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

[Anthony P]

I hear that Disney is releasing Oliver and Company to DVD, but their press release also mentions "for the First Time EVER in High Definition!" yet there is no information or links to Blu-ray versions at all.

that is because they are going HD DVD

[micks_address]

agreed - the ps2 was many peoples first dvd player (mine included).. but i dont see the warrant in upgrading the ps3 to a standalone in the same way as i did when i first upgraded my ps2 to a standalone machine.. the jump in quality from ps3 to standalone isnt as signficant as it was moving from ps2 to standalone dvd..

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

J6P doesn't notice the things we do, that's why 80% of the population has TVs in torch mode. For a gigantic part of the population, PS2 was their first DVD player.



Possible? Yes. Likely? No. What reason do they have to improve it, when they don't want to sell you a blu-ray player that they lose money on, they want to sell you a game system, and ideally, a PS3 AND a Blu-ray player.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Friday is a huge consistant seller. You would be shocked.

Back when I was a buyer, a store would move 5 a week

Each to their own. As long as they find a slot to release some good movies in between, I'm okay with it.

So, anything regarding Se7en and Magnolia?

[Uxi]

The fun keeps going in the AVS Dracula thread. Just watched it again last night after awhile and thoroughly enjoyed it again. Forgot to watch for some of the noted complaint scenes. Does seem a bit too dark in some, but certainly nothing worthy of the hyperbole in that thread.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Uxi

The fun keeps going in the AVS Dracula thread. Just watched it again last night after awhile and thoroughly enjoyed it again. Forgot to watch for some of the noted complaint scenes. Does seem a bit too dark in some, but certainly nothing worthy of the hyperbole in that thread.

That thread is hillarious. The conspiracy theory comments were worth the read alone.
I've viewed that disc on two different ISF calibrated displays (and, actually two different technologies: SXRD and CRT RPTV) and it looked quite good and film-like on both and didn't look as dark as being suggested by the screenshots seen on improperly calibrated computer monitors.

[aygie]

Penton, have you heard of this?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/r...ay-competitor/

(Quote for people at work)

Look out HD VMD and CH-DVD -- an all new Blu-ray rival has just sashayed into town, and this one means business. By way of a random DreamStream press release, Royal Digital Media has introduced its bona fide Blu-ray rival... while casually forgetting to name it. These "high-definition discs" will be able to store up to 100GB and will boast military-grade encryption that an aimless hacker will surely destroy in a week or two. According to DreamStream's Chief Development Officer Ulf Diebel, RDM's format "will transform perceptions of high-definition," as it is able to "display the next generation of high-definition: 1920p." For whatever it's worth, this here tech is based around "inexpensive red laser technology," and RDM is hoping to "replace traditional DVD technologies with a comprehensive, next generation HD system." So, when can you buy into this sure-to-be-awesome format? Q1 2009, and for a price "equal" to that of traditional DVD players. Sold!

The real deal or vaporware? (I think the latter)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Uxi

The fun keeps going in the AVS Dracula thread. Just watched it again last night after awhile and thoroughly enjoyed it again. Forgot to watch for some of the noted complaint scenes. Does seem a bit too dark in some, but certainly nothing worthy of the hyperbole in that thread.

lol, and they wonder why studio people no longer regularly read that forum.

I guess when things get slow over there for a few days and the *scientists* don’t have any new Blu-ray title to bash…….watcha gonna do?
Robert Harris, Kim Aubry, paidgeek and I posted extensively on this topic months ago with a plethora of back-and-forth individual postings after this Blu-ray movie streeted.

HTF in fact, I’m told, hosted a rather heated exchange for several days between RAH and a certain ‘Dracula enthusiast’ in which either several posts were deleted and/or several mods interceded because of said ‘enthusiast’s’ obsessive/compulsive online ‘acting out’…….to which the perpetrator subsequently back-tracked and became indirectly apologetic giving *sleep deprivation* as a stay-at-home Dad, as an excuse for his behavior. If he’s one of the protagonists keeping the movement alive, God knows what his excuse is these days…….if he’s not, then I sincerely congratulate him for growing up and moving on past this self-perceived cinematic tragedy; although, I question how he will handle something truly tragic in life like a diagnosis of cancer or the unexpected loss of a loved one.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the Blu-ray rendition is an extremely accurate reproduction of the HD master derived from the Answer print, chosen by the film’s caretakers to serve as the original source for the high definition home media version of this title.

If the *scientists* have a problem with that artistic choice in regards to a few scenes compared to older renditions, I would suggest you advise them to write to Francis Ford Coppola or Kim Aubry…….
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0041447/
(pay particular attention to “Miscellaneous Crew” line item #3)
as I can guarantee you……. that F.F.C. and Kim aren’t reading the *science* forum, although Kim is a member of this forum.

Technically, the Blu-ray transfer of BSD is excellent and was handled with the utmost care and respect from day 1 onwards to its completion.

P.S.
This title actually probably received even greater attention during its Blu-ray production than the ‘typical’ movie, due to the relatively uncommon extensive first-hand input by one of the fimmakers (Kim) who is a producer that was a Blu-ray format supporter very early in the ballgame and took time from his busy schedule to attend and answer journalists’ questions during the Blu-ray Festival in Hollywood back in the days of the format war.

I’m sure if any of the BSD naysayers could have qualified for press/blogger credentials for that event, he would have given his thoughts on BSD to them…………face-to-face.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Aygie

Penton, have you heard of this?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/r...ay-competitor/

(Quote for people at work)

The real deal or vaporware? (I think the latter)

Sorry, no time to read, I’ve gotta run as I’m already late for a tech session.

[Jeff Kleist]

It's the same type of thing as before. "How many layers to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop" scenario. Then they figure out that they can't actually manufacture discs in any quantity and the yield makes HD combos look efficient.

Seriously. Hollywood have chosen their new format. It's Blu-ray all the way, and anything else is simply someone trying to get some of their R&D bucks back on a project they started a long time ago

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

It's the same type of thing as before. "How many layers to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop" scenario. Then they figure out that they can't actually manufacture discs in any quantity and the yield makes HD combos look efficient.

Seriously. Hollywood have chosen their new format. It's Blu-ray all the way, and anything else is simply someone trying to get some of their R&D bucks back on a project they started a long time ago

Thanks Jeff: "Filed under "Vaporware"".

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Aygie

Penton, have you heard of this?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/29/r...ay-competitor/

(Quote for people at work)

The real deal or vaporware? (I think the latter)

HD DVD had actual studio support, and is gone.

('nuf said)

Gary

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Richard Harris, Kim Aubry, paidgeek and I posted extensively on this topic months ago with a plethora of back-and-forth individual postings after this Blu-ray movie streeted.

Wow, Dumbledore himself!

Quite active on the message boards since passing on.

(Just joshin' ya Penton)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Wow, Dumbledore himself!

Quite active on the message boards since passing on.

(Just joshin' ya Penton)

I hope "Robert" didn't read that yet.
Thanks for the pick-up, I’ve been surrounded by talent too much this week.
I’ll go ahead and make the correction and offer up another tidbit as penance in a following post.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Absolutely true but compared to 35mm film capture, as long as the lensers don’t intentionally stress the digital cameras to their limits at the bottom end, generally digital capture should be relatively grainless/noiseless compared to most film capture.

And even when they do push the lower end of any digital camera with subdued lighting, the filmmaker can always send it to Lowry Digital to do their algorithm thing………i.e. the upcoming title Zodiac serves as an example (Blu-ray reviewers out there take note , as that’s a heads-up).

lol, I’m just wondering now if the screenshot *scientists* will claim they see “clumpy” noise (as an indicator of dnr) after viewing the upcoming Blu-ray Zodiac, as it was shot on a Viper and refurbished with the Lowry process.

P.S.
Lowry Digital actually picked up a fabulous technologist over this past summer, namely
Gary Demos……………………
http://www.oscars.org/scitech/2005/sawyer.html
One of Gary’s past claims to fame for all those computer geeks out there, is that he pioneered the use of a Cray supercomputer back in the day for creating the VFX on 2010 and The Last Starfighter.

Fast forward to present day……….there is a movement now to use Cell technology (developed originally for the PlayStation 3)
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...95E/index.html

for digital intermediate rendering, the goal being real-time 4K rendering which would bring the price down to that of 2K rendering. This will be a big step towards seeing a lot more movies finished in 4K in the future.

^
For example, these two upcoming feature films should have a 4K workflow……..

The Green Hornet
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0990407/

and

2012
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/

More titles to be announced.
In terms of 4K productions translating into upcoming Blu-ray titles in the more near future…….. since it appears that Angels and Demons
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/

is still on track for an early summer 2009 theatrical debut, it would be an opportunistic marketing move to release The Da Vinci Code (boasting a 4K post production workflow) on Blu-ray, right around the same time.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You got that ^ part right as I'll refer you to the following statement you made on your *scientific* thread..........................
check out what organization nominated it for Best Cinematography....
http://www.moviefone.com/movie/the-aviator/17564/awards
(Anecdotal information is that most D.P.'s believe it just barely lost out to the eventual winner.)

I was not in this thread for some time, hence the delay in my reaction.
Some points.
- The list is in the first posting of the thread, nowhere else. The rest of the list is for discussion of cases and collecting data. If you would like to correct anything it has to be on the list. The rest is not part of the list.
- "The Aviator" is not on the list. Why? Because I have so far no evidence the HD transfer was DNRed nor have I seen it so far. I know the digital source the print came from was DNRed. But that's not conclusive. There can be various masters used for different purposes, as you know perfectly well yourself. Including masters used for Oscar evaluations.
- I don't understand your point concerning "The Aviator". Did I say the cinematography of the film sucked? What has the Oscar for Richardson got to do with the DNRed release print I saw? The digital master used for that print was degrained and showed obvious DNR artifacts I found to be quite distracting. Does that make me a non film lover? I don't think so. By that logic all cinematographers who are fuzzy about the images they create and how they are presented are not film lovers. After all you can still recognise the cast and follow the plot (even on VHs) even if they were much less fuzzy about how the images are supposed to look and would just follow some standard look. Absurd suggestion? Indeed. But not any more absurd than equating paying attention to transfer details down to sharpening and other filtering issues with being not a film lover.
- There is a difference between stating something as it is and saying it's wrong. The list is about providing information about some technical details of transfers. These details are supposed to be factual. If they are not they get fixed. It's not about wrong or right in the first place. A transfer can be filtered and have typical filtering artifacts and be fully approved by the film makers. There is no basis to say it was done incorrectly. Nobody screwed up technically. It's perfectly ok though to not like how it looks and provide information about the technical aspects of that transfer which may not appeal to a subset of its potential audience, the buyers of HD disks. The same goes for not approved transfers. Except here we can also say that the transfer is not approved and may not represent the intentions of the film makers. The list has no entries about incorrect colors, crushed blacks, soft focus or other stylistic choices because it's more or less impossible to say with certainty that something is wrong without access to original masters and input from the film makers. AVS discussions about these things (misguided or not) don't apply to the list.
- Concerning AVS, film lovers, video janitors and the like. True film lovers as I understand the term love the medium film. That allows for people with little to no technological background up to people with vast amounts of knowledge and possibly very clear opinions what they like and dislike and the lenghts they are willing to go to get what they want (others might call it obsessive). For the latter people like Kubrick come to mind. They can all be film lovers at the same time and still have quite different ideas of what is a good film, or what looks good, what is acceptable and what is not. As I understand the term video janitor it's a single minded person that pays attention only to technical details and everything else is irrelevant. I guess they exist, just the same as the opposite exists (a person that is only interested in the film in a quite limited way, for example getting the plot or watching actor xy and the rest is irrelevant). I find both of these extreme types very boring. Interesting discussions require open minded people, for technical and non technical issues. They can be found here and on AVS and other sites. And you will find clueless/incorrect claims on all sites. AVS has moved in a specific way by pioneering the approach to use actual stills from the transfers to discuss technical details. That approach has its limits but within its limits it's a sound and accurate approach when properly executed. Far preferable to any flowery words and subjective impressions you can find in countless online 'reviews' of films that are full of claims and impressions of all kinds and judgement calls based on entirely unclear premises and viewing conditions.
I agree that negativity and naysaying can go overboard and become an exercise in tearing everything down because of real or imaginary deficiencies that are probably minor in context. It's a call everyone has to make for themeselves where well founded and deserved criticism ends and annoying nagging for nagging's sake starts. The opposite is critiqueless praising of a transfer and shutting out all aspects that are arguably not as they should be or could be.
The proper attitude versus postings that went too far on AVS or anywhere else is to correct factual errors and erronoeus assumptions as they arise and provide the correct answers for those who want to listen. Ridicule, boycott or (counter)propaganda is not the right response. Neither is holding back information.
In the end all 'real' film lovers want to see the films mastered to HD the way the film makers made and envisioned them, or at least they don't mind that way and if it does not appeal to them they move on to 'greener' pastures.

I think I mentioned in a post several months ago that that in my experience, when there has been an opportunity to show in a screening room the 4:2:2 source of some feature films on a typical high-end consumer display to the filmmaker…….that he/she is quite surprised as to how grainy the appearance their film can sometimes be, especially, with films shot on push-processed 500 ASA stock.
And the surprise is not one of delight but of concern, because what they see on current 1080p displays with the archival video masters running, in many cases is not what they intended audiences to see and was not the appearance of the theatrical presentation in which the grain is mitigated due to film to film optical printing (or the film-out after a DI process) and the inherent nature of theatrical presentation with its weave, optics and projector light output further on down the chain.

The question immediately arrises: What do the film makers want to see? The look of a print from the ON? The look of a standard release print? The look of an ideal release print? Or maybe an ideal print from the ON? Or something else entirely?
The problem is that the kind of DNR that makes some people fume does not give them any of these 4 print possibilites. If you want the look of some print you need a tool that simulates digitally what happens when you print film elements in the analogue domain. It's definitely not old school DNR filtering. That is something else. The problem is not grain filtering per se, it's the type you apply. The intended effects and the unintended side effects and their balance. The good news is that as filtering technology moves on the control of effects and side effects gets better and better. I think we all agree that we don't want to see unintended waxy faces and textures, unintended smeared textures or unintended softness or any other kind of unintended filtering (side) effects. Unfortunately that's what we often get to see with grain filtered transfers.
And now to 3 other points.
- Zodiac: I watched the Blu Ray and found image quality enjoyable. A good looking disk, Lowry processing or not.
- Baraka: One of my favourite films. The techncially best Blu Ray picture released so far? We'll see. It's on order.
- Recommendation of the day (yes, I see plenty of disks I find to be (very) good looking and worth a recommendation):
http://www.amazon.com/Cecila-Baroli-...dp/B0019MQBK6/
Looks good, sounds good. Top performers.

[Jeff Kleist]

The Aviator" is not on the list. Why? Because I have so far no evidence the HD transfer was DNRed nor have I seen it so far. I know the digital source the print came from was DNRed. But that's not conclusive. There can be various masters used for different purposes, as you know perfectly well yourself. Including masters used for Oscar evaluations.

Warner DNRs everything that isn't a CG movie. It's SOP for them

[Dave Mack]

Fine, How about a mention to Penton-Man for his unnecessary bash of me whan I haven't even posted about that title anywhere in months?

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

HTF in fact, I’m told, hosted a rather heated exchange for several days between RAH and a certain ‘Dracula enthusiast’ in which either several posts were deleted and/or several mods interceded because of said ‘enthusiast’s’ obsessive/compulsive online ‘acting out’…….to which the perpetrator subsequently back-tracked and became indirectly apologetic giving *sleep deprivation* as a stay-at-home Dad, as an excuse for his behavior. If he’s one of the protagonists keeping the movement alive, God knows what his excuse is these days…….if he’s not, then I sincerely congratulate him for growing up and moving on past this self-perceived cinematic tragedy; although, I question how he will handle something truly tragic in life like a diagnosis of cancer or the unexpected loss of a loved one.

This was really called for?

[HeavyHitter]

Hey guys,

Going back to the previous Blu-ray player vs PS3 discussion, I was able to get a hold of a Panasonic BD35 to compare against my PS3. The BD35 does look very slightly better at 1080p/24. The image is a hair crisper and more detailed on my 60" A3000 SXRD display from about 8 feet. It seems I can make out facial structure just a bit better on close-up shots, for example. I was comparing several movies/scenes back in forth in each unit. Color seems extremely close, but possibly a bit more natural with the BD35. Again, these differences are very subtle, but do seem to exist.

While subjectively the BD35 seems to have the edge, has anyone done any measurements on the BD35? I had seen somewhere that the Panasonic BD50's color was very slightly off. The purist in me is curious, although it does look quite good.

[eChopper]

Mr Hanky is not part of the amateur-night crew at AVS

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

I don't understand your point concerning "The Aviator". Did I say the cinematography of the film sucked? What has the Oscar for Richardson got to do with the DNRed release print I saw?

I believe you’re referring to this post I made while ago where I quoted you as saying……..
“How bad is the DNR on Aviator? On the 35mm print it was dreadful.”
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...al#post1178944

Michel, the “point” is to demonstrate to readers that you have a visceral objection to digital noise reduction or what you think is digital noise reduction even when the digital processing is applied as part of the creative process by the colorist under supervision of the cinematographer (Richardson) with guidance from the Director (Scorsese)………….a film which later gets an Oscar nomination for Cinematography (which entails work done in the DI suite) and if you know anything about Oscar nominations then you know they’re voted on by their peers.

Readers should be cognizant of your extreme hypersensitivity to this type of digital processing. You’ve got the lunatics on the *science* forum seeing dnr on nearly every Blu-ray coming down the pipe now. Since you’re the one who opened the Pandora’s Box, it’s your responsibility to educate them now on a title by title, thread by thread basis that just because something is “soft” doesn’t necessarily mean “DNR’ed”…………especially when using screenshots as some de facto standard to judge picture quality of Blu-ray movies.