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

[Jeff Kleist]

Honestly my biggest concern is the fate of the TV show, I hope that they move it over to CW if Fox gives it das boot

[aygie]

Just wanted to say a big thankyou to everyone at Blu-ray.com. I just received my copy of Baraka and am stunned at how good this looks.

While i'm at it, Penton i've just received my UK copy of the Transporter 2 which is a Fox release but its region free (says ABC on the back cover), are Fox now going region free for old titles?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Hey Penton

IMAX being expensive has always been a known fact but is there a reason Nolan didn't just shoot it in 70mm instead?..........

Theatrical exhibition…………meaning relatively few outlets (compared to IMAX) still equipped for 70mm film projection.

The IMAX capture was an evolution in creative intent. The way it went down was that Chris N. originally planned only to shoot the opening sequence in IMAX using it as a prologue (with the remainder of the film to be shot in scope) and secondarily for its use as a trailer giving a ‘wow’ effect in IMAX theaters.

Subsequently, turned out that Chris and Wally P. did a lot of testing with an IMAX camera at Chris’s home in L.A. and also from a moving vehicle traveling down Sunset. They were so jazzed with the detail (and relative absence of grain even at night with natural light) of the IMAX footage that they convinced the producers to additionally shoot the significant action sequences all in large format.

You know…………… people who work in film and go from project to project for years whether they be camera operators, visual effects folks, editors, etc. have seen just about everything over the course of time and do not impress easily. But whenever Chris N. decided to order and view printed dailies in 70mm (IMAX), Wally mentioned that something like 40 of the crew would regularly show up at the Navy Pier in Chicago for the viewings……… and everyone was totally awed with the imagery. At least, that’s what I recollect from my conversation with Wally P. from here (you should attend next year)…….....

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?t...nnel=769341148

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by iceman

Quick note: avsforum.com is not the largest HT site anymore, avforums.com is.

They are neck and neck according to Alexa.com (if that's accurate). Regardless, biggest doesn't mean best by any means.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by iceman

Quick note: avsforum.com is not the largest HT site anymore, avforums.com is.

Yeah, but this board rules Blu-ray
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Blu-ray&aq=f&oq=

and that fact is not lost upon membership nor industry folk.

[Kris Deering]

Thanks for the insight Penton.

Another question, with digital IMAX essentially dumbing it down (2K projectors being stacked with NOWHERE near the resolution), how do you think this (or do you) will change the landscape of future IMAX material. If IMAX theater slowly progress toward complete digital playback, would studios or even independents be more reluctant to pay for resolution that may not even translate to the theater?

I just recently went to Madagascar 2 in digital IMAX. While I realize this wasn't shot or rendered for IMAX, I wasn't very impressed with the overall experience. The screen was larger than the other screens used in this digital theater, but the image actually looked a bit softer and artifacts were obvious such as line twitter, diagonal line jaggies and light blocking. I was actually kind of surprised. The image was definitely bright though. Before the film they showed a trailer for an IMAX film shot underwater and it didn't have anywhere near the wow factor you normally get from IMAX footage in a traditional IMAX theater.

They also seemed to have dumbed down the experience in other ways. The IMAX theater in Seattle is more traditional with an enormous screen and incredible audio system. The digital one had the standard audio experience that the other digital screens did in that theater. I would hate to see IMAX essentially dumb itself down to become a name associated with slightly larger screens in standard theaters, because that isn't what I normally think of when I think of an IMAX experience.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

*Your screen’s too small to ‘appreciate’ my artifact discoveries.*

Those guys are such a bunch of ........really...LOL at them.

[Anthony P]

Strange thing is, I was talking to someone I trust hugely on the subject of screen sizes, he happened to mention that anything above 100" is too big for 1080p.

unfortunetly 1080p is as good as we can get

[Anthony P]

and that fact is not lost upon membership nor industry folk.

and unfortunetly nor trolls, luckily for the most part the mods clean this place up a bit.

[Kris Deering]

Strange thing is, I was talking to someone I trust hugely on the subject of screen sizes, he happened to mention that anything above 100" is too big for 1080p.

There is a chart for resolution sensitivity based on screen size but most of it depends on your distance from the screen vs resolution. But 100" is definitely not too big for 1080p.

[Jeff Kleist]

I'd say 100" is too high for Warner's level of DNR

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

There is a chart for resolution sensitivity based on screen size but most of it depends on your distance from the screen vs resolution. But 100" is definitely not too big for 1080p.

It depends what is meant by "too big".

Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution.

Assuming it is accurate, then it says you'd need to be at 12' for 100" to just resolve 1080p. Closer and you could start to benefit from 1440p.

Gary

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'd say 100" is too high for Warner's level of DNR

Guess I need to replace my 120" one than

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

It depends what is meant by "too big".

Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution.

Assuming it is accurate, then it says you'd need to be at 12' for 100" to just resolve 1080p. Closer and you could start to benefit from 1440p.

Gary

Exactly the chart I was talking about, thanks Gary!

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Also, come to think of it, the special effects folks should also get a tip of the hat, because for viewers familiar with this movie, believe it or not, the large explosion of the hospital and the scene with the flipping of the truck were in-camera (in other words, for real!) and not CGI……really, really quite remarkable work there also.

I'm still amazed that the City of Chicago allowed Nolan, et al. to flip a semi on LaSalle street. That can't have been good for the asphalt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJmEZe3ICpY&e

Awesome effect though... as was the hospital (aka Brach Candy factory) explosion.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'd say 100" is too high for Warner's level of DNR

Jeff, that’s for you and Bill Hunt to hammer home to WB (behind closed doors if you desire a successful outcome without antagonizing them ) on the other hand, I guess you could of course try the same futile internet campaign as this dude started back in 2003 with the same results…………….

Originally Posted by Michel Hafner

Hi,
I know there are folks from "Technique" on this list.
I would like to express my dissatisfaction about the
look of release prints of "Seabiscuit" and "Kill Bill Vol. 1"
both made from DI by Technique.
Both shows are full of digital grain reduction artifacts that
so far have been the domain of home video versions of films
only (DVDs and some HD transfers).
The filters used are obviously too simple or too badly
parametrized to do a decent job on textures in motion.
Especially human skin looks outright ugly at times,
a smeared and noisy mess. The grain structure of the
pictures is changed. Strange patterns hover over the
underlying image. The prints do not look like film
anymore, but like HD-DVDs with bad DNR applied.
I find this look very disturbing to say the least.
And I don't understand why DNR is applied at all.
If there's a choice between a bit more grain and
this digital mutilation of the original photography
I find it a no brainer as to what to chose.
What part of the picture am I missing here? Why
does a DOP go for this look? What is there to
gain by doing this, and not just on some critical
shots, but pretty much on the whole show?
regards
Michel Hafner

and get typical responses like this from folks who work in the industry...

Originally Posted by Martin Euredjian

Mr. Hafner is going from list to list bashing Technique in the same manner.
It doesn't seem that Mr. Hafner has ever been an "insider". This is
important because he chose to name names an place very specific blame, down to technical detail pulled out of a hat. We (meaning industry pro's) know that, if there's a problem, it might take days, if not weeks, to be able to properly research it and reach a valid, supportable conclusion. One viewing at the local movie theater is no way to judge process decisions.

In addition to this Mr. Hafner seems to think that his time is too valuable to pickup the phone and do some research before bashing. I think most people at professional facilities are nice enough that they would take the time to talk to a caller with these sorts of concerns.

Mr. Hafner doesn't seem to have taken even a semi-scientific method to have reached his conclusion about one of the top facilities in town. He is using one sample viewing at a local cinema, in uncontrolled conditions to conclude a whole host of things, down to "the filters used are obviously too simple".

I just didn't think it was right to come out blasting like that and doing so at multiple mailing lists.

Martin Euredjian
eCinema Systems, Inc.
voice: 661-305-9320
fax: 661-775-4876
martin at ecinemasys.com

^
If people are unaware of who Martin Euredjian is, well for “educated, discerning enthusiasts” he’s the founder and CEO of his own company and I guess you could say sorta the ‘Charles Poynton of Video Display Systems’.........

http://aimediaserver4.com/studiodail...475&height=300

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

and unfortunetly nor trolls, luckily for the most part the mods clean this place up a bit.

Well, point out the threads to me in a PM and I’ll take care of them in this fashion because I’m likewise out of bubble gum………………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nimgv...eature=related

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Thanks for the insight Penton.

Another question, with digital IMAX essentially dumbing it down (2K projectors being stacked with NOWHERE near the resolution)......

Essentially?
I think you’re being diplomatic.
I would say………definitively performing a frontal lobotomy on the material since David K. (from DKP) contends that IMAX original camera negative is equivalent to around 18k resolution.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

how do you think this (or do you) will change the landscape of future IMAX material. If IMAX theater slowly progress toward complete digital playback, would studios or even independents be more reluctant to pay for resolution that may not even translate to the theater?

That will be for the bean counters to determine after the marketing guys do their promotional thing.

All I can say is that if I were you (or anyone else who is reading) if you have the opportunity to see true IMAX capture (not a 35mm. blow-up) exhibited in a real IMAX theater, then I would take advantage of that opportunity (like those did for The Dark Knight) because I don’t know how long such presentations for feature films (or even documentaries) will last into the future as it’s called the “motion picture business” for a reason, and not “motion picture art”.

P.S.
I use the term “bean counters” affectionately because I know there are some accountants and C.F.O.’s who read this thread.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

I'm still amazed that the City of Chicago allowed Nolan, et al. to flip a semi on LaSalle street. That can't have been good for the asphalt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJmEZe3ICpY&e

Awesome effect though... as was the hospital (aka Brach Candy factory) explosion.

When I have more time, I'll tell you how the special effects guys flipped the truck.........believe me that piston was not kind to the asphalt.................nor to the stuntman inside driving.

As I said before...........all in-camera not CGI.