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

[jd213]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

How could there be grain in a CGI film unless it is intentionally added such as in Surf's Up? It is a CGI film, isn't it? Isn't the master stored on a computer somewhere and not film stock?

.......

The Nightmare Before Christmas is stop-motion animation...

[frank_t]

Originally Posted by jd213

.......

The Nightmare Before Christmas is stop-motion animation...

I've not read any comments online re: Nightmare.

But to my untrained/inexperienced eyes on my XBR4 (measly 46" screen), I think it looks stunning!

The folks watching it this past weekend with me (who are not HD-snobs commented on how incredible it looked. It's always refreshing to hear people who tend to think DVD is "good enough" see and hear that it really isn't. This is one (of many) blu-ray movies that drive home that point.

Plus it's just a damn good movie that the kids love too ;>)

Thanks Disney for a fine effort! (as usual of course)

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by jd213

.......

The Nightmare Before Christmas is stop-motion animation...

FILMED "stop-motion animation"...

Just thought I'd add that it was filmed... since, if my memory serves me correctly, "Corpse Bride" was shot DIGITALLY using an 8 megapixel digital camera.

~Alan

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

How could there be grain in a CGI film unless it is intentionally added such as in Surf's Up? It is a CGI film, isn't it? Isn't the master stored on a computer somewhere and not film stock?

Cool………….
As jd123 stated “The Nightmare Before Christmas is stop-motion animation”, otherwise, I disagree with everything else he’s stated.

This feature was shot with 35 mm. Kodak stock.
Specifically, Eastman EXR 100T 5248…….which was a fine-grained, and I mean FINE-grained emulsion which produced a near-grainless *look*.

It was a slow speed stock specifically chosen by cinematographers for its near-grainless clarity……..almost *vivid* look in terms of sharpness. As an aside, it was very neutral in all its color reproduction, i.e. every color was rich and deep.

I suggest (although I don’t work for Disney, or the post house they contracted to do the work) that if some viewers are seeing “inconsistent grain” from scene to scene or shot to shot, it is more related to lighting and exposure of the primary photography rather than the need for any DNR to begin with, or perhaps they should consult an ophthalmologist to assess for “floaters” in their aqueous humor.

EXR 100T 5248, in terms of grain, was about as close as one could get to going *digital* without doing so.

This reviewer is spot on with her assessment (specifically regarding detail)
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...27&show=review

[jd213]

If you say so. Disney seems to enjoy putting DNR on their older titles so I'm not quite conviced the waxy look in some shots is only due to the film stock, but it's not a title I care that much about in the first place.

And I take it Jack's arm and leg getting colored blue on the BD but not the DVD isn't the result of the film stock...
http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01...val-artefacts/

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by jd213

If you say so. Disney seems to enjoy putting DNR on their older titles so I'm not quite conviced the waxy look in some shots is only due to the film stock, but it's not a title I care that much about in the first place.

And I take it Jack's arm and leg getting colored blue on the BD but not the DVD isn't the result of the film stock...
http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01...val-artefacts/

That's one freaking frame out of the entire movie that's like that. Give me a break. This is getting way out of hand...have you even watched it from start to finish?

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by jd213

If you say so. Disney seems to enjoy putting DNR on their older titles so I'm not quite conviced the waxy look in some shots is only due to the film stock, but it's not a title I care that much about in the first place.

..

[jd213]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

That's one freaking frame out of the entire movie that's like that. Give me a break. This is getting way out of hand...have you even watched it from start to finish?

I'm just pointing it out, like I already said I'm not a rabid fan of the movie and I'm not calling for a boycott or for everyone to grab the pitchforks. And while it may be only one frame, who knows what other minor details could have gotten accidentally erased.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by jd213

If you say so. Disney seems to enjoy putting DNR on their older titles so I'm not quite conviced the waxy look in some shots is only due to the film stock, but it's not a title I care that much about in the first place.

Amazon shipped my copy out a day or two ago, but I still don't have it yet, so I can't comment regarding PQ other than to say that the title looked "waxy" on VHS as they used clay (or whatever) for most of the people.

~Alan

[jd213]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

WTH?

What exactly is a "waxy look" when you talking about stop-motion animation?

Not everything in the movie is made of clay. Details in props, stones in roads, etc. occasionally look like their textures have been smoothed over a bit. Like everyone else who has mentioned it in their reviews, it's not that bad, but it doesn't seem like it's as good as it could be either.

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by jd213

Not everything in the movie is made of clay. Details in props, stones in roads, etc. occasionally look like their textures have been smoothed over a bit. Like everyone else who has mentioned it in their reviews, it's not that bad, but it doesn't seem like it's as good as it could be either.

..

[jd213]

I have a library of well over 100 Blus that I view on my Sony VPL-VW60 projected onto a 100" screen. I think by now I can form an experienced opinion on shots that look great to me and what only looks good. If you want to dismiss it and the others who have mentioned it as just being some stupid DNR witch hunt, that's your perogative.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

I haven't seen it, so I have no idea whether its true or not.

The point that I was making is that this DNR stuff has become so ingrained into peoples psyche that they use certain terms to describe it that they undoubtedly got from reading many of the "DNR SUCKS" threads, without even understanding what is being described.

I'm sorry, but when you use a term like "waxy look" to describe a stop-motion animation title, it just doesn't fit. A "waxy look" is a term normally used to describe what skin textures might look like when DNR has been used excessively or incorrectly.

There are no skin textures in The Nightmare Before Christmas.

So your description comes across as just someone who let themselves get caught up in the lingo used in the never ending supply of DNR threads, without having a real understanding of what is even being discussed or described.

That's my interpretation anyway.

You're not alone in that interpretation.

'Sides, how can you possibly say "if you say so" to Penton? He's described in detail what was used to film the movie. Do you have evidence disputing otherwise? Cuz, I'm always going to take the word of an insider over a hobbyist. It just comes across as arrogant and dismissive to me.

While I may not agree with the manner in which some of P-man's posts come across, I most definitely appreciate and enjoy his posts as there's a lot to pick up from them. I don't always agree with him or his opinions, but I find it hard to dispute factual claims without anything to back it up with other than a one-frame still and a claim of "waxy look"s for claymation.

*edit*

Originally Posted by jd213

I have a library of well over 100 Blus that I view on my Sony VPL-VW60 projected onto a 100" screen. I think by now I can form an experienced opinion on shots that look great to me and what only looks good. If you want to dismiss it and the others who have mentioned it as just being some stupid DNR witch hunt, that's your perogative.

As I've said before in this thread... good luck with that.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by jd213

...........And I take it Jack's arm and leg getting colored blue on the BD but not the DVD isn't the result of the film stock...
http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01...val-artefacts/

You take it right.
It is not the result of the film stock.
The appearance is most likely due to a real-time dirt and scratch removal process.

If one or two frames upset your viewing and *take you out of the movie*, then I would suggest you petition Disney to have their contractor do a non-real time frame by frame manual examination of each and every frame of this title where the operator can apply a completely new set of filter types with different filter sizes to handle every problem conceivable to man.

See how many older titles of *routine significance* from Disney or any other studio for that matter, you will end up being able to purchase at the current MSRP to add to your “library of well over 100 Blus”……….. this decade.

Honestly, what some people are *****ing about these days just boggles the mind.

P.S.
I mentioned over a year ago that Sony Picture’s The Guns of Navarone got a completely new video master which included the top of the line DRS (dirt and scratch removal) process………which was au-to-ma-tic……which means real-time.
I wouldn’t be surprised that you may find one or two frames out of the whole motion picture, which show an aberrant structural defect, so…………. prepare yourself now.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by jd213

If you say so........

I say, I don’t like your tone.

[aygie]

Hey Penton, have you got any news on how "Heat" is coming along? Thanks

[micks_address]

Max - sorry to cross post but there was a post in the ps3 section where you outlined the cost of the ps3's parts etc and it seems to have been deleted... do you work for SCE? have any juicy insider secrets on upcoming firmware updates for the ps3?

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I would be careful at which movies you point the DNR stick at. At this point the only studio actively using DNR for "smoothing" the picture in the manner you describe is WB. Every other studio uses DNR as a tool, whether it is to hide blemishes or blend film stocks or one of the many other reasons to use DNR.

The fact that WB have a lower market share of Blu-ray disc sales than other studios (when for DVD they have the highest market share) is a testament to the fact that other studios will not follow their model.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You take it right.
It is not the result of the film stock.
The appearance is most likely due to a real-time dirt and scratch removal process.

If one or two frames upset your viewing and *take you out of the movie*, then I would suggest you petition Disney to have their contractor do a non-real time frame by frame manual examination of each and every frame of this title where the operator can apply a completely new set of filter types with different filter sizes to handle every problem conceivable to man.

See how many older titles of *routine significance* from Disney or any other studio for that matter, you will end up being able to purchase at the current MSRP to add to your “library of well over 100 Blus”……….. this decade.

Honestly, what some people are *****ing about these days just boggles the mind.

P.S.
I mentioned over a year ago that Sony Picture’s The Guns of Navarone got a completely new video master which included the top of the line DRS (dirt and scratch removal) process………which was au-to-ma-tic……which means real-time.
I wouldn’t be surprised that you may find one or two frames out of the whole motion picture, which show an aberrant structural defect, so…………. prepare yourself now.

If manual dirt and scratch removal takes too long (though according to one TV program I watched, that's what they used for some films I think), and automatic dirt & scratch removal can cause errors, couldn't they use a film scanner which does a separate infra-red scan like in this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5969372.html to determine what are actual film scratches/dust/finger-prints and what are real parts of the image recorded on the film?

[jd213]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I would be careful at which movies you point the DNR stick at. At this point the only studio actively using DNR for "smoothing" the picture in the manner you describe is WB.

That's good to hear. I was a bit disappointed with releases such as Disney's Scary Movie and Gangs of New York, and New Line's Hairspray and Golden Compass. Still bought Scary Movie and Hairspray, though (I can enjoy Scary Movie even with DNR and my girlfriend wanted to watch Hairspray), so DNR isn't always a dealbreaker for me like it is for some.

[FourToedStatue]

Man the DNR talk will never end will it?

Penton the Comic-Con gave us an Oct 21st release date for Ghostbusters on Blu but there has been no official word from Sony. Please tell us Its still on track for this year.