 16-bit TrueHD track with an embedded DD AC3 track encoded at 448 Kpbs, that sounded too compressed and flat in LFE and overall fidelity. A 16-bit lossless track on such a high profile CE release is frustrating.

Wishing all of you a Merry Xmas and a very happy New Year.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Penton,

Could you please request SONY reps to feature 24-bit audio on all their super hit titles ?

I recently purchased Casino Royale - Collector's Edition and it features a lackluster 16-bit TrueHD track with an embedded DD AC3 track encoded at 448 Kpbs, that sounded too compressed and flat in LFE and overall fidelity. A 16-bit lossless track on such a high profile CE release is frustrating.

Wishing all of you a Merry Xmas and a very happy New Year.

I'm all for 24-bit and wish Casino Royale was that but "compressed and flat" is not the way to describe it.

Would it sound better 24-bit? Maybe. The main reason I want 24-bit is to maintain the resolution of the original master so there's no second guessing.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The one that gets me laughing is the new HDTV owner playing his "full screen" DVDs in stretch-o-vision mode.

I was viewing Gus Van Sant's Milk earlier in the week. A spherical 35/4 production, which used stock footage from both 16mm as well as TV news video - all 4:3.

Same situation. A decision seems to have been made that the 1.85 frame MUST be filled regardless of technology -- making those early '70s people all look strangely short and fat -- but thereby filling the screen. To my eye, it continually stopped the film in its tracks. The general audience will most likely not see a problem, as they like it that way.

Had there really been a need to fill the image, a return to the rectified opticals of yore, might have provided a reasonable alternative that would have been less distracting.

RAH

[AaronSCH]

Penton,

If this is not the correct forum please point me in the right direction. I have a request. I recently emailed the folks over at Koch Vision to express my concern over their forthcoming Blu-ray release of Max and Dave Fleischer's "Gulliver's Travels." A recent trade ad (pictured below) proclaimed that it would be available in widescreen. The Vice-President Video (I don't wanna give his name) quickly and graciously emailed me back with the following reply which indicates to me that he may be confused regarding the original aspect ratio of this film:

Originally Posted by Koch Vision

Hi Aaron,

The widescreen note that you saw mention of is not entirely accurate.
The folks that produced the 60th anniversary edition (North Hampton
Partners) are the same folks that are producing this new release for
KOCH Vision in both standard def as well as Blu-ray. The editions coming
are 16x9 and the company has taken great strides to preserve and present
the film in the best possible light, including the restoration of the
original soundtrack, and the edition of new Stereo as well as 5.1
options. We believe you will find this restoration to be of great value,
and that upon its release you will find the viewing of it to be
extremely enjoyable.

Regards,

Perhaps if respected people in the industry dropped him a line, a lost opportunity could be avoided. Sorry if this issue has been addressed. I was also wondering if Warner Bros. had plans to release a Blu-ray version of their forthcoming release of Max and Dave Fleischer's "Superman" cartoons.

[Robert Harris]

Not certain precisely where Koch fits into the rights situation with Gulliver, which is in the public domain. AFAIK original elements survive, and while a digital cleanup might be a nice thing, "restoration" should not be necessary.

To the best of my memory, along with Wonderful Life, GT was owned by NTA, which then moved under the Republic umbrella, which should now be within Paramount. I would think that any "official" release would come from Paramount and not Koch, but stranger things have occurred.

On the other hand, if the Koch release is based upon PD print materials, any investment in "restoration" would seem to be money wasted.

As pertains to a 16:9 version, it may still be pillar boxed. I do find the idea of Gulliver in something close 2.55:1 an interesting idea. All those wide shots of him tied to the ground might just work. If he sits up, you simply change aspect ratios.

[rlsmith]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I was viewing Gus Van Sant's Milk earlier in the week. A spherical 35/4 production, which used stock footage from both 16mm as well as TV news video - all 4:3.

Same situation. A decision seems to have been made that the 1.85 frame MUST be filled regardless of technology -- making those early '70s people all look strangely short and fat -- but thereby filling the screen. To my eye, it continually stopped the film in its tracks. The general audience will most likely not see a problem, as they like it that way.

Had there really been a need to fill the image, a return to the rectified opticals of yore, might have provided a reasonable alternative that would have been less distracting.

RAH

I did notice some of these issues but in this case I didn't mind at all.

The characters, story, time/place so overwhelmed me that these technical issues were simply not relevant at all.

This is an unusual case because of the nature of the production and the amount of original photography that existed. It also had incredible versimilitude.

The fact that I saw it in the Castro Theater in San Francisco with a Castro audience certainly added to the deja vu atmosphere.

In this case, I could have cared less about aspect ratios, grain, DNR, etc.

[Slec]

Originally Posted by lgans316

I recently purchased Casino Royale - Collector's Edition and it features a lackluster 16-bit TrueHD track with an embedded DD AC3 track encoded at 448 Kpbs, that sounded too compressed and flat in LFE and overall fidelity. A 16-bit lossless track on such a high profile CE release is frustrating.

Sounds like you might have the DRC (Dynamic Range Control) turned on. This movie is GREAT when I pop it in.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Penton, or Jeff

Sorry if this has been covered already, and I'm not even sure you guys can address it, but I have been wondering why studios haven't been doing more to educate the mainstream consumers on some basic things like aspect ratio, film grain and source quality (common "issues" that newbies bring up on this board all the time).

Thanks! Answers? Thoughts?

I wish we had the time, but everyone I know has their plates filled (and over-flowing) with items considered to be of higher priority. The calibration test sequence that I mentioned a few posts back is months behind because it is a type of special project that seems to always be moved to the back burner when there are more important tasks to be accomplished by a certain deadline. The best I can manage is a quick post on this forum to help explain the issues……with the help of friends like RAH et. al. to fill-in both the gaps in my knowledge as well as my absences.

I think I’ve spoken about grain until I’m Blu in the face, the only thing I probably haven’t mentioned about it is that the human visual system is relatively poor at identifying texture in the color blue compared to green and magenta so, if the DP cares to, one can grain reduce the heck out of blue as it doesn’t end up looking nearly as soft and untextured as one might expect by doing so.

Plus, I think as Bobby H. and Michael have already postulated, the studios just don’t believe there is that much desire for the stuff you’ve described, to be viewed by the typical mainstream Blu-ray movie watcher.

In regards to de grain (pun), the current trend in filmmaking, whether utilizing film or digital acquisition, is toward a more ‘modern’ look (i.e. less grain/less noise).
Although, given that fact, the feature film Defiance (http://www.defiancemovie.com/ -which world premiered at the AFI LA Film Festival last Nov.), is about to open nationwide theatrically, and was shot on one of the grainiest Kodak stocks around.

It should be interesting to note how much ‘grittiness’ from the raw capture people think ultimately made it thru post production to the release prints and DCP’s which will be presented at your local Multiplex in a few days.
It may be a worthwhile viewing for some this Holiday season.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I was viewing Gus Van Sant's Milk earlier in the week........

RAH

Heads-up for those theater goers that live in the L.A. area and may be interested in Milk, esp. since people are talking Oscar nomination in some categories for it.
There’s an upcoming public showing followed by a Q & A with the filmmakers and talent……

http://www.afi.com/onscreen/arclight...ght.aspx#sched

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

......The calibration test sequence that I mentioned a few posts back is months behind because it is a type of special project that seems to always be moved to the back burner when there are more important tasks to be accomplished by a certain deadline.....

I'd take it off the stove.

At least one Blu-ray that I know of includes a calibration test. A simple
one anyway. I tried it, but apparently my equipment is set correctly as
no changes were needed. I wouldn't have changed anything anyway as
I paid quite a bit to have it done professionally in the first place. Besides
I don't like to fiddle around with the settings everytime I play a disk.
That would guarantee me screwing up and forget where the hell I started
in the first place. I can imagine the fun they would have at AVS with a
Warner or SONY or FOX or Disney or etc. calibration test.

This is the one that has the calibration test released by 2 Entertain Video.
The Lost Prince
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Lost-Pri...0310721&sr=1-1

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I wish we had the time, but everyone I know has their plates filled (and over-flowing) with items considered to be of higher priority.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Penton. I totally agree that it shouldn't be a priority. It just seems that it is always third parties that are doing the education, whether it's letterboxing movies on VHS, anamorphic transfers on DVD, or black bars and film grain on BD. I feel like the studios could do a lot more. But I completely understand why they can't or don't.