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

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by madshi

I don't really know for sure, but I would guess so. There was a thread on another forum where a person posted who had contacts to the people doing the Nordic Blu-Ray encoding. He claimed that the master used for the Nordic release was the only master approved by both the studio and the director. He didn't know anything about the master used by Sony, though.

To my eyes the Sony Blu-Ray looks like a processed (DNR+EE) older 2K master, while the Nordic Blu-Ray looks like coming from a new 4K scan. The old Gladiator Blu-Ray has a somewhat similar look to the Sony Fifth Element (the old Gladiator BD looks worse, though). And the new Gladiator Blu-Ray has a somewhat similar look to the Nordic Fifth Element (here the new Gladiator BD looks better, IMHO).

The new Gladiator Blu-Ray looks fantastic to me. At least in terms of detail, film-like look etc. I don't have an opinion on the colors, because I simply can't judge how the director intended them to look like.

Hmm, maybe Penton-Man will be able to chime in with regard to the sources for the Sony and the Nordic Blu-Ray but judging by the screencap I would not really want to claim that the Nordic Blu-Ray is sourced from a 4k scan - the amount of detail (or lack thereof) could imo also be achieved with a 2k scan.

The detail in Gladiator does indeed look spectacular - I am looking forward to that disc.

[madshi]

The 4K was just a guess on my side. My point is that the Nordic Blu-Ray has the typical look of a "new & proper" film scan. It can't compete with the new Gladiator transfer, though.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by madshi

Do you find it good style to talk negatively about my post behind my back in another forum? If you don't like my post, why don't you complain about it in the thread where I posted it?

Well, I didn't say who posted it now, did I?

Look at the very clear signs of DNR and EE in the remastered USA/AU release of The Fifth Element. It's easy to see e.g. in the font "QUIT SMOKING". Or look at the typical look of EE'd grain. Then look at how EE is completely missing in the Nordic Blu-Ray. The Nordic Blu-Ray looks quite over the top yellowish, though, so it's not perfect, either. But if you ignore the color difference, the Nordic Blu-Ray is much superior to the USA/AU remaster. If you don't trust the screenshot of the USA/AU Blu-Ray, just fire up your media player and check for yourself.

I have the disc, and there's no issue with DNR/EE. And Penton here is involved with the people who put it out, so where better to discuss it? With someone involved with the disc, or some screenshot thread on another board where NO ONE was involved?

[madshi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I have the disc, and there's no issue with DNR/EE.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you clarify? Are you saying...

(1) ... that you personally have no issue with DNR/EE?
(2) ... that DNR/EE was not used at all on the remastered Sony Fifth Element disc?
(3) ... that the disc may have some DNR/EE, but you didn't notice it while watching it?
(4) ... that the disc does have some DNR/EE, but it's so slight that it couldn't possibly be a problem for anybody?

FWIW, I do have the disc, too, and personally, I do have an issue with EE with this disc. BTW, did you even bother to have a look at the screenshot I linked to?

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

where better to discuss it? With someone involved with the disc, or some screenshot thread on another board where NO ONE was involved?

I wouldn't mind to get Penton-Man's feedback on this one, if he's interested in posting it. That said, I trust my own eyes, and there's no doubt at all that the remastered Fifth Element has EE.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

I wouldn't mind to get Penton-Man's feedback on this one, if he's interested in posting it. That said, I trust my own eyes, and there's no doubt at all that the remastered Fifth Element has EE.

I don’t know if any sharpening was applied somewhere along the chain of production for the remastered TFE disc. I would have to ask the actual operator who did the work back then in 06/07 and he's waaay too busy to be bothered with questions like that.

I can say that basically, due to the principal photography and the fact that some film scanners can have a negative effect on the higher frequency content of each frame, many older titles and even some more modern ones, end up having some degree of sharpening applied if they are telecined or scanned. So, depending on the material and the inherent characteristics of the particular scanner, this practice is not an uncommon occurrence in the business but, can get out of hand and prove objectionable if the operator is trying too hard to bring out resolution from a source that just doesn't have that much to begin with.

One sharpening software toolset is from this company with an example of before and after pics -
http://www.digitalvision.tv/products/dvo-enhance.aspx

^ Click on the 'DVO Sharpen' pics and if they ever added a set, click on the 'DVO Aperture' at the very bottom of the same page.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

It is hard though to comment on the colors and contrast when one does not know how they were supposed to look and I can admit that I almost never do....

Fair enough.
However, this color discrepancy deems a vigorous debate by those “enthusiasts” who have a better recollection of the theatrical presentation (such as former projectionists and rabid fans of the film) than you do.

And just to keep them all honest , I will remind some folks that within the past two months, an old release print of Gladiator was shown locally to Guild members in honor of one of the filmmakers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

vocal Ridley Scott...

Ridley and his RSA team do seem to have their fingers in many pies, which I guess, demands a well desired tip of the hat with a plug........

http://synapticlight.com/competition-tell-it-your-way/ < I, myself, have a weakness for unicorn tats with garter belts, if you take the time to watch the clip and enter the contest.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I don’t know if any sharpening was applied somewhere along the chain of production for the remastered TFE disc. I would have to ask the actual operator who did the work back then in 06/07 and he's waaay too busy to be bothered with questions like that.

It's not necessary to bother him. There is some EE, and it doesn't really matter much where it's coming from...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I can say that basically, due to the principal photography and the fact that some film scanners can have a negative effect on the higher frequency content of each frame, many older titles and even some more modern ones, end up having some degree of sharpening applied if they are telecined or scanned. So, depending on the material and the inherent characteristics of the particular scanner, this practice is not an uncommon occurrence in the business but, can get out of hand and prove objectionable if the operator is trying too hard to bring out resolution from a source that just doesn't have that much to begin with.

What I've been noticing lately is that whenever there's a *good* remaster of a movie, the new master has barely any EE, and the grain is much finer structured compared to the non-remastered version. In some scenes, due to the much finer structure of the grain, it almost looks like it's gone (although it isn't really). The grain on the non-remastered version is usually more visible (even though often some DNR was used!) because it's just so much coarser.

Have you noticed that, too? Why is the grain in the non-remastered version often so much coarser? Is it just because of the digital processing (EE does make grain more blocky/coarser)? Or is there more to it than that? Maybe a 2K scan simply can't handle grain so well? Maybe a 4K scan is necessary to get grain to look natural? Sounds weird because Blu-Ray is < 2K, but then stranger things have happened...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

One sharpening software toolset is from this company with an example of before and after pics -
http://www.digitalvision.tv/products/dvo-enhance.aspx

^ Click on the 'DVO Sharpen' pics and if they ever added a set, click on the 'DVO Aperture' at the very bottom of the same page.

Already the first pic shows a basic problem with sharpening: If the source already has some minor EE, sharpening the source any further will make it progressively worse. And it's clear why that is happening: The sharpening algorithm thinks that the EE in the source is an important image structure and so it further "enhances" it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by madshi

Have you noticed that, too? Why is the grain in the non-remastered version often so much coarser? Is it just because of the digital processing (EE does make grain more blocky/coarser)? Or is there more to it than that? Maybe a 2K scan simply can't handle grain so well? Maybe a 4K scan is necessary to get grain to look natural? Sounds weird because Blu-Ray is < 2K, but then stranger things have happened...

I suspect the generation of the film source has a lot to do with how grain is rendered.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by madshi

Look at the very clear signs of DNR and EE in the remastered USA/AU release of The Fifth Element. It's easy to see e.g. in the font "QUIT SMOKING". Or look at the typical look of EE'd grain. Then look at how EE is completely missing in the Nordic Blu-Ray. The Nordic Blu-Ray looks quite over the top yellowish, though, so it's not perfect, either. But if you ignore the color difference, the Nordic Blu-Ray is much superior to the USA/AU remaster. If you don't trust the screenshot of the USA/AU Blu-Ray, just fire up your media player and check for yourself.

I don't see GRAIN either in the Nordic version. Scrubbed with less detail and odd colors. Looks more like a satellite HDTV cap.

The film in motion? No detectable sharpening, natural grain. Loads of detail.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by 42041

I suspect the generation of the film source has a lot to do with how grain is rendered.

Do you mean the age of the scan? Or the age of the original film negatives?

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I don't see GRAIN either in the Nordic version.

There is grain, but it's finer structured, and it's hard to see in some light colored areas. You can see the same effect in the new Gladiator Blu-Ray: The sky is very grainy in the old Blu-Ray, while there doesn't seem to be much grain in the sky in many scenes in the new Blu-Ray. The sky looks so much grainier in the old BD, because sharpening algorithms try to bring out fine detail structures, and the grain is interpreted as a fine detail structure by most sharpening algorithms. E.g. see the sky here:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...8360/picture:3

There's grain in the Nordic Blu-Ray. E.g. check out the background here:

http://pic.phyrefile.com/t/th/themik...920x1080.2.png
http://pic.phyrefile.com/a/an/anonym...920x1080.2.png

Do you notice how the grain looks coarse in the USA/AU release and how it looks finer in the NL release? You can see the same effect with Gladiator. See the sky here:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...8383/picture:1

The grain looks very coarse in the old BD, and much finer structured in the new BD.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Scrubbed with less detail and odd colors. Looks more like a satellite HDTV cap.

The colors are odd, as I said from the beginning. But there's not any less detail, there's just no sharpening, that's why it may appear so to the untrained eye.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The film in motion? No detectable sharpening, natural grain. Loads of detail.

That's what your eyes may tell you. Mine tell me a different thing. And I think you need to train your eyes a bit better. What appears like natural grain to you, is in fact digitally processed grain of an old master. Coarse and splotchy like that is not how grain naturally looks like. It's just that you may have gotten used to that look, because so many (catalog) Blu-Rays look like that, sadly...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by madshi

That's what your eyes may tell you. Mine tell me a different thing. And I think you need to train your eyes a bit better. What appears like natural grain to you, is in fact digitally processed grain of an old master. Coarse and splotchy like that is not how grain naturally looks like. It's just that you may have gotten used to that look, because so many (catalog) Blu-Rays look like that, sadly...

We've been assured here and elsewhere the last The Fifth Element disc is a new transfer.

I do know what to look for and how grain (vs. digital grain & noise & compression artifacts) is supposed to look. The amount of possible sharpening applied to the film isn't an issue. It's an older Super35 film with a lot of opticals (both digital and modelwork) so what the telecine techs have to work with is very different from what they had to work with only a few short years later.

Speaking of older catalog BDs, I thought they leaned a bit too heavy on the DNR knob on Cocoon.

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Wrong on many counts.

This is one guy you don't call wrong. madshi has more knowledge in this area than you could possibly comprehend. His free software is constantly updated to ensure the best possible results, and a result he is widely recognized and highly regarded in the HTPC community. There are many threads on AVS where he regularly communicates with actual industry experts such as Stacy Spears to integrate their knowledge into his software.

Your posts here and the ones I've seen just casually browsing on AVS, on the other hand, are constantly filled with technical misinformation. Why you keep presenting your opinions as fact is beyond me.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Xorp

This is one guy you don't call wrong. madshi has more knowledge in this area than you could possibly comprehend. His free software is constantly updated to ensure the best possible results, and a result he is widely recognized and highly regarded in the HTPC community. There are many threads on AVS where he regularly communicates with actual industry experts such as Stacy Spears to integrate their knowledge into his software.

Uh oh. The screenshot follower brigade is upset at me.

So you agree that the Fifth Element remaster is an old master?

Or that I don't know what grain and actual EE looks like?

Your posts here and the ones I've seen just casually browsing on AVS, on the other hand, are constantly filled with technical misinformation. Why you keep presenting your opinions as fact is beyond me.

Is that because I don't agree with you that the new Bram Stoker's Dracula is terrible?

Otherwise make specific points instead of generalizations.

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Uh oh. The screenshot follower brigade is upset at me.

So you agree that the Fifth Element remaster is an old master?

Or that I don't know what grain and actual EE looks like?

I said nothing of screenshots. I've watched the disc many times and The 5th element remaster absolutely has sharpening artifacts that was probably applied by the film scanner, as Penton just mentioned.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

What I've been noticing lately is that whenever there's a *good* remaster of a movie, the new master has barely any EE, and the grain is much finer structured compared to the non-remastered version. In some scenes, due to the much finer structure of the grain, it almost looks like it's gone (although it isn't really). The grain on the non-remastered version is usually more visible (even though often some DNR was used!) because it's just so much coarser.

You are mixing so many potential variables together that it’s difficult for me to respond to your question in a cookbook or dogmatic fashion ….not to mention the fact that I’ve pretty much given up on different peoples’ definitions as to the terms “remaster”, “new master”, “old master” and now with the news item about Gladiator that Grubert posted in the News section, I even question peoples’ use of the acronym “DVNR” because unless that is some sort of continental colloquialism, it certainly differs from my idea of its use in the telecine or DI suite.

To give you an idea as to what I’m talking about regarding the variables involved, during the pre-DI era, many motion pictures were shot with more than one film stock and even those which weren’t, film stocks all exhibit different grain sizes and the processing of the film stock to force exposures also affected grain size and appearance due to the fact that it’s a chemical reaction based on crystals.

To add more complexity to the issue is that fact that not all modern scanners are created equal in terms of how they digitally preserve discrete grain structure. Some scanners actually blur grain more than others probably because of some built-in non-adjustable filters in the scanners themselves.

I do find it somewhat ironic though that you place such an emphasis on whether the transfer equipment is running at 2k or 4k resolution in regards to how “natural” the film grain appears, because we still have a very difficult time during demos convincing people of the merits of 4K presentation of a 4K source in a Digital Cinema equipped with screens less than about 30ft. in size. I’ve posted in the past several SPHE motion pictures in which the Blu-ray was sourced from a 4k DI, and I don’t believe I’ve read any review or post that made note of the fact that the grain appeared more “natural” in those, than the run of the mill 2k DI from which most Blu-rays claim as their original source for their video master.

As I said before a couple? pages back, the main benefit or greatest bang for your buck, if you will, as to greater than 2k scanning and its benefits for Blu-ray presentation is that it avoids or diminishes aliasing artifacts.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

It's not necessary to bother him. There is some EE, and it doesn't really matter much where it's coming from...

lol, you seem adamant about making that point. Given your conviction, I assume you've found halos?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

Already the first pic shows a basic problem with sharpening: If the source already has some minor EE, sharpening the source any further will make it progressively worse.

Well, that’s obvious (or as Ben Franklin liked to say "self-evident") as it tends to be a cumulative process but, my comments were more directed to film sources which have no sharpening to begin with.

As an aside, did you notice any sharpening applied to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? (shot by the same guy in my sig, who for future note to folks out there, also shot Tron: Legacy).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

We've been assured here and elsewhere the last The Fifth Element disc is a new transfer.

That's not even debatable.

I forget, how did we go from questioning the color discrepancy by screenshot science of the 2009 vs. 2010 Blu-ray versions of Gladiator (which actually, probably my non-astute neighbors will notice first rather than any change in resolution, given how far back they sit from their displays)...to questioning whether or not the remastered TFE Blu-ray had its origins from a modern day scanner of the film source, which b.t.w. was an IP.

Has anyone compared the two Blu-ray versions of Gladiator yet in terms of that basic thing that color film was invented for....i.e. colors? Any reviews out there?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I forget, how did we go from questioning the color discrepancy by screenshot science of the 2009 vs. 2010 Blu-ray versions of Gladiator (which actually, probably my non-astute neighbors will notice first rather than any change in resolution, given how far back they sit from their displays)...to questioning whether or not the remastered TFE Blu-ray had its origins from a modern day scanner of the film source, which b.t.w. was an IP.

There are folks here and abroad who question TFE's new transfer and have compared it to the old transfer of Gladiator.